NationStates Jolt Archive

What they did say was "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality". Basicly there are no studies which support homosexuality being biological. Ergo you have no evidence. Or to be more fair, there may be evidence but it hasnt been found yet.

the amount of detail required to prove such a thing is literally impossible without lying or guessing. Depression, schizophrenia and similiar have much less proof and yet are commonly accepted (despite the Church's attempt to have they all shoved in lunatic asylums as they had done for many years).

Atomic science relies of alot of presumptions, but would you argue with a nuclear explosion? No you wouldn't. It cannot be proved that the individual components do not contain further components, but many scientists would suspect it to be true.

Your argument is also based purely upon the evidence is this topic. If you took the time to look outside you would find alot more... but you don't actually want the truth, you want to continue arguing don't you?

Im sorry, I may have been offline when you did this and I am about to go ofline now so could you telegram me the URL's. And I have provided proof, see China, same sex schools. I would love to expand on them further but I am going to bed, see you later.

China and same-sex schools are not proof. Period. QED. No studies, nothing but your own meandering thoughts.

AS was already said, they said no SPECIFIC etiology. Not that there wasn't one all together.

Without specific proof, all you have is wishy washy vaguge proof. Your just picking apart my quote to unpin it. And please show me where they did say "However there is X, Y and Z geneal traits".

Im sorry, I may have been offline when you did this and I am about to go ofline now so could you telegram me the URL's. And I have provided proof, see China, same sex schools. I would love to expand on them further but I am going to bed, see you later.

You have provided no studies demonstrating that homosexuality is any more prevalent in China or same sex schools. Meanwhile, we have provided plenty that something that occurs after puberty has no bearing on sexuality.

Or if you are Christian, and not close-minded or sheep-like, it's all good!
You can`t call yourself Chr¡istian and accept gay-marriage. They are 2 completely opposite beliefs.

You have provided no studies demonstrating that homosexuality is any more prevalent in China or same sex schools. Meanwhile, we have provided plenty that something that occurs after puberty has no bearing on sexuality.

read through this thread. if you still believe that, consider getting your eyes tested.

Without specific proof, all you have is wishy washy vaguge proof. Your just picking apart my quote to unpin it. And please show me where they did say "However there is X, Y and Z geneal traits".

By the same token you have no specific proof that it is a choice or that it is even purely environmental. Those arguements work both ways.

And I never said that they said anything about X, Y, Z traits--those would be SPECIFIC. The APA line you quoted said there were no specific traits KNOWN, that does not necessarily rule out the possibility. To rule out the possibility they would have had to say "It's purely a choice" or "It's purely environmental." All they said was that they haven't found specific genes yet.

You can`t call yourself Chr¡istian and accept gay-marriage. They are 2 completely opposite beliefs.

In your opinion. Yet there are plenty of people who do just that. They interpret the Bible differently. Who are you to decide who can and cannot be a Christian?

In response to what Neo Cannen keeps saying about same-sex schools, from my experience that's patently untrue.

I've been to both co-ed and single sex schools. I'd have to say that there were more gay/bi people at my co-ed school. Also from what I've heard from guys who went to all male schools, there's a lot more homophobia in that environment, so any gay or bi kids are far less likely to come out.

wel thankfully the bible is not the law.. so i DON'T care what's in the bible!
marriage is about financial securety for two partners, and as seal of their love..
that's the meaning of marriage nowadays.. nothing more! no religious things etc.

and homosexuals are not sinners, they are just normal people, only difference is that they fall in love with people of the same sex. everything else is the same!!

(glad to live in the Netherlands! usa has a lot of things to learn)

You can`t call yourself Chr¡istian and accept gay-marriage. They are 2 completely opposite beliefs.
seperation of state and church mean anything to you???
marriage is a bond in LAW, between two people. and because it has all sorts of benificts in terms of financiel securety etc. it really isn't just a catholic thing anymore.. marriage is for all people..

As a gay christian, I dont find it a sin. I believe that God doesnt care if you are gay straight or in love with a robot. I believe that the main message of Jesus was to love your fellow man, be him like you or not. Also people must remember that the bible is NOT gods word. Rather it is mans interpritation of Gods word. Even if when the bible was written (by man) God did indeed speak to the people who wrote it, I am sure that they might of changed or added something he did not say so they can get something they believe into the bible. Not only that, but the bible has been translated into many different languages befroe english. Just reading the translation of something from Japanese to english shows how much can change in one translation. Also the catholic church has changed tbe bible, and the different versions of the bible cant agree with each other. Words have been changed, given new meaning, and added to the curerent bible, and I do not find it an accurate description of Gods message. I feel that his main message is love, and that trivial things such as race or sexual orientation should not matter.

So the guy who David lives with, and says is more dear to him than any woman wasn't his boyfriend? Yeah generally any straight friends I said that to would assume I was coming on to them.David and Jonothan sure sounded like lovers to me. But it was a very different society with different sensibilities.
My point is that justifying an act--any act-- in the name of love does not, in and of itself work.Agreed.
I agree that God wants all to experience love, but there is a framework for it, as He put forth in Scripture. To dismiss that framework is remove all restrictions and morality becomes irrelevant.And no. To dismiss that framework is to remove the restrictions of that framework. There are other frameworks that some people follow.
The Bible says that to lay with another of the same gender is a sin.No, it says that to lay with (have sex with) a man is an abomination. Which could be a problem for the propogation of the species, but that passage presumably doesn't apply to women.
The temptation of homosexuality is not the sin. Giving in to it, actuall going through with the ACT is the sin.Neo Cannen, if you understood this distinction, you would understand many of our objections.
As far as the seperation between love and sex goes, Paul talks about men being inflamed with "Un nautral lusts" for one another, and Jesus says that even looking at a women lustfully is a sin, I presume it is the same for gaysOk, so lust is a no-no (except perhaps in marriages). Which would leave asexuality as the approved form of sexuality. There are some such folks, but it is fairly rare. What was that about planks and motes again?
And that is what is wrong with it, is that it's not natural, just how would the human race continue to be if we were all homosexuals? It wouldn't.I wouldn't be so sure; Many gays do want to be parents, and as gays are biologically able to reproduce arrangements would probably be worked out. Not that this hypothetical is ever going to happen. Now, if we were all male, we'd be in big trouble. Clearly men are not natural</sarcasm>.
What is to stop this process from keeping on the way it is and eventually making everyone homosexuals?Because some people, despite their environment, have no attraction to members of their own sex and are only attracted to members of the opposite sex. We call these people "heterosexuals".
Granted, but at the same time suppose there is a brother and sister engaged in a romantic relationship and she's had her tubes tied? Would you then see it as a healthy and acceptable adult relationship?I'd consider the possibility.
Yet somehow there is still that voice inside of me that tells me it is wrong. I can't explain it.Mmm, inconsistency. Welcome to the club and enjoy your stay.
I appreciate your candor. Thanks.

And that's all I wanted to do was to point out the fact that this is how those of us on the other side of the issue feel.Okies. It's big of you to admit that. Nothing to be ashamed of, and I'm not consistent myself. (For me it's pedophilia. Harm or not, I just think it's wrong).
I think so (re making sense), statistically there is a minimal increased risk over all such births, but the risk is not evenly shared. Or at least that's how I interpret your comments and how I interepret the current scientific knowledge on the issue.... :)Yeah, that's the way I understand it too. Except when it comes to really close relations: siblings, parent/offspring. There you have a substantial increase of risk.
I will make this clear. NO ONE has provided a single thread of proof that homosexuality is COMPLETELY GENETIC. Ergo there must be a large element of enviromental effects and choice.The second scentence doesn't follow from the first. Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence. There may be proofs that homosexuality is not completely genetic, but that's not one of them. ((edit: ok, I'm being really nit-picky here. If homosexuality were completely genetic, it would show up in the right type of study, and someone would surely reference such a study in this thread)). And environmental effects do not imply choice, never mind a large element of choice.
And whilst it may be hormonal exposisure so far no one has explained what causes said levels of certian hormones to rise. And just because its found in nature does not mean its nautral for humans.Not by the definition of "natural" I'm inclined to use (found in nature, which has bugger all to do with what is moral.). You're obviously using a different one.

Also the catholic church has changed tbe bible,

I'm behind you 98%

You lose 2% because, although I am sympathetic to your cause, you threw in a common lie about the Catholic Church into the middle of your argument. Because i'm feeling generous, you only lose 1% for that. I'm going to make a thread about that, by the way (assuming I can do it without being banned)

You need to scan for typos, especially when making an otherwise moving and emotional argument. Typos can really spoil the mood. -1%

that passage presumably doesn't apply to women.

This argument can be resolved by looking at earlier texts of the Bible, and seeing what specific words were used.

First off, thanks for the 98% :). From what I have read (particularly in regards to witchcraft and pagans) there have been changes in the bible by the catholic church (although this has not happened in a hundred years at least). If I had proof that what I read was wrong, I would be the first to apoligise. Also, I do not have a program with spell check on my computer, and most of the online ones I have seen do not work well. I try and go through it myself, but I sometimes miss some things :).

seperation of state and church mean anything to you???
marriage is a bond in LAW, between two people. and because it has all sorts of benificts in terms of financiel securety etc. it really isn't just a catholic thing anymore.. marriage is for all people..

Ooo, look! More unnecessary Catholic-bashing!

the seperation of Church and State means that the LAW should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious cermony, so the state should not be performing it. I'm not saying that marriages done by the state are invalid, but i'm saying that, if the state is sincere about staying out of religious affairs, it should not preform marriages, because not all religions practice marriage.

If I get banned for saying this, well, that's something i'll have to live with. I really don't see a basis for a ban, however.

(despite the Church's attempt to have they all shoved in lunatic asylums as they had done for many years).
you?

wow, this thread is full of Catholic-bashing! I might consider the points that are brought up if someone gives sources. Until then...

Go on, disprove it? How is my maths wrong? And what about this for a source for proof, in 2000 the American Psychiatric Association published their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation. They concluded that "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality"

If each of the set of genes responsible for homosexuality performs a different function that is beneficial in the body, those genes would be passed on, and eventually combine to "cause". Your math may not be wrong (I didn't check it), but your knowledge of genetics is.

If you are a true follower of Christ (on exception of being very uninformed)
Then you should be against Gay marriage.

In the beginning god created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

God destroyed Sodom and Gamora because the they were chunk full of fags. Dude when he sent his angels into the city, the people in the city were even wanting to have "relations" with them.

Face it GOD HATES FAGS!!!!!!!!!!

If you are a true follower of Christ (on exception of being very uninformed)
Then you should be against Gay marriage.

In the beginning god created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

God destroyed Sodom and Gamora because the they were chunk full of fags. Dude when he sent his angels into the city, the people in the city were even wanting to have "relations" with them.

Face it GOD HATES FAGS!!!!!!!!!!
It amazes me how much hate can be in one post.

First off, God did not create adam and eve OR adam and steve. It is obvious He created Eve and Maude (must find webcomic that that came from)

God destroyerdf Sodom because the citizens were not hospitable to their guests. Try reading an older version of the bible and you will see it does not talk about homosexuality.

God loves all of his children, no matter if they are gay straight, christian or not. They may sadden him, but he still loves them.

If you are a true follower of Christ (on exception of being very uninformed)
Then you should be against Gay marriage.

In the beginning god created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

God destroyed Sodom and Gamora because the they were chunk full of fags. Dude when he sent his angels into the city, the people in the city were even wanting to have "relations" with them.

Face it GOD HATES FAGS!!!!!!!!!!

It's a good thing you didn't start out your NationStates career with a flame, right?

okay, when referring to the biblical sense, a lot of people look at sodom and gamora, when in all actually it wasn't the fact that they were having relations with the same gender, it was the fact that they weren't doing for love, they were doing for pure unadultered pleasure. In all actuality, God would prefer us to not get married, it is in Philippians that he allows it because he knows we have our "urges". and he would prefer us to do so in a union, no where in the bible does it specifically says that a union is one man and one woman and homosexuals are going to hell, people take it our of proportion. You can argue with me if you like, I am a strong christian with good moral values, but this one hits the fence

Ok, I ment God hates the state of "Being" homosexual.
Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Well if you don't care what the Bible says then this is doing nothing for you.
Then its obvious you don't fear God, and if you don't fear God then you more than likely don't believe in him.
Then your getting into Evolution/ THE BIG BANG, witch is as possoble as a tornado going through a junk yard and creating F-47 jetliner 7 times.

Well you better go read it again, I was reading from the King james version and it says. The People were demanding to have RELATIONS with them.

People think that God is a all loving, but the Bible doesn't say that, If that were true then he wouldn't have Distroyed Sodom and Gamora

Well if you don't care what the Bible says then this is doing nothing for you.
Then its obvious you don't fear God, and if you don't fear God then you more than likely don't believe in him.
Then your getting into Evolution/ THE BIG BANG, witch is as possoble as a tornado going through a junk yard and creating F-47 jetliner 7 times.

Well you better go read it again, I was reading from the King james version and it says. The People were demanding to have RELATIONS with them.

