NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
wot so u r saying that a man should cleave onto his wif, who is another man??? wot is ur argument BE CLEAR, anyway its techincally the same thing, joinig wit ur wife or marrying, anyway the bible want made yesterday, 4the vocabulary is old

: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:What are you, 12? Grow up, learn to use proper grammar, actually type full words, and try inserting some intelligence into your post instead of emoticons and people might listen to you.

Punching gay people in the face... wow. Yeah, that's great. You're a model spokesperson for Christians here.

I personnally feel that there is Nothing wrong with being gay.
But what i feel is there is not a need to approve of disapprove of gay marriage i mean there is totally not a need to get wed.
If 2 person (be it man and woman or man and man or woman and woman) truely love and feel for each other getting married is just a fomaility to practice but then again if they can be married they can be dirvorce so what's the poitn most important part is the real love for each other and be happy about it.
marrige can't bind 2 together forever if they don't really have love in them.
And we living in the world how many percent of us are actually not working towards Love and Happiness?
So if we are why are we consistently debating over this kind of issue as long as the 2 person who wanna be happy and working toward their goals without hurting other parties around them. i think no matter being gay or striaght is totally Fine...

The thread is about Christians and everyone seems quite prepared to accomadate Muslims in legislation, but not Christians. That is curious as to why.Why is it that Christians feel that it's perfectly legitimate for them to discriminate against others, but if they feel that their own rights are being persecuted even in the slightest bit, they kick, scream, and moan?

What are you, 12? Grow up, learn to use proper grammar, actually type full words, and try inserting some intelligence into your post instead of emoticons and people might listen to you.

Punching gay people in the face... wow. Yeah, that's great. You're a model spokesperson for Christians here.

wot, so now ur paying attentions to the emoticons and short words...omg grow up man(if u r one) rly stay on the topic
and anyway these r my arguments...

Interesting; I've never heard that translation before. However, it does appear that Jews interpret it as a prohibition against male-male sex (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/e0002.htm#350). Note however that the english translation is borrowed heavily from various Bibles, and I am not Jew, nevermind a rabbi.


I think I recognise that URL... that's a JPS site, or something, right?

They ARE useful for having versions of the bible in the original Hebrew, and for having linked versions that show English translation to Hebrew.... but I think their English version might just be a knocked-off King James Version, rather than an ACTUAL translation from the extant Hebrew.

I didn't think much of their translation - although I did appreciate an online bible in Hebrew.

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 Christian has been around for 2000 years. It could equally be said that restricting marraige to the 'christian notion of marraige' insults the beliefs and practices of non-christians, reaching back much further than Christianity itself.

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.
Just becuase you are ignorant about the variations of marraige doesnt mean we should make special legislation on you behalf, legislation which restricts people from acting in a manner that objectively has no effect on you whatsoever. The fact is marraige is a social not a religious institution. Your ignorance of other religico/magico systems of belief aside, the relevent point is that marraige doesnt belong to anyone group, religious or otherwise.

and anyway these r my arguments...To have an argument, you need to have a little thing called evidence. Right now, all you have is an opinion. Aside from slinging insults and slurs at gay people, and threatning to attack them, you've done nothing to contribute to this conversation. If you actually want to help your side of the argument win, it'd probably be better if you just shut up and went home.

wot so u r saying that a man should cleave onto his wif, who is another man??? wot is ur argument BE CLEAR, anyway its techincally the same thing, joinig wit ur wife or marrying, anyway the bible want made yesterday, 4the vocabulary is old


YOU are saying that I need to be clear?

Okay - Neo's argument is that the bible says "Marriage is between one man and one woman".

Get your bible... show me where.

It doesn't say that in Genesis 2:24... it just mentions one guy and his girlfriend (as I pointed out, the word MEANS woman, OR it CAN mean wife), doesn't preclude ANY OTHER arrangement, and DOESN'T MENTION MARRIAGE.

Doesn't mention it AT ALL.

Read it in the Hebrew, you'll see what I mean.

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:

Actually, you are wrong (among other choice words I could have levelled).

I am straight, and, in fact, married... but I would rather we had a world WITH gay people than without.... simply because I know some, and enjoy their company, because I wouldn't wish the loss of any section of the populace just for their beliefs, and just because, hey - diversity is all good.

I also think homosexuals should be allowed to marry - and see no way in which a gay marriage has ANY impact AT ALL on MY marriage.

And, I'd bet there are MILLIONS of 'straight' people JUST like me.

Please don't imagine for one SECOND that you speak for all of us.

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


Show me where in the Bible it mentions, let alone suppors any other kind of marriage.


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

You dont understand. To Christians homosexual marriage is giving homosexuals a great place of pride to enact their sin. Sin should never be suported.

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.

Why does God care so much about homosexuality anyway?

wot, so now ur paying attentions to the emoticons and short words...omg grow up man(if u r one) rly stay on the topic
and anyway these r my arguments...

Seriously, if you guys keep this up, I'm going to run out of bottled water to wash down all of this irony.

One thing that sometimes upsets me is how people say that marriage has never changed. WRONGO! Less than 100 years ago it would of been impossible for a interracial couple to marry in America. Does that mean it was wrong for two people to love each other if they are not the same skin colour? back in biblical times Marriage was not about love as much as being a propertry contract. Does that mean it should still be like that?

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.

I am just stating the Christian views on why Gay marriage is against the Bible, as I have been doing thorught this portion of the debate. I am not saying "This is what we should do". Whilst I do believe that, its not what I am saying here, I am just explaining why Christians are opposed to Gay marriage, where the reasoning comes from.

One thing that sometimes upsets me is how people say that marriage has never changed. WRONGO! Less than 100 years ago it would of been impossible for a interracial couple to marry in America. Does that mean it was wrong for two people to love each other if they are not the same skin colour? back in biblical times Marriage was not about love as much as being a propertry contract. Does that mean it should still be like that?

Marriage has always been between one man and one women. The Bible says nothing about marriage ever being anything else.

Why does God care so much about homosexuality anyway?

Because when he created man he had a purpose in mind for how we would live. He wanted us to choose that way but we didnt. Homosexuality is just one example of how we have gone agaist what God intended.

Marriage has always been between one man and one women. The Bible says nothing about marriage ever being anything else.
The bible says nothing about marriage being about love either. Does that mean it isnt now? marriage has changed loads over time, and even if the christian bible does not say marriage is between a man and a women, are there not people of other religions who believe it is morally acceptable? Do you believe that if someone does not believe in the bibles definition of Marriage, but instead believe in their religions view of marriage, that they are wrong?

I can udnerstand you being anti gay marriage, and I can agree to disagree on that subject. But just because one religion (I am a gay chrisgtian btw, so please do not call me a christian hater) believes it is wrong, does not mean that the entire nation, which is comprised of christians, muslums, buddhists, athiests, Wiccans, Satanists, and any other religion you can think of. the pilgrims flocked to America to avoid religious persicution, and I feel that we as a nation should respect that.

Because when he created man he had a purpose in mind for how we would live. He wanted us to choose that way but we didnt. Homosexuality is just one example of how we have gone agaist what God intended.

But why did he choose heterosexuality as the "correct" sexual orientation? All of this is just out of curiosity.

Marriage has always been between one man and one women. The Bible says nothing about marriage ever being anything else.
No marraige has not always been 'between one man and one woman'. Marraige has come in many forms throughout history, this is a fact. That it isnt mentioned in the bible doesnt change facts, the Shrek movies dont appear to be mentioned in the bible, yet most christians can accept that they exist, so why are the historical facts regarding marraige so inconcievable? I know some people may not like it, but I dislike Jack the Ripper and yet still can accept the historical fact of his existence. :rolleyes:

I am just stating the Christian views on why Gay marriage is against the Bible, as I have been doing thorught this portion of the debate. I am not saying "This is what we should do".

You certainly did. Check post 2511.

The bible says nothing about marriage being about love either. Does that mean it isnt now? marriage has changed loads over time, and even if the christian bible does not say marriage is between a man and a women, are there not people of other religions who believe it is morally acceptable? Do you believe that if someone does not believe in the bibles definition of Marriage, but instead believe in their religions view of marriage, that they are wrong?


The Bible has never disagreed with marriage being about love. John 10:10 says "I came to give you life, in all its fullness" (Jesus speeking). Show me where the Bible says that marriage is not about love.


I can udnerstand you being anti gay marriage, and I can agree to disagree on that subject. But just because one religion (I am a gay chrisgtian btw, so please do not call me a christian hater) believes it is wrong, does not mean that the entire nation, which is comprised of christians, muslums, buddhists, athiests, Wiccans, Satanists, and any other religion you can think of. the pilgrims flocked to America to avoid religious persicution, and I feel that we as a nation should respect that.

None of them actively support Gay marriages in there original doctrine. No one does throught history. Why do we suddenly need to?

You certainly did. Check post 2511.

Care to quote it (I dont remember post numbers)

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

Ok, and you would be Jesus Christ then? Because Jesus Christ is pretty much the only person who can decide who is and who is not Christian.

Of course, since you have appointed yourself God here, you have committed blasphemy and most would say that you can't call yourself a Christian.

Don't be so arrogant.

None of them actively support Gay marriages in there original doctrine. No one does throught history. Why do we suddenly need to?

The Church doesn't. The goverment does.

YOU are saying that I need to be clear?

Okay - Neo's argument is that the bible says "Marriage is between one man and one woman".

Get your bible... show me where.

It doesn't say that in Genesis 2:24... it just mentions one guy and his girlfriend (as I pointed out, the word MEANS woman, OR it CAN mean wife), doesn't preclude ANY OTHER arrangement, and DOESN'T MENTION MARRIAGE.

Doesn't mention it AT ALL.

Read it in the Hebrew, you'll see what I mean.
OK, ignore all the idiots, and let me be just about the only person here with scriptural references.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

There are other areas in the New Testament where homosexuality is mentioned. Now, the reason we cannot support gay marriage is that by allowing it might be considered that we support it. Just as atheists refuse to stand during the pledge because even though they remain silent it still might be construed that they support it. Now, I believe marriage is a religious practice, regardless of what religion you adhere to. As such, government intervention in marriage is clearly inviolation of Supreme Court precedent on the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. Therefore, I suggest that we follow the French system. Everyone has to get a civil union, and then the churches do marriages. if a church wants to marry homosexuals, then that is their choice, although as a christian I know that doing such a thing could cost them their soul. Sin is sin, and there are no dividing lines.

So that's my suggestion. The government should not be involved with marriage at all. The government should administer civil unions. The churches will handle marriages. In this, I think France showed remarkable discernment.

Ok, and you would be Jesus Christ then? Because Jesus Christ is pretty much the only person who can decide who is and who is not Christian.

Of course, since you have appointed yourself God here, you have committed blasphemy and most would say that you can't call yourself a Christian.

Don't be so arrogant.
You argue fallous points in theology. You should understand that the Bible specifically condemns homosexuality in the New Testament. Therefore, if you truly believe in God, and you accept his word, then you should understand that homosexuality is a sin, the same as telling a white lie, or committing murder. As a christian, you should see that. if you ignore it, then he is correct. You have chosen to defy the will of God, and that is something you must deal with.

HadesRulesMuch, dont be so arrogent as to think you are the only one to bring up Romans 1: 18-27. Ive done that loads of times. People still dont listen though.

None of them actively support Gay marriages in there original doctrine. No one does throught history. Why do we suddenly need to?
This wasnt true when I posted pointing it out (again) a minute ago, and it still wont be true in another minute, or in ten or ten years, or ever, no matter how many times you post it. The historical facts regarding marraige cannot be changed because the past is gone. Post it as many times as you wish, your notion that same sex marraiges have not been amongst the many forms of marraige practiced by human beings throughout time and space remains false.

This wasnt true when I posted pointing it out (again) a minute ago, and it still wont be true in another minute, or in ten or ten years, or ever, no matter how many times you post it. The historical facts regarding marraige cannot be changed because the past is gone. Post it as many times as you wish, your notion that same sex marraiges have not been amongst the many of marraige practiced by human beings throughout time and space remains false.

Then show me an example...

Then show me an example...
Native Americans....

Native Americans....

Show more proof...

Show more proof...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Specifically

Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Specifically

Fine, but the thread is about Chrisianity.

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...

You do not have the right to not be insulted.

Well since I dont have your mailing address, it's not like I can post you a text book is it? You asked for an example and I gave it, now you want proof, yet I'm not the one trying to restrict other people's rights. If I wanted to stop you from bowling the onus of proof (to prove that you should not bowl) would be on me, so if you want there to be no homosexual marraiges, guess who the onus proof belongs with.

It would be simpler for you to try to prove your conviction regarding marraige being only between one man/one woman (and never same sex couples), because in order to prove that you would need to get the facts and once you had the facts you'd know what I know and realise you are never going to prove it.

Since you dont know otherwise why should you not believe it is true. Just what do you know about native American marraige forms that leads you to believe otherwise? Let me guess...nothing....sorry but to challenge my word because you 'didnt know that' seems a bit sour grapes to me. You assumed things about marraige that just are not so. You assume that things you are not familiar with simply are not, but really what do you actually know about marraige throughout time and space? I suggest nothing you 'know for a fact' contradicts what I have stated, but rather you just dont want to believe it. What more proof can I give on an internet forum than my word? If you want to know more do your own research, it's the least you could do before forming an opinion that the rights of others should be curtailed because of ideas that you think, but really dont know (and indeed since your ideas are factually incorrect, cant know).

I see I was late posting this and someone else provided an evidence, then I note that in response you moved the goal posts. You said no one had ever supported this kind of marraige, you are wrong. Further to suggest that non-christians and indeed the law itself should be ordered because of christian doctrine brings us back to christians having no right to dictate the law and tell non-christians how to live their lives. Christians do not own the law, they dont own marraige, they dont own their fellow citizens, so what the heck is your justification for forcing your religion's doctrine onto others?

You do not have the right to not be insulted.

I dont but religious comunities do. Why does everyone worry about insulting Muslims but not Christians.

I may be repeating what others have mentioned, I didn't read 169 freakin' pages!!!

I'm going to set aside the Biblical discussion and focus on practicality in the 21st century.

One of the modern niceties of being married in the U.S. is claiming increased tax deductions for marriage and children. In essence, the government pays you to be married and have kids. It's also easier to adopt children if you're married.

Allowing gay marriage would force states and the federal government to allow the additional deductions and confer tax benefits for marriage. It also opens the door for better chances of adopting.

It's about the money. The guv'mnt is broke the way it is, and legitimizing gay marriage would make it that much poorer. I'm sure the insurance industry is trying to prevent this as to not have more "family coverage" policies.

