What are your views on gay marriages or same sex marriages...and what are your opinions if Fiji had legalised gay marriages..and what do you think would happen to Fiji if that happened???

#just curious....

Views: 5653

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My views go with what the Holy Bible says; not on what Human Right demands because most of these rights are based on lusts of the flesh which are sins and abominations in the face of God.

If we were not able to pro create, where the hell will these men get their partners from, defeats the purpose of male and female, funny how these partners tend to be involved intimately, male and male, female and female, they get artficial insemination so either one can re produce then I dont see why we cant live of each other, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

At the heart of all this is REBELLION against God's divine purpose for marriage, relationship and life. Here's an article (it's not mine) that may shed some light on this discussion.

In spite of the disagreements pertaining to male/female relationships within Christianity, perhaps an even bigger concern these days is homosexuality. To what extent should the church accommodate homosexuals who want to get involved? Some churches welcome homosexual couples and even perform “holy union” ceremonies, since most states don’t allow legal gay marriages. Other churches organize protests against homosexuality with a fervour that makes the Salem witch trials seem like a tea party in contrast.

This issue is causing many in the church to re-evaluate long-standing positions. Many denominations are convening to discuss the matter and determine how they wish to respond. Some are dividing based on diverse wishes of its member churches. Other scattered congregations are withdrawing from denominations in order to practice as they wish.

The traditional church stance has been that homosexuality is clearly sinful, and therefore not allowed in a church setting, of all places. The first verse we tend to hear from conservative spokespeople is Leviticus 18:22: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (NIV). The newer translations read, “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin” (NLT). And the consequences of choosing such a lifestyle were spelled out just as clearly: “The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense” (Leviticus 20:13).

In response, some people are quick to point out that Leviticus also contains a number of other “outdated” laws and rules. When was the last time we saw a child stoned to death for swearing at a parent (Leviticus 20:9)? When was the last time you had a priest over to check out the house after a bad case of mildew or to regulate the healing of a nasty skin lesion (Leviticus 13:18-23; 47-59)? Our dietary restrictions aren’t nearly so stringent as they used to be (Leviticus 11). And some say that the prohibition against homosexuality is just as “outdated” as those other Old Testament laws.

Not so, rebuts the conservative element. While a number of things changed as we went from Old Testament law to New Testament grace, the fact that homosexuality remains a no-no continues throughout the New Testament. Two emphatic passages are Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

It seems clear enough, say some people, that until homosexuals are willing to “straighten up,” the church cannot in good conscience allow them to fully participate. As with most other issues, of course, the lines are drawn in different places. A number of conservative churches encourage attendance and participation of anyone and everyone, yet will be much more restrictive when it comes to church leadership. Homosexuals will eventually be expected to renounce their lifestyle or at least cease active practice. The same demands would be placed on adulterers, alcoholics, and others who continued to exhibit what the Bible defines as sinful activity.

Other churches place no such restrictions on practicing homosexuals, including them in leadership and even performing official ceremonies to unite them as couples. And yet these churches also feel they conform to biblical teachings.

Their argument is that homosexuality is not merely a personal choice but a predetermined natural design. Just as some people are born with heterosexual biological urges, so they say, others have homosexual passions instead. Even if some of us believe such feelings are genetically incorrect, they must be God-given. And if this large group of people has no choice in the matter, to deny them full participation in the church is wrong. Just as Jesus gave full respect to lepers, women, Samaritans, and other persecuted minorities of His day, so the church needs to reach out in acceptance of the increasingly active homosexual community.

The confusion is likely to continue for a while as both scientists and theologians debate the nature, and even the definition, of homosexuality. Opinions remain strongly divided. It’s easy for those within the church to perceive most homosexuals to be of the “flaming” variety, with promiscuous sexual habits and outrageous lifestyles. But it’s much harder to explain why a heterosexual philanderer who regularly harbours lust in his heart is more welcome in most churches than a loving, committed, monogamous gay couple.