People think that God is a all loving, but the Bible doesn't say that, If that were true then he wouldn't have Distroyed Sodom and Gamora


okay sweetie, you are playing with fire, I believe in God and everything he stands for, I want you to find quotes that specifically go against Homosexuality, Sodom and Gamora wasn't due to that, it was due to the way in which it was done, they were in it for pleasure not love

::whips out a fried llama leg and does some catholic bashing::
Bash Bash Bash
:sheathes the basher:

ok with that out of the way, i just want to go back to something that was said vis a vis levitacus and the coming of christ negating all of levitacus except for the "Homosexuality is an abomination part" :rolleyes: ANY college educated theologist (me - i'm studying to be a minister) will let you know that The rules in the old testament writings are mostly null and void for christians due to the coming of christ. Of courst the ten commandment still apply, but leviticus (all of it) does not. Soddom and gommorrah is also null and void It is just the moral themes in the old testament that count, and Homosexuality is not a moral theme, it is one regulation from levitacus (think back to that other post, all regulations are null and void) and Soddom and Gommorrah simply shares a root word with "sodomy." oh the horror. This is the reasoning behind many christian churches ordaining gays. so as far as christianity goes, marry, sodomize if you want, adopt kids, be happy, and follow the ten commandments, no matter what gender your partner is. :fluffle: :disjointed rant complete:
:un sheaths the basher and joins the fray:

Look people, why can't we accepr that marriage is a religious institution but it is also an equally valid social institution? Then we have no qualms about allowing gay marriage by the state or whichever religious institutions wish to perform it. I mean, when it comes down to it all marriages are a legal/social union, maybe with a little religious garnish. :p
I mean, I'm going to get married, but it will not be a religious wedding. No-one is going to tell me that it's less valid are they? (I'm sure someone will... :p )
Of courst the ten commandment still apply, but leviticus (all of it) does not.
This reminds me of my old religion teacher (I went to a Catholic school for a few years) who got us to read Leviticus for a laugh. And she used to be a nun too... Unorthodox any? And she also told us that all religions were as valid as one another. I'm surprised she wasn't excommunicated or something.

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo

well, the bible says it's wrong. but then, the bible says a lot of things...

well, the bible says it's wrong. but then, the bible says a lot of things...

The question of whether it says so has been adressed over the last 150 pages I think. :p

And as far as I'm concerned, the answer is 'no'.

undefinedundefined
Well, in my opinion, who cares if you're gay or not, screw who ya want

Its described as a sin because you cannot procreate.

Why is homosexuality a sin?
ScoMo the Homo
Superstition

Its described as a sin because you cannot procreate.

Neither can children, infertile people, old people, and dead people. In other words, they are all sinners.

Superstition

Now I have Stevie Wonder stuck in my head. -wiggles in her seat-

Neither can children, infertile people, old people, and dead people. In other words, they are all sinners.


I was not arguing the point of being gay. I was answering the question at hand. That is why it is concidered a sin.

I was not arguing the point of being gay. I was answering the question at hand. That is why it is concidered a sin.

So why are children, infertile people, old people and dead people not blamed of 'sinning by virtue (pun intended) of not reproducing?
In fact, unlike these 4 groups, homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing.

The entire structure of the Human reproductive system is clearly designed for one man to mate with one woman and to create a child.Actually no. Many animals signal when they are fertile and only have sex during those time periods. Not humans. Humans are a low fertility species, and the majority of sex acts result in no children. And human sperm is adapted to compete with sperm from rivals in the reproductive tract of a women.
This is what I mean when I say choice in regard to this. It is like the choice when giving up ciggerates. Difficult but not impossible.But what about giving up nicotine cravings? Way I hear it that just doesn't happen for some people, even if they stop using nicotine long-term. It really depends on what you mean by "homosexuality". Gays can get married to members of the other sex and raise children. But that's not a wise course.
Go on, disprove it? How is my maths wrong?
I explained it earlier in this very thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7389849&postcount=1763). In short darwinian fitness is a subtle matter and doesn't correspond exactly to the number of children, as there are other ways to increase the proportion of your genes in the gene pool.



There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality

And someone else said that they also said


Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of family sexual abuse.


So it seems to me that both of these quotes put togther ammount to the disproving of homosexuality being either genetic or enviromental.
Not at all, not at all. Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence. And here I am not being nit-picky. The APA is basically saying "we don't know what causes homosexuality". It is entirely possible that homosexuality is "caused" by factors that noone thought to check for.
I dont think there is a gay "gene", however, I believe that possible when the two types of DNA mix to form the child, perhaps if there are certain patterns that dont mix properly, it causes a defect in the DNA which causes homosexuality, and I think that it is most likely a common incorrect mix of patterns.As as aside there are genetic diseases that occur this way. Long repeating patterns tend to confuse DNA recombination and become longer in offspring. The DNA itself is ok, but the information can get hosed to the point that it causes disease. But I know of no evidence that this occurs with homosexuality.
Law of emprical science 1 = Nothing can be said to exist untill it is mesaured.Thus a cause or causes for homosexuality cannot be said to exist. Methinks you're misapplying this law.
In other words the APA said that there had not been any replicated scientifc study which has proved homosexuality to be biological or genetic. Ergo those who say it is have no proof.Nope. What the APA said is that specific biological causes have not been found.
If I've just said the same things Dempublicents said, there's a reason for it. And no, I didn't read his post before writing the above. We share a common system of intellectual thought, that includes such things as logic, and careful reading of statements for their precise meaning.
the national motto is One Nation Under God.That's one of the mottos. The original motto was
E pluribus unum.

And here's another "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."Just a metaphor to explain the flawed nature of this statement.

If a teacher calls out a register and someone does not call there name, they are presumed absent becuase they did not say anything to prove they were here. Ergo they are not here.No. They are presumed absent, not proven absent.
Absensce of proof is proof of absence and before you start saying "There was absence of proof that the world was round when they thought it was flat" you are wrong. The proof was there they just hadnt found it, and when they did they changed there views.
ab·sence
n.

1. The state of being away.
2. The time during which one is away.
3. Lack; want: an absence of leadership.
4. The state of being absent-minded; inattentiveness: absence of mind.
They didn't have the proof; there was an absence of proof. (Actually several lines of evidence of the shape of the earth were known by the Greeks, and by well-educated europeans well before Columbus's voyage.)
What they did say was "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality". Basicly there are no studies which support homosexuality being biological.Notice the word "specific" there. It's there for a reason.
China and same-sex schools are not proof. Period. QED. No studies, nothing but your own meandering thoughts.You have provided no studies demonstrating that homosexuality is any more prevalent in China or same sex schools.I was wondering if I forgot such a post by Neo Cannen. Guess not.
This argument can be resolved by looking at earlier texts of the Bible, and seeing what specific words were used.Ah the fun of translations. It'll have to be someone else as I don't speak hebrew. But, I'm perfectly happy to assume that Lev 18:22 doesn't apply to women.

By the same token you have no specific proof that it is a choice or that it is even purely environmental. Those arguements work both ways.

And I never said that they said anything about X, Y, Z traits--those would be SPECIFIC. The APA line you quoted said there were no specific traits KNOWN, that does not necessarily rule out the possibility. To rule out the possibility they would have had to say "It's purely a choice" or "It's purely environmental." All they said was that they haven't found specific genes yet.

So if they havent found it yet, and no one knows for certian, then you cant go telling me it is genetic as they havent found it yet. And for those who think that my example of China and Same Sex schools are wrong, then what about the Navy. It is common knowledge that in situations like the Navy (IE being in the same space for possibly years on end with the same group of men) are breading grounds of homosexuality. Are you going to tell me that that those people would be gay had they been in a mixed enviroment?

Thus a cause or causes for homosexuality cannot be said to exist. Methinks you're misapplying this law.

Nope. What the APA said is that specific biological causes have not been found.


No one can seem to prove what these causes are so untill you can, you cant touch me with arguements of "God made gays that way etc" because you simplely DONT KNOW. If you DONT KNOW then you cant say I'm wrong or your right because you DONT KNOW. Without speicific proof it is genetic you cant prove anything. And I am not missaplying the law. I said "Nothing can be said to exist untill it is mesured". That may or may not be the case. It may exist but it hasnt been mesured yet. Untill it is however, it cannot be SAID to exist, as everyone on here is SAYING.

I explained it earlier in this very thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7389849&postcount=1763). In short darwinian fitness is a subtle matter and doesn't correspond exactly to the number of children, as there are other ways to increase the proportion of your genes in the gene pool.
.

Please enlighten me, how do you get more of your genes into the gene pool if it is not by having more children?

No one can seem to prove what these causes are so untill you can, you cant touch me with arguements of "God made gays that way etc" because you simplely DONT KNOW. If you DONT KNOW then you cant say I'm wrong or your right because you DONT KNOW. Without speicific proof it is genetic you cant prove anything. And I am not missaplying the law. I said "Nothing can be said to exist untill it is mesured". That may or may not be the case. It may exist but it hasnt been mesured yet. Untill it is however, it cannot be SAID to exist, as everyone on here is SAYING.


*ahem*

Noone knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality... to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

so where are you going with this anyways?

Are you going to tell me that that those people would be gay had they been in a mixed enviroment?

You sure they were actually gay or simply engaging in homosexual behavior? Big difference there.

Please enlighten me, how do you get more of your genes into the gene pool if it is not by having more children?

Your genes are not yours alone because your siblings share common genes and as far as the invariable portions of human DNA goes, you're identical twins. *hint*

*ahem*
so where are you going with this anyways?

I dont know if this forum supports speach sound card, and I dont have a microphone so I cant shout at you people. My point is you cant prove either way whether it is genetic or not. The fact that NO ONE KNOWS means that none of you can say to me "It is genetic/biological" because you cant prove it.

You sure they were actually gay or simply engaging in homosexual behavior? Big difference there.
It's a good point. Neo-C can answer that if he/she can stop ranting about scientific studies for five seconds. It has been addressed before.

Your genes are not yours alone because your siblings share common genes and as far as the invariable portions of human DNA goes, you're identical twins. *hint*
Did you know the human genome is 50% the same as that of a banana? Thus spake the Bath Uni Biology department who have taken this statement and used it as their motto. Looks well weird on the back of a hoody.

Your genes are not yours alone because your siblings share common genes and as far as the invariable portions of human DNA goes, you're identical twins. *hint*

Other ways for YOU to increase YOUR genes. Not the genes you share with your siblings. YOUR genes specificly. How can you yourself get more of YOUR genes into the gene pool if it is not by having more children? Dettibok said


I explained it earlier in this very thread. In short darwinian fitness is a subtle matter and doesn't correspond exactly to the number of children, as there are other ways to increase the proportion of your genes in the gene pool.


And I am asking him, how do you spread your genes into the gene pool if it is not through having more children.

I dont know if this forum supports speach sound card, and I dont have a microphone so I cant shout at you people. My point is you cant prove either way whether it is genetic or not. The fact that NO ONE KNOWS means that none of you can say to me "It is genetic/biological" because you cant prove it.

Evidently you missed where it says heterosexuality right along with bisexuality and homosexuality right after where it says the cause is unknown rendering your arguement null and void.... unless heterosexuality is also a sin. :rolleyes:

You sure they were actually gay or simply engaging in homosexual behavior? Big difference there.

As far as the bible goes for certian proof, it is a sin to have homosexual sex, no question. As for homosexual attraction, thats harder to prove. Paul did talk about "Unautral lusts" between men and men and women and women but beyond that it is unclear. Jesus also said that looking at a women lustfully was a sin, I presume this applies to men looking at men lustfully as well

As far as the bible goes for certian proof, it is a sin to have homosexual sex, no question. As for homosexual attraction, thats harder to prove. Paul did talk about "Unautral lusts" between men and men and women and women but beyond that it is unclear. Jesus also said that looking at a women lustfully was a sin, I presume this applies to men looking at men lustfully as well
I like the way Paul refers to it as an act of homosexual offence. I think he sees it (homosexuality) as a form of temptation, the non-resistance to which is the sin.

Other ways for YOU to increase YOUR genes. Not the genes you share with your siblings. YOUR genes specificly. How can you yourself get more of YOUR genes into the gene pool if it is not by having more children? Dettibok said


If a few of your siblings pass on THEIR GENES :rolleyes: the job is done. Aside form mutation there is no new or unique genes in offspring that cannot be found in the parents.

I like the way Paul refers to it as an act of homosexual offence. I think he sees it (homosexuality) as a form of temptation, the non-resistance to which is the sin.

Actually Paul spoke of persons who went against God and thus He condemned them to acts which are unnatural which does seem to include homsexual behavior but also meanness, slandering, disobedient to parents, etc. and who approve of others doing the same. I get a different read on this, I dunno about others. :D

Actually Paul spoke of persons who went against God and thus He condemned them to acts which are unnatural which does seem to include homsexual behavior but also meanness, slandering, disobedient to parents, etc. and who approve of others doing the same. I get a different read on this, I dunno about others. :D
My point was that he (at least in my NIV) uses the phrase 'homosexual offenders', not 'homosexuals' which would seem to place the emphasis on the act more than the person.

My point was that he (at least in my NIV) uses the phrase 'homosexual offenders', not 'homosexuals' which would seem to place the emphasis on the act more than the person.

Yes I understood that but I made an obscure reference to violent and peer dominating/generally nasty behavior occurring in instances where institutional homosexuality occurs such as prison, boarding schools etc.

Yes I understood that but I made an obscure reference to violent and peer dominating/generally nasty behavior occurring in instances where institutional homosexuality occurs such as prison, boarding schools etc.
And what was your point? Were you referring to the people on the receiving end of the institutional behaviour? Wouldn't you think of them as being victims of other people's crimes?