Before you condemn gay marriage, think about these issues:
* Child abuse - Hetero marriages don't guarantee children are loved and raised in a good environment.
* Abortion/adoption - barring some bizarre events (a M-to-F transsexual impregnates his wife, IVF), the only way for gay marriages to have children is to adopt. Abortion rates are nearly nonexistent. Surely the government can see putting children in homes instead of understaffed, overcrowded orphanages.
* Married hetero couples get the tax breaks even if they don't have children. In effect, gay marriages are punished on all sides, especially if they are raising children.

Oh yeah, I'm single, straight, and unfortunately, live in one of the 11 states that recently passed the amendment to ban gay marriage. I voted against it.

Fine, but the thread is about Chrisianity.
No, it about christianity's obsession about forcing its morality on others. Fine, same marriage is offensive to you as a christian. Big deal. Your sensibilities do not trump the rights of an entire group of citizens.

Oh and about Romans 1:26-27

Thats ONE translation, not the ONLY translation. Ancient Greek is very different than english and the nuances are lost when brought over. Alot of scholars believe that passage refers to temple prostitutes. Around that time same sex prostitutes were used in fertility rituals in the pagan religions.

I dont but religious comunities do. Why does everyone worry about insulting Muslims but not Christians.
There is a difference between calling Muslims towel headed terrorists and legalizing something christians disagree with. One is a direct attack, the other is simply not following someone else's theology. Want to guess which one we're doing?

Well since I dont have your mailing address, it's not like I can post you a text book is it? You asked for an example and I gave it, now you want proof, yet I'm not the one trying to restrict other people's rights. If I wanted to stop you from bowling the onus of proof (to prove that you should not bowl) would be on me, so if you want there to be no homosexual marraiges, guess who the onus proof belongs with.

It would be simpler for you to try to prove your conviction regarding marraige being only between one man/one woman (and never same sex couples), because in order to prove that you would need to get the facts and once you had the facts you'd know what I know and realise you are never going to prove it.

Since you dont know otherwise why should you not believe it is true. Just what do you know about native American marraige forms that leads you to believe otherwise? Let me guess...nothing....sorry but to challenge my word because you 'didnt know that' seems a bit sour grapes to me. You assumed things about marraige that just are not so. You assume that things you are not familiar with simply are not, but really what do you actually know about marraige throughout time and space? I suggest nothing you 'know for a fact' contradicts what I have stated, but rather you just dont want to believe it. What more proof can I give on an internet forum than my word? If you want to know more do your own research, it's the least you could do before forming an opinion that the rights of others should be curtailed because of ideas that you think, but really dont know (and indeed since your ideas are factually incorrect, cant know).

I see I was late posting this and someone else provided an evidence, then I note that in response you moved the goal posts. You said no one had ever supported this kind of marraige, you are wrong. Further to suggest that non-christians and indeed the law itself should be ordered because of christian doctrine brings us back to christians having no right to dictate the law and tell non-christians how to live their lives. Christians do not own the law, they dont own marraige, they dont own their fellow citizens, so what the heck is your justification for forcing your religion's doctrine onto others?

I dont try and force my doctrine on anyone. Throught this thread all I have been doing is explaining Chirsitan views on gay marriage and why we hold them.

I don't give a fuck what some millenia-old book says about it. Homosexuality is not wrong. Bottom line: It doesn't hurt anyone, so how can it be wrong?

I don't give a fuck what some millenia-old book says about it. Homosexuality is not wrong. Bottom line: It doesn't hurt anyone, so how can it be wrong?

Me calling Muslims towel headed terrorists doesnt hurt anyone but thats wrong? (Not that I have done tha.........)

There is a difference between calling Muslims towel headed terrorists and legalizing something christians disagree with. One is a direct attack, the other is simply not following someone else's theology. Want to guess which one we're doing?

Gay pride parades insult Christians in the same way BNP marches insult Muslims.

Me calling Muslims towel headed terrorists doesnt hurt anyone

Erm... I would've thought it would hurt Muslims...

No, it about christianity's obsession about forcing its morality on others. Fine, same marriage is offensive to you as a christian. Big deal. Your sensibilities do not trump the rights of an entire group of citizens.


I am not here to force my beliefs on anyone I am here to explain them. BUT Chirstians do outnumber any one group of any kind. Over one third of the planet's population is Christian. So if the world was democratic dont you think we should be listend to. We are not in the minority, no other single group outnumbers us.

Gay pride parades insult Christians in the same way BNP marches insult Muslims.

Your problem.

I dont try and force my doctrine on anyone. Throught this thread all I have been doing is explaining Chirsitan views on gay marriage and why we hold them.
If you have a problem with non-christian homosexuals getting married, then your problem is with people not following your doctrine. If you are merely saying why you personally would not marry someone of the same sex but others can do as they wish, that is not forcing your doctrine on them, if you expect that your religious beliefs about marraige bind others then you aren expecting to force your doctrine on others.

Re your comments about name calling, can you really not tell the difference between being expected to butt out of other people's marital affairs and name calling? Frankly name calling doesnt appear very christian to me...I suggest you attend to the beam in your eye before you start blindly searching for the splinter in fellows' (eye).

Erm... I would've thought it would hurt Muslims...

Giving diplomatic immunity to the murderes of steven lawerence would not hurt anyone. That is what Gay marriage seems like to Christians. To Christians, gay marriage is giving privialiges reserved for hetrosexual couples which are supported in the Bible, to homosexual ones which are condemend. Thats like saying "Here you unrepentent murderer/rapeist/theif etc (insert unrepentent sinner type in there) you can keep sinning and have all the privilages of not sinning". Christians see gay marriage as a pedistol for people to put gays on and for them to be proud of sinning. Chirstians believe you should never be proud of sin. (Note this is what Christians believe, I am not forcing it on you)

Gay pride parades insult Christians in the same way BNP marches insult Muslims.
Gay pride marches don't call for laws or regulations against christians (I'm assuming the BNP does something like this, I have no idea honestly) They celebrate a way of life they want embraced. Nothing more. If christians don't like that lifestyle thats up to them, but it doesn't affect their lives.

Does PETA have the right to be offended if I say I'm not an animal person? No, I simply wouldn't like animals I am not calling for anything that hurts them.

Ask some muslims if calling them a terrorist hurts, then act all smug about their response.

The ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong is because in the bible it says that sodomy is wrong. So having anal sex, or giving or recieving oral sex, is sinful. Anal sex is only looked down upon more so because of what usually comes out of that orafice. :p

So bottom line, if you've had oral sex, you're in the same boat as homosexuals. So sorry Right wingers.

sod·om·y
1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.

If you have a problem with non-christian homosexuals getting married, then your problem is with people not following your doctrine. If you are merely saying why you personally would not marry someone of the same sex but others can do as they wish, that is not forcing your doctrine on them, if you expect that your religious beliefs about marraige bind others then you aren expecting to force your doctrine on others.

Re your comments about name calling, can you really not tell the difference between being expected to butt out of other people's marital affairs and name calling? Frankly name calling doesnt appear very christian to me...I suggest you attend to the beam in your eye before you start blindly searching for the splinter in fellows' (eye).

All this thread is for is for Christians to express their views, you cant complain at me for doing that. Dont try and attack me for putting across my views.

I am not here to force my beliefs on anyone I am here to explain them. BUT Chirstians do outnumber any one group of any kind. Over one third of the planet's population is Christian. So if the world was democratic dont you think we should be listend to. We are not in the minority, no other single group outnumbers us.
Firstly your argument is unsound because the premise is false. 1 whole minus 1 third = 2 thirds, so the largest group would be 'non-christians' (making up 2 thirds of the population).
Regardless the tierany of the majority is to be as feared as any other and democracy can only exist in free societies, in free societies you cannot restrict the behaviour of others without sufficient cause, something which (in reference to same sex marraiges) you have failed to substantiate.

Your problem.

Bet you dont say that about BNP marches. The entire country comes out in outcry whenever they come along, yet Gay Pride and Christianity gets no defence.

Giving diplomatic immunity to the murderes of steven lawerence would not hurt anyone. That is what Gay marriage seems like to Christians. To Christians, gay marriage is giving privialiges reserved for hetrosexual couples which are supported in the Bible, to homosexual ones which are condemend. Thats like saying "Here you unrepentent murderer/rapeist/theif etc (insert unrepentent sinner type in there) you can keep sinning and have all the privilages of not sinning". Christians see gay marriage as a pedistol for people to put gays on and for them to be proud of sinning. Chirstians believe you should never be proud of sin. (Note this is what Christians believe, I am not forcing it on you)

Pornography puts fornicators on a pedestal (In movies no less!) that doesn't mean you can make it illegal because you disagree with it. You can chose not to participate, you can't chose me for nonparticipation.

Firstly your argument is unsound because the premise is false. 1 whole minus 1 third = 2 thirds, so the largest group would be 'non-christians' (making up 2 thirds of the population).


Non Christians are not a single group. Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. I said Christians are the largest single group.

Neo, tell me why homosexuality is wrong. And I don't want to hear the words "god", "jesus", or "bible". Give me a logical, realistic reason why it's a sin.

Non Christians are not a single group. Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. I said Christians are the largest single group.
Semantics, and irrelevant.
That vast majority of the world still wouldn't vote for christian principle, as they are not christians.

Neo, tell me why homosexuality is wrong. And I don't want to hear the words "god", "jesus", or "bible". Give me a logical, realistic reason why it's a sin.



Um, By saying Sin you imply religion. Sin is a religous term. Therefore to explain why something is a sin you have to use religion.

(I'm all for gay marriage/rights. However i am straight. and very much not into anal sex)

All this thread is for is for Christians to express their views, you cant complain at me for doing that. Dont try and attack me for putting across my views.
I'm not complaining about your views, I'm challenging them or at least I would be if they didnt appear to change every time you post. You dont want to force doctrine but expect to be able to. No one has ever allowed same sex marraiges but when it turns out that it has happened suddenly we are only supposed to be discussing christians. Do you realise that making whatever self serving comment justifies your wish to control the lives of others (whilst hypocritically enjoying the religious freedom that living in a free society permits you) doesnt fool anyone (except perhaps yourself). If anything the more you say, the more it appears that your view is baseless. If there was a good case for the view that same sex couples should be excluded from marraige, it ought not be so hard to substantiate nor require so many shifts and twists as you appear to take.

Think whatever you like, just dont expect to control the lives of others. Otherwise you cant complain if the 2 thirds of the non-christian population decide to ban christianity, something most of us really dont care to do, unless christianity presents a danger to us, for instance by trying to control us. Either you are free and so are others, or you can be constrained even as other's can. I actually do know people who would like to ban christianity, they use people like yourself as a good reason for this. I disagree, no one should control the action of another except as a last resort to prevent a provable harm to a non-consenting party, equal to or greater than the inherent harm that arises from restricting freedom in a free society.

Care to quote it (I dont remember post numbers)

They're in the upper right hand of each post in bold and underlined.

Um, By saying Sin you imply religion. Sin is a religous term. Therefore to explain why something is a sin you have to use religion.

(I'm all for gay marriage/rights. However i am straight. and very much not into anal sex)

How do you know if you've never tried it? And so on, and so on.

Okay, replace "sin" with "really naughty thing to do", if it helps.

No one has ever allowed same sex marraiges but when it turns out that it has happened suddenly we are only supposed to be discussing christians.


Actually a few Provences in Canada have legalized it. Mine is one of them thankfully. hurrah for openmindness and acceptance.

Non Christians are not a single group. Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. I said Christians are the largest single group.
Incorrect, just because the group non-christian can be sub divided, does not make it a group. In case you didnt realise Christians can also be divided (men and women, adults and children, rich and poor, baptist and catholic, etc).

There are other areas in the New Testament where homosexuality is mentioned. Now, the reason we cannot support gay marriage is that by allowing it might be considered that we support it. Just as atheists refuse to stand during the pledge because even though they remain silent it still might be construed that they support it. Now, I believe marriage is a religious practice, regardless of what religion you adhere to. As such, government intervention in marriage is clearly inviolation of Supreme Court precedent on the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. Therefore, I suggest that we follow the French system. Everyone has to get a civil union, and then the churches do marriages. if a church wants to marry homosexuals, then that is their choice, although as a christian I know that doing such a thing could cost them their soul. Sin is sin, and there are no dividing lines.

So that's my suggestion. The government should not be involved with marriage at all. The government should administer civil unions. The churches will handle marriages. In this, I think France showed remarkable discernment.

And its one I think you would garner support for from the gay population. We aren't trying to take anything away from religions. We just want the government to treat us equally.

Fine, but the thread is about Chrisianity.

Neo, you're the one who requested an example of a religion in its original form that accepted gay marriages. Why the change of heart?

Actually a few Provences in Canada have legalized it. Mine is one of them thankfully. hurrah for openmindness and acceptance.
Er, I think you have miscontextualised my comment, the comment that no one had allowed gay marraige belonged to another poster, and when it was shown to be historically false the poster 're-qualified' by stating something about the thread being 'about christians', even though this is not materially relevent in the context of the poster having stated 'no one has allowed it' as support for christians continuing to object to it. I myself am well aware that same sex marraiges have been practised by many societies.

Back on track:
My answer to the origional questional is because it is unnatural. sont challenge me in this, as i get fed up of people doing this every time i say that. It is not how we are created. not only this, but in my oppinion it is just as bad a beastiality or other such perversions. just my view there.
I wont bore you with "the scripture says this or that", as since JC most of it is irrelevant. nevertheless, there are some good lessons in their, namely the fact that it states stuff that is mainly common sense. i dont see any of you arguing in favour of incest, so why should it be different for you perverts than from them?

Rant over. sorry.

How do you know if you've never tried it? And so on, and so on.

Okay, replace "sin" with "really naughty thing to do", if it helps.

OK, well if i could try it i might, but because the preparation of sex is quite mental, so therefore attaining an erection depends on your mental state. So if i'm thinking about Anal sex, and it bothers/disturbs me to think about where my "organ" will be going, i won't be able to acheive erection.

I'm not homophobic, I've kissed guys before, i've made out with guys before, but it's not my thing. BUt hey if you want to do it, go right ahead. :) I may not be into what you do in the bedroom, but i'll defend to death your right to do it. (Yes a bad paraphrase but it was kinda fitting. :P )

I dont but religious comunities do. Why does everyone worry about insulting Muslims but not Christians.

I worry as much about insulting Christians as I do Muslims in my everyday life. Right up to where they try to take rights away from me (or are we calling them privledges now. . .which by the way if you want to talk about a case of "special rights" . . . ). The Muslim community is not the one trying to take rights away from me. As you are so fond of saying, this thread is about Christianity.