And in spite of any official church policy, either involving homosexuality or not, it may be that some churches tend to discriminate against homosexuals without realizing it. If we look at the New Testament command against homosexuality in its context, we see a number of other sins listed that the church tends to tolerate much more readily: “Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers—none of these will have a share in the kingdom of God. There was a time when some of you were just like that, but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart for God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Many churches sponsor AA meetings to help “drunkards.” They work with abusers and adulterers. And what Sunday morning church service is without its fair share of thieves, greedy people, and swindlers? Yet some churches may tend to place more emphasis on the wrongness of homosexuality above any of these other things.

Even the Old Testament refuses to isolate homosexuality as a sin more or less abominable than any other. The twin cities of gay pride in the Old Testament were Sodom and Gomorrah, and staunch conservatives frequently like to point to their fire-and-brimstone destruction (Genesis 19) to show what God thinks of homosexuality. But again, if we put the story into context and read the rest of the Bible, we may see the account in a different light.

Centuries later, after Israel and Judah had been taken into captivity because of idolatry and other major sins against God, the Lord sent a message to them through Ezekiel the prophet:


“As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. Sodom’s sins were pride, laziness, and gluttony, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. She was proud and did loathsome things, so I wiped her out, as you have seen. . . . In your proud days you held Sodom in contempt. But now your greater wickedness has been exposed to all the world, and you are the one who is scorned” (Ezekiel 16:48-50, 56-57).


Indeed, homosexuality typified by rape, abuse, and perhaps even murder was rampant in Sodom and Gomorrah. And this is how we tend to remember those Old Testament cities. But it wasn’t just the homosexuality that was recalled by Ezekiel but the more basic problems of pride, sloth, and gluttony. And according to God, later generations of those who called themselves by His name were guilty of “greater wickedness.” The gay pride of Sodom and Gomorrah paled in comparison to the spiritual pride of God’s people during Ezekiel’s day. Can Christians today say we’re doing any better?

While believers may legitimately use Scripture to justify a stand against homosexuality, many need to seek a broader and deeper understanding of what the Bible has to say about sin in general. So do those who attempt to chide the church into justifying the blind acceptance of homosexuals regardless of their attitudes, practices, and spiritual condition.

Regardless of the tolerance levels of individuals or church boards, it would seem that at the very least, from a biblical perspective, homosexuality is included in the list of behaviours that should be abandoned by those who wish to pursue greater devotion to God in a church setting. Scripture doesn’t endorse anything-goes homosexual practice within church walls, nor does it justify the other extreme of homophobia.

It is yet to be seen what will happen on a large scale as homosexuality and Christianity continue to intersect. Some churches are certain to maintain the age-old invitation of “come as you are,” but don’t stay as you are. Others will probably become more accepting of homosexuals and will somehow justify it according to Scripture.

Not so many decades ago the church took a hard stance against divorced people in leadership roles. A few still do. Concerned Christians could point to clear biblical passages to remind us that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that any church leader should be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2). But as more and more pastors and church leaders got divorced and remarried, gradually the stigma of divorce faded away in many churches. While remaining a tragic statistic in the eyes of most, divorced people eventually found inclusion in the same churches that once excluded them. Will the same be true of homosexuality? We will have to wait and see.


Author: Unknown



shouldn't we call out a sin by its right name?

@ Fijian_Barbie


"Worry" no

Concerned yes


Concerned for their eternal destiny, and I suppose that's the same reason you're saying to "pray for their souls". Many of our brothers and sisters are caught with the lie that, "that's the way we are, God made us this way".





Here's a piece by Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis.

How Should a Christian Respond to “Gay Marriage”?
by Ken Ham

“Who has the right to determine what is good or bad, or what is morally right or wrong in the culture? Who determines whether marriage as an institution should be adhered to?”

Most people have heard of the account of Adam and Eve. According to the first book of the Bible, Genesis, these two people were the first humans from whom all others in the human race descended. Genesis also records the names of three of Adam and Eve’s many children—Cain, Abel, and Seth. Christians claim that this account of human history is accurate, because the Bible itself claims that it is the authoritative Word of the Creator God, without error.