And hey, I went to a boarding school... I just didn't board. Haw haw. I'd say that the problems of boarding school kids are more relegated to the slander, disobedience of parents and other generic crappy behaviour.

If a few of your siblings pass on THEIR GENES :rolleyes: the job is done. Aside form mutation there is no new or unique genes in offspring that cannot be found in the parents.

I told him that already. :rolleyes:
Oh, and another way of making sure more of your genes are passed on is by making sure more of your kids (and siblings) survive.
Which is why human females do not have broods. ;)


Besides, how do 99.9% of ants and bees pass on their genes?

I am a gay boy

Well why are you arguing against homosexuals?

I told him that already. :rolleyes:
Oh, and another way of making sure more of your genes are passed on is by making sure more of your kids (and siblings) survive.
Which is why human females do not have broods. ;)


Besides, how do 99.9% of ants and bees pass on their genes?

One Queen... One very Tired Queen... One very Tired Queen who is glad she doesn't have to change those diapers...

One Queen... One very Tired Queen... One very Tired Queen who is glad she doesn't have to change those diapers...

Yes, but according to our Neo Cannen friend, that doesn't count.

Marriage as an institution did not exist for a long time. Marriage as an idea however existed at the begining of time and Gay marriage is not a part of the idea (see Genesis 2: 24)
lol, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History_of_same-sex_unions

If you're curious, I'll look up a better source, but I am a lazy grasshopper.

I was saying he has not been on the forum enough to make such sweeping claims.

I'm a she, thanks. And what sweeping claims did I make? Asking a question /= making a claim.

Then your getting into Evolution/ THE BIG BANG, witch is as possoble as a tornado going through a junk yard and creating F-47 jetliner 7 times.

Hi.

Read a book.

Specifically one about evolution and why you're presently spewing crap.

The end.

Ok, I ment God hates the state of "Being" homosexual.

So you are saying that he hates the attraction? I.e., it's not the person he hates, nor the homosexual act, but the attraction that cannot be controlled? That's sweet of him.

Well you better go read it again, I was reading from the King james version and it says. The People were demanding to have RELATIONS with them.

Quite right. NON-CONSENSUAL relations. God didn't burn Greece for being gay, but he burned Sodom & Gomorrah for being randy rapists. Not even that--it was more of a problem with their hubris, in my opinion, that they would dare to want to rape his angels (whether they knew they were angels or not), because obviously God had no qualms with Lot offering them a couple of innocent virgins to rape in the angels' stead.

In fact, unlike these 4 groups, homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing.

Lesbians, in any case.

All of you people who've been around for this entire discussion? I have no idea how you've retained your sanity. I've only been reading for around 50 pages, and I'm already grinding my teeth into those of a herbivore.

I'm a she, thanks. And what sweeping claims did I make? Asking a question /= making a claim.


I prefer the more standardized != LOL

If you're curious, I'll look up a better source, but I am a lazy grasshopper.
Was it Evelyn Waugh who thought that love between young men was a normal precursor to them settling down with women?
Very Greco-Roman notion that..

I'm a she, thanks.
Why does everyone assume maleness? :p I'm sick of being referred to as "him."

Lesbians, in any case.

And male homosexuals. Just not with each other.

All of you people who've been around for this entire discussion? I have no idea how you've retained your sanity. I've only been reading for around 50 pages, and I'm already grinding my teeth into those of a herbivore.

I like rusty spoons. :)

Was it Evelyn Waugh who thought that love between young men was a normal precursor to them settling down with women?
Very Greco-Roman notion that..


Why does everyone assume maleness? :p I'm sick of being referred to as "him."

Unfortunatly, no one reads the earlier posts and there really isn't any way to tell gender here.

Unfortunatly, no one reads the earlier posts and there really isn't any way to tell gender here.
I agree

and doing that whole him/her or he/she thing is anoying

also can be insulting (some guys take it that way ... dont know why lol) it is like they are like "cant you tell our maleness by our masculinity" and i always go "yes your standard font is so masculine"

Upward Thrust, I can't find any sweeping claims at all for the last 12 hours or so. People, kick up the speed. I know, I'll give you a hypothetical reason:

I hate all gays because they just want gay marriage to be made legal so they get tax benefits.

I hate all gays because God said that sodomy was bad and against the way of nature.

And male homosexuals. Just not with each other.

Point.

Was it Evelyn Waugh who thought that love between young men was a normal precursor to them settling down with women?
Very Greco-Roman notion that..

I think it was, though I can't remember where he said it. Though maybe my memory's messing with me.


I prefer the more standardized != LOL

Heretic!

I agree

and doing that whole him/her or he/she thing is anoying

also can be insulting (some guys take it that way ... dont know why lol) it is like they are like "cant you tell our maleness by our masculinity" and i always go "yes your standard font is so masculine"

Ya, I do not use dat girly-man font... it is abhorrant to my manliness... Hear me now and believe me later... you girly-man font better watch out or I'll [claps] pump you up!

All of you people who've been around for this entire discussion? I have no idea how you've retained your sanity. I've only been reading for around 50 pages, and I'm already grinding my teeth into those of a herbivore.


Simple... let go of the sanity... you too can be freeeeee... join usssss!

Ya, I do not use dat girly-man font... it is abhorrant to my manliness... Hear me now and believe me later... you girly-man font better watch out or I'll [claps] pump you up!
IS THIS A MANLY FONT?

or maybe this
This is for sure manly

I think this is a bitching font!

Ya let all the manly font gather to celebrate their manliness!

I think from now on I will write in a font like this.

Why has the subject changed again? God, you're all as bad as Labourous Slaves. Change the subject now.

NOW.

As far as the bible goes for certian proof, it is a sin to have homosexual sex, no question. As for homosexual attraction, thats harder to prove. Paul did talk about "Unautral lusts" between men and men and women and women but beyond that it is unclear. Jesus also said that looking at a women lustfully was a sin, I presume this applies to men looking at men lustfully as well
I think Jesus was trying to tell not to be shy.Don't lust,just go and do it.Ask first of course and romance if you must.

Why has the subject changed again? God, you're all as bad as Labourous Slaves. Change the subject now.

NOW.


I said I like rusty spoons. :(

Why has the subject changed again? God, you're all as bad as Labourous Slaves. Change the subject now.

NOW.


Sometimes, some things can be argued till the end of time. So why bother?

I've answered the question. Which is WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN? and not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?

so it got off thread when the debating of the right or wrong of Homosexuality began.

I said I like rusty spoons. :(

SSSSPPPPPPPOOOOOOOOONNNNNN!!!!!

Homosexuality is a difficult one.One question if anyone can or cares to answer.Is it in the animal kingdom?I have seen homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom but I am unclear whether it is due to the lack of a female mate or just pure attraction.
In my opinion it is not a sin as we are not animals and supposedly believe in love which conquers all and is beautiful no matter how it manifests itself(note here that misguided souls who commit crime in loves name are deemed not to know true love).

I like titanium sporks, but I'm not announcing it to the world.

I like titanium sporks, but I'm not announcing it to the world.

Ok, it'll be just between the two of us... and everyone else who reads this thread... So remember guys and gals... SHHHHHHH!

Homosexuality is a difficult one.One question if anyone can or cares to answer.Is it in the animal kingdom?I have seen homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom but I am unclear whether it is due to the lack of a female mate or just pure attraction.
In my opinion it is not a sin as we are not animals and supposedly believe in love which conquers all and is beautiful no matter how it manifests itself(note here that misguided souls who commit crime in loves name are deemed not to know true love).
Are you some kind of hippy on crack?

(no offense)

Ok, it'll be just between the two of us... and everyone else who reads this thread... So remember guys and gals... SHHHHHHH!

It was meant to be ironic. Duh?

I like titanium sporks, but I'm not announcing it to the world.

You shouldn't bottle up your feelings. It's bad for you.

*does not like the taste of spam in the morning*

You shouldn't bottle up your feelings. It's bad for you.


Yes become one with the titanium

OK guys, you seem to have a problem with titanium sporks. Is it my fault? No I don't think it is. If you want to discuss this topic, by all means say so and we'll have a rusty spoooooons and titanium spork thread, but I don't see at all what it has got to do with homosexuality, unless they are used in a sexual way...

And don't even go there.

*does not like the taste of spam in the morning*


you should learn to

because honestly this is more intelegent then the conversation going on before :-P

Are you some kind of hippy on crack?

(no offense)

Hungover and still a little drunk.Alcohol,the legal drug that I prefer,drink enough of it and you might as well be on crack.
No offense taken,thats actually quite a compliment. I don't do crack just lines,but you can't get good powder here,its cut to shit.

I was raised a Roman Catholic and I am heterosexual, but it is my firm belief that most Catholics and Christians are deeply afraid of anything that is different or causes a change.
Homosexuality has been around just as long as heterosexuality.
It is a new day people! Times have changed, homosexuality is out and it is much more common than close-minded people would like to believe.
It should no longer be considered a sin, and homosexual couples should absolutely be allowed to legally mary enjoy every benefit that comes with that.
Even those who feel that homosexuality is evil, wrong, and a sin, could never be harmed or negatively affected by this happening.

If you dont like it, dont go to the ceremony! Mind your own business and everything else will be fine.

It is a lot like people who complain about music and try to censor what they dont like: If you dont like it, dont buy it or listen to it.

Everyone should be able to live their own life and be happy!

*does not like the taste of spam in the morning*

Shhh, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam, I love it!

I'm feeling sorry for myself; I find it impossible to get drunk no matter how much beer I guzzle. Maybe it's just because I'm welsh.

you should learn to

because honestly this is more intelegent then the conversation going on before :-P

Yes, more intelegent then before. :rolleyes:

Sometimes, some things can be argued till the end of time. So why bother?

I've answered the question. Which is WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN? and not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?

so it got off thread when the debating of the right or wrong of Homosexuality began.

i think that the guy who wrote it meant it more like a WHY IS IT A SIN? in regard to crisitians who think it is. i believe it is because sin is a religious word. yes, anything the bible says is a sin is a sin. it's like if i make up a word called umpfuzz, then whatever I say umpfuzz means goes. just because it is a sin however, does not make it any of our buisiness.

Sometimes, some things can be argued till the end of time. So why bother?

I've answered the question. Which is WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN? and not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?

so it got off thread when the debating of the right or wrong of Homosexuality began.

i think that the guy who wrote it meant it more like a WHY IS IT A SIN? in regard to crisitians who think it is. i believe it is because sin is a religious word. yes, anything the bible says is a sin is a sin. it's like if i make up a word called umpfuzz, then whatever I say umpfuzz means goes. just because it is a sin however, does not make it any of our buisiness.

Sometimes, some things can be argued till the end of time. So why bother?

I've answered the question. Which is WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN? and not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN?

so it got off thread when the debating of the right or wrong of Homosexuality began.

i think that the guy who wrote it meant it more like a WHY IS IT A SIN? in regard to crisitians who think it is. i believe it is because sin is a religious word. yes, anything the bible says is a sin is a sin. it's like if i make up a word called umpfuzz, then whatever I say umpfuzz means goes. just because it is a sin however, does not make it any of our buisiness.

I'm feeling sorry for myself; I find it impossible to get drunk no matter how much beer I guzzle. Maybe it's just because I'm welsh.
No you're an alcoholic.Change drugs now.Or stop drinking.Why drink alcohol if you can't get drunk?Its a waste of money,as is paying taxes to the Queen but you are Welsh.

So if they havent found it yet, and no one knows for certian, then you cant go telling me it is genetic as they havent found it yet. And for those who think that my example of China and Same Sex schools are wrong, then what about the Navy. It is common knowledge that in situations like the Navy (IE being in the same space for possibly years on end with the same group of men) are breading grounds of homosexuality. Are you going to tell me that that those people would be gay had they been in a mixed enviroment?

I never told you it was completely genetic. Grasp that before we move on. You on the other hand have told me that it was a CHOICE but have offered no real proof.

And common knowledge very often equates to common assumptions/misconceptions/myths. I've never heard this about the navy before and I was raised in a navy town on the Gulf Coast. So I'm afraid that yet again I'm going to have to ask you for a study.

I'm also going to have to point out, as has been down before, that having gay sex != being gay.

I dont know if this forum supports speach sound card, and I dont have a microphone so I cant shout at you people. My point is you cant prove either way whether it is genetic or not. The fact that NO ONE KNOWS means that none of you can say to me "It is genetic/biological" because you cant prove it.

Neo, while I may nto be able to prove to you that it is not a choice via scientific studies, you cannot prove to me it is a choice by scientific studies.

One thing that I have that you obivously do not, is personal experience with homosexuality. Not just knowing a few gays, etc. I am one. It is not a choice. Now I don't really expect you to accept that because, well you're determined not to and it IS anecdotal evidence. However, it is a true experience from someone who has sat and pondered this long and hard. I hope that you will at least be open minded enough to give it some heavy consideration before responding.

Being gay is NOT a choice.

As far as the bible goes for certian proof, it is a sin to have homosexual sex, no question. As for homosexual attraction, thats harder to prove. Paul did talk about "Unautral lusts" between men and men and women and women but beyond that it is unclear. Jesus also said that looking at a women lustfully was a sin, I presume this applies to men looking at men lustfully as well

Actually the bible says its a sin to give up "natural relations" for "unnatural ones". Gays aren't doing that. Our natural relations are with people of the same gender while "Straight" people who elect to have gay sex are the ones who are sinning.