Back on track:
My answer to the origional questional is because it is unnatural. sont challenge me in this, as i get fed up of people doing this every time i say that. It is not how we are created. not only this, but in my oppinion it is just as bad a beastiality or other such perversions. just my view there.
I wont bore you with "the scripture says this or that", as since JC most of it is irrelevant. nevertheless, there are some good lessons in their, namely the fact that it states stuff that is mainly common sense. i dont see any of you arguing in favour of incest, so why should it be different for you perverts than from them?

Rant over. sorry.

I forgive you. Maybe.

Beastiality is wrong because it's unfair on the animal, who can't consent, and that's the only reason. Incest... well there's a stickier situation. But give me some reasons! Why is it a peversion?

The only reason homosexuality is wrong is because multitudes of people can't accept the fact that not every human is the same and that some of us like the same sex. People are just intolerant, unfortunately, because that's what there Bible tells them to think.

I am not here to force my beliefs on anyone I am here to explain them. BUT Chirstians do outnumber any one group of any kind. Over one third of the planet's population is Christian. So if the world was democratic dont you think we should be listend to. We are not in the minority, no other single group outnumbers us.

And when, in the very near future, Islam is the majority of the world's population, do you think we should all listen to waht they have to say?

Giving diplomatic immunity to the murderes of steven lawerence would not hurt anyone. That is what Gay marriage seems like to Christians. To Christians, gay marriage is giving privialiges reserved for hetrosexual couples which are supported in the Bible, to homosexual ones which are condemend. Thats like saying "Here you unrepentent murderer/rapeist/theif etc (insert unrepentent sinner type in there) you can keep sinning and have all the privilages of not sinning". Christians see gay marriage as a pedistol for people to put gays on and for them to be proud of sinning. Chirstians believe you should never be proud of sin. (Note this is what Christians believe, I am not forcing it on you)

You do realize that the definition of privledge is "special rights" don't you? So granting marriage only to heterosexuals is giving special rights to a group.

Sure

Show me where in the Bible it mentions, let alone suppors any other kind of marriage.



You dont understand. To Christians homosexual marriage is giving homosexuals a great place of pride to enact their sin. Sin should never be suported.

In this post, you dictate that homosexuals should not recieve certain legal rights because it offends you. There are other posts like this.

I worry as much about insulting Christians as I do Muslims in my everyday life. Right up to where they try to take rights away from me (or are we calling them privledges now. . .which by the way if you want to talk about a case of "special rights" . . . ). The Muslim community is not the one trying to take rights away from me. As you are so fond of saying, this thread is about Christianity.

erm... muslims have laws too. its just your country dosnt follow them. live with it.

Non Christians are not a single group. Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. I said Christians are the largest single group.

So if they teamed up and voted that Christians can't get married, you'd be okay with that?

There are other areas in the New Testament where homosexuality is mentioned. Now, the reason we cannot support gay marriage is that by allowing it might be considered that we support it. Just as atheists refuse to stand during the pledge because even though they remain silent it still might be construed that they support it. Now, I believe marriage is a religious practice, regardless of what religion you adhere to. As such, government intervention in marriage is clearly inviolation of Supreme Court precedent on the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. Therefore, I suggest that we follow the French system. Everyone has to get a civil union, and then the churches do marriages. if a church wants to marry homosexuals, then that is their choice, although as a christian I know that doing such a thing could cost them their soul. Sin is sin, and there are no dividing lines.

So that's my suggestion. The government should not be involved with marriage at all. The government should administer civil unions. The churches will handle marriages. In this, I think France showed remarkable discernment.
You might believe marraige is a religios practise, but it is foremost a social institution. Why should I be denied marraige because of your or anyone else's beliefs? The fact is marraige is a social institution that is/has been of great importance to social/economic organisation, and religious beliefs are often the same so many societies have to an extent brought they religious practises to bear with regards to marraige, but most christians also do this when they eat (ie say grace) I suggest that it would be stupid to only allow christians to eat....

I dont accept that the long standing practise of humans to get married should be denied to me just so christians can be brought to accept that they cannot control others, and in fact by doing so christians would be controlling others. That is not acceptable. I for instance dont think that the man should be the head of the house in a heterosexual couple, but I would not dare to expect this to be legislated, and I imagine a good number of christians would take offence if I tried to suggest such a law should be made.

If religious people dont want to share the same union as same sex couples, religious people can have religious unions and leave marraige alone. Alternatively they could continue to enjoy both, and let those who only want a marraige (and not a religious union) live their own lives according to their own doctrines.

Fine, but the thread is about Chrisianity.


No, it is not, it is about why is Homosexuality considered a sin. Christianity is not the only religion to define sin. Arrogant troll.

Everyone keeps throwing around the term Christian like we all feel this way. Alot of Protestants (for instance almost all of the united church), have absolutely no problems with homosexuality or homosexual marriage. I had a lesbian minister at my church for a while, and nobody batted an eye. I still don't believe that Jonah was actually in the belly of a great fish for 3 days and 3 nights, the same way I don't believe God smited (or smote) Sodom. I do believe in God but I also realize that God didn't write the bible and I allow for some mistakes (embellishments) in there due to that.

OK, well if i could try it i might, but because the preparation of sex is quite mental, so therefore attaining an erection depends on your mental state. So if i'm thinking about Anal sex, and it bothers/disturbs me to think about where my "organ" will be going, i won't be able to acheive erection.


Actually most homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. The most common forms of gay sex are mutual masturbation and oral sex--of cours ethis is for gay men, not lesbians. So I guess, can you get it up for a blow job?

And by the way, thank you for being cool.

now my rant is over i will be more rational

okay let me try and settle this: Marriage is a RELIGOUS UNION. no-ones saying you cant be together, just dont try to take it to a level where people are offended, for example where you try to get a religious union to become available to something against the religion. cant you just live together and leave the rest of us out of it?

Everyone keeps throwing around the term Christian like we all feel this way. Alot of Protestants (for instance almost all of the united church), have absolutely no problems with homosexuality or homosexual marriage. I had a lesbian minister at my church for a while, and nobody batted an eye. I still don't believe that Jonah was actually in the belly of a great fish for 3 days and 3 nights, the same way I don't believe God smited (or smote) Sodom. I do believe in God but I also realize that God didn't write the bible and I allow for some mistakes (embellishments) in there due to that.

My humble apologies to you if I've been a party to this. I do realize that not all Christians are evil bastards (many many are wonderful people!) just like not all muslims are like the Taliban and not all gays are queens.

The ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong is because in the bible it says that sodomy is wrong. So having anal sex, or giving or recieving oral sex, is sinful. Anal sex is only looked down upon more so because of what usually comes out of that orafice. :p

So bottom line, if you've had oral sex, you're in the same boat as homosexuals. So sorry Right wingers.

sod·om·y
1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.

So 2 guys(or girls) can have oral sex with each other and it's not considered sodomy? But my wife giving me head is? Hahahahaha, that's hilarious! God bless outdated rules and regulations! :P

Marriage is a RELIGOUS UNION.

Well that post kinda tripped at the first hurdle didn't it?

Wrong.

where i come from it us

now my rant is over i will be more rational

okay let me try and settle this: Marriage is a RELIGOUS UNION. no-ones saying you cant be together, just dont try to take it to a level where people are offended, for example where you try to get a religious union to become available to something against the religion. cant you just live together and leave the rest of us out of it?

That is what we are trying to do. But because "marriage" carries rights iwth it from the government, its not just a religious issue. If it were just religious, a justice of the peace could not marry you. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. Gay people aren't asking that churches be forced to perform gay marriages. They are asking that the government give them equal treatment under the law.

Nope. Marriage is not solely a religious instuition. At all. Ever.

That is what we are trying to do. But because "marriage" carries rights iwth it from the government, its not just a religious issue. If it were just religious, a justice of the peace could not marry you. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. Gay people aren't asking that churches be forced to perform gay marriages. They are asking that the government give them equal treatment under the law.

you could just call it something like a parternership. this doesnt make people think that you regard your relationship the same as a hetrosexuals (if you think so, then think whatever you want to like anyone else), so you get the religious and moralistic who may be offended by your views off your back.

P.S. im not saying your relationship is lesser, just different

you could just call it something like a parternership. this doesnt make people think that you regard your relationship the same as a hetrosexuals (if you think so, then think whatever you want to like anyone else), so you get the religious and moralistic who may be offended by your views off your back.

I've said before that I would support the government not recognizing marriage at all and instead giving everyone a civil union while leaving marriage only to religious organizations.

I will not however support a dual system with different names for different groups (as far as the government is concerned). Separate is not equal.

Back on track:
My answer to the origional questional is because it is unnatural. sont challenge me in this, as i get fed up of people doing this every time i say that. It is not how we are created. not only this, but in my oppinion it is just as bad a beastiality or other such perversions. just my view there.
I wont bore you with "the scripture says this or that", as since JC most of it is irrelevant. nevertheless, there are some good lessons in their, namely the fact that it states stuff that is mainly common sense. i dont see any of you arguing in favour of incest, so why should it be different for you perverts than from them?

Rant over. sorry.

You're an idiot. Incest has been around since adam and eve (hell, Eve was made FROM adam). Who do you think cain and abel slept with? Had to be their own sisters, huh? I thought so. Your god cares nothing about morality or what is "natural".

your god allowed cain to kill abel and instead of punishing him, decided to punish anyone who kills him.
Your god killed the entire planet, save noah and his family.
Your god killed all the 1st born children of Egypt because his people were too weak to free themselves.

If your god can break his own rules, then any of us can.

god is dead and no one cares. get over it.

P.S. im not saying your relationship is lesser, just different

Again, separate is not equal. You can't call something by a different name and expect it to be considered the same. By saying it is not worth the same name, you are suggesting that it is somehow lesser.

So 2 guys(or girls) can have oral sex with each other and it's not considered sodomy? But my wife giving me head is? Hahahahaha, that's hilarious! God bless outdated rules and regulations! :P


No no, my view of sodomy is intercourse of any type, between any 2 consenting individuals, that is not vaginal intercourse. So yes i still partake in sodomy, just not of the anal or homosexually oral variations. Hell, i'd like to see the person who hasn't partook in sodomy.

And if you wanna get really radical we've all partook in sodomy, our mouths passed through our mothers vagina. Oh course even i realise this isn't true. :) It's just an exaggeration.

Actually most homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. The most common forms of gay sex are mutual masturbation and oral sex--of cours ethis is for gay men, not lesbians. So I guess, can you get it up for a blow job?

And by the way, thank you for being cool.


lol, maybe if they had soft long hair?

And no prob. :)

well, you are doing something that is different. we cant call different things the same, else we would not be able to distinguish. do we call a eel and a fish the same thing? no. does this mean we are discriminating either? (sorry, bad example)

lol, maybe if they had soft long hair?

And no prob. :)

I could make a crack about growing my hair out for you, but Neo would probably use it as "Evidence" that all gay men are promiscuous and are just out trying to have sex with straight men. :rolleyes:

I could make a crack about growing my hair out for you, but Neo would probably use it as "Evidence" that all gay men are promiscuous and are just out trying to have sex with straight men. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and if we're really unlucky he might stumble across the Homosexual Agenda and find out all our evil plans of destruction :eek:

well, you are doing something that is different. we cant call different things the same, else we would not be able to distinguish. do we call a eel and a fish the same thing? no. does this mean we are discriminating either? (sorry, bad example)

Very bad example. As far as the government is concerened, a marriage is two people stating their intention to spend their lives together, to share their finances, and making one the next of kin for the other. That is what gay people want. There is no differnece there (as far as the governmnt is concerned).

Now, I understand the religious objection (even if I disagree with it) so I am willing for the government to have a separate name for all "marriages" and leave marriage to the religious organizations.

You're an idiot. Incest has been around since adam and eve (hell, Eve was made FROM adam). Who do you think cain and abel slept with? Had to be their own sisters, huh? I thought so. Your god cares nothing about morality or what is "natural".

your god allowed cain to kill abel and instead of punishing him, decided to punish anyone who kills him.
Your god killed the entire planet, save noah and his family.
Your god killed all the 1st born children of Egypt because his people were too weak to free themselves.

If your god can break his own rules, then any of us can.

god is dead and no one cares. get over it.

please, do not "nit-pick". God could have easily created a wife for cain and abel.
The world was steeped in sin. A fresh start is better than defeat of all that is right.
Egypt had fair warning

shut the fuck up till you find someone who cares about your own insane ramblings. do you know the meaning of "immortal?"

shut the fuck up till you find someone who cares about your own insane ramblings.

Oh what horrible horrible irony.

Oh what horrible horrible irony.
Oh what a horrible sense of humour
+there are at least 42079417 people in the UK alone who care about what i am saying (well, not me personally)

That was a cheap shot, I apologize >_<

That was a cheap shot, I apologize >_<
no worrys. no grudges held

+there are at least 42079417 people in the UK alone who care about what i am saying (well, not me personally)

*holds hand up for not being one of them*

please, do not "nit-pick". God could have easily created a wife for cain and abel.
The world was steeped in sin. A fresh start is better than defeat of all that is right.
Egypt had fair warning

shut the fuck up till you find someone who cares about your own insane ramblings. do you know the meaning of "immortal?"


lol, question, many Christians dislike going ti church once a week, so why is our paradise 24/7 heaven? i like church, but 24/7? the viking Valhalla was more practical (girls, food, and drink). just curious.

sorry i put ti when i meant *to. i am so ashamed of myself i will now commit suicide.

now my rant is over i will be more rational

okay let me try and settle this: Marriage is a RELIGOUS UNION. no-ones saying you cant be together, just dont try to take it to a level where people are offended, for example where you try to get a religious union to become available to something against the religion. cant you just live together and leave the rest of us out of it?

i'm not gay, but when i get married it won't be a religious occasion unless my spouse (well, becoming spouse) is quite religious and wants it to be a religious thing.

marriage is a civil thing more than anything.

Incest... well there's a stickier situation. But give me some reasons! Why is it a peversion?Ahahahahaha. Oh man, don't let this thread go on to the incest debate again. I've had it happen before. The mods lock anything relating to incest because minors have access to the board. (I don't understand the logic in that either.) The major arguments against incest are of course the increased possibility of deformities in children, and the unfair power that some may hold in the relationship. Outside of that, I've not heard any good reasons against it. It's merely something we all hold taboo. Anyway... >.>; Back to the topic at hand.

Here's an interesting thesis that may explain the genetics of homosexuality to some degree. It also supports my argument that environmental (and by that I mean hormonal factors and such rather than CHOICE- let me just make that clear) and polygenic factors play a large role.