To challenge Christians’ faith in the Bible as an infallible revelation from God to humans, many sceptics have challenged the Bible’s trustworthiness as a historical document by asking questions like, “Where did Cain find his wife?” (Don’t worry—this will become highly relevant to the topic of gay marriage shortly!) This question of Cain’s wife is one of the most-asked questions about the Christian faith and the Bible’s reliability. In short, Genesis 5:4 states that Adam had “other sons and daughters”; thus, originally, brothers had to marry sisters.1

An Atheist on a Talk Show
This background is helpful in offering the context of a conversation I had with a caller on a radio talk show. The conversation went something like this:

Caller: “I’m an atheist, and I want to tell you Christians that if you believe Cain married his sister, then that’s immoral.”

AiG: “If you’re an atheist, then that means you don’t believe in any personal God, right?”
Caller: “Correct!”

AiG: “Then if you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe there’s such a thing as an absolute authority. Therefore, you believe everyone has a right to their own opinions—to make their own rules about life if they can get away with it, correct?”

Caller: “Yes, you’re right.”

AiG: “Then, sir, you can’t call me immoral; after all, you’re an atheist, who doesn’t believe in any absolute authority.”

AiG: “Do you believe all humans evolved from apelike ancestors?”

Caller: “Yes, I certainly believe evolution is fact.”

AiG: “Then, sir, from your perspective on life, if man is just some sort of animal who evolved, and if there’s no absolute authority, then marriage is whatever you want to define it to be—if you can get away with it in the culture you live in.

“It could be two men, two women or one man and ten women; in fact, it doesn’t even have to be a man with another human—it could be a man with an animal.2

“I’m sorry, sir, that you think Christians have a problem. I think it’s you who has the problem. Without an absolute authority, marriage, or any other aspect of how to live in society, is determined on the basis of opinion and ultimately could be anything one decides—if the culture as a whole will allow you to get away with this. You have the problem, not me.”

It was a fascinating—and revealing—exchange.

So the questions, then, that could be posed to this caller and other sceptics are: “Who has the right to determine what is good or bad, or what is morally right or wrong in the culture? Who determines whether marriage as an institution should be adhered to, and if so, what the rules should be?”

The “Pragmatics” Aspect of Opposing Gay Marriage—Some Cautions
Some who defend marriage as a union between one man and one woman claim that it can be shown that cultures that have not adhered to this doctrine have reaped all sorts of problems (whether the spread of diseases or other issues). Thus, they claim, on this basis, it’s obvious that marriage should be between one man and one woman only.

Even though such problems as the spread of HIV might be shown to be a sound argument in this issue, ultimately it’s not a good basis for stating that one man for one woman must be the rule. It may be a sound argument based on the pragmatics of wanting to maintain a healthy physical body, but why should one or more human beings have the right to dictate to others what they can or can’t do in sexual relationships? After all, another person might decide that the relationship between one man and woman in marriage might cause psychological problems and use that as the basis for the argument. So which one is correct?

Say that a person used the argument that research has shown, for example, that the children of gay parents have a higher incidence of depression. Or the argument that since HIV kills people, it is vital that marriage is between a man and a woman. But note how such arguments have also been tried in the case of abortion and rejected by the culture.
Let us illustrate. Some researchers claim to have shown a high incidence of depression in people who have had an abortion. The culture, however, has rejected such pragmatic “we shouldn’t hurt people” arguments, claiming that it is more important that others have the “right to choose.” The argument that abortion kills people is an important one because most people still accept the basic biblical prohibition against taking innocent human life. So we should ensure that people know that the baby is really human. But is it going to be enough in the long term, as even this prohibition cannot be absolute without the Bible?

Allowing the Killing of a Newborn?

