So you would like a Theocracy where if you had a boyfriend, he could trade you for a goat or something?

😂 Ok this just went from relatively sensible debate to lunacy.

You’re suggesting a gay man can’t have an opinion that doesn’t conform with liberal values? Not very liberal of you.

Group think. Anyone with an identity has to conform to that identity.

You know as well as I do that the Old Testament openly condones slavery. That includes slavery of women and children.

Did he give you a good haircut? Did you tip him?

Yes and yes.

Then he might have been being non-committal for that reason.

You know as well as I do that the Old Testament openly condones slavery. That includes slavery of women and children.

No.. It's not gay vs straight by any means.. I am good friends with everyone at the business and we discuss everything. I know their partners...

Then he might have been being non-committal for that reason.

He wasn’t non committal, he set out his stance, you just don’t agree with it.

I am a Christian, not a Jew. I have a New Covenant. I have explained this in previous messages. God placed his people (Israel) into slavery for 400 years (you won’t like this I’m sure, but it was to prevent assimilation into a foreign culture). That does not mean He would support me having a boyfriend or said boyfriend trading me for a goat!

How do you know? Nevertheless, as I answered to David: "Fair enough. But based on one person's view, doesn't mean that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in a secular setting. My maternal grandparents married in a registry office; mainly because of budget but they still did."

So by having a New Covenant. It makes the Old Testament (which includes Leviticus 18:22) is superseded by God himself in the form of Jesus and is therefore null and void?

So by having a New Covenant. It makes the Old Testament (which includes Leviticus 18:22) is superseded by God himself in the form of Jesus and is therefore null and void?

Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, He did not render it null and void

I have no objections to civil partnerships, but since we have been examining God’s Word so intently tonight, marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else isn’t marriage. You might call it civil partnership, fine. But it’s not marriage.

Fulfilling it does make it null and void because it no longer applies.

Fulfilling it does make it null and void because it no longer applies.

I wouldn't force churches to have same-sex marriages but I think it's right for it to exist through secular means (registry office).