Maternal genes (http://www.newsisfree.com/iclick/i%2C56794071%2C1440%2Cf)

Just a note on polygenic factors, I think sexuality is best viewed as a continuum, a bell curve perhaps rather than a notion of polarity. So sexuality may be more like height or skin colour.

please, do not "nit-pick". God could have easily created a wife for cain and abel.
The world was steeped in sin. A fresh start is better than defeat of all that is right.
Egypt had fair warning

shut the fuck up till you find someone who cares about your own insane ramblings. do you know the meaning of "immortal?"What God could have done is much different then what God actually did. And I do think that last bit was a bit uncalled for.

The Preamble of the Constitution makes no mention of Christianity:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Further, no where in the Constitution is the word God mentioned. Even when it lays out the oath the President must take before coming into office, God is not mentioned.

You are likely thinking of the Declaration of Independence which does mention God. However, it did not establish this nation nor is it a document of our law. It severed the ties between Britain and the colonies. That's it.

The Consitution was not written until 1787 when the states sent delegations to revise the Articles of Confederation (which established the first nation). instead they scrapped said articles and wrote the Constitution.

The Phrase "Secure the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity come from the gospel, so the preamble does invoke christianity. I do mean the constituion, and not the Declaration of independance.

Show me where in the Bible it mentions, let alone suppors any other kind of marriage.

No, you show me where in the Bible it mentions that a marriage is *only* between *one* man and *one* woman.
*Or* show me where it says two men or two women can not be married.

You dont understand. To Christians homosexual marriage is giving homosexuals a great place of pride to enact their sin. Sin should never be suported.

So why do you allow murderers/rapists/thiefs to marry?

The Phrase "Secure the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity come from the gospel, so the preamble does invoke christianity. I do mean the constituion, and not the Declaration of independance.

Before I refute this, I'm going to ask you to tell me where this appears in the gospels. A quick search on google didn't reveal anything.

Actually I'm going to go ahead and point out that (even if this is from the Bible) if they were going to invoke Christianity, they might've mentioned God or Jesus. You know, the central figures of the religion?

Further, if we were founded on Christianity, I find it hard to believe that our Senate and second President John Adams would have approved the Treaty of Tripoli which states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion . . ."

It's pretty self-explanatory that the Framer did not consider us to be a Christian nation.

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
The above link is where I got my information. It's a pretty good article on Early America and deals a lot with the fact that we have a secular government.

jesus loves everyone...why can't you?

Personaly i just think it is wrong that the same gender is having sex with eachother. I mean it's serioulsy wrong. And if i had a kid that was gay i would disown him.

Personaly i just think it is wrong that the same gender is having sex with eachother. I mean it's serioulsy wrong. And if i had a kid that was gay i would disown him.

What a good, kind, loving, compassionate parent you are. :rolleyes:

Hopefully there would be someone to take him in . . someone who could actually offer love, support and acceptance.

jesus loves everyone...why can't you?

Love is the hard part. It's much easier to hate.

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

No, religion only gives us excuses to cause problems. I think that if we got rid of religion and other superstitions, we would be better able to address the real root of human error, but blaming religion for all that's wrong with the world is as silly as blaming rock music for it.

why u might ask, because we werent evolved from monkeys (also being smarter)

You're right, but we did evolve from the same ancestors as monkeys.

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.

But you can't justify marrying your cat on mutual, sentient, mature love.

My answer to the origional questional is because it is unnatural. sont challenge me in this, as i get fed up of people doing this every time i say that. It is not how we are created. not only this, but in my oppinion it is just as bad a beastiality or other such perversions. just my view there.
I wont bore you with "the scripture says this or that", as since JC most of it is irrelevant. nevertheless, there are some good lessons in their, namely the fact that it states stuff that is mainly common sense. i dont see any of you arguing in favour of incest, so why should it be different for you perverts than from them?

Incest isn't the topic of this thread, which is WHY you don't see anyone arguing in favour of it. Personally, I don't have as much of a problem with it as most people, though I do think incestuous couples should be tested before they have children so that preventive measures can be taken against having children with defects.

Also, you fail to see the major difference between homosexuality and incest:
homosexuals are "born" with it (I put born in quotations because as it has been stated a billion times in this thread, sexuality is cemented before one leaves the toddler stage...so, essentially, it's the same thing in that it can't be changed).

The Phrase "Secure the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity come from the gospel, so the preamble does invoke christianity. I do mean the constituion, and not the Declaration of independance.

Really? It's been awhile since I've read the Bible, so could you refresh my memory as to wherein the Bible this phrase is found?

And quoting a poetic universally true line from The Iliad would not mean that I believed in Aphrodite and Zeus nor that I supported all the actions in said Iliad.

By the way, the conflict between your username and your stance amuses me. Unless you're just playing the devil's advocate, that is.


Personaly i just think it is wrong that the same gender is having sex with eachother. I mean it's serioulsy wrong. And if i had a kid that was gay i would disown him.


Then do the world a favour and never breed.

But you can't justify marrying your cat on mutual, sentient, mature love.

[nitpick mode]Cats are sentient. The correct term you are looking for is 'sapience'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapient[/nitpick mode]

[nitpick mode]Cats are sentient. The correct term you are looking for is 'sapience'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapient[/nitpick mode]

Yep, you're right. Sorry, I've been studying for the SATs all night. :p

And when, in the very near future, Islam is the majority of the world's population, do you think we should all listen to waht they have to say?

No, I was just making a point to someone who said Christianity was in the minority, I was saying it wasnt.

your god allowed cain to kill abel and instead of punishing him, decided to punish anyone who kills him.


Where does God ever say that he will punish murderers. The end times, thats where.


Your god killed the entire planet, save noah and his family.


You forget, this is pre-Crucifixtion. At this time the sinner and the sin were far harder to seperate. As a result of the Crucifixtion, people can (In God's eyes) be seen as blameless as Jesus. But the wages of sin were still death and God, right from the begining of the fall could have wiped out every human and be justified. But he didnt, in his mercy he spared us all. When the Earth became too sin ridden to be saved, he cleaned it and started again with Noah.


Your god killed all the 1st born children of Egypt because his people were too weak to free themselves.


You forget, that was the last plague, aside from my point above regarding the right God has to kill anyone (wages of sin = death) Moses had asked ten times for Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go.


If your god can break his own rules, then any of us can.


God did not break any of his rules. And we are not God


god is dead and no one cares. get over it.


Talk about arrogence. Care to even attempt to prove this...

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

The passages that many religious theologians have interpreted to mean the people of Sodom and Gamorrah were homosexual was mis-interpreted. Go look it up. Besides whatever homosexuality was practiced, it was a smaller part of the whole; the people of those cities gambled, drank, murdered, robbed, etc., on a daily basis, which was as much of a reason for God to destroy the city as any, I suppose.

I think the Bible is a fantastic fairy tale, with a couple good morals here and there, kind of like the Brothers Grimm. And just like how we know longer tie whetstones to people's necks, we no longer worry about God turning us into pillars of salt.

At least, you don't if you're a) a Godless heathen like me or b) able to think for yourself and interpret ideas in a rational manner -- as Jesus had his followers think.

Why is Homosexuality a sin... Because the 2nd Covanent Says So.

jesus loves everyone...why can't you?

Christians dont "hate" gays as some people think it. It is a sin, like any other. We dont "hate" gays, we do hate homosexuality (the action). If Christians went around hatting sinners then there would be no one to do the hating of other people as we would all be hating ourselves.

At least, you don't if you're a) a Godless heathen like me or b) able to think for yourself and interpret ideas in a rational manner -- as Jesus had his followers think.

At what point did Jesus ever refer to the Bible as purely metaphorical. If you read it, you will see even he points it as being literal.

Originally Posted by Ne Jerusalem
My answer to the origional questional is because it is unnatural. sont challenge me in this, as i get fed up of people doing this every time i say that. It is not how we are created. not only this, but in my oppinion it is just as bad a beastiality or other such perversions. just my view there.
I wont bore you with "the scripture says this or that", as since JC most of it is irrelevant. nevertheless, there are some good lessons in their, namely the fact that it states stuff that is mainly common sense. i dont see any of you arguing in favour of incest, so why should it be different for you perverts than from them?

I wonder, did God create you not to be able to use grammar?

Did God create you to judge others?

Did God create you spout off fallacial arguments about how incest==homosexuality?

Did God create you to invoke His name whenever something you are uncomfortable with threatens... well, threatens nothing besides your comfort?

Did God create you to decide how people should be born and how they should live and who they should love?

If you are God's right hand man, I'll be impressed. You can turn some of my water into wine like that crazy partier did way back when. Until then, STFU and leave the judging where it belongs.

No, you show me where in the Bible it mentions that a marriage is *only* between *one* man and *one* woman.
*Or* show me where it says two men or two women can not be married.


Genesis 2:24. It describes the reason behind the way marriage is

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

Now lets break that verse down and put it into context. The verses before (Genesis 2: 18-25) explain about the creation of Eve and the reasons for this. Genesis 2: 24 then says that the reason for marriage to be the way it is, is because of the way the creation of Eve happened and Eve's role with Adam in Eden. Since Eden was perfect, if God had wanted Gay marriage he would have stated it and made another couple. Since this is the orriginal description of how marriage works and there are no revisions or anything throught the Bible, then we can assume that this is how God wanted marriage to be. There I have found a verse. Now the burden of proof is with you, find a verse that supports Gay marriage. That may take you a while since there isnt one.


So why do you allow murderers/rapists/thiefs to marry?


They are sinners yes. And we do allow them to marry yes. You misunderstand I am not saying that homosexuals shouldnt marry because they are sinners, if that was the case then no one should marry at all. What I am saying is that since the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin, therefore the idea of homosexual marriage supports homosexuality and the Bible is against sin, let alone supporting sin. Homosexual marriage is (to Christians) like saying to a murderer "I hereby give you this town to murder as many people as you like in it". It gives them a special grounds to commit there sin, which they dont have. No one has any grounds to sin, ever.

I wonder, did God create you not to be able to use grammar?My, My, My... attacking someone's grammar/spelling is a fallback tactic for one with no solid argument.
Did God create you to judge others? He is not Judging Others... He is judging the action, not the person. Only God can Judge.
Did God create you spout off fallacial arguments about how incest==homosexuality? Everyone makes mistakes... even you...
Did God create you to invoke His name whenever something you are uncomfortable with threatens... well, threatens nothing besides your comfort?Sin does not just threaten comfort. In all religions, Sin threatens the soul. Some religions require stoning the sinner to death. Christians believe all are forgiven when you accept Jesus into your heart.
Did God create you to decide how people should be born and how they should live and who they should love? Nope his teachings are there for that. We only follow that.
If you are God's right hand man, I'll be impressed. You can turn some of my water into wine like that crazy partier did way back when. Until then, STFU and leave the judging where it belongs....and you blame Ne Jerusalem for dictating how others can live? for Judging others? For Invoking God's name for fallacial arguments? Here one... Practice what you preach.

Did God create you to judge others?


We (Christians) do not judge. Here we are explaining why we see Homosexuality as a sin, the reasons behind it, no more, no less.


Did God create you spout off fallacial arguments about how incest==homosexuality?


I don't know about New Jeruselums arguements, I havent read them but mine are not fallicys.


Did God create you to invoke His name whenever something you are uncomfortable with threatens... well, threatens nothing besides your comfort?


I am not uncomfortable with Gays. I treet them as normal people, like everyone else they are sinners. Ergo there is no need to treet them diffrently. The difficulty comes for Christians when Gay's are open and prideful about there sexuality because for Christians homosexuality is a sin. Then we just have to ignore it, tell them about what we belive (but only tell them, not force it on them) and let them be.


Did God create you to decide how people should be born and how they should live and who they should love?


Thats a fallicy arguement if ever I saw one. You cant justify anything through love. I could say "I love this lamp post deeply and truely and I want to marry it" and you know I would be stupid but I may get offended by the fact that you chose to call my love stupid. You cant justify anything through the arguement of love. As for born, we have allready established people are not 'Born Gay', see previous posts.


If you are God's right hand man, I'll be impressed. You can turn some of my water into wine like that crazy partier did way back when. Until then, STFU and leave the judging where it belongs.


Here all we are doing is explaining our views because someone asked us too, dont attack us for that.

Sin does not just threaten comfort. In all religions, Sin threatens the soul. Some religions require stoning the sinner to death. Christians believe all are forgiven when you accept Jesus into your heart.So, you're saying it's morally better to force someone to accept Christianity than to kill them? I guess there is a difference between abusing them physically vs. abusing them mentally, but I still think that that is not true forgiveness. True forgiveness should not hinge upon whether someone will convert to your religion or not.

Sin is a loosely defined word that changes from religion to religion. The general definition is the same, sure, but the specifics of what a sin actually is changes. So what threatens your soul, doesn't necessarily threaten other's soul. Where do you draw the line of your beliefs vs. others?

They are sinners yes. And we do allow them to marry yes. You misunderstand I am not saying that homosexuals shouldnt marry because they are sinners, if that was the case then no one should marry at all. What I am saying is that since the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin, therefore the idea of homosexual marriage supports homosexuality and the Bible is against sin, let alone supporting sin. Homosexual marriage is (to Christians) like saying to a murderer "I hereby give you this town to murder as many people as you like in it". It gives them a special grounds to commit there sin, which they dont have. No one has any grounds to sin, ever.

Assuming for rhetorical puropses, homsexuality is in fact sin why is it so often compared to particularly egregious acts such as murder, incest, child molestation when a sin is a sin is a sin and sins like worrying is the sin never mentioned in this case.... hmmmm? Why is it so often the bottom of the barrel
? Exactly how much of your POV and understanding of 'sin' in this case is coloured by your religious beliefs and how much is something else... like uhh sin itself and I might add you essentially broke the 8th commandment a few times in this thread in the name of God Himself... oooh that's two broken commandments. :eek:

He is not Judging Others... He is judging the action, not the person. Only God can Judge.See, here is a fundamental difference. You seem to believe that homosexuality is an action. I can agree that sodomy is indeed an act, but homosexuality is something that develops and can not be helped. It is a part of a person. It is not all of them, but it is a characteristic, like hair color, and liking chocolate ice cream.

So, you're saying it's morally better to force someone to accept Christianity than to kill them? I guess there is a difference between abusing them physically vs. abusing them mentally, but I still think that that is not true forgiveness. True forgiveness should not hinge upon whether someone will convert to your religion or not.

