NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Christianity is not the worship of the Bible. Christianity is the worship of Christ. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that the Bible, especially in its current incarnations, is not infallible. This means that one must read it with an eye towards the teachings of Christ and a great deal of prayer to determine what is, and is not, valid in the eyes of God. Paul's writings are suspect for many reasons. One would be his obvious view of women as inferior. Another is his view that the only purpose of marriage is so that you don't sin. In other words, Paul felt that sex was pure evil, but if you had to do it, you should get married. Of course, even Paul's mention of homosexuality mentions lust, never love. When we speak of homosexual unions, we are speaking of love, not lust.

Now, if you wish to believe that an obviously flawed document is the "will of God," so be it, but I would prefer to interpret the Bible in light of what the Holy Spirit tells me.

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.

Sigh. This may be true in certain states, but as far as federal taxes go, most married (without children) couples pay *MORE* taxes. This is because of the way the tax brackets are set up. Thus, for the most part, allowing gay marriage would *increase* revenue to the government.

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.

I'm not exactly sure what the BNP is, but it would appear that BNP marches are specifically targetted against minority groups.

A gay pride march is in no way targetted against Christianity.

Your comment is like saying that all Christmas parades should be shut down because they might offend non-Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm sure you would agree that such a statement would be idiotic, so stop making the same statement about something you don't happen to agree with.

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.

Yeah, but don't try and tell them that they are being arrogant by doing so. I tried and was told that I was not a true Christian. Never mind them - they are the ones being arrogant by trying to claim that they, and only they, could possibly know every single thing God might ever want.

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 will."

Yes, actually studying the bible 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!!"
Chill lady. The last time I checked we believe in the same faith (more or less). You can't have it both ways you know. You can't slag off the Bible then make sarcastic remarks about my well explained remarks in that way. So if you want to take the Bible's point that 'the followers of Satan will attempt to give you false teaching and mislead you' literally, then good. If you want to delve into that and make your own interpretation of who/what Satan is, ok. If you look at it and say 'the writer's didn't know what they were talking about, the Bible's all wrong, no one's trying to mislead me' then I'd be a little worried.

You can read. Reread my point about overexamination and think about it.

I'm not exactly sure what the BNP is, but it would appear that BNP marches are specifically targetted against minority groups.
The BNP is the British National Party. For that, read the British Nazi Party. They're violently against people of other races although they are trying token measures like employing a single non-white. Policies include their 'Run Islam out of Britain' campaign. They are anti-gay and hold a variety of other bizarre policies but are mainly known for being totally against asylum seekers and have recently picked up more support because of that situation.

A gay pride march is in no way targetted against Christianity.
I'd disagree with that on the basis of my beliefs in the same way that the constant barrage of sex and violence on TV is going against Christianity. But those are only my beliefs and I'm not likely to go out to Brighton and start beating the crap out of guys wearing pink shoes (again with the 'only male homosexuality is wrong angle' :rolleyes: . bad!!)

Your comment is like saying that all Christmas parades should be shut down because they might offend non-Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm sure you would agree that such a statement would be idiotic, so stop making the same statement about something you don't happen to agree with.
You make sarcastic comments (again) but that situation's getting close with the New Labour government in power!!

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.

Of note here is no reference to the sex of the spouses.


Yes there is. It says Men and Women. And international law is kind of defunct as there is no court to try it in. That of course is all the Amricans fault. My point is that there is no National convention of rights which says it. International law is stupid in most cases as what is law without a court and some concequences behind it.

I'm not exactly sure what the BNP is, but it would appear that BNP marches are specifically targetted against minority groups.

A gay pride march is in no way targetted against Christianity.

Your comment is like saying that all Christmas parades should be shut down because they might offend non-Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm sure you would agree that such a statement would be idiotic, so stop making the same statement about something you don't happen to agree with.

BNP = British National Party

Both the BNP and Gay pride have something in common. They are minority groups shouting about their views to the masses. And your Jehovah's wittness's parralel is actually put into practice (not exactly but something simmilar), in that in Liverpool, Guy Fawkes night is not celebrated for fear of offending Catholics .This is what I say to both of them, you can be raceist and Gay all you want but dont shout about it in marches.

Neo:

You say that sin is not necessarily connected to morality.

Thus the principle of "sin" is arbitrary and pointless.

Discuss.

Neo:

You say that sin is not necessarily connected to morality.

Thus the principle of "sin" is arbitrary and pointless.

Discuss.

I never said that. What I said was a sin may not nessecarly be "Wrong". This is because the idea's regarding what is "Wrong" or "Right" change over time. Sin however remains the same for all eternity.

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?
I wasn't using anything into referencing genetic in nature. I only used hair color as an example because it's not something you choose. It maybe genetic, but it's still not something you choose.

And that answer is complete and utter bullshit. What about my household? I was raised completely Christian. I was forced to go church once a week. And yet somehow, through interaction with the world, I'm allowed to form my own opinion on the matter.

If you're going to say homosexuals are bad by only raising their children to believe that homosexuals are good, then Christians are just as bad for raising their children to believe that Christianity is the right way.

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".

