Celebrations

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.

[jeremyp]

I thought this was going to be about the Battle of Hastings.

However, good for them.

[Sebastian Toe]

I thought this was going to be about the Battle of Hastings.

However, good for them.

I thought it was about tiny Mars bars!

[ProfessorDavey]

All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.

Are same sex couples allowed to marry on the Isle of Man? If not then there isn't equality is there?

[Sebastian Toe]

Are same sex couples allowed to marry on the Isle of Man? If not then there isn't equality is there?

Its all good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36917396

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are same sex couples allowed to marry on the Isle of Man? If not then there isn't equality is there?

They are it is just the secular mainland where hypocrites are happy to give this inequality a by.

[Aruntraveller]

They are it is just the secular mainland where hypocrites are happy to give this inequality a by.

You keep repeating this mantra without ever producing evidence that this is so.

Here's some evidence that some on the secular mainland are happy to challenge this inequality:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/19/peter-tatchell-civil-partnerships-were-a-form-of-legal-segregation-and-are-still-unequal/

As far as I can see it is the government that are the stumbling block here - not any great secular hypocritical conspiracy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep repeating this mantra without ever producing evidence that this is so.

Here's some evidence that some on the secular mainland are happy to challenge this inequality:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/19/peter-tatchell-civil-partnerships-were-a-form-of-legal-segregation-and-are-still-unequal/

As far as I can see it is the government that are the stumbling block here - not any great secular hypocritical conspiracy.

If you have been following my posts on this matter and I believe you have you would have noticed I have praised the courageous Peter Tatchell on his work in this matter.

[Aruntraveller]

If you have been following my posts on this matter and I believe you have you would have noticed I have praised the courageous Peter Tatchell on his work in this matter.

I'm pleased to hear it - you will therefore have to recognize that as a regular contributor to Mr Tatchell's foundations coffers this particular secular board member isn't being a hypocrite at all. And I suspect the secular mainland is no more guilty of hypocrisy than you are.

If you wish to help him continue the fight against hypocrisy the details are here:

http://petertatchell.net/

[Sassy]

All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.

HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE , IS MAN AND A WOMAN.

heterosexual
hɛt(ə)rə(ʊ)ˈsɛksjʊəl,-ʃʊəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.

Haven't heterosexual couples always been able to get married anywhere? The news feed says a homosexual couple married and had already had a civil partnership service.

[Maeght]

HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE , IS MAN AND A WOMAN.
Haven't heterosexual couples always been able to get married anywhere?

The man and woman involved didn't get married they entered a civil partnership - something that was originally set up for same sex couples but is now available for all couples on the Isle of Man. That's the point - equality of opportunities regardless of gender.

The news feed says a homosexual couple married and had already had a civil partnership service.

Must be different couple.

[Sassy]

The man and woman involved didn't get married they entered a civil partnership - something that was originally set up for same sex couples but is now available for all couples on the Isle of Man. That's the point - equality of opportunities regardless of gender.

Must be different couple.

I feel for all sides. But from a faith side... the civil partnership I understand. But the Marriage side, I feel people are being mis-sold something. Marriage as a status was ordained by God for a man and a woman. I understand that the union can only be heterosexual. I also believe that marriage has a new definition when it is homosexual because the nature of the union consummation wise can not be done in the physical and Spiritual sense of the word.

I see it more of a sense of belonging to one another in homosexual marriage just as in Heterosexual marriage. But it lacks the God joining them in the Spiritual sense.

Each have there own -do we need to have each others? I think it makes a mockery when people already married go for a civil partnership. It proves no point other than they believe the status of marriage to be separated in their definition.

For me the only true difference is that God is in the union of the Heterosexual marriages and he isn't in the Homosexual marriages.  The Homosexual couples have fought for so long for something they believe equal to heterosexual marriage. In a heterosexual couple being married and who then go for a civil partnership they show they do not believe it to represent the same thing.

Because if each believed that civil partnership was the same as marriage then why have or need both?

If it showed anything it was not support. It simply showed they did not believe civil partnership is equal to Heterosexual marriage for purpose of belonging to one another.

So if equality was what it was about why did they need civil partnerships in the first instance?  Because it showed that Gender still makes marriage and civil partnerships to mean different things.

[Anchorman]

Wee point, Sass: Whilst Irespect and to an extent share - your view of Christian marriage, marriage per se was not a specifically Judeo-Christian institution - it existed in cultures which had no contact with the Judeo-Christian religions for millennia before they existed.

[Sassy]

Wee point, Sass: Whilst Irespect and to an extent share - your view of Christian marriage, marriage per se was not a specifically Judeo-Christian institution - it existed in cultures which had no contact with the Judeo-Christian religions for millennia before they existed.

So you are saying God and the first man ADAM and Jesus Christ who existed before the world was not the first relationship between mankind and God and therefore the oldest religion and relationship of man with God?

