Hi Josephus,

You have been challenged on this before. Yet you keep repeating it:

“... only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state and purpose of marriage.”

Ordained by whom? Where? According to which authority, Josephus?

There is no support for this statement of the purpose of marriage anywhere in Scripture, is there? Some churches have taught this falsehood at different stages in history. But today many of them are recognising it is just wrong.

And not only wrong but has led directly to exclusions and prohibitions which have had tragic social consequences. These include criminal acts and punishments, and deaths from AIDS to which you refer.

Many Christians today believe the Bible teaches clearly that a range of marriage options is available to faithful believers. And we believe embracing this Biblical truth will build a much better and safer world.

Which side are you on, Josephus?

>>Marriage defines a state of human relationship and two persons of the same gender do not qualify as one fertilizing the other.<<

Fertilizing? Where does that come into it ;). I don't think that's mentioned in the Bible. Or the most common form of wedding vows. Let's see: to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part. I can't see anything there about 'to fertilize'. I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the law of the land. I know it isn't mentioned in the dictionary: I just looked it up. I think you might be making sh1t up. Stick to the bible-thumping: you're better at that even if you have been disqualified.

Cheers,

Tony

Human history is replete with a lot of making one flesh which didn't seem to require marriage… though I have no argument with the issue (joke intended), biological mating was.

I think somewhere above, Josephus has already helpfully told us that despite what he has claimed 'marriage' is – indeed what it is *for* – that childlessness is not an impediment to heterosexual marriage.

So would it not follow that in a same-sex union the qualification for marriage would be met provided there was at least the attempt of one to fertilise the other?

Tony Lavis,
"To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part".

Who says these vows? A young man and a young woman, and their committment is for the whole of their life. Exceptions to this does not create the rule.

I will say it again, “... only a man and a woman can mate to naturally produce children, which is the ordained state and purpose of marriage.”

Who says - God / evolution / the Church/ society / a biological fact. To marry something is also a metalurgic term to bond or weld together two natural substances to enhance or strengthen a new product [i.e. iron and tungsten].

How do you define marriage is the important thing as you are the one who is wanting to change the meaning of the term?

Don't quote the idea of two persons living together, that care about each other and share house responsibilities. My daughter while single took in young homosexual men because they were respectable, earnt good money to pay board, didnt expect sexual favours of her etc.

Alan Austin,
Only in marriage as far a Judaism, Christianity, and Islam only sexual intercourse define their married relationship difference. Because this is a Creation / Evolution fact - it is blessed by God for the procreation of children. Never has the sexual relationship of two persons of the same gender given the result of the blessing of children. Their life is serving self interest, rather than the children of that relationship. I see this self centered occupation also in hetero couples who determine not to have children

In *Josephus* and *Runner* we appear to be witnessing cases of stultification.

Verily, proverbial pillars of salt who only look back, and being incapable of reasoned debate, can but re-iterate their own narrow and pitiful little god concept over and over, failing to realise or accept the difference between that which is factual and that which is not.

*Rusty* thanks for providing much mirth in regard to your comments re:Moses and to the other posters who have clearly demonstrated that the 2 individuals in question also have little in the way of any real theological skill.

I have some memory fragments of the *Moses* story from forced r.e. at primary school.

Suffice to say, that if indeed by natural causes the water did recede at that time, enabling a timely escape from the Egyptian military, then for sure it was most fortuitous, and perhaps even worthy of being put in the basket of things that make me go " ... hmmm ... " however ..

And then in the aftermath, stuck for a time in the hardship of the desert and charged with the care of a bunch of whinging squabblers, perhaps *Moses* had well had a gut full, and realising the need for cohesive regulation to enhance their prospects of surviving the ordeal, decides to take a breather, go up the mountain and have a good think about it all.

Perhaps, fatigued with hunger, thirst and exhaustion himself, all known large contributors to certain types of hallucinations, up he climbs.

Now, do we know whether the mountain was active then and belching out noxious fumes? Certainly we know that the bushes that grow there can indeed catch fire as a result of their oil bearing properties.

And of course, when one comes to understand something more of the nature of hallucinations, it becomes increasingly apparent that not only are they ordered and regular, but also largely an echo of sorts of our own mental/emotional state.

Add to this something of the god concept beliefs of the time as exemplified by the "no graven image line" and as we see it still in Islam today, that it is a foolish and vein pursuit to try and comprehend the nature of God, and in accepting that, not to even try, but just to accept it as something beyond mere frail human understanding.

Thus, "I am that I am" as perhaps *Moses* neither truly knew, nor presumed to know, and consequently, his temporarily altered state of consciousness largely produced "an echo" consistent with his intent and experience prior to his ascent.

..

But then in the times after, even until now, we have the remnants of this attributed to divine contact and inspiration and encapsulated in a variety of blind faith, political control mechanisms who refuse to let go of the past, and refuse to want to learn, grow, and evolve, and all along the way characterised by obstinate, dim witted psychopaths bent on inflicting their will upon any who are or were unfortunate enough to be exposed to them.

..

It reminds me of an another old fable which goes something like this:

" ... and the prophet then disapeared, and all that they could find left behind was his little wooden flute. And the people took it it, and layered it in gold and jewels and put it out for all to see, but regrettabley, it was no longer capable of issuing forth any sound to soothe their troubled Souls. ... "