Sin is a loosely defined word that changes from religion to religion. The general definition is the same, sure, but the specifics of what a sin actually is changes. So what threatens your soul, doesn't necessarily threaten other's soul. Where do you draw the line of your beliefs vs. others?

No one is forcing you to do anything... at least not me. Beware of forcing your views on me... not that you are. Most religions view sin (in general) as a blemish that can deny you access to paradise. Forgiveness of sin can only be between two types of people. The one whom sin was transgressed upon, (I steal your money. It is your choice to forgive me not your friend Bob... unless I framed him or something. ) and God. Those religions that believe in Reincarnation, believe that the more sin you have in life, the lower your form when you return. only by living a clean life will you transend Earth and reach Paradise. (I'm paraphrasing here.) My sin threatens My soul. Your Sin, your soul. If your religious mandate says, "eh it's ok, sin all you want... I dont care," then obviously your soul is not threatened.

Where do I draw the Line? simple. My sin, My Responsibility. you can tell me that the act of Homosexuality is fine, but respect my decision to think otherwise and I respect yours. we can go out and have a cup of coffee together... nothing wrong with that. we can see movies or go crusing... nothing wrong with that. but forcing me to participate in a GAY PRIDE march or me Forcing You to attend a Baptismal... YOURS. then that is where the problem lies. God will not take an unwilling heart and I will not even try to present one to Him.

Where do I draw the Line? simple. My sin, My Responsibility. you can tell me that the act of Homosexuality is fine, but respect my decision to think otherwise and I respect yours. we can go out and have a cup of coffee together... nothing wrong with that. we can see movies or go crusing... nothing wrong with that. but forcing me to participate in a GAY PRIDE march or me Forcing You to attend a Baptismal... YOURS. then that is where the problem lies. God will not take an unwilling heart and I will not even try to present one to Him.I can agree to that. Hell, I don't like gay pride marches either, to be blatantly honest. So basically, I gather, that you're saying that people should decide for themselves what sin is for them, personally. That makes sense to me.

The question that then appears to me then is how is gay marriage personally effecting you and your soul? No one is forcing you to get married or turn gay, and thus, personally, it is not directly effecting you or your soul.

At risk of repeating myself, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, therefore it can't possibly be wrong.

Junii: No one is asking you to attend a gay pride march. We can't control what you think, after all. But when your beliefs threaten the rights of gay people, we have a problem.

See, here is a fundamental difference. You seem to believe that homosexuality is an action. I can agree that sodomy is indeed an act, but homosexuality is something that develops and can not be helped. It is a part of a person. It is not all of them, but it is a characteristic, like hair color, and liking chocolate ice cream.

So you believe Homosexuality is a Gene. A genetic predispostition then? Prove it.

The Question of the Thread is not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN, but WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN.

Assuming for rhetorical puropses, homsexuality is in fact sin why is it so often compared to particularly egregious acts such as murder, incest, child molestation when a sin is a sin is a sin and sins like worrying is the sin never mentioned in this case.... hmmmm? Why is it so often the bottom of the barrel


I am just comparing it to sin. Sin is sin and no one is worse than the other. I could have easily compared it to lying/cheating etc


? Exactly how much of your POV and understanding of 'sin' in this case is coloured by your religious beliefs and how much is something else... like uhh sin itself and I might add you essentially broke the 8th commandment a few times in this thread in the name of God Himself... oooh that's two broken commandments. :eek:

Sin is a religous concept and therefore all of it is coulored by my religous beliefs. What is sin if not a concept from Religions. And where have I broken the 8th commandment, 'do not steel'

So you believe Homosexuality is a Gene.
He didn't say that, did he. All he asserts is that it's not a choice, which is correct.
The Question of the Thread is not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN, but WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN.
So why is it?

So you believe Homosexuality is a Gene. A genetic predispostition then? Prove it.

The Question of the Thread is not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN, but WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN.

But first, prove heterosexual orientation is "genetic" and therefore valid orientation and not sin... I should add you will have your work cut out for you coz no one has done so to date.

So you believe Homosexuality is a Gene. A genetic predispostition then? Prove it.

The Question of the Thread is not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN, but WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN.Nope, didn't say that. I said it is something that forms naturally during adolescent development. I think it has to do with a combination of natural inclination and environmental factors.

Sexual preference is a something that is just a matter of opinion. Like why some people like asparagus, and why some others hate it. I don't know why chocolate ice cream tastes so good to me. I didn't choose to have it taste that way. But I do know that it does taste good, and I'm going to eat it when I have the chance. Does that mean I'm going to force others to eat chocolate ice cream? No, obviously. Hopefully, this clarifies.

I am just comparing it to sin. Sin is sin and no one is worse than the other. I could have easily compared it to lying/cheating etc

But you didn't. :/ And what do the sins you mentioned in common have? Victims! Unless you're into some naughty stuff, homosexuality generally doesn't have victims.



[QUOTE=Neo Cannen]Sin is a religous concept and therefore all of it is coulored by my religous beliefs. What is sin if not a concept from Religions. And where have I broken the 8th commandment, 'do not steel'

OOopsie I meant #9, the one about bearing false witness and your false proof of something not yet known as an extension of your religious beliefs which then puts you in hot water as far as #3 goes.

He didn't say that, did he. All he asserts is that it's not a choice, which is correct.

So why is it?

He says it's a characteristic like hair color... Hair color is a genetic trait.

Sin is a blemish in God's eyes. The bible has stated (read the past threads for they've been repeated often enough) that Homosexuality is a sin.

you don't like Homosexuality being a Sin? Become an Athiest or part of any religion that allows for Homosexuality (the act, not the person) then for you, it won't be a sin. Rejoice!

But first, prove heterosexual orientation is "genetic" and therefore valid orientation and not sin... I should add you will have your work cut out for you coz no one has done so to date.WRONG, Felkarth proposed that Homosexuality is not a choice but a "Characteristic" thus the burden of Proof falls on Felkarth. If he can't then he shouldn't have used it as an argument. I never stated that Homosexuality is nor isn't genetic. if you don't believe me... look it up.

Sin is a blemish in God's eyes. The bible has stated (read the past threads for they've been repeated often enough) that Homosexuality is a sin.
But WHY? Can't you think for yourself? Give me a logical and reasoned argument why it's a sin without referring to religion, please.

you don't like Homosexuality being a Sin? Become an Athiest or part of any religion that allows for Homosexuality (the act, not the person) then for you, it won't be a sin. Rejoice!

Wow, why didn't I think of that.

I couldn't give a donkey's what some religion thinks of me (obviously it's not ideal having a third of the world hate my guts, but I can live with it) but when they start trying to push their backward beliefs on the government to take away our rights, I can't help but be a part of the issue.

Nope, didn't say that. I said it is something that forms naturally during adolescent development. I think it has to do with a combination of natural inclination and environmental factors.

Sexual preference is a something that is just a matter of opinion. Like why some people like asparagus, and why some others hate it. I don't know why chocolate ice cream tastes so good to me. I didn't choose to have it taste that way. But I do know that it does taste good, and I'm going to eat it when I have the chance. Does that mean I'm going to force others to eat chocolate ice cream? No, obviously. Hopefully, this clarifies.

Edited: unfortunatly, some of your samples for Preferences are genetic in nature.

And some people like to Kill and yet the government denys them their happines. others like to lie and cheat yet their spouses take umbrage to that. A child has no choice to those who are raising him. A child being raised by "same sex" partners is "forced" to believe their parents beliefs with no other facts to form an opinion of their own. If you have nothing but Chocolate Ice Cream in your house, then are you not forcing others who stay with you to eat chocolate ice cream? or forcing them to find alternatives?


BTW, thanks, now I'm hungery again. :p

Sin is a blemish in God's eyes. The bible has stated (read the past threads for they've been repeated often enough) that Homosexuality is a sin.

I find it most strange that a discussion that just is nothing more than bigots stating the same thing over and over can reach 2500 posts... :confused:

The Bible also denounces cutting your hair as a Sin; wearing clothes made from different garments a Sin; and even heterosexual intercourse as a Sin.

But then again, it's just an excuse as homophobes use it as nothing but an excuse to hate people.

I think this thread is ripe for closing ;) as the pro-homosexuals have won the debate about 100 times -litteraly- and that the anti-homosexuals don't listen, just keep sprouting anti-gay sentiments. :rolleyes:

But first, prove heterosexual orientation is "genetic" and therefore valid orientation and not sin... I should add you will have your work cut out for you coz no one has done so to date.

Well God said to both Adam and Eve to

" God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." "

Genesis 1: 22

I find it most strange that a discussion that just is nothing more than bigots stating the same thing over and over can reach 2500 posts... :confused:

The Bible also denounces cutting your hair as a Sin; wearing clothes made from different garments a Sin; and even heterosexual intercourse as a Sin.

But then again, it's just an excuse as homophobes use it as nothing but an excuse to hate people.

I think this thread is ripe for closing ;) as the pro-homosexuals have won the debate about 100 times -litteraly- and that the anti-homosexuals don't listen, just keep sprouting anti-gay sentiments. :rolleyes:

Please newb, go back into your box and read the post. The Pro-Homosexuals have not won. This is a complex debate, one in which newbish arrogence is not welcome .And this is not for anti-gay's its for Christians. There are plenty of reasons why Christians should think homosexuality is a sin. Go read the entire thread to find them all.

But WHY? Can't you think for yourself? Give me a logical and reasoned argument why it's a sin without referring to religion, please.


Explain something is a sin without refering to religion... Forgive me but I am fairly certain that thats an oxy moron.

But WHY? Can't you think for yourself? Give me a logical and reasoned argument why it's a sin without referring to religion, please.

Wow, why didn't I think of that.

I couldn't give a donkey's what some religion thinks of me (obviously it's not ideal having a third of the world hate my guts, but I can live with it) but when they start trying to push their backward beliefs on the government to take away our rights, I can't help but be a part of the issue.

ok, I'll think of a way to describe sin without religion... YOU describe how something is Ilegal, or legal without bringing up any Laws. :)

Sin IS A RELIGIOUS CONCEPT. I don't deny it. Religion is baised off of Belief. Belief relies on Faith. I can prove my faith to you but I know you will take offense at it. Almost all of the Laws are baised on religion. Murder, rape, Incest, Theift, Destruction of Private Property... all in the BIBLE. where in the Constitution does it state you have the right to Homosexuality? Pursuit of Happines? Going to the bank and withdrawing 10,000 out of someone else's account because it makes me happy would then be my RIGHT but everyone else will say no. Having everyone become christians would make some happy, but I am against it because it's not our place to force others to accept our beliefs. I am not stopping you from partaking in Homosexual Acts. Just from forcing your beliefs on me.

BTW if you don't give a Ass's Ass about what religions think of you and you are part of a religion that does not believe that Homosexuality is a sin, or an Athiest or Agnostic, then really, I am serious, it's not a Sin to you.

Well God said to both Adam and Eve to

" God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." "

Genesis 1: 22

Confusing religion with science as well as sexual orientation with sexual reproduction doesn't answer my question.

I find it most strange that a discussion that just is nothing more than bigots stating the same thing over and over can reach 2500 posts... :confused:

The Bible also denounces cutting your hair as a Sin; wearing clothes made from different garments a Sin; and even heterosexual intercourse as a Sin.

But then again, it's just an excuse as homophobes use it as nothing but an excuse to hate people.

I think this thread is ripe for closing ;) as the pro-homosexuals have won the debate about 100 times -litteraly- and that the anti-homosexuals don't listen, just keep sprouting anti-gay sentiments. :rolleyes:

Your points are stated in the FIRST COVENANT. That was invalidated by the SECOND COVENANT.

And the thread remains open because we are not flame baiting, but having (for the most part) civil discussions.

Explain something is a sin without refering to religion... Forgive me but I am fairly certain that thats an oxy moron.

I'm sure that what Rubbish meant was "Explain why it's wrong without referring to religion."

Don't evade the question with a little quibble over semantics.

WRONG, Felkarth proposed that Homosexuality is not a choice but a "Characteristic" thus the burden of Proof falls on Felkarth. If he can't then he shouldn't have used it as an argument. I never stated that Homosexuality is nor isn't genetic. if you don't believe me... look it up.


news flash: IT IS A CHARACTERISTIC.

news flash: IT IS A CHARACTERISTIC.
True, but a genetic one.

I'm sure that what Rubbish meant was "Explain why it's wrong without referring to religion."

Don't evade the question with a little quibble over semantics.

ok, I'll think of a way to describe sin without religion... YOU describe how something is Ilegal, or legal without bringing up any Laws.

ok, I'll think of a way to describe sin without religion... YOU describe how something is Ilegal, or legal without bringing up any Laws.

Did you even read my post?

Did you even read my post?

Yes, read post #2650.

Confusing religion with science as well as sexual orientation with sexual reproduction doesn't answer my question.

Ok

1) Firstly the majority of the population of Earth are by far hetrosexual

2) If you are an human biologist then you will see that the human reproductive system is designed to interact with the human hormonal sytem which is in turn designed to interact with the brain when your eyes see an attractive women/man. The whole system works to benefit the population growth. Homosexuality does not do this.

Explain something is a sin without refering to religion... Forgive me but I am fairly certain that thats an oxy moron.
As much as I am against homophobes etc and people who use religion against me, you must accept that talking about sin must be accompanied by religion. If you don't like it, well just dont be religious.

I'm sure that what Rubbish meant was "Explain why it's wrong without referring to religion."

Don't evade the question with a little quibble over semantics.

Were not disussing why its "Wrong" were disucssing why its a sin. Whilst there are simmilaritys there are also diffrences. "Wrong" is a social concept where as sin is a religious one.

Yes, read post #2650.

Yes, read post #2650.

And yet you failed to understand it. It was pretty simplistic, too.

I said: I'm sure that what Rubbish meant was "Explain why it's wrong without referring to religion."

Considering how much sin is thrown around in this topic, it's easy as hell to mix a few words on accident. But, as Rubbish isn't online (I think...) to say whether or not s/he meant "wrong" in the secular sense rather than "sin" in the religious sense, pretend I asked you.

Okay, now answer the question. Explain why homosexuality (or homosexual acts, depending on which you believe is wrong) is wrong without referring to religion.

And yet you failed to understand it. It was pretty simplistic, too.

I said: I'm sure that what Rubbish meant was "Explain why it's wrong without referring to religion."

Considering how much sin is thrown around in this topic, it's easy as hell to mix a few words on accident. But, as Rubbish isn't online (I think...) to say whether or not s/he meant "wrong" in the secular sense rather than "sin" in the religious sense, pretend I asked you.

Okay, now answer the question. Explain why homosexuality (or homosexual acts, depending on which you believe is wrong) is wrong without referring to religion.