Did God not say about Adam....

Genesis 1:24.


King James Bible
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Which Father and Mother did Adam and Eve have?

Did Abraham marry Sarah?  Man and wife since the beginning of time.  Since the beginning the truth of the bible shows that marriage was ordained by God the two flesh becoming one.

13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.

14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Outside God where is the spiritual element of the two becoming one flesh?
Outside the first man and woman Adam and Eve who was before God or man who said the two will leave their Father and Mother and become one flesh.

I personally, believe God himself shows you to be mistaken. If you have something that goes back before God, the Spirit and The truth then I am interested in hearing and seeing it. If not, do you agree that Marriage was ordained by God in the Spiritual and only true sense of the man and woman becoming one flesh since the first creation of man by God?

[Anchorman]

I am not a YEC. Nor am I a literalist - or a fan of Jacobean English, come to that. I am in the (majority) camp of evangelicals who accept the editing of the Pentateuch in the sixth and fifth centuries BC - negating its value as accurate history, whilst affirming its theology. If you want to start (yet another) thread on this, go ahead. I'm simply TELLING you that marriage as a concept was in vogue millennia before the Pentateuch was written (assuming the earliest extant copies date from post Exile times.) The conceept was well understood in Babylonia 1700 years earlier.

[Maeght]

I feel for all sides. But from a faith side... the civil partnership I understand. But the Marriage side, I feel people are being mis-sold something. Marriage as a status was ordained by God for a man and a woman. I understand that the union can only be heterosexual. I also believe that marriage has a new definition when it is homosexual because the nature of the union consummation wise can not be done in the physical and Spiritual sense of the word.

I see it more of a sense of belonging to one another in homosexual marriage just as in Heterosexual marriage. But it lacks the God joining them in the Spiritual sense.

Each have there own -do we need to have each others? I think it makes a mockery when people already married go for a civil partnership. It proves no point other than they believe the status of marriage to be separated in their definition.

For me the only true difference is that God is in the union of the Heterosexual marriages and he isn't in the Homosexual marriages.  The Homosexual couples have fought for so long for something they believe equal to heterosexual marriage. In a heterosexual couple being married and who then go for a civil partnership they show they do not believe it to represent the same thing.

Because if each believed that civil partnership was the same as marriage then why have or need both?

If it showed anything it was not support. It simply showed they did not believe civil partnership is equal to Heterosexual marriage for purpose of belonging to one another.

So if equality was what it was about why did they need civil partnerships in the first instance?  Because it showed that Gender still makes marriage and civil partnerships to mean different things.

Marriage and civil partnerships are different legally. The equality point is that both options should be equally available to all. Of course to you marriage is seen as relating to God but its not to others including many who are married.

[Sassy]

I am not a YEC. Nor am I a literalist - or a fan of Jacobean English, come to that. I am in the (majority) camp of evangelicals who accept the editing of the Pentateuch in the sixth and fifth centuries BC - negating its value as accurate history, whilst affirming its theology. If you want to start (yet another) thread on this, go ahead. I'm simply TELLING you that marriage as a concept was in vogue millennia before the Pentateuch was written (assuming the earliest extant copies date from post Exile times.) The conceept was well understood in Babylonia 1700 years earlier.

No you are not telling me anything because God hasn't given you authority or made you the authority on these matters. Had you read your bible you would know ALL JEWS LEARN THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES OFF BY HEART.  You can believe what you want but the Jews know what they were taught and how it was handed down. I guess you are not for Christ enough to answer my actual post. Not a cat got your tongue, you simply cannot talk out against the word of God without condemning yourself, can you?

[Sassy]

Marriage and civil partnerships are different legally. The equality point is that both options should be equally available to all. Of course to you marriage is seen as relating to God but its not to others including many who are married.

Maybe, it is the reasons they want to be married and are married that relates the reality of what the situation and value of each hold those who have been married or in a civil partnership.

[torridon]

No you are not telling me anything because God hasn't given you authority or made you the authority on these matters. Had you read your bible you would know ALL JEWS LEARN THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES OFF BY HEART.  You can believe what you want but the Jews know what they were taught and how it was handed down.

Similarly muslims learn the Qu'ran off by heart; does that guarantee that Koranic teaching is infallible ?

[Sassy]

Similarly muslims learn the Qu'ran off by heart; does that guarantee that Koranic teaching is infallible ?

Bit late in the day for copycats of the real faith and God to ever think they can be taken seriously. If anything the Qu'ran serves to make people think that all religion is man made but I believe the serious contention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through to Jesus Christ has been established in many of the things foretold coming to pass.

We are still waiting for anything to happen with the other aren't we.

[floo]

Bit late in the day for copycats of the real faith and God to ever think they can be taken seriously. If anything the Qu'ran serves to make people think that all religion is man made but I believe the serious contention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through to Jesus Christ has been established in many of the things foretold coming to pass.