Homosexuality is a difficult one.One question if anyone can or cares to answer.Is it in the animal kingdom?I have seen homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom but I am unclear whether it is due to the lack of a female mate or just pure attraction.
In my opinion it is not a sin as we are not animals and supposedly believe in love which conquers all and is beautiful no matter how it manifests itself(note here that misguided souls who commit crime in loves name are deemed not to know true love).

There was a recent observational study that showed that some male penguins are indeed homosexual. Even when presented with females, they prefer to mate with a male. You may not know it, but penguins are a monogamous species.

Further, humans are animals. You may consider us the top of the animal kingdom, but at the end of the day we are still in Kingdom Animalia. We share the vast majority of our DNA with other animals. In fact its something like 99% similarity between us and a chimpanzee.

Being gay is NOT a choice.

Ok, I will accept that BEING gay is not a choice. I have been reading into this recently and have come to this conclution. While the Bible can be said to be clear on homosexual sex as a sin, it cannot be said to be so with regard to homosexual atteraction. I agree with somone else who said earlier that the attraction to members of the same sex is a temptation to sin rather than sin itself. BUT you cannot argue that these people who are attracted to members of the same sex should be allowed to have their attractions realised in sex, in the same way that you cannot allow the attraction for another man's/women's wife/husband to be realised in sex.

I was raised a Roman Catholic and I am heterosexual, but it is my firm belief that most Catholics and Christians are deeply afraid of anything that is different or causes a change.
Homosexuality has been around just as long as heterosexuality.
It is a new day people! Times have changed, homosexuality is out and it is much more common than close-minded people would like to believe.
It should no longer be considered a sin, and homosexual couples should absolutely be allowed to legally mary enjoy every benefit that comes with that.


These are the problems that (some not all but still a significent majority) Christians have with Gay marriage (I put the word CHRISTIANS in bold so as to explain that this is how CHRISTIANS feel. This is to silenece all those who useually after I post this say "But marriage is pre-Christian" Or "There are other cultures that have marriage in them" and "Why should Christians consider their view higher" as all I am doing here is explaining CHRISTIAN views. Im not saying these are higher or better, they just are what CHRISTIANS believe)

1) Marriage acording to CHRISTIANITY is between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). No where in the Bible is any kind of same sex union supported.

2) Because (Some) Christians see homosexuality as a sin, giving them a speical legal rights for it is (to them) like giving diplomatic immunity to those who murdered Steven Lawrence. It is essentially (To the CHRISTIANS) the Homosexuals saying "We are sinners and we are reciveing speical privaliges and recognition for it"


If you dont like it, dont go to the ceremony! Mind your own business and everything else will be fine.


The idea of Gay Marriage is to Christians what the idea of painting a star of David on the Al Ka'ba is to Muslims. They have as much right to protest against it as Greenpeace have to protest against deforestation. You go say to greenpeace "If you dont like deforestation, then dont go see it" or "mind your own business" and see what they say...


It is a lot like people who complain about music and try to censor what they dont like: If you dont like it, dont buy it or listen to it.

Everyone should be able to live their own life and be happy!

Simmarlly if you dont like what we are discussing, dont post.

Further, humans are animals. You may consider us the top of the animal kingdom, but at the end of the day we are still in Kingdom Animalia. We share the vast majority of our DNA with other animals. In fact its something like 99% similarity between us and a chimpanzee.

Are you telling me that it is that 1% of Genes diffrence that allowed Humans as a species to acomplish all that we have. I think there must be more to it than that.

Bloody hell you guys are still going at it! Isn't this just going in circles? It must be to be on page 157 odd! Can we not just clam down and agree to disagree?

The idea of Gay Marriage is to Christians what the idea of painting a star of David on the Al Ka'ba is to Muslims. They have as much right to protest against it as Greenpeace have to protest against deforestation. You go say to greenpeace "If you dont like deforestation, then dont go see it" or "mind your own business" and see what they say...
Except that deforestation actually affects Greenpeace in a physical way, not in a "according to a book I read those people are worthless scum who will suffer endless pain and agony whilst I will go to an eternal paradise. Because of this I shall oppress these people and deny them a right that in no way has anything to do with me, I just care about them because my book says so." way.

Except that deforestation actually affects Greenpeace in a physical way.

Rearly, how. How does deforestation affect greenpeace excatly? How do sevearl hundrued trees being cut down in North Canadian forest physically affect a pressure group with its offices in London and other cities. Pleaese explain...

And anyway that doesnt countor my point. Why does Greenpeace have a right to protest on one issue, and Christians do not have the right to protest on another?

"according to a book I read those people are worthless scum who will suffer endless pain and agony whilst I will go to an eternal paradise. Because of this I shall oppress these people and deny them a right that in no way has anything to do with me, I just care about them because my book says so."

And please show me where the Bible calls homosexuals "Worthless scum" or any insult at all. Homosexuality is a sin. If we start percecuting sinners then there will be no one to do the percecuting. All have sinned.

Rearly, how. How does deforestation affect greenpeace excatly? How do sevearl hundrued trees being cut down in North Canadian forest physically affect a pressure group with its offices in London and other cities. Pleaese explain...


I think the point is Keep cutting the trees down, and you get less oxygen, and then stop breathing.

(I am not a greenpeace fan, or eco nut, just an observer.
PS Sign up to Kyoto, it will not stop it but should slow it down a bit.)

I think the point is Keep cutting the trees down, and you get less oxygen, and then stop breathing.


And my point is why should Greenpeace be allowed to campaign about that and Christians not allowed to protest about Gay marriage?

There was a recent observational study that showed that some male penguins are indeed homosexual. Even when presented with females, they prefer to mate with a male. You may not know it, but penguins are a monogamous species.

Further, humans are animals. You may consider us the top of the animal kingdom, but at the end of the day we are still in Kingdom Animalia. We share the vast majority of our DNA with other animals. In fact its something like 99% similarity between us and a chimpanzee.


More fun for some religions is how close we are, in DNA, to pigs.
For some I know it doesn't stop at DNA. :D

And my point is why should Greenpeace be allowed to campaign about that and Christians not allowed to protest about Gay marriage?

Breathing is essential, Religion is not.

You are joking Neo? How Does Deforestation affect Greenpeace? Ok, where to start. If trees get cut down, nothing is converting the CO2 into Oxygen, therefore, we die if too may trees are cut down. Duh! Well that's beside the point, but Valid. Anyway, back to homosexuality being unsinful.

And my point is why should Greenpeace be allowed to campaign about that and Christians not allowed to protest about Gay marriage?
Because trees are trees and people are people, and trees aren't people? >.>;

You are joking Neo? How Does Deforestation affect Greenpeace? Ok, where to start. If trees get cut down, nothing is converting the CO2 into Oxygen, therefore, we die if too may trees are cut down. Duh! Well that's beside the point, but Valid. Anyway, back to homosexuality being unsinful.

And how does Gay marriage affect Christians. It (to them) insults a belief system which they hold dear and have done for more that two thousand years (I say more than because Christians belive marriage began when the world began see Genesis 2:24) that marriage is between one man and one woman only, given by God to them as a gift. Just because something is not clear and physical, doesnt mean we shouldnt protest against it. Like politics for instance...

Homosexuality, prevents reproduction.
When the Bible was written a growing population was needed, how to encourage it? Make everone shag.
What about diseases. Invent monogomy, that will stop the spread.

Look at the "holy" books like this and it was just common sense at the time.

Many of the rules no longer apply

Breathing is essential, Religion is not.

Religious people would disagree

Ok, I will accept that BEING gay is not a choice. I have been reading into this recently and have come to this conclution. While the Bible can be said to be clear on homosexual sex as a sin, it cannot be said to be so with regard to homosexual atteraction. I agree with somone else who said earlier that the attraction to members of the same sex is a temptation to sin rather than sin itself. BUT you cannot argue that these people who are attracted to members of the same sex should be allowed to have their attractions realised in sex, in the same way that you cannot allow the attraction for another man's/women's wife/husband to be realised in sex.

It depends on which viewpoint you want to take. Biblically? No, I probably cannot. I do not know the Bible well enough to do so. However, I know for sure there are others who will be happy to take on that arguement.

Legally however, it should be recognized and allowed. Equal rights are not based on the Bible but on the Constitution and should be extended to everyone.

And my point is why should Greenpeace be allowed to campaign about that and Christians not allowed to protest about Gay marriage?
Oh, yeah, I also forgot how Greenpeace has hard, scientific evidence about how their cause effects the safety and well being of the planet and all species. While the Christians... well, they have a book... written by some humans... that has been changed multiple times as time as gone on, so that it doesn't even resemble the original thing in a lot of ways...

Homosexuality, prevents reproduction.
When the Bible was written a growing population was needed, how to encourage it? Make everone shag.
What about diseases. Invent monogomy, that will stop the spread.

Look at the "holy" books like this and it was just common sense at the time.

Many of the rules no longer apply

We have been over this before. Go back and read the thread. I know you are new to this thread as this is well covered ground.

Religious people would disagree

Because Religion = Silliness.
To be honest.

Religious people would disagree
And they'd be wrong. You stop breathing, you die. You stop practicing religion, you may be unhappy, but you don't physically ceast to exist.

Are you telling me that it is that 1% of Genes diffrence that allowed Humans as a species to acomplish all that we have. I think there must be more to it than that.

Being a geneticist in a former life, I don't. Everyone was surprised when that first came out, but only because, besides being the only truly self-aware species on the planet (that we know of), we are also the most arrogant. However once they got to digging further into it, that 1% means a lot.

Now that is interesting, do say more.

Sodom. Where the word sodomy comes from. God apparently wiped it out to punish the sinners.

Course, it's all a load of shite. I live in the gay capital of Europe (I'm not gay myself, but I have lots of friends who are) and having grown up surrounded by it, I have no problems whatsoever with it. Also, I'm agnostic, so I don't go for the religious maniacal view.

In my opinion, do what you wanna do.

And please show me where the Bible calls homosexuals "Worthless scum" or any insult at all. Homosexuality is a sin. If we start percecuting sinners then there will be no one to do the percecuting. All have sinned.
All I know is that the bible condemns sinners, and also teaches forgivness to them.

How do trees affect Greenpeace? Well They do exist in Canada as well (can't back that up but I am pretty sure of it). Then we have that co2 effect you know, it is GLOBAL you know, like affecting EVERYONE you know.

Oh, yeah, I also forgot how Greenpeace has hard, scientific evidence about how their cause effects the safety and well being of the planet and all species. While the Christians... well, they have a book... written by some humans... that has been changed multiple times as time as gone on, so that it doesn't even resemble the original thing in a lot of ways...

Are you going to tell me that you (If you were in power) would stop religious protest simpley because to you their cause is stupid. Is'nt that a little arragont? Why should religious people not be allowed to protest against a piece of legislation that they feel is wrong?

And how does Gay marriage affect Christians. It (to them) insults a belief system which they hold dear and have done for more that two thousand years (I say more than because Christians belive marriage began when the world began see Genesis 2:24) that marriage is between one man and one woman only, given by God to them as a gift. Just because something is not clear and physical, doesnt mean we shouldnt protest against it. Like politics for instance...this may have been covered already, but how do you explain the popular system of bigamy practiced for a while, by many famous religious figures, like Jacob and others?

Also, what if the Christian idea of marriage insults my beliefs? I believe that homosexuality has been around as long as when the world began, and that the idea of one man and one woman is insulting and discriminating. What makes their 'beliefs' any more valid than mine?

Rearly, how. How does deforestation affect greenpeace excatly? How do sevearl hundrued trees being cut down in North Canadian forest physically affect a pressure group with its offices in London and other cities. Pleaese explain...


I'm going to make this simple. Humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Trees breathe in Carbon Dioxide and breathe out oxygen. No trees=no oxygen=no humans.

There are many more reasons of course, such as the destruction of ecosystems, flooding, etc.


And anyway that doesnt countor my point. Why does Greenpeace have a right to protest on one issue, and Christians do not have the right to protest on another?

You have the right to protest but not to ban. Relgions and the civil government are separate (for good reason). Greenpeacers see themselves as being physically damaged by deforestation--an observation that can be backed up by fact and logic--no matter how remote. Christians might perceive that gays are going to hurt them, but no logic or fact backs this up.

Being a geneticist in a former life, I don't. Everyone was surprised when that first came out, but only because, besides being the only truly self-aware species on the planet (that we know of), we are also the most arrogant. However once they got to digging further into it, that 1% means a lot.

Well to my knowlege there are 300,000 genes in the human genome. That means one percent of them would be 300 genes. Are you about to tell me that 300 acid based molicules are responsable for all the culture, scienece, art, history, philosphy etc etc that mankind has developed over the course of its existance?

And please show me where the Bible calls homosexuals "Worthless scum" or any insult at all. Homosexuality is a sin. If we start percecuting sinners then there will be no one to do the percecuting. All have sinned.

So why do Christians get to protest against homosexuals? Why not protest against telling lies. Should we jail all liars? Or more appropriately, should we ban them from getting married?

Are you going to tell me that you (If you were in power) would stop religious protest simpley because to you their cause is stupid. Is'nt that a little arragont? Why should religious people not be allowed to protest against a piece of legislation that they feel is wrong?
See, you're taking my words on a specific example and using it to apply to a general cause. I hate it when people do that. You simply asked why greenpeace had rights to protest and Christians didn't.