OK, that is better. Not on thread topic but better. and No, I do not think Homosexual relations between two concenting adults is wrong in the eyes of man... because it is not against the laws of man.

Explain why homosexuality (or homosexual acts, depending on which you believe is wrong) is wrong without referring to religion.
Yes, please do. And.. be rational.

Were not disussing why its "Wrong" were disucssing why its a sin. Whilst there are simmilaritys there are also diffrences. "Wrong" is a social concept where as sin is a religious one.

This thread has nearly 3000 posts, and it didn't get that why only by testing whether it was a sin in the religious sense; you've gone off topic many times yourself. Face it. Topics drift. If they didn't, then this would get really dull really fast.

But while we're discussing it as a sin, let me ask you a question: do you believe in Biblical inerrancy?

Actually, certain species of animal produce an offspring that forgoes any reproduction in cases where there is a large litter or similar population, this individual specimen then assists with the child-rearing. Also, the fact of reproduction is an observation of how the world is, but so is homoesexuality. Homosexuality (that is a sexual act directed toward another of the same sex) is present in the animal kingdom, so an be described as natural.

Further, while the primary biological function of sex is reproduction, this doesn't mean that this is all that it has to be, or all it should be. If this was the case, and you wanted to apply this point of view in all cases, then eyes are for looking, not for making expression with. Also, hands are for working with, not for signing with, meaning that sign language would be immoral as well.

Be careful when using the biological idea of function in too normative a sense. Biological function does not equate to moral normativity.

But while we're discussing it as a sin, let me ask you a question: do you believe in Biblical inerrancy?

Yes, since you ask. And before you jump on that by saying "What about shellfish" I have delt with that. See Acts 10: 9 - 15

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."

Yes, please do. And.. be rational.I do not believe the act of Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of man because it is not against the law.

As for the voting, it's for Marrage between same sex partners. I think this is the extreme case of people not willing to give and take.

now not being Homosexual myself, what do the Homosexuals want. The Union?, the rights given to them by the Laws of Man? Recognition by the Laws of Man. or to be recognized by the Church and thus by proxy... God?

Oh and if I was irrational, sorry, it's hard when Faith is Heart/Soul baised :)

1) Firstly the majority of the population of Earth are by far hetrosexual

But 10% are homosexual, which is a minority but a pretty big one. You can't argue this one with numbers.

Anyway, you can't separate sins and wrongness. Sins should be wrong, should they not? If they aren't, why are they sins?

Yes, please do. And.. be rational.

Again, we have stated, explaining Homosexuality as a sin without refering to relgion would be like explaining why anything is a legal/illegal without refering to laws. You cant do it.

But 10% are homosexual, which is a minority but a pretty big one. You can't argue this one with numbers.

I am not, read the second point in that post.

Anyway, you can't separate sins and wrongness. Sins should be wrong, should they not? If they aren't, why are they sins?

Yes but the idea of what is "Wrong" changes as society changes. Where as sins do not change. People dont see homosexuality as wrong now but it is a sin.

Yes but the idea of what is "Wrong" changes as society changes. Where as sins do not change. People dont see homosexuality as wrong now but it is a sin.

Sin: - is a crime between you and God.

"wrong" is a generally accepted value assigned by society. there are varying degrees of Wrong.

Ilegal - against laws set by the government.

Sin and Ilegal are set. the wrong kinda wavers between the two. However if it reaches one side or another, it become part of that catagory.

Ok

1) Firstly the majority of the population of Earth are by far hetrosexual

and?

2) If you are an human biologist then you will see...

Actually, TBH I majored in biology at university... was some time ago though. Are you a biologist? ;)

...that the human reproductive system is designed to interact with the human hormonal sytem which is in turn designed to interact with the brain when your eyes see an attractive women/man.

From a creationist standpoint to suggest design is valid but I'd assume a supreme being would design better more efficient beings not possessing such things as vestigial organs and a problematic body plan. I am also well aware of the role the brain plays in sexual behavior and it is one's brain which determines sexual orientation, not their genitals.


The whole system works to benefit the population growth. Homosexuality does not do this.

No kidding but are you aware that on the level of genetics especially, homosexuality is essentially a form of altruism? Several similar examples in the animal kingdom I might add and most of which involve the individual sacrificing reproductive success.

True, but a genetic one.

To risk sounding like a broken record...

THE "GENE(S)" FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED!

To risk sounding like a broken record...

THE "GENE(S)" FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED!

I WAS REFERRING TO HAIR COLOR!!!

I agree that the Genetic Cause for Homosexuality hasn't been identified or even proven to exist.

No, i'm telling you that noone knows who wrote it. Si, the christian inferior from within, like some Emperors we've heard of.. It's what made Constantinople vulnerable to the muslims.. Christianity made us weak and our ancestry roman gods made us strong.

che cazzo dici.
i romani ano visuto tanti ani fa.
no roman traditions are in practice anymore (involving polytheism)

You forget, this is pre-Crucifixtion. At this time the sinner and the sin were far harder to seperate. As a result of the Crucifixtion, people can (In God's eyes) be seen as blameless as Jesus. But the wages of sin were still death and God, right from the begining of the fall could have wiped out every human and be justified. But he didnt, in his mercy he spared us all. When the Earth became too sin ridden to be saved, he cleaned it and started again with Noah.

This doesn't make any sense. How can ANYTHING be difficult for god? How can something like 'separating sin from the sinner' be 'harder' for god at one point in time but easier at another point in time?

This doesn't make any sense. How can ANYTHING be difficult for god? How can something like 'separating sin from the sinner' be 'harder' for god at one point in time but easier at another point in time?

I think he's referring to the First and Second Covenants.

I WAS REFERRING TO HAIR COLOR!!!

I agree that the Genetic Cause for Homosexuality hasn't been identified or even proven to exist.

Nor heterosexuality.

Nor heterosexuality.
True.

I think he's referring to the First and Second Covenants.

Still doesn't make sense. Everything should be equally easy for god, if he exists.

Still doesn't make sense. Everything should be equally easy for god, if he exists.

I'm no bible scholar but I'll give it my best shot.
In the first covenant, in order to have god forgive you of your sins, it was required to offer a burnt sacrifice meeting several requirements. His Laws were laid out in great detail, saying who you can marry.. i.e. a woman, family practices (do not seek to unclothe your mother/sister/daughter/son/father you get the idea)
but then God sent is Lamb, Jesus to be sacrificed for all of mankind. Since Jesus is The living Sacrifice, he became the Second Covenant. Accepting what Jesus did, the love that he showed, washes your sin away with his blood that was spilt. Thus now, it's easier to get forgiveness and to enter Heaven No need to get the hibachi and offer burnt scrifices to god. Catholics believe in pennance (again, I am not a scholor) and Baptise and Methodists believe that prayer and asking for forgiveness (but you gotta mean it) is enough.

this is really simplified so there are alot of holes in it.

in other words... be gentle.

Nor heterosexuality.

A lack of genetic proof for hetrosexuality to explains more of why homosexuality is a sin. In the same way you cannot be forced to sin from birth, you cannot be forced to not sin. It is your decision.

No kidding but are you aware that on the level of genetics especially, homosexuality is essentially a form of altruism? Several similar examples in the animal kingdom I might add and most of which involve the individual sacrificing reproductive success.

Animal's also kill each other over mates (female/male partners, not friends) are you suggesting that becuase that is found in nature (in the animal kingdom) that it is not a sin for us to do that.

No, I was just making a point to someone who said Christianity was in the minority, I was saying it wasnt.

But you've said multiple times that the majority should be listened to, even at the expense of the minority. Why shouldn't Islam set all the laws if they are the majority?

Christians dont "hate" gays as some people think it. It is a sin, like any other. We dont "hate" gays, we do hate homosexuality (the action). If Christians went around hatting sinners then there would be no one to do the hating of other people as we would all be hating ourselves.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he was speaking about you or even "all Christians" but rather some of the psychopaths who have come on here and HAVE been hating gays.

At what point did Jesus ever refer to the Bible as purely metaphorical. If you read it, you will see even he points it as being literal.

As there was no Bible in Jesus' time I find that rather hard to believe.

The Question of the Thread is not IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN, but WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN.

Had you read the first post, you would have seen that the intent of the author was to demand reasons and for evangelicals to defend their stance. That implies that A. He doesn't currently agree with that. and B the rest of us are free to share our stances on why it is NOT a sin.

But you've said multiple times that the majority should be listened to, even at the expense of the minority. Why shouldn't Islam set all the laws if they are the majority?

No, what I said was IF a country voted in a government which wanted to oppose something like Gay marriage then WHY is that not fair.

As there was no Bible in Jesus' time I find that rather hard to believe.

Big no no. The Bible existed, but the New Testement hadnt been written as the events in it were happening. The Old testement existed and Jesus often refered to it as being literal.

Edited:
And some people like to Kill and yet the government denys them their happines. others like to lie and cheat yet their spouses take umbrage to that. A child has no choice to those who are raising him. A child being raised by "same sex" partners is "forced" to believe their parents beliefs with no other facts to form an opinion of their own. If you have nothing but Chocolate Ice Cream in your house, then are you not forcing others who stay with you to eat chocolate ice cream? or forcing them to find alternatives?


The difference in people who like to kill and lie and cheat? They hurt others. Homosexuals do not. And don't give me BS about children being raised by same sex partners being forced to believe their parents beliefs. The same is true of heterosexual parents! The whole point of parenting is to bring children up in your belief system.

Now, if you are referring to whether or not children raised by gay parents will be gay, well I hate to be the one to bust it to you, but statstics have shown that they are no more or less likely to be gay than children raised by heterosexual parents. The only difference is that if they are straight, they are way more likely to be tolerant.

I could be wrong, but I don't think he was speaking about you or even "all Christians" but rather some of the psychopaths who have come on here and HAVE been hating gays.

He was saying that Christians are just conservatives using the Bible to support there homophobic stance, which they arent and I explained that.

Well God said to both Adam and Eve to

" God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." "

Genesis 1: 22

That's not proof its genetic. That's proof its in the version of the Bible you read.

Please newb, go back into your box and read the post. The Pro-Homosexuals have not won. This is a complex debate, one in which newbish arrogence is not welcome .And this is not for anti-gay's its for Christians. There are plenty of reasons why Christians should think homosexuality is a sin. Go read the entire thread to find them all.

Actually Neo, he's right. We've given alternative interpretations of every scripture you've offered up. You've chosen not to listen to them. We've presented reasons why homosexuality is not a choice. You keep spouting off the same arguements that it is. We really should just quit bothering, but for some reason that's really difficult to do. Maybe I'm a masochist and that's why I keep coming back. Or maybe I'm just bored. <shrugs>

The difference in people who like to kill and lie and cheat? They hurt others. Homosexuals do not. And don't give me BS about children being raised by same sex partners being forced to believe their parents beliefs. The same is true of heterosexual parents! The whole point of parenting is to bring children up in your belief system.


The idea that "If it feels good and hurts no one, do it" does not apply to sin, as it does to American law.

Sin IS A RELIGIOUS CONCEPT. I don't deny it.

Just for the record, while sin does generally mean a religious offense, it can mean "to commit and offense of violation" (no reference to religion) or "something regarded as being harmful, deplorable, or utterly wrong." Source: Dictionary.com


So just for the record, even non-religious people can deal with sin. It's not limited to Christianity. I don't really expect you to deal with that this in this thread because, well, it requires a little too much work on all parts. Still, there it is.

Actually Neo, he's right. We've given alternative interpretations of every scripture you've offered up. You've chosen not to listen to them. We've presented reasons why homosexuality is not a choice. You keep spouting off the same arguements that it is. We really should just quit bothering, but for some reason that's really difficult to do. Maybe I'm a masochist and that's why I keep coming back. Or maybe I'm just bored. <shrugs>

You have not done any of the following

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports homosexuality

Provided alternitve understandings of Romans 1:18 - 27 or One Corinthians 6: 9 10

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports gay marriage

Shown a single gay virtuious person in the Bible

Proven that homosexuality is forced upon people from birth


So I am still winning

Ok

1) Firstly the majority of the population of Earth are by far hetrosexual

Unless you are willing to accept what will happen when Muslims are the single largest group, I'd suggest you stop using the word majority.

And for the record, brown haired people are the largest group as well. Yet we don't consider blondes or redheads to be abnormal or wrong.


2) If you are an human biologist then you will see that the human reproductive system is designed to interact with the human hormonal sytem which is in turn designed to interact with the brain when your eyes see an attractive women/man. The whole system works to benefit the population growth. Homosexuality does not do this.

As a human biologist, I realize that you have to look at the evolutionary picture as a whole. While the human reproductive system is necessary to well, reproduce, increasing numbers isn't always the best thing for a species. If you get too many of them in an ecosystem that can't support them (like say all the humans we have on earth now) you are more likely to have a mass die out that can be pretty close to extinction. Homosexuals help to prevent this by lowering reproductive rates.

Further, humans are fairly unique (though not completely so) in the altruism they exhibit to one another. The majority of species, when a child is grown, the parent goes off and has another child or dies or whatnot. Humans aren't like that, they hang around their children and their siblings and help to raise THEIR children. So again, you don't have to be directly involved in reproduction to help continue the species.

I dont belive in sin ....but I belive it's wrong ...according the laws of nature ....2 men do not produce a child the same way 2 women can not produce a child ...hence it is against the laws of nature ....and against our own productivity as a people

As a human biologist, I realize that you have to look at the evolutionary picture as a whole. While the human reproductive system is necessary to well, reproduce, increasing numbers isn't always the best thing for a species. If you get too many of them in an ecosystem that can't support them (like say all the humans we have on earth now) you are more likely to have a mass die out that can be pretty close to extinction. Homosexuals help to prevent this by lowering reproductive rates.


I have heard the "Homosexuality is population control" arguement before, and there is a problem with it. If it is some kind of biological control, how are you genes aware that the world is overpopulated? Or for that matter any part of you body except the infomation sections of the brain.

I
now not being Homosexual myself, what do the Homosexuals want. The Union?, the rights given to them by the Laws of Man? Recognition by the Laws of Man. or to be recognized by the Church and thus by proxy... God?


I'm impressed. As for what homosexuals want? We want the same rights given to straight people by the laws of man. Nothing more, nothing less. As for individual churches and the eyes of God? We handle that on a personal level. There are religious organizations out there that DO recognize gay marriages. No one is trying to force that off onto the ones who don't by a legal process. We just want legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.

That's not proof its genetic. That's proof its in the version of the Bible you read.