We are still waiting for anything to happen with the other aren't we.

You have no evidence any faith is anymore than a human invention, including Christianity. Your version of it is more far fetched than most!

[Anchorman]

Sigh. Sass; with respect, as I pointed out, yours is not the only interpretation of Scripture, nor your opinion on its make up, editing or promotion holy writ. As for my relationship with God*, that's between Him and me. If He's happy enough to use me for His purpose, I'm not going to argue. By the way, God did not communicate His word to His people in flawed Jacobean English. Just saying. And marriage was first noted in Sumerian and Akkadian tablets at the start of the third millennium BC....a thousand years (at least) before the time of Moses. * - Triune in nature.

[Brownie]

I don't think this has anything directly to do with faith really.

Civil partnerships started to enable two people who live together to have certain rights previously exclusive to married couples, eg inheritance tax and that sort of stuff.

It was a big thing for gay couples at the time because previously they had had no more rights than two people in a house share and their happiness at being able to regularise their partnerships in some way, albeit it not marriage, was very understandable.  Two gay people not in a 'romantic' relationship were not excluded and there were some.

However heterosexual people were excluded from civils.  Yet there are man/woman friendships, sometimes distant relatives, who have shared property quite harmoniously for many years out of convenience and stayed that way, but have absolutely no romantic or sexual attachment - so no legal rights when it came to pensions etc.   They could have got married of course, daresay some did, but many would not have wanted to because it would just have been a marriage of convenience.    It was an unfair discrimination really and now it is solved, I'm glad.  If I wanted to share a place with my best mate for twenty years I wouldn't want to marry him but I'd like to know we were both secure financially if anything happened to either of us.

[Nearly Sane]

It's only in  this case 'solved' on the Isle of Man, and more accurately  it's only couples of different sexes that are excluded from civil partnerships. Sexuality in the terms here is irrelevant.

[Sassy]

Quote from:

Anchorman on October 17, 2016, 11:41:24 AM
I am not a YEC. Nor am I a literalist - or a fan of Jacobean English, come to that. I am in the (majority) camp of evangelicals who accept the editing of the Pentateuch in the sixth and fifth centuries BC - negating its value as accurate history, whilst affirming its theology. If you want to start (yet another) thread on this, go ahead. I'm simply TELLING you that marriage as a concept was in vogue millennia before the Pentateuch was written (assuming the earliest extant copies date from post Exile times.) The conceept was well understood in Babylonia 1700 years earlier.

No you are not telling me anything because God hasn't given you authority or made you the authority on these matters. Had you read your bible you would know ALL JEWS LEARN THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES OFF BY HEART.  You can believe what you want but the Jews know what they were taught and how it was handed down. I guess you are not for Christ enough to answer my actual post. Not a cat got your tongue, you simply cannot talk out against the word of God without condemning yourself, can you?

Sigh. Sass; with respect, as I pointed out, yours is not the only interpretation of Scripture, nor your opinion on its make up, editing or promotion holy writ.

My interpretation was given to me by God. If you knew the faith you profess then YOU would have known that God gives us the words to speak as we need them. King James Bible
But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. is Christ wrong and you right?

Truth is you cannot prove me wrong. That is the element you within yourself cannot escape or deny. The same words you use now is something you need to think carefully about. On the day the Lord returns you will be held accountable for them..

As for my relationship with God*, that's between Him and me. If He's happy enough to use me for His purpose, I'm not going to argue.

Almighty, and most merciful heavenly Father, please put an end to the work he does till he stops mocking the truth of Genesis and that every word from your mouth is reliable and truth. In Jesus Name. Amen.

By the way, God did not communicate His word to His people in flawed Jacobean English.

God communicated with every man using their own language. Hence there is no divide between those in the Spirit.
Did you not know that excuses you use are worldly minded and that of human worldly scholars. They are useless arguments and have no place in Truth and Spirit. I suppose Jacobean English would be useful to someone like you who hasn't realised it isn't an argument at all. God only uses the truth whatever the language. And the righteousness of Gods Children is afforded to them from God.

Just saying. And marriage was first noted in Sumerian and Akkadian tablets at the start of the third millennium BC....a thousand years (at least) before the time of Moses. * - Triune in nature.

True God book of Genesis verses Sumerian and Akkadian tablets.

Age of tablets a guess cannot be proved. God however was since the beginning and what he says is true.

What does LUKE say:-
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Let me see Sumerian and Akkadian tablets or the words of the Angel of God?

You lost again...

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God.

Did the Sumerian and Akkadian tablets come from the mouth of God?

Let us see...

King James Bible
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.


Aren't you adding?

Isaiah 54:17King James Version (KJV)

17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.


For someone professing faith you do an awful lot of ducking and diving to change the truth of what God says.
But as you see the LORD God keeps his word. YOU just keep showing you have no faith in GOD or what he has told us.