A slowly increasing minority of people, like Professor Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University,3 are quite content to accept the obvious fact that abortion kills human beings, but this does not affect their view of abortion in the slightest. In fact, consistent with the fact that he rejects the Bible and the view that man was made in the image of God, Singer has argued that society should consider having a period after birth in which a baby is still allowed to be killed if socially desirable (e.g., if it has an unacceptable handicap).

Ultimately, it comes down to this: How does a culture determine what is right and what is wrong? If the majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when that majority is replaced by a different majority?

After all, the majority in power in many of our Western nations once believed abortion was wrong—but now the majority in power doesn’t believe this, so the rules have been changed.

The majority in power in many of our Western societies once believed the institution of marriage should be one man for one woman. But this has changed. Many are now allowing “gay marriage.” So how long before polygamous or paedophiliac relationships are allowed, which some people are starting to advocate?4 Who is to say they are wrong, if the majority agrees with them?

Before the Hitler era, nobody would have believed that the majority in a progressive, industrialized Western nation such as Germany could have agreed that it was ethically proper to mass murder the mentally retarded and those with incurable long-term illnesses. Yet the majority of Germans were convinced by their society to see euthanasia as ethically acceptable, even kind-hearted.

Some might say that there is no way Western culture would allow paedophilia. Fifty years ago, however, most people probably would not have dreamed that America or Britain would ever allow gay marriage. Where does one draw the line? And who determines who draws that line? What’s the answer?

Does the Church Have the Answer?
The gay marriage issue has been headline news across North America and on other continents. Even the acceptance of gay clergy has been widely noted in both secular and Christian media outlets.

• In November 2003, a part of the Episcopal Church voted to ordain a gay bishop. Thus, the world saw part of the Church now condoning homosexual behavior.5
• On March 18, 2004, the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church in America supported a lesbian pastor. Once again, the world looked on as a large denomination legitimized homosexual behavior.6

As part of the public debate on the gay marriage issue, many Church leaders have been interviewed on national TV programs and asked to share their position on this topic. While the majority of Church leaders have been speaking against gay unions and have been defending marriage as being between one man and one woman, many of these same Church leaders have not been able to adequately defend their position.

One Christian leader was interviewed on MSNBC-TV and was asked about the gay marriage issue. The interview went something like this:

TV host: “Did Jesus deal directly with the gay marriage issue?”

Christian leader: “No, but then Jesus didn’t deal directly with the abortion issue or many other issues. . . .”

This is such a disappointing response. A proper response could have been such a powerful witness—not only to the interviewer but to the potential millions of viewers watching the news program, so people could understand why this Christian leader opposed gay marriage.

The same Christian leader appeared on CNN-TV doing an interview that, in part, went something like the following:
Interviewer: “Why are you against gay marriage?”

Christian leader: “Because down through the ages, culture after culture has taught that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

We believe this kind of answer actually opens the door to gay marriage! How? Because it basically says that marriage is determined by law or opinion.

So, why is it that we don’t see many Christian leaders giving the right sorts of answers? I think it’s because the majority of them have compromised with the idea of millions of years of history, as well as evolutionary beliefs in astronomy, geology, and so on. As a result, the Bible’s authority has been undermined, and it’s no longer understood to be the absolute authority.7

Gay Marriage—Is Evolution the Cause?
After reading explanations from Answers in Genesis such as those above, some critics have concluded that we are saying that belief in millions of years or other evolutionary ideas is the cause of social ills like gay marriage. This is not true at all.

It is accurate to say that the increasing acceptance of homosexual behaviour and gay marriage has gone hand in hand with the popularity and acceptance of millions of years and evolutionary ideas. But this does not mean that every person who believes in millions of years/evolution accepts gay marriage or condones homosexual behaviour.

What does the Bible says about homosexual behaviour and gay marriage? Study the following verses:

• Genesis 2:18–25
• Leviticus 18:22
• Mark 10:6
• Romans 1:26–27
• 1 Corinthians 6:9–10
• 1 Timothy 1:9–10

But the more people (whether Christian or not) believe in man’s ideas concerning the history of the universe, regardless of what God’s Word appears to be plainly teaching, the more man’s fallible ideas are used as a basis for determining “truth” and overriding the Bible’s authority.