Yes but as I have said, the fact that neither hetrosexuality or homosexuality are genetic proves more to the way that homosexuality is a sin, (when coupled with the Biblical reffrences) as just as you cannot be forced to sin from birth, so you cannot be forced not to sin. It is up to you (note here, I have established that I beleive it is the action of homosexual sex that is the sin, not the attraction. The attraction is the temptation)

I'm impressed. As for what homosexuals want? We want the same rights given to straight people by the laws of man. Nothing more, nothing less. As for individual churches and the eyes of God? We handle that on a personal level. There are religious organizations out there that DO recognize gay marriages. No one is trying to force that off onto the ones who don't by a legal process. We just want legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Marriage is NOT a right.

I agree that the Genetic Cause for Homosexuality hasn't been identified or even proven to exist.

"Proven" is actually a poor word to use in relation to science (though even scientists use is all the time without realizing it). The case for a genetic etiology to homosexuality is actually pretty good. Linkages have been observed between homosexuality and things like finger length and brain form. Further pedigree analysis suggest that at least one allelle is passed down on the X chromosome (mother to son). Now, no specific genes have been identified so no point in arguing that. However, teh linkages ARE there. They DO need to be reproduced (particularly the X-chromosome linkage as it is really the most revealing but is also relatively new). However, its a good start and highly suggestive.

No, what I said was IF a country voted in a government which wanted to oppose something like Gay marriage then WHY is that not fair.

Because the majority should NOT Have the power to take away rights from the minority unless those rights pose a serious threat to the welfare of the state or its people.

IF Muslims became the majority of people in your country, and they voted to ban Christianity, would that be fair?

(and I'm sorry I keep picking on Muslims, the ones I've known have all been good and tolerant people)

You have not done any of the following

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports homosexuality


It's not necessary. No one has claimed that the Bible endorses homosexuality.

Provided alternitve understandings of Romans 1:18 - 27 or One Corinthians 6: 9 10


Others have already pointed out that those verses were not, in fact, written by Jesus, and are therefore not necessarily the views of Jesus.

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports gay marriage


Running out of reasons, are we?

Shown a single gay virtuious person in the Bible


Again, no one has claimed anything like this, so it is not necessary to prove it. I will, however, point out that you have yet show us one person in the Bible who was non-virtuous solely by virtue of their homosexuality.

Proven that homosexuality is forced upon people from birth


We have provided plenty of evidence, which you have yet to refute. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

So I am still winning

As you haven't provided one iota of solid proof so far, I would venture to say that you were never winning.

Because the majority should NOT Have the power to take away rights from the minority unless those rights pose a serious threat to the welfare of the state or its people.

IF Muslims became the majority of people in your country, and they voted to ban Christianity, would that be fair?


No because that is like saying to a group of people you dont have the right to exist. However your analogy falls short on the grounds that banning Gay marriage is not infringing on any human rights. Freedom of religion is a human right, but marrigae is not one.

I have heard the "Homosexuality is population control" arguement before, and there is a problem with it. If it is some kind of biological control, how are you genes aware that the world is overpopulated? Or for that matter any part of you body except the infomation sections of the brain.

Good question and one that will take some thought on my part. I'll revisit this later. Anyone else wnt to chime in?

No because that is like saying to a group of people you dont have the right to exist. However your analogy falls short on the grounds that banning Gay marriage is not infringing on any human rights. Freedom of religion is a human right, but marrigae is not one.

You argue that marriage is a religious issue do you not? Therefore preventing gays from marrying is in effect banning them from practicing their religion.

And on the civil side of the argument . . .

While you may not consider marriage a human right, equality before the law is one. Gay people are not getting equality before the law. Instead they are watching as heterosexuals are being granted special rights by the law.

That IS a violation of human rights.

No because that is like saying to a group of people you dont have the right to exist. However your analogy falls short on the grounds that banning Gay marriage is not infringing on any human rights. Freedom of religion is a human right, but marrigae is not one.

THERE ARE RIGHTS ATTATCHED TO MARRIAGE! *pants*

It's not necessary. No one has claimed that the Bible endorses homosexuality


Unlike British and American law, the Bible works on the principals of both negative and positive freedoms. It explains what you can and cant do. Since I have pointed to biblical passages both in the new and old testement which explain why homosexuality is a sin, and no one has found verses contridicting these, we can only assume that the bible opposes homosexuality


Others have already pointed out that those verses were not, in fact, written by Jesus, and are therefore not necessarily the views of Jesus.


Yes but there are passages in both the old and new testement. And before you start going on about those verses not being written by Jesus, they were written by Paul, a follower of Jesus who was guided by those who had been with Jesus when he was alive on this world. And before you go on about the old testement passages, I have already explained why some are irelevent and some are still relevent. The key is those mentioned in both testements. Here is a passage explaining why old testement ritualistic law is no longer abiding

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.' "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

And here is one explaining why we can eat anything now

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


We have provided plenty of evidence, which you have yet to refute. Just because you choose to ignore it, doesn't mean it isn't there


All I have seen are vague genetic simmilarities, no proof that it is either completley genetic or unavoidable. In any case I have steped down partly from this and accepted that it is the act of homosexual sex which is the sin.

THERE ARE RIGHTS ATTATCHED TO MARRIAGE! *pants*

And? That doesnt make marriage a right. And there are not rights attached to marriage. Those are privilages which come with responsablilties (see marriage vows). And even if they are rights, they are not ones endowed to all humans (ie human rights). Thus disallowing gay marriage does not infringe on anyones rights, thus there is nothing wrong with it.

And? That doesnt make marriage a right. And there are not rights attached to marriage. Those are privilages which come with responsablilties (see marriage vows).

A privledge, by definition, is a special right. You don't support special rights for gay people, but I guess you do for straight people.

And again, it is a human right to be treated equally under the law. That's not happening right now. Gay people do not get the same "privledges" as straight people. Tat is unequal treatment under the law.

A privledge, by definition, is a special right. You don't support special rights for gay people, but I guess you do for straight people.
And again, it is a human right to be treated equally under the law. That's not happening right now. Gay people do not get the same "privledges" as straight people. Tat is unequal treatment under the law.

Excuse me, where in any law does it say "Treet all with equality, regardless of race, gender or sexuall preffrence". It doesnt. It only covers the first two. It is not a human right to be married. Marriage acording to the US law (for the most part) and UK law (for the most part, stupid Ken Livingstone) is a union between one man and one woman. It is NOT a union between any two loving partners, because I could easily say "I love this lamp post deeply and truthfully and I want to marry it". While you may think that that's stupid, I may be offended by the idea that you think that my idea is stupid. You cannot justify anything legaly in the name of love.

A privledge, by definition, is a special right.

No its not. A right is something you have to have. A privilage is something you dont have to have but are given because of certian circumstances. Gays do not fit the critera that the privilage of married rights requires. That would be like saying to someone with no driving liscence that they can legally drive.

Excuse me, where in any law does it say "Treet all with equality, regardless of race, gender or sexuall preffrence". It doesnt. It only covers the first two. It is not a human right to be married. Marriage acording to the US law (for the most part) and UK law (for the most part, stupid Ken Livingstone) is a union between one man and one woman. It is NOT a union between any two loving partners, because I could easily say "I love this lamp post deeply and truthfully and I want to marry it". While you may think that that's stupid, I may be offended by the idea that you think that my idea is stupid. You cannot justify anything legaly in the name of love.

That's it. I quit. We've pointed out many times that the difference between two consenting adults and a lampost is rather major.

You don't listen.

You don't care.

You don't show love and sympathy for your fellow man.

And for the record, just because the law does or doesn't say something doesn't make it right.

Enjoy your life of close-minded grasping at straws to make yourself seem important and as if you had meaning.

That's it. I quit. We've pointed out many times that the difference between two consenting adults and a lampost is rather major.


Yes that may be the case, but that doesnt mean you can justify anything via love.


You don't listen.


I quote you and rebut your points, I call that listening


You don't care.


About what specificly


You don't show love and sympathy for your fellow man.


You dont know me well enough to say that. Out of curiousity though what are you basing that on?


And for the record, just because the law does or doesn't say something doesn't make it right.


I agree, but we were debating human rights and they are laws.


Enjoy your life of close-minded grasping at straws to make yourself seem important and as if you had meaning.

Has it ever occured to you that those who support Gay's are equally closed minded. Closed to the arguements of Christians which often are valid. If God said something, there is a good reason for it. I may not know what is but I am not God

You have not done any of the following

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports homosexuality

Provided alternitve understandings of Romans 1:18 - 27 or One Corinthians 6: 9 10

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports gay marriage

Shown a single gay virtuious person in the Bible

Proven that homosexuality is forced upon people from birth


So I am still winning

How about King David and his male lover? :p

I have said it before and I will say it again. Marriage is NOT a right.

Yes it is. It is not, however, the sole property of the Christian religion. Or any religion for that matter.

How about King David and his male lover? :p

King David did not have a male lover. Everyone would like to think he did because these days, they cant accept the idea that a man and a man cannot be very close friends without something else going on. David and Jonothan were excellent friends becuase of the situation they were in. Jonothan was helping saving Davids life as he was on the run. Its very sad that people seem to think that David and Jonothan were gay.

Yes it is. It is not, however, the sole property of the Christian religion. Or any religion for that matter.

Show me any kind of Human rights doucment where it says something to the effect of "All humans have the right to get married"

:mp5: Yes and the bible also says it's ok to own slaves :mad: as long as they are from a diffrent nation then you :mad: . Theres also alot of other things in the bible that are sins such as wearin clothes made of two diffrent fibres :gundge: eg polyester cotton that i'll send ya str8 to hell ;) but I bet half you church goers are sittin in polycotton
Talk about Hypocrisy ! :sniper:

King David did not have a male lover. Everyone would like to think he did because these days, they cant accept the idea that a man and a man cannot be very close friends without something else going on. David and Jonothan were excellent friends becuase of the situation they were in. Jonothan was helping saving Davids life as he was on the run. Its very sad that people seem to think that David and Jonothan were gay.

So when most translators translate lines that indicate they were kissing, were those translators deceiving people?

Show me any kind of Human rights doucment where it says something to the effect of "All humans have the right to get married"

When did I ever say that?

Marriage is a right, currently not afforded to gay couples in many parts of the world. I think that's what many people are trying to change.

Now stop grasping at straws and come up with a good, solid reason as to why gay people should not get married. One that doesn't hinge on "because we must let the bullies win", "because God says so" or "because I don't like it".

Marriage has always been between one man and one women. The Bible says nothing about marriage ever being anything else.

Neither does it ACTUALLY state that "Marriage" is anything... let alone between "a man" and "a woman".

Please, show where the bible says "Marriage is between one man and one woman".

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

where did u get that!!?? That is about the stupidest thing i have ever seen!!

OK, ignore all the idiots, and let me be just about the only person here with scriptural references.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

There are other areas in the New Testament where homosexuality is mentioned. Now, the reason we cannot support gay marriage is that by allowing it might be considered that we support it. Just as atheists refuse to stand during the pledge because even though they remain silent it still might be construed that they support it. Now, I believe marriage is a religious practice, regardless of what religion you adhere to. As such, government intervention in marriage is clearly inviolation of Supreme Court precedent on the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. Therefore, I suggest that we follow the French system. Everyone has to get a civil union, and then the churches do marriages. if a church wants to marry homosexuals, then that is their choice, although as a christian I know that doing such a thing could cost them their soul. Sin is sin, and there are no dividing lines.

So that's my suggestion. The government should not be involved with marriage at all. The government should administer civil unions. The churches will handle marriages. In this, I think France showed remarkable discernment.

I could argue Romans 1:26-7 in much more detail, but it is only necessary to point out that this passage is about LUSTS... which are ALSO spoken of as ill omens for HETEROSEXUAL couples... and the option, according to Paul, is to MARRY. Heterosexuals can 'sanctify' lust by marriage, and so, theoretically can homosexuals - since that option isn't forbidden anywhere.

Of course, this is all moot, when people marry for reasons other than having sex - so... for example, homosexual but CELIBATE men contravene not even Romans 1:26-7.

About supporting gay marriage by not opposing it... christians are SUPPOSED to be separate from their sinful communities. Separation is a core tenet. So long as YOU don't marry another person of your gender, you are not commiting a sin - the sin of which, itself, has yet to be proved.

And I agree with you that everyone, religious or secular, should have to have the same contract as the basis, and then let the churches do the fancy bit - but, I don't think you realise... that is what already happens! Except for doing the 'legal' bit separately from the ceremony - church marriage is the SAME as registry office marriage, and carries all the same legal responsibilities and benefits - but Christianity (specifically) is trying to hijack the word Marriage, as though THAT were the sacred part - and deny even the LEGAL framework of civil marriage to people of alternate gendering.

In other words, you are right - but looking down the wrong end... churches should not be involved in marriage at all - they should only be involved for the religious 'ceremony' of marriage. The MARRIAGE part of marriage (as in, literally, uniting) should be absolutely secular.

Neither does it ACTUALLY state that "Marriage" is anything... let alone between "a man" and "a woman".

Please, show where the bible says "Marriage is between one man and one woman".

it says it should be between a man and a woman!! have u ever read the bible then u might find it!!! it also says that u should not be with people of the same gender!! it says that that is a sin!!!

The ONLY reason homosexuality is wrong is because in the bible it says that sodomy is wrong. So having anal sex, or giving or recieving oral sex, is sinful. Anal sex is only looked down upon more so because of what usually comes out of that orafice. :p

So bottom line, if you've had oral sex, you're in the same boat as homosexuals. So sorry Right wingers.

sod·om·y
1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.

Sorry, incorrect. The bible mentions neither 'sodomy' nor 'anal sex'.

it says it should be between a man and a woman!! have u ever read the bible then u might find it!!! it also says that u should not be with people of the same gender!! it says that that is a sin!!!

No. It does neither of those things.

I assume you mean Genesis 2:24 for the man and woman reference, but that passage neither mentions marriage, nor offers a 'should' suggestion.

It gives one example of one man and one woman, and says that the man shall leave his parent to dwell with her - but it doesn't say that the same is NOT true for a man and another man. Genesis 2:24 is about the man leaving the home of his father, not about the choice of partners.

And, as I've explained before in this thread - if you read it in Hebrew, there is no necessary implication that the 'man and woman' become married at all.

It also doesn't say that you shouldn't 'be' with people of the same gender.

Show me your references, and I'll show you where you are wrong.