And when your religion dictates discrimination against others in a civic and non-religious way, then yes, I feel that you lose your grounds for protest. No-one is forcing Christians to perform gay marriages. But gay civil marriages in the eyes of the goverment, which have no relation to religion what so ever, need to be recognized, otherwise you're discriminating against a group of people who deserve equal rights.

And how does Gay marriage affect Christians. It (to them) insults a belief system which they hold dear and have done for more that two thousand years (I say more than because Christians belive marriage began when the world began see Genesis 2:24) that marriage is between one man and one woman only, given by God to them as a gift. Just because something is not clear and physical, doesnt mean we shouldnt protest against it. Like politics for instance...

No one ever said you have the right to not be insulted. However, it is said that I have the right to NOT have your belief system forced off on me.

Are you going to tell me that you (If you were in power) would stop religious protest simpley because to you their cause is stupid. Is'nt that a little arragont? Why should religious people not be allowed to protest against a piece of legislation that they feel is wrong?

No one said they shouldn't be allowed, per say. Just that they shouldn't be listened to. Religion does not belong in the halls of our government. Why? Because everyone has a different version of the religion and its hard enough to get things done. Would you like it if Muslims took over and forced their religion on you? Hard line Muslims mind you, Burrhkas and hand-cutting and all that?

I thought not.

You have the right to protest but not to ban.

Forgive me for asking but why not? If a country is democratic and the democracy elect a party which is in favour of outlawing something (In this case Gay Marriage) then why shouldnt it. Thats just democracy comming into force. I am aware there are physical affects of deforestation, but I dont see why deforestation can be banned and not gay marriage. The fact that deforestation may have physical effects is not relevent to my point. If you live in a democracy and a party that supports the outlawing of gay marriage is elected, then how is it legitamate to say "thats unfair?". Thats like saying the fox hunting ban was unfair. Most of the country wanted it. It was passed through the house of commons, it will eventually be passed through the lords (Proberbly using the three time rule) and it will become law (proberbly) what's wrong with that?

Well to my knowlege there are 300,000 genes in the human genome. That means one percent of them would be 300 genes. Are you about to tell me that 300 acid based molicules are responsable for all the culture, scienece, art, history, philosphy etc etc that mankind has developed over the course of its existance?

Your knowledge would be wrong. It is estimated that there are about 20 to 25k genes in the human genome. A 1% difference would be only 20 to 25 gene difference. But the difference is not all in the number but also how you use them.

No one ever said you have the right to not be insulted. However, it is said that I have the right to NOT have your belief system forced off on me.

No you dont, are not the government by definiton forcing their belief system on you even if you didnt vote for them. Then suppose the government brought out the anti gay marriage legislation. Would that be ok?

Forgive me for asking but why not? If a country is democratic and the democracy elect a party which is in favour of outlawing something (In this case Gay Marriage) then why shouldnt it. Thats just democracy comming into force. I am aware there are physical affects of deforestation, but I dont see why deforestation can be banned and not gay marriage. The fact that deforestation may have physical effects is not relevent to my point. If you live in a democracy and a party that supports the outlawing of gay marriage is elected, then how is it legitamate to say "thats unfair?". Thats like saying the fox hunting ban was unfair. Most of the country wanted it. It was passed through the house of commons, it will eventually be passed through the lords (Proberbly using the three time rule) and it will become law (proberbly) what's wrong with that?

Because our country has a consitution that puts limits onto what the government can and cannot do. We guarantee equal protection to all. Not just to Christians.

And fair is fair regardless of whether or not the majority supports it. If we went on things that the majority support (at one time or other) we would have slavery, no women's votes, and blacks would be sitting in the back of the bus.

Democracy (which is actually not what we have) is not an invitation for tyranny by majority.

Forgive me for asking but why not? If a country is democratic and the democracy elect a party which is in favour of outlawing something (In this case Gay Marriage) then why shouldnt it. Thats just democracy comming into force. I am aware there are physical affects of deforestation, but I dont see why deforestation can be banned and not gay marriage. The fact that deforestation may have physical effects is not relevent to my point. If you live in a democracy and a party that supports the outlawing of gay marriage is elected, then how is it legitamate to say "thats unfair?". Thats like saying the fox hunting ban was unfair. Most of the country wanted it. It was passed through the house of commons, it will eventually be passed through the lords (Proberbly using the three time rule) and it will become law (proberbly) what's wrong with that?It's unfair because the majority should not be able to decide the rights of the minority. It's called tyranny of the majority. What if we had held elections in the pre-civil war era south on whether or not slavery should be kept as an institution or not? I can guarantee you it would have passed and still be in effect.

The rights of the minorities should never be trusted in the hand of the majority, because they are not a minority.

No you dont, are not the government by definiton forcing their belief system on you even if you didnt vote for them. Then suppose the government brought out the anti gay marriage legislation. Would that be ok?

Ummm, you aren't quite making sense but I will take a stab anyways.

The government exists to protect peoples rights. Our nation is supposed to be a beacon of freedom and equality for all. We are NOT and a repeat NOT a christian nation.

And anti-gay legislation isn't wrong because it insults me. It's wrong because it takes equal rights away from me.

No you dont, are not the government by definiton forcing their belief system on you even if you didnt vote for them. Then suppose the government brought out the anti gay marriage legislation. Would that be ok?Belief systems differ from 'opinions'. The government should not be imposing religious beliefs on anyone. But again, if your religious beliefs effect other people's civil rights, well, you're shit out of luck.

And no, it wouldn't be ok, because you're writing discrimination into the constituition. You're limiting civil rights, which again is not a fair policy.

So why do Christians get to protest against homosexuals?

Because all of a sudden, everyone is very keen to support them. We dont see homosexuality any diffrent than any other sin but everyone else is pushing it to the front of the adgenda. In 40 years we have moved from a time where homosexuality dare not speek its name to a time where homosexuals cant shut up about it. We protest becuase so many other people are pushing it forward.

Belief systems differ from 'opinions'. The government should not be imposing religious beliefs on anyone. But again, if your religious beliefs effect other people's civil rights, well, you're shit out of luck.


Actually belief systems and opinions are simmilar. Belief systems are just a string of opinions and beliefs (which are pretty much the same thing its just that beliefs need backing up) centered around one core idea.


And no, it wouldn't be ok, because you're writing discrimination into the constituition. You're limiting civil rights, which again is not a fair policy.

You know its funny. All those who say "Marriage is governmental not religous" when refering to gay marriage are also those who say "religion should be kept out of government" when it comes to gay marriage. If the first statement is true then shouldnt the government decide what does and does not constitute marriage?

Because all of a sudden, everyone is very keen to support them. We dont see homosexuality any diffrent than any other sin but everyone else is pushing it to the front of the adgenda. In 40 years we have moved from a time where homosexuality dare not speek its name to a time where homosexuals cant shut up about it. We protest becuase so many other people are pushing it forward.Last I checked, I don't see Christians up in arms about people eating shellfish, as the bible clearly states that that is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, ironically in the same passage where it states homosexual relations are an abomination.

If you're going to use your book as your basis for your arguments, you need to defend all of it, and not just pick and choose what to believe. I've got lots more things that Christians tend to conveniantly ignore in the bible. Explain why it's alright not to protest those things, but get up in arms about homosexuals?

The government exists to protect peoples rights.

Tell that to fox hunters in the UK.

Because all of a sudden, everyone is very keen to support them. We dont see homosexuality any diffrent than any other sin but everyone else is pushing it to the front of the adgenda. In 40 years we have moved from a time where homosexuality dare not speek its name to a time where homosexuals cant shut up about it. We protest becuase so many other people are pushing it forward.

Why aren't you demanding alcohol be banned? Or interracial marriage? Those are also opposed.

And again I reiterate, the civil government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs. You do not get to take away other peoples civil rights.

This will likely be my last post for the time being as I have patients to go see.
I might squeeze one more in, but forgive me if I just disappear.

You know its funny. All those who say "Marriage is governmental not religous" when refering to gay marriage are also those who say "religion should be kept out of government" when it comes to gay marriage. If the first statement is true then shouldnt the government decide what does and does not constitute marriage?Uhm, yes, the government should decide what constitute's marriage. At least in a civic sense. And it can't decide to ban homosexual's from marriage because there are no ground to deny that group of individuals a civil union. That would be blatant discrimination, and thus, illegal.

Tell that to fox hunters in the UK.

Comparing marriage to fox hunting is kind of a stretch, even for you.

People support gay people because there is always some crackpot out there who believe Homosexuality is Evil and we defend them. They have equal civil rights do they not?

Tell that to fox hunters in the UK.That's like arguing I have the right to go out and kill people. Your rights extend to the point where they effect other living creatures. Then other factors come into play. You do not have the automatic right to go out and kill something. But if two consenting adults want to engage in a civil union of marriage, there is no argument for why they shouldn't, outside of religious grounds.

Last I checked, I don't see Christians up in arms about people eating shellfish, as the bible clearly states that that is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, ironically in the same passage where it states homosexual relations are an abomination.

If you're going to use your book as your basis for your arguments, you need to defend all of it, and not just pick and choose what to believe. I've got lots more things that Christians tend to conveniantly ignore in the bible. Explain why it's alright not to protest those things, but get up in arms about homosexuals?

Oh not this again. We have been over this before, go read the thread. But since you proberbly cant be bothered I will simpley point it out to you. Some of the laws in the old testement do apply some dont. The key is useally to find those mentioned in both testements. Since Homosexuality is mentioned in both testements and in both condemned, it would seem the Bible is still against it.

FACT: Jesus NEVER said homosexuality was a sin
FACT: Jesus removed all christians from the shackles of the outdated Jewish Laws, which is the only place where homosexuality is even mentioned
FACT: The New Testament declares Slavery to be valid and even promotes it. Why aren't you bible-thumpers buying human slaves anymore?
FACT: The only people who consider it a Sin are those unable to think for themselves and those afraid of education

Why aren't you demanding alcohol be banned? Or interracial marriage? Those are also opposed.

And again I reiterate, the civil government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs. You do not get to take away other peoples civil rights.

This will likely be my last post for the time being as I have patients to go see.
I might squeeze one more in, but forgive me if I just disappear.

Because there is nothing that says drinking is wrong, now drinking till your drunk and you don't know what end is up isnt exactly the best thing for you or the people your arond. They talk about wine all throughout the bible, its not a sin to drink. And I don't remember reading anywhere about interracial marriage being a sin.

Oh not this again. We have been over this before, go read the thread. But since you proberbly cant be bothered I will simpley point it out to you. Some of the laws in the old testement do apply some dont. The key is useally to find those mentioned in both testements. Since Homosexuality is mentioned in both testements and in both condemned, it would seem the Bible is still against it.I don't understand how you can claim that both books, which are the basis of your religion, have some parts that are worth following, and others that don't. I understand times change, but times can change in relation to homosexuality as well. If the bible is your main source, you can't discount some of it.

Comparing marriage to fox hunting is kind of a stretch, even for you.

In the UK at the time of the fox hunting ban being passed, 83% of the UK population were opposed to fox hunting. A ban was passed. My point was it is not the job of the government to protect everyone's rights. It is the job of the government to run the country democraticly. If the country is for the most part Christian and is opposed to gay marriage (as said pole showed that 83% were opposed to fox hunting) then what is wrong with the government chosing to outlaw gay marriage, if it is democratic?

FACT: Jesus NEVER said homosexuality was a sin
FACT: Jesus removed all christians from the shackles of the outdated Jewish Laws, which is the only place where homosexuality is even mentioned
FACT: The New Testament declares Slavery to be valid and even promotes it. Why aren't you bible-thumpers buying human slaves anymore?
FACT: The only people who consider it a Sin are those unable to think for themselves and those afraid of education


You can't go making statments on a whim!
Your wrong! "And the people will turn away from there natural purpose, and go to eachother, Man with man, Woman with woman, doing those things wich are perverce!!!

You can't go making statments on a whim!
Your wrong! "And the people will turn away from there natural purpose, and go to eachother, Man with man, Woman with woman, doing those things wich are perverce!!!


List the so called scripture where Jesus said that. And what the hell does "perverce" mean? It's not even a word! I doubt Jesus was a bad speller.

In the UK at the time of the fox hunting ban being passed, 83% of the UK population were opposed to fox hunting. A ban was passed. My point was it is not the job of the government to protect everyone's rights. It is the job of the government to run the country democraticly. If the country is for the most part Christian and is opposed to gay marriage (as said pole showed that 83% were opposed to fox hunting) then what is wrong with the government chosing to outlaw gay marriage, if it is democratic?
a person is a smart. people are dumbasses. leave me alone and im happy with things. my parents gave me a bible a long time ago. i can't remember what i did with it but im tempted to say its probably being used to prop something up along with other books i have read but feel are crap (for that matter why didn't i flush it?)

If the bible is your main source, you can't discount some of it.


Thats very true. I don't

The fact is that in order to unite a social group, one needs to have a goal and an enemy, homosexuality which has always been around since the dawn of humanity is seen by many as unatural, and therefore this social sect are an ideal target to unite religions against one defineable, supposedly abnormal, enemy.
Afterall, the parts that condemn homosexuality are found in Leviticus, this part of the bible contains all the jewish laws such as the kosher laws. But since when have you seen American evangelicalists start to condemn people for eating pork?