People need to understand that homosexual behaviour and the gay marriage controversy are ultimately not the problems in our culture, but are the symptoms of a much deeper problem. Even though it’s obvious from the Bible that homosexual behaviour and gay marriage are an abomination (Romans 1 and other passages make this very clear), there is a foundational reason as to why there is an increasing acceptance of these ills in America and societies like it.

Cultures in the West were once pervaded by a primarily Christian worldview because the majority of people at least respected the Bible as the authority on morality. It needs to be clearly understood that over the past 200 years the Bible’s authority has been increasingly undermined, as much of the Church has compromised with the idea of millions of years (this began before Darwin) and has thus begun reinterpreting Genesis. When those outside the Church saw Church leaders rejecting Genesis as literal history, one can understand why they would have quickly lost respect for all of the Bible. If the Church doesn’t even believe this Book to be true, then why should the world build its morality on a fallible work that modern science supposedly has shown to be inaccurate in its science and history?

The Bible has lost respect in people’s eyes (both within and without the Church) to the extent that the culture as a whole now does not take the Bible’s morality seriously at all. The increasing acceptance of homosexual behaviour and gay marriage is a symptom of the loss of biblical authority, and is primarily due to the compromise the Church has made with the secular world’s teaching on origins.

Mocking the Bible
For example, consider the following. A New Orleans newspaper printed a commentary entitled “In Gay Rights Debate, Genesis Is Losing.”8 The column pointed out (correctly) that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. The writer even quoted Genesis 2:24, which declares, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.”

The author then, mockingly, wrote, “Ah, Genesis. Heaven and earth created in six days, a serpent that talks, and a 600-year-old man building an ark. Just the guide we need to set rational policy.”

This secular writer recognized that the literal history of Genesis was the basis for the belief that marriage is one man for one woman. However, by mocking the Genesis account (just as many church leaders effectively do when they reinterpret Genesis 1–11 on the basis of man’s fallible ideas), the writer removed the foundations upon which the institution of marriage stands. This opens the door to gay marriage or anything else one might determine about marriage.

Were Homosexuals Created That Way?

Human sexuality is very complex, and the arguments will long rage as to the causes of homosexual behaviour. In this fallen world, most behaviours are a complex mix of one’s personal choices superimposed on a platform of predisposition. This can come both from one’s genetic makeup and one’s environment (for example, one’s upbringing). Few students of human nature would doubt the proposition that some personalities are much more predisposed to alcoholism and/or wife beating, for instance. But would anyone argue that this would make wife beating acceptable?
The case for a “homosexual gene” has evaporated, but let’s say that researchers really were able to identify such a gene. After all, mutations in a cursed, fallen world can cause all sorts of abnormalities and malfunctions. For one thing, that would be a result of the Curse, not creation. And would knowledge of such a gene make right what Scripture clearly says is wrong? Absolute right and wrong exist independent of any secondary causative agencies.

In fact, it is quite possible that a contributing factor to at least some cases of homosexuality is a dysfunctional upbringing right at the time when the child is gaining crucial environmental input regarding his or her own sexual identity. (Notice the importance the Bible places on bringing up children, the family unit, and so on.) But if anything, this highlights one of the huge risks of “married” gay people bringing up adopted children, namely the vulnerability of the children to confused messages about their own sexual identity. To put it simply, if one’s environment contributes to homosexuality, gay marriage will tend to increase the likelihood of the next generation being gay.9

Gay Marriage — What Is the Answer?

In the Bible in Judges 17:6, we read this statement: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (NAS95). In other words, when there is no absolute authority to decide right and wrong, everyone has his or her own opinion about what to do.