You do not have the right to not be insulted.I dont but religious comunities do.No.
* Abortion/adoption - barring some bizarre events (a M-to-F transsexual impregnates his wife, IVF), the only way for gay marriages to have children is to adopt.Actually not true. Beside the "turkey baster" method, quite a few gays have children from previous marriages. Not an ideal situation, but it's what happens when you pressure everyone to get married in a traditional marriage.
Giving diplomatic immunity to the murderes of steven lawerence would not hurt anyone. That is what Gay marriage seems like to Christians.What are your credentials that you speak for Christians?
Bet you dont say that about BNP marches. The entire country comes out in outcry whenever they come along, yet Gay Pride and Christianity gets no defence.Christianity needs no defense from Gay Pride parades. Really. Any more than Islam needs defense from beauty pagents.

Oh what a horrible sense of humour
+there are at least 42079417 people in the UK alone who care about what i am saying (well, not me personally)

Since most of those statistics come from census details, all you know is that a little more than 42 million people (which, seems unlikely, by the way) claim to be christian - not that they have ANY support at all for your side in this argument, or care AT ALL about the issue of gay marriage.

Also - if the details are not census based... you do know that many of these religion polls work along similar lines to this:

Pollster: So... do you believe in "God"?
Victim: Er... sure, there could be something bigger than all this... I mean... I
Pollster: I'll just tick "christian", then...

well, you are doing something that is different. we cant call different things the same, else we would not be able to distinguish. do we call a eel and a fish the same thing? no. does this mean we are discriminating either? (sorry, bad example)Ironically, eels are types of fish.

No, I was just making a point to someone who said Christianity was in the minority, I was saying it wasnt.

man, if I was wrong EVERY TIME, I'd just give up posting...

Christianity IS in the minority... more people are non-christian than are christian, therefore, christianity is a minority.

That is exactly how homosexuality has been described in this thread... you are saying that they are the minority, because 'most people' are heterosexual (which I think is more about what people ADMIT to than a true statistic, anyway).

Genesis 2:24. It describes the reason behind the way marriage is

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

Now lets break that verse down and put it into context. The verses before (Genesis 2: 18-25) explain about the creation of Eve and the reasons for this. Genesis 2: 24 then says that the reason for marriage to be the way it is, is because of the way the creation of Eve happened and Eve's role with Adam in Eden. Since Eden was perfect, if God had wanted Gay marriage he would have stated it and made another couple. Since this is the orriginal description of how marriage works and there are no revisions or anything throught the Bible, then we can assume that this is how God wanted marriage to be. There I have found a verse. Now the burden of proof is with you, find a verse that supports Gay marriage. That may take you a while since there isnt one.



They are sinners yes. And we do allow them to marry yes. You misunderstand I am not saying that homosexuals shouldnt marry because they are sinners, if that was the case then no one should marry at all. What I am saying is that since the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin, therefore the idea of homosexual marriage supports homosexuality and the Bible is against sin, let alone supporting sin. Homosexual marriage is (to Christians) like saying to a murderer "I hereby give you this town to murder as many people as you like in it". It gives them a special grounds to commit there sin, which they dont have. No one has any grounds to sin, ever.

As I've laready pointed out... this is a fiction - added into the bible at a later date - since Adam cannot have said it.

Also - it seems more likely that it describes the unification of flesh and life, since those are the key elements of the passage in Hebrew.

Also - it doesn't say "wife" in Hebrew - and the only way to read it as 'wife' is to add that connotation when you read it. It isn't there.

There, I've (yet again) disproved the SAME bible verse. Find a different one, if you can, one that actually applies.

You need the word marriage, for a start. Then, it needs to define that that institution is EXCLUSIVE to heterosexuals.

Keep trying.

Please newb, go back into your box and read the post. The Pro-Homosexuals have not won. This is a complex debate, one in which newbish arrogence is not welcome .And this is not for anti-gay's its for Christians. There are plenty of reasons why Christians should think homosexuality is a sin. Go read the entire thread to find them all.

FLAME.

Using 'newb' as an insult, to attempt to make yourself somehow superior.

Note: compared to many people on this forum, YOU are a "newb", but we do not use that as our means to detract from your arguments.

We, instead, point out that you are wrong, and disprove all of your flawed assumptions.

If you cannot say anything constructive... remain silent. It really IS good advice.

Yes, since you ask. And before you jump on that by saying "What about shellfish" I have delt with that. See Acts 10: 9 - 15


Dangerous ground, now... claiming biblical inerrancy, are we?

Just let me check that, before I slap it down.

Are you really SURE that the bible is INERRANT?

That means no mistakes, yes? No confusions and no contradictions, yes?

Come on, Neo Cannen, step up to the plate - is the bible INERRANT?

Ok

1) Firstly the majority of the population of Earth are by far hetrosexual

2) If you are an human biologist then you will see that the human reproductive system is designed to interact with the human hormonal sytem which is in turn designed to interact with the brain when your eyes see an attractive women/man. The whole system works to benefit the population growth. Homosexuality does not do this.

1) Prove it. Just because POLLING shows that a large proportion of people ADMIT to being heterosexual, doesn't mean they ARE heterosexual.

2) Prove it: The ONLY way to directly stimulate the PROSTATE, is to anally penetrate the man. Thus, the prostate FAVOURS homosexuality.

Also - All those things DO happen in homosexuals! Their reproductive centres interact with their hormones, when their eyes see someone attractive of the SAME gender.

Bored now.

Post something new... or a 'fact'.

You have not done any of the following

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports homosexuality

Provided alternitve understandings of Romans 1:18 - 27 or One Corinthians 6: 9 10

Provided a single biblical quote which actively supports gay marriage

Shown a single gay virtuious person in the Bible

Proven that homosexuality is forced upon people from birth


So I am still winning

Actually - I have posted quotes that support homosexuality, and gay marriage, and thoroughly debunked your "romans' post.

I haven't posted anything about gay virtuous people in the bible, because I find viruous people of any gender hard to come by in the bible.

I haven't argued genetics at all, because it has nothing to do with the topic.

YOU haven't managed to present a single argument AGAINST gay marriage that stood up to analysis, or that means what was written in the original language.

Therefore, you are losing.

Stop f**king arguing amongst yourselves; for crying out loud this is a formum, attack the other people's argument, not them.

No because that is like saying to a group of people you dont have the right to exist. However your analogy falls short on the grounds that banning Gay marriage is not infringing on any human rights. Freedom of religion is a human right, but marrigae is not one.

I'm getting tired of having to correct EVERY SINGLE POST YOU MAKE!

"Freedom of Religion" isn't a human right, at all. It is a "Constitutional Right".
(And, yes, that applies even in England, because it is a Constitutional Monarchy, even if the Constitution isn't a single codified text).

Marriage is a Legal Right, and so, a Constitutional Right, also.

They are both the same class of 'right', and yet you would approve the one that favours you, and remove the one that favours your 'opposition'.

<snip>
Neo, G_n_I likes to irritate well-meaning Christians because he believes he has infallible knowledge of all things Biblical.

GI, Neo will continue to throw Biblical passages at you and whatever you say won't stop her. Which is a good thing. Just doesn't make for fun reading.

I never quite understood the flawed judgement where one dislikes someone simply because they are different. Marriage or Civil unions are designed to foster mutually supportive relationships between 2 individuals who want to be considered as family and constitute a single legal/economic unit.

Saying it is wrong because the bible says so is not a legal justification for an arbitrary decision to restrict priviledges. If you're going to restrict something it has to be equitable. If you're going to say the reason is because marriage is to raise children, this is being disengenuous. Child rearing is not directly tied into marriage laws. If it is intended to be the case, then child rearing should be the basis for priviledges in society.

Restricting priviledges or rights based on opinions is unacceptable. It is one's opinion that to be gay is a sin. At the same time, it may be others opinions that to be religious to the extent that excluding others is a sin. The two sides will never agree. Tossing out principles of equal rights and entitlements to inherently equally flawed human beings is unacceptable based on the opinions of two limited minority factions. In such a case, a decision must be made on the basis of what preserves equality and a stable, functional society.

A fundamental question should be asked at this juncture: Does person As happiness hurt person B?

Does action x by person A hurt person B? If not, why restrict person A's actions? Restricting two people from joining happily as a family unit, and fulfilling their life-wishes and encouraging a productive mutually-beneficial and stable unit seems counter intuitive to creating a stable society.

If person a black person marries a white person in Ohio. Does it affect two white people in Montana who do not think that blacks and whites should mix together as a family? You cannot base a law on the narrow guidlines of a single religion in a pluralistic society. Religion neutral laws must be conceived. What about the rights of Buddhists? Do they believe that non-heterosexual individuals should be barred from forming a family unit? In such a case as where the one person they are most closely connected with, they are not entitled to visit in the hospital if the other is in a coma? They are not entitled to inherit the property that is theirs, that they've built up and taken care of for years of productive happy life together?

I suppose it is much easier to legislate restrictions that have the sole effect of making a different minority group less satisfied, while providing no net benefit to those who oppose the groups' happiness.

Comment if you will, but please have the maturity and moral decency not to flame.

Neo, G_n_I likes to irritate well-meaning Christians because he believes he has infallible knowledge of all things Biblical.

GI, Neo will continue to throw Biblical passages at you and whatever you say won't stop her. Which is a good thing. Just doesn't make for fun reading.

Not at all. I believe that I have read the bible, which is more than can be said for most of the so-called christians who post on these forum sites, who get their 'ammunition' from others, and have no understanding of the text.

When someone else has similar amount of knowledge to me, it shows... see my debates with Keruvalia, who, agree or not, has a vast knowledge of Hebrew in it's earliest and more recent forms.

I do not do it to irritate - and I would have thought that anyone TRULY interested in what was in the bible would be GLAD that I had taken the time to study it in such depth, and provide such information.

You are right about one thing, though. That's about 3 times now I have discredited the Genesis 2:24 passage, in about 3 different ways, and yet he/she STILL holds it up as irrefutible.

Not at all. I believe that I have read the bible, which is more than can be said for most of the so-called christians who post on these forum sites, who get their 'ammunition' from others, and have no understanding of the text.

When someone else has similar amount of knowledge to me, it shows... see my debates with Keruvalia, who, agree or not, has a vast knowledge of Hebrew in it's earliest and more recent forms.

I do not do it to irritate - and I would have thought that anyone TRULY interested in what was in the bible would be GLAD that I had taken the time to study it in such depth, and provide such information.

You are right about one thing, though. That's about 3 times now I have discredited the Genesis 2:24 passage, in about 3 different ways, and yet he/she STILL holds it up as irrefutible.
I think Neo's a lady. I am however basing that on something I think I read about 40 fucken pages ago!!! Mental. I have no idea on your's or Keru's qualifications in hebrew and really don't much care to be honest. I have a couple of Bibles and read them on a hideously infrequent basis. But I do read them. And regardless of the jeers of others when I say this, I do feel actively steered when I read. Ze leetle voices een my head!!

I'm glad that people take the time and effort to examine the Bible but am very cautious of them when they do so in a manner not according to God's will as you do. The fact that God points out (through the Bible and therefore through men) that people will actively distort and twist the Bible for either their own gains or just to try and deceive, inveigle and obfuscate (hmm Gillian Anderson) poor little humans, only reinforces this caution when I hear something that sounds wrong. I'll then go check ye wrong sounding thing in me Bib and see what I reckon.

There is, however, a problem with overexamination of the Bible as with many things. I'm sure there will be someone somewhere who claims to have derived three sets of commandments to apply to cyberfraud from John 11:35!! And I'm also sure that someone can linguistically argue that the Hebrew therein can actually be seen to foretell the nuclear apocalypse. But.. I don't care. God has seen fit for me to read the Bibles I have which say what they say, flawed or not.

Free will and pull the Black Watch out

Since most of those statistics come from census details, all you know is that a little more than 42 million people (which, seems unlikely, by the way) claim to be christian - not that they have ANY support at all for your side in this argument, or care AT ALL about the issue of gay marriage.

Also - if the details are not census based... you do know that many of these religion polls work along similar lines to this:

Pollster: So... do you believe in "God"?
Victim: Er... sure, there could be something bigger than all this... I mean... I
Pollster: I'll just tick "christian", then...

Even if the polls are census-based, I think most people enter their religion as Christian because they are "supposed to". Do you really think 42 million people in the UK go to church every Sunday?

I'm glad that people take the time and effort to examine the Bible but am very cautious of them when they do so in a manner not according to God's will as you do. The fact that God points out (through the Bible and therefore through men) that people will actively distort and twist the Bible for either their own gains or just to try and deceive, inveigle and obfuscate (hmm Gillian Anderson) poor little humans, only reinforces this caution when I hear something that sounds wrong. I'll then go check ye wrong sounding thing in me Bib and see what I reckon.

Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not examine the oldest known texts of this document since people sometimes screw up when they translate things." If it doesn't, how can examining the texts and trying to interpret them in a way which meshes with Christ's message be "not according to God's wil."

There is, however, a problem with overexamination of the Bible as with many things.

Yes, actually studying it is wrong. It is much better to listen to what a preacher who knows less about it than you do tells you it says and states matter-of-factly (and might even actually believe the crap they spout) that "This is the way it has always been!!"

Show me any kind of Human rights doucment where it says something to the effect of "All humans have the right to get married"

Okay.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states:

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

"(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

"(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

(http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Of note here is no reference to the sex of the spouses. It would be possible to run the argument that, at the time, what was intended was that the said marriage be between a man and a woman. This argument is far from uncontroversial, however. If "sexual orientation" was introduced as an impermissible grounds for discrimination in international human rights instruments, then you would have to allow same-sex marriage. Such a move was moved by Brazil I think a year or so back, and the topic has been deferred for discussion by the General Assembly.

I am not, however, aware of any national law that states marriage is a human right. Given the extent to which the nation is committed to living up to international obligations on human rights, however, means that there is national level buy-in to this internationally established human right.

Also, to pre-empt the argument against same-sex marriage from paragraph (3) of Article 17 (on the family), you would need to show that same-sex marriages would harm "the family" in such a way that it would contravene this article. I am not aware of any evidence that suggests this.

Animal's also kill each other over mates (female/male partners, not friends) are you suggesting that becuase that is found in nature (in the animal kingdom) that it is not a sin for us to do that.

Animals also have sex and reproduce and raise their offspring, competing directly for resources and reproductive success, so what is your point? Equating homosexuality to killing therefore homosexuals are akin to murderers? :rolleyes: Back to the bottom of the barrel, eh? Please explain. Further, such reproductive "death matches" in lower species is quite rare. How do Christians coninuously get away with such crap disguised as values?

The one thing lower species DO NOT do, unlike the irrationaly violent humans, is possess oddball beliefs in the supernatural and divisive mystical egocentric "sexuality is fundamentally bad" guilt tripping religion so do come back to me and argue what is "natural" and "sin".