Thats very true. I don'tI expect to see you selling your daughters into slavery, promoting slavery, marrying multiple wives, and starting the protest moment against shellfish any day then.

FACT: Jesus NEVER said homosexuality was a sin


Actually, while we dont have it recorded it is possible. At the end of John it says this

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

But I do agree with the basics of what you are saying. Jesus did not (to the best of our knowlege) say that homosexuality was a sin.


FACT: Jesus removed all christians from the shackles of the outdated Jewish Laws, which is the only place where homosexuality is even mentioned


Wrong. See these refrences

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1: 18-27

And

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10


FACT: The New Testament declares Slavery to be valid and even promotes it. Why aren't you bible-thumpers buying human slaves anymore?


Because God never said "Only ever use slaves as labour, never used paid employment as that is wrong and evil" or anything to that effect.


FACT: The only people who consider it a Sin are those unable to think for themselves and those afraid of education

I dont think you can claim that as a fact. I would like to ask anyone around me to fail to see that for what it is, an opinion. And an insulting one at that.

And anti-gay legislation isn't wrong because it insults me. It's wrong because it takes equal rights away from me.

Is'nt the fox hunting legislation taking rights from fox hunters?

I dont think you can claim that as a fact. I would like to ask anyone around me to fail to see that for what it is, an opinion. And an insulting one at that.
maybe he can't be i can claim this passage as a fact. tell me, does it insult you that jesus points out that all christians hate?

This Biblical quotation refers to the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Is'nt the fox hunting legislation taking rights from fox hunters?You conveniantly ignored what I said about this already.

That's like arguing I have the right to go out and kill people. Your rights extend to the point where they effect other living creatures. Then other factors come into play.

Then should we outlaw meat eating, insecticide and weedkiller. Those are all killing living things

Those are all killing living things
so did the crusades.

Then should we outlaw meat eating, insecticide and weedkiller. Those are all killing living thingsI'm not stopping you from doing anything to stop those. But meat eating is a little shakey, since we do use it as a main staple of food for survival. Obviously, we don't have to have meat to survive, but then our other sources of food would be under a lot more pressure.

so did the crusades.
zing!

zing!
/bow

This Biblical quotation refers to the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

That quote comes from an entire section entitled "The cost of being a deciple". This is a metaphor, for hating sin. He is explaining that you will be very diffrent from Non Christians and they may hate you for it. He is poinitng out that to be a Christian you may have to give up everything. You may be in a non Christian family and they may shun you. Read the entire passage and it will make more sense.

Could someone please show me the verse where it says "And God looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah, and he said "Fuck this shit, those homos are going down." And verily he smited them." 'Cause I can't find it.


Oh, and it's a sin for the same reason jerking off, eating pork, wearing clothing of two materials, and not shouting loudly while being raped: God's a rat bastard :p

LOL! Now that was funny!!!!!!!!!

That quote comes from an entire section entitled "The cost of being a deciple". This is a metaphor, for hating sin. He is explaining that you will be very diffrent from Non Christians and they may hate you for it. He is poinitng out that to be a Christian you may have to give up everything. You may be in a non Christian family and they may shun you. Read the entire passage and it will make more sense.
to correct your erroronius logic, no the quote means that christians are not perfect and have sinned horribly by hating. but since im on a roll here, http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-302.jpg

The fact is that in order to unite a social group, one needs to have a goal and an enemy, homosexuality which has always been around since the dawn of humanity is seen by many as unatural, and therefore this social sect are an ideal target to unite religions against one defineable, supposedly abnormal, enemy.
Afterall, the parts that condemn homosexuality are found in Leviticus, this part of the bible contains all the jewish laws such as the kosher laws. But since when have you seen American evangelicalists start to condemn people for eating pork?

Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, Please PLEASE read the entire thread before making these points. We have gone over them a thousand times before and we do not want to go over them again. As it happens though, you are in luck since we are in the process of going over this point now. So I will explain.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[1] First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 10: 5 - 18

These verses explain why it is that the old sacrifical and ritualistic laws of the old testement are no longer nessecary. Jesus's death. However the laws on homosexuality did not fall under the banner of ritualistic law. Ergo they still apply. AND (as I have recently pointed out) there are new testement refrances as well to homosexuality being wrong. And add to that a complete lack of any kind of support for homosexuality and you get a conclive proof that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.

List the so called scripture where Jesus said that. And what the hell does "perverce" mean? It's not even a word! I doubt Jesus was a bad speller.

Romans 1:26-32

"And for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even there woman did change the natural use into that wich is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; Man with man working that wich is unseemly, and receicing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in there knowlege, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do thoes things not proper or decent but loathsome."

Is that enough or should I continue??

Actually, while we dont have it recorded it is possible. At the end of John it says this

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

But I do agree with the basics of what you are saying. Jesus did not (to the best of our knowlege) say that homosexuality was a sin.

So by this logic, we could assume that Jesus actually promoted homosexuality?



Wrong. See these refrences

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1: 18-27

And

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10


Both of these passages were written by John, a powerhungry abuser of power. Just because John said it, does not mean that Jesus wanted it that way. Not only that, but YOU added the terms "male prostitues nor homosexual offender", no official translation of the new testament includes these words.

9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

9: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
10: nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.


Nice try at twisting the words of the bible. Just goes to show you how low hatemongers will go to spread their beliefs.


Because

God never said "Only ever use slaves as labour, never used paid employment as that is wrong and evil" or anything to that effect.


God also said not to eat pork. You give up bacon yet?



I dont think you can claim that as a fact. I would like to ask anyone around me to fail to see that for what it is, an opinion. And an insulting one at that.

Good, I hope it's insulting. Just as I hope you see how insulting it is for you to judge gays and deny the same HUMAN rights as straights.

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[1] First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 10: 5 - 18
hey i think i just wiped my ass with that page! shit man you must be psychic or something!

to correct your erroronius logic, no the quote means that christians are not perfect and have sinned horribly by hating. but since im on a roll here,

Please explain why my logic is wrong? It does come from a section entitled the cost of being a deciple. In fact I will quote the entire passage to prove my point

"The Cost of Being a Disciple

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'
"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." "

Luke 14: 25-35

Romans 1:26-32

"And for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even there woman did change the natural use into that wich is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; Man with man working that wich is unseemly, and receicing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in there knowlege, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do thoes things not proper or decent but loathsome."

Is that enough or should I continue??

Please explain why my logic is wrong? It does come from a section entitled the cost of being a deciple. In fact I will quote the entire passage to prove my point

"The Cost of Being a Disciple

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'
"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." "

Luke 14: 25-35
you are not reading each setnence. your looking only at the passage as a whole not the individual sentences and word choice.

im off for now. ive actually got several bets on how long this thread will go on! :)

The idea of Sexually loving you neighbourgh is rediculous, espeically when God has specified sins of adultery and lust. And anyway, love your neighbour is most fameous and more acknowleged for its apperance in the New testement as Jesus said it. What does he say there?


Take it up with your 'god'. For me, the version in Leviticus MUST be more reliable than the version in Matthew, because it is god's own words being recounted in Leviticus, and the words of god-in-flesh (and, therefore, fallible) in the book of Matthew.

The version in Leviticus is quite clearly open to interpretation as sexual... and Jesus often quotes from the Old Testament - perhaps Matthew's Greek wasn't very good?

The Bible DOES have copy errors in it, you know.


How do you know God did'nt explain to Adam what had happened? How do you know that Adam wasnt aware of it in a dream he was having at the time? You dont. And how do you know God did not explain about the concept of father and mother? Obviously he would of explained it to them as they were about to have a child? Why is none of this explination in the Bible, well obviously Adam and Eve are not the ones to write all of Genesis as they died later on. Clearly God related the salient points of the begining of the world to whoever did write Genesis


We know that none of your listed "how do you know?" events didn't happen, because it isn't in the scripture, when every other word (apparently) is. Unless you are willing to concede that god told Adam... "IF ONLY THERE WERE SOME GUYS AROUND FOR YOU TO MARRY", just before the part the text lists.

It's not my holy book, it's yours. If you believe it to be inerrant, you have to accept the fact that what it DOESN'T say, whether you like it or not.

You also miss the point: the part about 'leaving your father and mother' is something that Adam is supposed to have SAID. He cannot have said it... regardless of who WROTE the text, or who told them what to write.

And, why would god have told 'adam about childbirth? He didn't explain the 'tree of knowledge' to him, didn't warn him about the serpent, or a whole host of other things.


Gay marriage is never clearly endorsed anywhere. If you are going to tell me that when marriage is clearly defined as one man and one woman (And I will make a point here that Jesus never mentioned anything about this changing) that Gay marriage fits in to God's perception of "marrigae" cattagory, then I would like to ask how you support that? Show me a passage in the Bible which directly supports gay marriage (and not just gay sex, or gay love though there is no support for either of these things either) and then I will listen and take you seriously. As for your babysitter example, what about Namoi and Ruth. Are you going to tell me God was opposed to Naomi looking after Ruth? And the bible talks many times of being charitable and helping people. Are you going to tell me that a lack of specific reference to somewhere like Moldovia indicates that giving to Moldovia is a sin?

Marriage is never clearly defined as one man and one woman.

Show me where it says "Marriage is one man and one woman", anywhere in the Bible.

I dont know much about the clitoris either.

Why doesn't that surprise me?????

So by this logic, we could assume that Jesus actually promoted homosexuality?


I aggreed with whoever first made the point. Jesus did say nothing on homosexuality.



Both of these passages were written by John, a powerhungry abuser of power. Just because John said it, does not mean that Jesus wanted it that way. Not only that, but YOU added the terms "male prostitues nor homosexual offender", no official translation of the new testament includes these words.


I DID NOT. Do not accuse me of something like that. I got that out of an NIV. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE INSULTING AND ACCUSING ANYONE.



Nice try at twisting the words of the bible. Just goes to show you how low hatemongers will go to spread their beliefs.


See above. And I am not a hatemongerer. I dont hate homosexuals. Nor do I fear them. They are sinners. Like me, you and everyone. To hate them would be to hate myself.


God also said not to eat pork. You give up bacon yet?


And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it of man."

Genesis 9: 1-5

In other words the Bible has no problem with eating any meat as long as you dont eat it while it is alive. There is a new testement referance too

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Acts 10: 9 - 15




Good, I hope it's insulting. Just as I hope you see how insulting it is for you to judge gays and deny the same HUMAN rights as straights.

A) Since when is it a human right to marry
B) I do not oppose Human rights for Homosexuals. I see them as sinners. Like the rest of us.

Technically does the bible not think of any sex for reasons other than to reproduce is a sin, therefore homosexuality is seen as a sin?

Sooner as a planet we leave religion behind the better, it causes all the problems!

And, why would god have told 'adam about childbirth? He didn't explain the 'tree of knowledge' to him, didn't warn him about the serpent, or a whole host of other things.


He did. He told him not to eat from it or he would die.


Marriage is never clearly defined as one man and one woman.

Show me where it says "Marriage is one man and one woman", anywhere in the Bible.

Genesis 2: 24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Take it up with your 'god'. For me, the version in Leviticus MUST be more reliable than the version in Matthew, because it is god's own words being recounted in Leviticus, and the words of god-in-flesh (and, therefore, fallible) in the book of Matthew.

The version in Leviticus is quite clearly open to interpretation as sexual... and Jesus often quotes from the Old Testament - perhaps Matthew's Greek wasn't very good?


You were the one making the refrence to the idea that it is sexual love and I am rebuting it by telling you that God opposed adultery and lust. Ergo It could not have ment sexual love. And didnt you yourself say that the word had many possible meanings?

you are not reading each setnence. your looking only at the passage as a whole not the individual sentences and word choice.

Surely reading each sentance and taking it at face value would be taking it out of context. In our modern context, Luke 14:26 does sound stupid, but put into the context of the rest and it makes sense.

Why? Please explain? In the story I know (The one in my Bible in Genesis 1) there are only two people in the world. I dont know if that is the first or the second but it is the one I know and am aware of.

I've refuted this, already.

Look back a couple of pages to my post regarding "Adam and Steve".

Both of these passages were written by John, a powerhungry abuser of power. Just because John said it, does not mean that Jesus wanted it that way. Not only that, but YOU added the terms "male prostitues nor homosexual offender", no official translation of the new testament includes these words.
.

You are wrong on all of what you are saying here

1) It was not John writing, it was Paul. He never desired power from anyone
2) I did not add the terms "Male prostitutes" or "Homosexual offender" these are found in the New International Version. And dont go around making those kind of acusations without proof.

Surely reading each sentance and taking it at face value would be taking it out of context. In our modern context, Luke 14:26 does sound stupid, but put into the context of the rest and it makes sense.


If you are putting it into context take out the translation errors while you are at it :-D

I've refuted this, already.

Look back a couple of pages to my post regarding "Adam and Steve".

Since I have to repeat all of my points, Im asking you to repeat yours now, explain?