So how could the Christian leader whose interviews were quoted earlier in this chapter have responded differently? Well, consider this answer:

First of all, Jesus (who created us and therefore owns us and has the authority to determine right and wrong), as the God-man, did deal directly with the gay marriage issue, in the Bible’s New Testament, in Matthew 19:4–6: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?” So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ ”

He could have continued:

Christ quoted directly from the book of Genesis (and its account of the creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman—the first marriage) as literal history, to explain the doctrine of marriage as being one man for one woman. Thus marriage cannot be a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Because Genesis is real history (as can be confirmed by observational science, incidentally), Jesus dealt quite directly with the gay marriage issue when he explained the doctrine of marriage.

Not only this, but in John 1 we read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made” (KJV).

Jesus, the Creator, is the Word. The Bible is the written Word. Every word in the Bible is really the Word of the Creator—Jesus Christ.10

Therefore, in Leviticus 18:22, Jesus deals directly with the homosexual issue, and thus the gay marriage issue. This is also true of Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10.

Because Jesus in a real sense wrote all of the Bible, whenever Scripture deals with marriage and/or the homosexual issue, Jesus himself is directly dealing with these issues.

Even in a secular context, the only answer a Christian should offer is this:

The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.

God made the first man and woman—the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

And don’t forget—according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring.11 Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there’s no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!

The battle against gay marriage will ultimately be lost (like the battle against abortion) unless the church and the culture return to the absolute authority beginning in Genesis. Then and only then will there be a true foundation for the correct doctrine of marriage—one man for one woman for life.

1. For a more detailed answer to this question, see www.AnswersInGenesis.org/Cains_wife. See all footnotes
2. See “Man Marries Dog for Luck — Then Dies,” www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/04/1075853937098.html?from=storyrhs; and M. Bates, “Marriage in the New Millennium: Love, Honor and Scratch between the Ears,” Oak Lawn (Illinois) Reporter, April 5, 2001, as referenced at www.freerepublic.com/. There are many articles online that discuss the possibility of a man marrying his dog if the sanctity of marriage is not upheld; search for words like marriage, man, and dog. See all footnotes
3. Cited by R. Doolan, “The Baby-killers,” Creation 18, no. 1 (December 1995–February 1996): 4. Also found online at www.AnswersInGenesis.org/docs/1186.asp. See all footnotes
4. B. Sorotzkin, “The Denial of Child Abuse: The Rind, et al. Controversy,” NARTH.com; L. Nicolosi, “The Pedophilia Debate Continues — and DSM Is Changed Again,” NARTH.com; and “Russian Region Wants to Allow Men Up to Four Wives,” CNN.com, July 21, 1999. See all footnotes
5. “Episcopal Church Consecrates Openly Gay Bishop,” CNN.com, November 3, 2003. See all footnotes
6. Read the church proceedings for and against the Rev. Karen Dammann at www.pnwumc.org. See all footnotes
7. For more information on this important point, see chapter 11, “Where Did the Idea of ‘Millions of Years’ Come From?” See all footnotes
8. J. Gill, Times-Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 5, 2004. See all footnotes
9. Two things to note in this section: (1) The idea is already with us that gay “couples” should be freely able to donate their sperm to surrogate mothers or to clone their DNA to perpetuate their own genes. So if there is any genetic basis to homosexuality (i.e., “made that way”), then this too will increase the frequency of homosexuality in future generations. (2) Regarding the capacity of an individual to stop his or her homosexual behaviour, we wish to observe that even with what sin has done in this fallen world, the Bible promises that we will not be tested beyond what we can endure (1 Corinthians 10:13) because the power of God is available to all believers. See all footnotes
10. See Colossians 1:15–20 as well. See all footnotes
11. Malachi 2:15: “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.”


OMG Joe Bose I am too lazy to read through your essay ! I am totally disgraced  every time someone brought up a simple issue in the Discussion , there comes someone with his biblical thoughts , This is not a time to preach again Joe, No one got a patience to listen and read such long essay what u had just did bro  .. It's Happening , Its' done in all our communities , Some of us we faced it at home maybe your brother , sister , mother of even father or else cousin is practicing this lifestyle (homosexual).

We all know it is wrong in our beliefs and our culture  , So what we can do now Joe ? Shall we read your essay and you think it will help this people who are in this situation will help them? Hell No ! It is too late bro , It's like a virus now , it's spread so easily and what I thought t my own point of view , Nothing can be done ...It is up to all the individuals they practicing this , They all adults they made their own choices in life .

The biggest problem in here every time we brought up a Discussion to be shared by some of our viewers our members opinions, here comes the preacher preaching about God .

My dearest brother Joe we all baptised when we were young and majority of our Fijians did practice our beliefs since childhood and we still trying to stay in our faith .

 I think it is a waste of your lovely time writing this long essay and preach in here because we do our prayers at home and we all still human no one is God  , I bet you one of those kinda bible basher people who loves to talk about God all the time , We got no time for this because as I said before Mr. Joe We done our bible verse and prayers at home , I am sorry i'm not against you im just saying .

 "Lotu"is within you , Keda bulibuli kece ni Kalou , If they wanted to be "Gay" ,That's there choices .. What we should do , Da lomani ira ga nira bulibuli uasivi ni Kalou .


@ sandy ...are you qau or gay?the question is why it is an issue? the answer is simple because it contradicts the bible or the word of God and it is an abomination to God almighty ...a true christian will always voices out his or her concern towards people who are entangled with this kind a situation.sa sinai tiko o eli...dro rawa vei Jisu.Gb

If we want them to change , it all about to go to them and preach rather than we judging they lifestyle in this forum. We all believe that its immoral and if we love them we should do the right thing. Let God be the judge. Kevaka da lomani ira meda lakovi ira ka wasea na tukutuku vinaka nei Jisu kua nomu vakasama!!!! Sa levu noda vakasama da wasea io sega tiko na caka2 taka!!

Every decision we make has its own consequences.Wether good or bad.We are approaching the end of times and all this are signs we should all be getting for the second coming of Jesus.There are people that are trying to repent when they are there in hell and I hope that you don't fall into that pit and pretend that you don't even know it after you read this reply.May we all have a blessed weekend...


@Max im dammm straight , I did so in my reply ..I wrote it  in there nice and clear it's against our culture and our beliefs? Isn't that good enough  ? Oh Geez we all & we all know it doesn't recognise in Fiji cause of our Christian Beliefs and even in our household ..

To help them ? There is no solution not even to preach to them cause they got no patience. They should just face the consenquences  in the last time .

Sega ni dua na qauri or lesbo se sega ni kila ni tabu na vakasalewalewa (homosexual) or drag queens, crossed dress or whatever u call them , they all know dam well ni tabu , What we should do , stop pointing fingers at them ..We just love them as they are just human like u & me ..

Vinaka .




Started by NiteDrox in News Discussions. Last reply by Tomasi Vakameau Sep 3.

Decision Making-Why Is It So Hard To Decide? 9 Replies

Started by anamaria in World Issues. Last reply by Ratu Jonetani Tavadroka Sep 2.

Veidigidigi e Viti e na yabaki 2018. 31 Replies

Started by viliame nabobo in World Issues. Last reply by Ratu Jonetani Tavadroka Feb 12.

Who Is This Beast Mentioned In Revelation 13:18? - 666! 252 Replies

Started by UDDY in Spirit and Self. Last reply by Ulaya Racua Saidora Jul 2, 2018.

Jesus Did Not Rise From The Dead On Sunday 150 Replies

Started by Ulaya Racua Saidora in News Discussions. Last reply by Ulaya Racua Saidora Jun 21, 2018.

World War III 2 Replies

Started by Ulaya Racua Saidora in World Issues. Last reply by Ulaya Racua Saidora Jun 21, 2018.

Will Iran Succeed in Syria?

Started by Ulaya Racua Saidora in World Issues May 14, 2018.

How Can Fiji Sevens Team Improve its performance against the two Giant South Africa and Enland. 16 Replies

Started by Tomasi Vakameau in Sports. Last reply by Tomasi Vakameau Apr 30, 2018.

© 2019   Created by Matavuvale Admins.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service