If you are putting it into context take out the translation errors while you are at it :-D

Thats a serious accusation, care to prove that these translation errors exist (In regards to the luke passage)

Thats a serious accusation, care to prove that these translation errors exist (In regards to the luke passage)


Wasn’t thinking of just the Luke passage

Because if taking a sentience out of the whole passage is out of context … then taking the passage out of the book is out of context … and only looking at one book of the many in the bible is taking it out of context :-P


So take the errors out of the rest too while you are at it so we can get the complete context

So, is a woman engaging in unconventional sex, with a man, to where she cannot procreate a sin as well? -lifts brows-

Wasn’t thinking of just the Luke passage

Because if taking a sentience out of the whole passage is out of context … then taking the passage out of the book is out of context … and only looking at one book of the many in the bible is taking it out of context :-P


So take the errors out of the rest too while you are at it so we can get the complete context

The previous poster said that I was only looking at the passage and not the individual verse. And I said that looking at the individual verse is taking it out of context. I dont think any translation errors significently alter the message of the Bible.

In the UK at the time of the fox hunting ban being passed, 83% of the UK population were opposed to fox hunting. A ban was passed. My point was it is not the job of the government to protect everyone's rights. It is the job of the government to run the country democraticly. If the country is for the most part Christian and is opposed to gay marriage (as said pole showed that 83% were opposed to fox hunting) then what is wrong with the government chosing to outlaw gay marriage, if it is democratic?

Incorrect. It IS the job of the governmnet to protect everybody's rights.

Gay people getting married takes no right from you.

You banning gay marriage does take rights away from them.

Further, we are NOT a democracy. We are a representational democracy at best and a Republic more likely. Further, our government does not operate in a vacuum. The simple majority does not always rule. We have a consitution that prevents that.

Is'nt the fox hunting legislation taking rights from fox hunters?

You know, I'm not here to argue about fox hunting. I see something that takes 800 rights away from one group of people as a pretty serious issue. Maybe its inconsistant, but I don't give a damn about your foxes. And I haven't really given one all along, yet you keep bringing them up as if they are an acceptable arguement.

In medicine we have a word for people who try the same thing over and over again and expect different results. They're called "insane."

I dont hate homosexuals. Nor do I fear them. They are sinners. Like me, you and everyone. To hate them would be to hate myself.


And yet you support prohibiting gays from living their own lives the way they see best fit with equal rights and protection under the law. I'm sorry but that may not be hate "the emotion" but its hate "the action".


A) Since when is it a human right to marry
B) I do not oppose Human rights for Homosexuals. I see them as sinners. Like the rest of us.
[/QUOTE]

Since the government started granting special privledges to those who got married.

And yes, you just said you support legislation that would ban gay marriage. Why not ban other sinners from marriage as well?

Incorrect. It IS the job of the governmnet to protect everybody's rights.

Gay people getting married takes no right from you.

You banning gay marriage does take rights away from them.


No it doesnt. IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT to be able to get married. And if gay people rearly love each other then why do they need to be married?


Further, we are NOT a democracy. We are a representational democracy at best and a Republic more likely. Further, our government does not operate in a vacuum. The simple majority does not always rule. We have a consitution that prevents that.

I am British. The British dont have a constitution. The British have a common law system and a legal system which unlike America works on negative freedoms, eg you can do it untill there is a law against it. And while there is no law against Gay marriage, there are laws regarding marriage and it makes it clear in those laws that its between a man and a women. So gay marriage in the UK is not legal unless you modify the law. And unlike America we work on a Unitary state system, power is only given to other bodies by the central government and can be taken away at any time.

Genesis 2: 24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

That doesn't say he can't leave his father and mother and be united with his husband and they will become one flesh. It just describes the most common practice in the area at the time.

No it doesnt. IT IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT to be able to get married. And if gay people rearly love each other then why do they need to be married?


Because, you half-wit, there are rights and protectiosn that come from the civil government that go along with marriage. Over 800 of them. And gay people CANNOT get them without the right to civil marriage.

ADDITION:
And if you want to play semantics, fine. We shall call the right to civil marriage a civil right.



I am British. The British dont have a constitution. The British have a common law system and a legal system which unlike America works on negative freedoms, eg you can do it untill there is a law against it. And while there is no law against Gay marriage, there are laws regarding marriage and it makes it clear in those laws that its between a man and a women. So gay marriage in the UK is not legal unless you modify the law. And unlike America we work on a Unitary state system, power is only given to other bodies by the central government and can be taken away at any time.

Fine, do as you like in Britain. That ain't how it works here. We have a system that says that just because a right isn't expressly given, doesn't mean it is denied. Further, we haev a clause in the constitution that says that just because the government feels like denying someone a right, it cannot do that without showing a compelling public interest.

Guess what, none has ever been shown.

And yet you support prohibiting gays from living their own lives the way they see best fit with equal rights and protection under the law. I'm sorry but that may not be hate "the emotion" but its hate "the action". And yes, you just said you support legislation that would ban gay marriage. Why not ban other sinners from marriage as well?

Because acording to Christianity marriage is for one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) and given that homosexuality is a sin, giving special privialges for said sin is (to Christians) insulting. It would be seem to be like (to Christians) giving diplomatic immunity to the murderers of Stephen Lawerence.

That ain't how it works here.


Where is 'Here' this is the internet?

Because acording to Christianity marriage is for one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) and given that homosexuality is a sin, giving special privialges for said sin is (to Christians) insulting. It would be seem to be like (to Christians) giving diplomatic immunity to the murderers of Stephen Lawerence.

Christianity is not the basis of our government.

Protection from insult (real or perceived) is not a reason to deny a right to anyone.

and here is the definition of human right:

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

Note that equality before the law. Gay people have a right to expect to be treated equally before the law.

Where is 'Here' this is the internet?

You know good and well I was referring to the USA.

Because acording to Christianity marriage is for one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) and given that homosexuality is a sin, giving special privialges for said sin is (to Christians) insulting. It would be seem to be like (to Christians) giving diplomatic immunity to the murderers of Stephen Lawerence.

And excuse me. But how is the right ot do the SAME THING THE MAJORITY DOES, a special privledge?

Anyways, I'm out folks. I'm heading to the coast to spend the weekend with my parents.

Y'all have fun.

That doesn't say he can't leave his father and mother and be united with his husband and they will become one flesh. It just describes the most common practice in the area at the time.

Read the rest of the passage.

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis 2: 18-25

This describes the creation of man and woman, and God's perfect relationship between them at the begining of the world. Since the word "Wife" is used we know it is talking about a marriage. The whole passage is basicly an explination of why marriage is the way it is. It is the way it is because that is how it was at the begining of the world and how God wanted it. Before the fall everything was as it should be, perfect.

And excuse me. But how is the right ot do the SAME THING THE MAJORITY DOES, a special privledge?

What I meant was that in a marriage you get things like state regocnition, tax credits etc. Giving those to Gay partners would be regognising them as equal to married partners and to Christians that is wrong since gay partners are oppenly sinning and are unrepentant of it.

You know good and well I was referring to the USA.

And how exactly is this debate specific to the USA. There are homosexuals everywhere you know, and Christians too.

What I meant was that in a marriage you get things like state regocnition, tax credits etc. Giving those to Gay partners would be regognising them as equal to married partners and to Christians that is wrong since gay partners are oppenly sinning and are unrepentant of it.

And why, pray, should I care whether you Christians get offended?
Doesn't seem like you care about others being offended.

What I meant was that in a marriage you get things like state regocnition, tax credits etc. Giving those to Gay partners would be regognising them as equal to married partners and to Christians that is wrong since gay partners are oppenly sinning and are unrepentant of it.

God I knew I should have gone ahead and left instead of hitting refresh.

What right to Christians have to force what they see as a sin off on the rest of us as far as the Civil Government is concerned? And what of the Christians who have no problems with gay marriage, aren't you violating their rights too?

Further, if you want to say that then I suppose you would say that people who have sex before marriage shouldn't be allowed to get married since that too is a sin. Isn't that saying they are just as good as those of you who wait?

And again, the government isn't supposed to make decisions of equality ybased upon what any one group thinks is a sin. Decisions are supposed to be made impartially based upon granting rights without taking others away.

Allowing gays to be married by the government takes NOTHING away from you. Absolutely nothing. You lose no rights because of it. NONE.

Name one right you lose.

ADDITION:
And if you want to play semantics, fine. We shall call the right to civil marriage a civil right.


Is marriage in the European convention on human rights, or in a list of United Nations human rights. I dont think so, and therefore it is not a human right and therefore not available to all humans. Dont try and make this debate specific to the US, this is a global issue.

And how exactly is this debate specific to the USA. There are homosexuals everywhere you know, and Christians too.

Then how is it specific to Britain? You're the one who brought that in.

And I cannot argue what religions can and cannot do in other systems of government because I am not familiar enough with them to do so. I don't try and interject myself into British or French or Australian politics. When I speak of constitutions and equal rights, I have to speak of them from the context of my government becaues that is all I know about.

So if you want me to leave the USA out of it, you leave Britain out of it.

Is marriage in the European convention on human rights, or in a list of United Nations human rights. I dont think so, and therefore it is not a human right and therefore not available to all humans. Dont try and make this debate specific to the US, this is a global issue.

Rather like fox hunting right?

Homosexuallity is a crime, sodomy is against the law, so is same sex relationships. So speaks me! You break the law, you will be punished by death! Thus it is so in Moronicanistan!

What right to Christians have to force what they see as a sin off on the rest of us as far as the Civil Government is concerned? And what of the Christians who have no problems with gay marriage, aren't you violating their rights too?

And again, the government isn't supposed to make decisions of equality ybased upon what any one group thinks is a sin. Decisions are supposed to be made impartially based upon granting rights without taking others away.

I knew you were going to do this

Throught all my posts, all I have done is explain why Christians feel the way they do about gay marriage. I havent said "This is what should happen" or "The government should do this". Read my threads, they are sprinkled with the phrase "To Christians". What I have been doing is validating their right to protest against something by showing that Christianity has good reason (to itself) to oppose Gay marriage. While those reasons may not play with everyone else, those reasons are fair to them and so they can oppose it as that is there right. They have rights to attemt to protest against any legislation.


Further, if you want to say that then I suppose you would say that people who have sex before marriage shouldn't be allowed to get married since that too is a sin. Isn't that saying they are just as good as those of you who wait?


You misunderstand me. Homosexaulity is a sin in the eyes of God and Christians. Therefore giving homosexuality marrigae status is to Christians, enshirning said sin. People who have sex outside marriage may be sinning but no one is enshrining their sin and giving them a platform to do it on.


Allowing gays to be married by the government takes NOTHING away from you. Absolutely nothing. You lose no rights because of it. NONE.
Name one right you lose


None, but name one right they lose by not being allowed to marry. Because marriage is not a right.

Then how is it specific to Britain? You're the one who brought that in.


I didnt say it was specific to Britain, I was saying that you were being too specific with your definition of a right. I wasnt saying this was specific to Britain or any country. It is, like I said a global issue.

:mp5: this is dumb, homosexuality is stupid... why u might ask, because we werent evolved from monkeys (also being smarter) to start going out wit same sexes... we r the only living beings on Earth that are intelligent yet they we r the only ones dumb enough to this... u dnt see animals going out with the same sex...
i am catholic and i think this is a sin, why, because its incorrect, corrupting our society and we were not created for this.
i am very angry that their r ppl who actually think homosexuality is correct, u pervs...look at urselfs, thats sad...personally i would punch any gay person in the face that came up to me and hope it knocked some sense into him/her
i have one message for gay ppl
"Look around you, being gay is not correct, it is illegal for same-sex marriages, animals have more sense in the then you, so shut up find a diffrent sex then yours and enjoy life like its supposed to be enjoyed you fags!" :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :mad:

I knew you were going to do this

Throught all my posts, all I have done is explain why Christians feel the way they do about gay marriage. I havent said "This is what should happen" or "The government should do this". Read my threads, they are sprinkled with the phrase "To Christians". What I have been doing is validating their right to protest against something by showing that Christianity has good reason (to itself) to oppose Gay marriage. While those reasons may not play with everyone else, those reasons are fair to them and so they can oppose it as that is there right. They have rights to attemt to protest against any legislation.


I am not favoring this tripe with a response.


None, but name one right they lose by not being allowed to marry. Because marriage is not a right.

1. The right to inheritance without the threat of distant "blood" relative interference.
2. The right to make end of life decisions for one another.
3. The right to visit one another in the hospital without the family interferring.
4. The right to a joint tax return.
5. The right to joint property.
6. The right to a legal system to divide the property equally in the event the relationship ends.
7. The right to joint custody/adoption of children.
8. The right to have each other's financial holdings be considered in requests for loans, etc.
9. The right to joint insurance.

There's nine good ones that gay couples lose because the government won't recognize their marriage.

And why, pray, should I care whether you Christians get offended?
Doesn't seem like you care about others being offended.

The thread is about Christians and everyone seems quite prepared to accomadate Muslims in legislation, but not Christians. That is curious as to why.

I am not favoring this tripe with a response.

1. The right to inheritance without the threat of distant "blood" relative interference.
2. The right to make end of life decisions for one another.
3. The right to visit one another in the hospital without the family interferring.
4. The right to a joint tax return.
5. The right to joint property.
6. The right to a legal system to divide the property equally in the event the relationship ends.
7. The right to joint custody/adoption of children.
8. The right to have each other's financial holdings be considered in requests for loans, etc.
9. The right to joint insurance.

There's nine good ones that gay couples lose because the government won't recognize their marriage.

Yes but you missed the point. MARRIAGE itself is not a right.

this is dumb, homosexuality is stupid... why u might ask, because we werent evolved from monkeys (also being smarter) to start going out wit same sexes... we r the only living beings on Earth that are intelligent yet they we r the only ones dumb enough to this... u dnt see animals going out with the same sex...


Actually you do. You see nearly every species of animal doing so.


i am catholic and i think this is a sin, why, because its incorrect, corrupting our society and we were not created for this.


Corrupting how?


i am very angry that their r ppl who actually think homosexuality is correct, u pervs...look at urselfs, thats sad...personally i would punch any gay person in the face that came up to me and hope it knocked some sense into him/her


<looks at his third degree blackbelt> Go for it.


i have one message for gay ppl
"Look around you, being gay is not correct, it is illegal for same-sex marriages, animals have more sense in the then you, so shut up find a diffrent sex then yours and enjoy life like its supposed to be enjoyed you fags!"

If only it were as easy as you twits seem to think it is to just up and change.

I wonder Hong, could you just up and decide to be sexually, psychologically, and emotionally attracted to members of your own gender?

Yes but you missed the point. MARRIAGE itself is not a right.

So straight people should get special rights?

The thread is about Christians and everyone seems quite prepared to accomadate Muslims in legislation, but not Christians. That is curious as to why.

Accomodate Muslims how?

I am not favoring this tripe with a response.


Then you are ignoring the truth, check my posts. All I have ever done is explain why Christians see gay marriage as wrong.

Then you are ignoring the truth, check my posts. All I have ever done is explain why Christians see gay marriage as wrong.

And explain how the government would be violating "christians rights" to determine what marriage is if they allowed gay marriage.

:mp5: this is dumb, homosexuality is stupid... why u might ask, because we werent evolved from monkeys (also being smarter) to start going out wit same sexes... we r the only living beings on Earth that are intelligent yet they we r the only ones dumb enough to this... u dnt see animals going out with the same sex...
i am catholic and i think this is a sin, why, because its incorrect, corrupting our society and we were not created for this.
i am very angry that their r ppl who actually think homosexuality is correct, u pervs...look at urselfs, thats sad...personally i would punch any gay person in the face that came up to me and hope it knocked some sense into him/her
i have one message for gay ppl
"Look around you, being gay is not correct, it is illegal for same-sex marriages, animals have more sense in the then you, so shut up find a diffrent sex then yours and enjoy life like its supposed to be enjoyed you fags!" :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :gundge: :mad:


Hong Apoe, I'll say this only and only once coz I will be IP banned or DEAT for doing so...though I wonder why you weren't

Fuck off, Idiot.

later folks.

this is so retarted, u gay ppl are making up excuses so u dnt lose gay marriage, u dnt lose any rights at all, i dnt even think those rights i heard before even exist. also if u lose so many rights by not have same-sex marriage y r u gay...or even alive, i bet nobody would mind if all gay ppl ceased to exist :headbang:

So straight people should get special rights?

Marriage is a privalige. Those who take it up are taking on both a responsablity to one another and special privilages from the government and the church. That list of things you said are not rights, they are priviliges.

The thread is about Christians and everyone seems quite prepared to accomadate Muslims in legislation, but not Christians. That is curious as to why.

Then stop talking about stuff that's not about Christians?
I know others have problems staying on topic, but you could at least try.

this is so retarted, u gay ppl are making up excuses so u dnt lose gay marriage, u dnt lose any rights at all, i dnt even think those rights i heard before even exist. also if u lose so many rights by not have same-sex marriage y r u gay...or even alive, i bet nobody would mind if all gay ppl ceased to exist :headbang:

I'm sure my parents would mind. I'm sure you're parents wouldn't if you ceased to exist though. You are what, twelve? thirteen?

Marriage is a privalige. Those who take it up are taking on both a responsablity to one another and special privilages from the government and the church. That list of things you said are not rights, they are priviliges.

No, the list of things I gave were a list of rights granted to married people. Methinks you are grasping at straws.

The government isn't in the business of granting privledges. They are in the business of granting rights nad making sure people are treated equally and fairly. At elast here, again I can't speak for foreign (to me) governments.

Marriage is a privalige. Those who take it up are taking on both a responsablity to one another and special privilages from the government and the church. That list of things you said are not rights, they are priviliges.

And they should be denied to same-sex couples... why?

And they should be denied to same-sex couples... why?

Quite obvioulsy because Neo Cannen thinks that Christians should rule the world and the government.

And explain how the government would be violating "christians rights" to determine what marriage is if they allowed gay marriage.

I didnt say they would be violating Chrisitan rights, I just said that was how Christians saw Gay marriage, and thus they have a right to protest about it. In the same way anti abortionists (of whom I am not one) are allowed to protest about the legalisation of abortion (dont start a debate on pro life here, it will only get complicated). There is no reason to say that Gay marriage would somehow infringe upon Christian rights, and there is no way to say that non allowence of Gay marriage infringes upon Gay peoples rights because marriage is not a right it is a privilige.

And I really am out now. Have fun, again :)

see ppl, everybody is being poisened by gays, who knows, maybe the next day u wake up ull be sleeping with ur same sex or having to donate ur sperm or some kind of crap like that so that humans can continue, homosexuality will lead to the downfall of our civilization if left uncheck... i might sound to dramatic but this is a possibility

I didnt say they would be violating Chrisitan rights, I just said that was how Christians saw Gay marriage, and thus they have a right to protest about it. In the same way anti abortionists (of whom I am not one) are allowed to protest about the legalisation of abortion (dont start a debate on pro life here, it will only get complicated). There is no reason to say that Gay marriage would somehow infringe upon Christian rights, and there is no way to say that non allowence of Gay marriage infringes upon Gay peoples rights because marriage is not a right it is a privilige.

Alright, they protest against it because they think it's wrong. Excellent.
Can we go back to discussing whether they are right or not now? Thanks.

guys shutup, being gay is totally wrong PERIOD

I said I like rusty spoons. :(

Do you like it when the red water comes out?

Do you have a 'friend' called Hubert Cumberdale?

No one can seem to prove what these causes are so untill you can, you cant touch me with arguements of "God made gays that way etc" because you simplely DONT KNOW.Sure, ok I can agree with that. Well, unless you postulate omnipotence and omniscience for God, whereupon things get philosophically hairy.
Other ways for YOU to increase YOUR genes. Not the genes you share with your siblings. YOUR genes specificly. How can you yourself get more of YOUR genes into the gene pool if it is not by having more children? Dettibok said
I explained it earlier in this very thread. In short darwinian fitness is a subtle matter and doesn't correspond exactly to the number of children, as there are other ways to increase the proportion of your genes in the gene pool.
And I am asking him, how do you spread your genes into the gene pool if it is not through having more children.Ah, I see the source of the confusion. I was being sloppy with language. What I meant by your genes was the patterns in your genome, more accurately referred to as alleles. Your siblings have some of your genes; that is they have some of the same patterns you do.[1] It is how successful you are at increasing the proportion of those patterns in the gene pool that counts, not whether the DNA embodying those patterns was derived from the DNA in one of your cells. If you do not have children, after you die and your DNA degrades, there will no longer be any DNA derived from your DNA. But that's irrelevant.
[1]So will a banana for that matter. But your siblings will match your genome better.
I get a different read on this, I dunno about others. :DI read it as Paul foaming at the brain and slandering "them" any way he could think of. If smilies had been invented then he would probably used ":sniper:".
Why does everyone assume maleness? :p I'm sick of being referred to as "him."The archetype for a human being is male (and white) in our culture. And not just among white males either. Even if the pronouns in our language were fixed, the assumption of maleness would probably remain. I do try and avoid making that assumption.
Everyone should be able to live their own life and be happy!Hear hear! (Things get interesting when the former and the latter are in conflict).
Ok, I will accept that BEING gay is not a choice.Yay!
BUT you cannot argue that these people who are attracted to members of the same sex should be allowed to have their attractions realised in sex.Sure I can. Same sex-sex doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, under the principle "An it harm none, do what thou wilt", it should be allowed. No I don't have a biblical basis for the principle.
in the same way that you cannot allow the attraction for another man's/women's wife/husband to be realised in sex.Sure I can. It's not my place to stop adultery.
Are you telling me that it is that 1% of Genes diffrence that allowed Humans as a species to acomplish all that we have. I think there must be more to it than that.Nope. Now, I'm not sure exactly what a 1% difference of genes actually means. But humans and Chimpanzees are very similar. Sure there are some dramatic differences in gross shape. But when you start looking at details--how the cells work, how muscle tissue is structured, where the blood vessels run, when the tendons attach--humans and Chimpanzees are very similar.
And how does Gay marriage affect Christians. It (to them) insults a belief system which they hold dear and have done for more that two thousand years (I say more than because Christians belive marriage began when the world began see Genesis 2:24) that marriage is between one man and one woman only, given by God to them as a gift.No, I'm insulting your belief system when I call aspects of it messed up. Gay marriage simply disregards it. If you consider that an insult, then you're going to be offended a lot. Tough cookies.
Forgive me for asking but why not? If a country is democratic and the democracy elect a party which is in favour of outlawing something (In this case Gay Marriage) then why shouldnt it.Because it unjustly infringes on the liberties of some. Just because a decision is democratic doesn't make it right. "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchhill. Much as I detest sound bites, this one pretty much sums up my feelings.
It is estimated that there are about 20 to 25k genes in the human genome. A 1% difference would be only 20 to 25 gene difference.200 to 250 gene difference.</nit> But I do not think that is what the 1% is measuring. Unfortunately, I've never found a clear explanation of what the 1% is measuring.
My point was it is not the job of the government to protect everyone's rights.Oh yes it is (though I am ironically perhaps in the minority position on this).
The thread is about Christians and everyone seems quite prepared to accomadate Muslims in legislation, but not Christians. That is curious as to why.Christians are accomadated in legislation, at least in my country. We have a Catholic school system funded out of the public purse in Ontario. If performed a certain way, Christian marriages are recognized by the government. And in some places the Christian sabbath, Sunday, is accomodated in law by requiring some businesses to close. That's more than the Muslims get. And I'm against some accomadation of Christians. But when it comes to dictating who the government can recognize as married, Forget It!

No, the list of things I gave were a list of rights granted to married people. Methinks you are grasping at straws.

The government isn't in the business of granting privledges. They are in the business of granting rights nad making sure people are treated equally and fairly. At elast here, again I can't speak for foreign (to me) governments.

Those are the priviliges that married people get. There are also responsablitys married couples have going along with those priviliges, see the marriage vows (Although people dont take these seriously any more because of easyer divorce). And your government is in the business of giving out priviliges (tax breaks) and taking them away when they please (the disney farienhieght 9/11 scandel).

I dont understand why the "Treated equally" line goes with gay marriage. Marriage is for one man and one woman, and not even in religious circles, legally in the US (most parts) UK (again most parts, stupid Ken Livingston). I cannot think of a single religion in its original doctrine supports gay marriage. While they may do it in practice that to me smacks of jumping on the P.C bandwagon. And the arguement of "They love each other" is not enough. Practiclay anything can be justified in the name of love, I could marry my cat (if I had one) just becuase I made a deep profession of love etc. You cant justify that through love alone.

i beleive marriage is strictly ONLY for straight ppl, who invented marriage for gays. anyway it is saiid that marriage is made for the love between a MAN AND A WOMEN... i never heard it say love between lesbians or gay men... infact i dnt beleive anyone has

And they should be denied to same-sex couples... why?

Well Christians think they should because

1) Marriage is for one man and one woman only (Genesis 2:24)

2) To Christians homosexuality is a sin, thus Gay marriage is enshrining there sin. It is (to Christians) like giving diplomatic immunity to murderers.

Well Christians think they should because

1) Marriage is for one man and one woman only (Genesis 2:24)

How did you come to the conclusion that it is *only* for a man and a woman?

2) To Christians homosexuality is a sin, thus Gay marriage is enshrining there sin. It is (to Christians) like giving diplomatic immunity to murderers.

Yet you allow murderer's to marry? (assuming they're a man and a woman)

Ooo, look! More unnecessary Catholic-bashing!

the seperation of Church and State means that the LAW should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious cermony...

Sorry to cut you short, right there... but you were making an error...

Marriage ISN'T a religious ceremony. Marriage is (literally) the joining together of some things, and means (in our modern society) the ceremony required for two persons to achieve the legal state of 'married', with all of the rights and responsibilities that entails.

A church may hold a wedding, which may be specific to that church, that sect, that denomination - but MARRIAGE is a legal term, performed in a variety of different fashions, but always a LEGAL ceremony... whether you get married in a church, or at the fairground.

What I meant was that in a marriage you get things like state regocnition, tax credits etc. Giving those to Gay partners would be regognising them as equal to married partners and to Christians that is wrong since gay partners are oppenly sinning and are unrepentant of it.You'd be right, if we were living in a CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY. Which we're not. Therefore Christian beliefs should have no influence on government views of marriage.

neo cannon im assuming ur not gay and i beleive everything u said, gay marriage to christians is like being able to kill ppl without consequence

Well Christians think they should because

1) Marriage is for one man and one woman only (Genesis 2:24)


That ISN'T what it says.

It says: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".

It doesn't mention the word marry, married or marriage.

Also - in Hebrew, the same word is used ('ishshah) as in the famous Leviticus quote, where it is taken to mean woman... so it doesn't even actually IMPLY marriage.

Not only that, but, although it says A man shall cleave unto his woman... it doesn't say that ALL men MUST cleave unto A woman...

If taken as a blueprint, this is merely a reference to persons leaving their family to be with another individual, or even group of individuals.