Genesis 2: 24

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

The Bibical standard of marriage

I think I recognise that URL... that's a JPS site, or something, right?I don't know. They are working on a new translation, but unfortunately what they have up right now is the JPS translation.
I didn't think much of their translation - although I did appreciate an online bible in Hebrew.I did look for alternatives without success, seeing as how Jews still follow much of Leviticus.
Giving diplomatic immunity to the murderes of steven lawerence would not hurt anyone. That is what Gay marriage seems like to Christians.Somehow I doubt that. What are your qualifications to 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 defence from Gay Pride. Really. Anymore than Islam needs defence from Beauty Pagents.
Egypt had fair warningAnd were it not for the LORD interfering with the Pharaoh's free will and hardening his heart, Egypt would probably have heeded that warning after the first few plagues. Yeah, Egyptians don't come off very well in that account, but the LORD comes off worse. I once asked a Christian who was (nicely) trying to convert me about this, and he admitted that this troubled him. He agreed that in my interpretation of the account God was acting immorally.
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.At this point I'm going to insult your beliefs. Your beliefs are messed up.
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.Fair enough.

True, but a genetic one.Prove it's genetic.

Genesis 2: 24

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

The Bibical standard of marriage

That's odd, I can't see the word "marriage" in that sentence.

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.Obviously you are having trouble reading the words. It was asked of you to explain why it is WRONG without using religion. Not explaining why it is a sin without religion. But wrong.

Yes, not the same as the original topic, but topics do drift.

I do not believe the act of Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of man because it is not against the law.It should be noted that sodomy of all acts was illegal in many states up until recently. Does that mean it was wrong then, and now, a few years later, it's not wrong?

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 says "Wife" so marriage is implied


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.


Actually, if you read the entire passage, what it is doing is this. Genesis 2: 18 - 25 are all about the creation of Eve with Adam. It explains this and how it happened and Genesis 2: 24 explains why marriage is the way it is. It is the way it is because of what happened with Adam and Eve in Eden, and their relationship and how it worked.


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.


One Corinthians 7: 9

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion"

And again

Mathew 24: 37 - 39

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark"


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.

And it does'nt say you should either.

That's odd, I can't see the word "marriage" in that sentence.

The word "Wife" is there though, marriage is implied, obviously

hence it is against the laws of nature ....and against our own productivity as a peopleguh, please read some of the thread first. It has been established that is not against the laws of nature if other species do it. And how the hell can we go against nature if nature created us? If nature hadn't wanted us to be able to do something, we wouldn't have been given the means or abilities to do something.

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

God destroied Gommorah because they worshiped other Gods. They did happen to engage in homosexual behavior as a part of religious ritual, but that is not the only reason why they were considered "sinful."

Most of the time, Christians quote Leviticus 18:11 as a source, where it is said a man can not lay with another man as they do with their wife. Note that it doesn't say, "You can't be gay." Note that it only forbits male-male relationships, but says nothing about female-female relationships.

Now the Christian white males of America have justification to watch Lesbian porn without any fear of being hypocrites. Someone hire me as a preacher.

Obviously you are having trouble reading the words. It was asked of you to explain why it is WRONG without using religion. Not explaining why it is a sin without religion. But wrong.

Yes, not the same as the original topic, but topics do drift.

"Wrong" is a sociologial concept which changes with time. I see no reason to explain myself to it. Five hundrued years ago it would have been "Wrong" to allow a jesuit priest into England. One thousand years ago it would have been "Wrong" to leave your land without telling a nobel. Two thousand years ago it would have been "Wrong" to think Gladitorial conflict was barbaric and stupid.

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
If the bible was written by followers of Jesus, who were, Christians and human, it obviously may have some errors and sin attached with it, because it is a product of humans, not divine. So how can you claim that a book written by sinners can be free of sin in itself?

guh, please read some of the thread first. It has been established that is not against the laws of nature if other species do it. And how the hell can we go against nature if nature created us? If nature hadn't wanted us to be able to do something, we wouldn't have been given the means or abilities to do something.

Other species often kill each other over a sexual partner. Other species eat animals while they are alive. Other animals have no concept of ethics or morals or anything like us. Just because it is found in nature does not make it nautral or good.

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".AUGH! SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUEMENT!!!! *Dies*

And so damn wrong. Is the lamp alive? No. How can it love you? Love is a human emotion. Only two humans, that are both of consenting age can love each other. Love cannot exist without consent. End of story.

AUGH! SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUEMENT!!!! *Dies*

And so damn wrong. Is the lamp alive? No. How can it love you? Love is a human emotion. Only two humans, that are both of consenting age can love each other. Love cannot exist without consent. End of story.

But I might love it deeply and truthfull and believe it is allive and can only communicate to me through its vibrations as the sodium in its soft glow ignites. My point is, you cannot justify anything through love. Just by saying "I am in a deep and loving relationship" does not mean you should get whatever you want.

dont take any notice of nething thats part of christianity and the rules involved. dont ya see christianity is just to keep law and order. it lays down rules and uses god a threat. basically follow the rules ya go to heaven if ya dont ya go to hell. the christian idea of homosexuality being a sin is just one example of this. ithink who ever invented christianity was pretty clever. cos its bloody worked. everyone shits their pants if they dont follow the rules. it keeps half the population in order and no force or punishment is even used. read the bloody bible and make ur own mind up. but take notice of the rules and bits between the bull about jesus and loving each other. its just a disguise for law and order.

Most of the time, Christians quote Leviticus 18:11 as a source, where it is said a man can not lay with another man as they do with their wife. Note that it doesn't say, "You can't be gay." Note that it only forbits male-male relationships, but says nothing about female-female relationships.
.

The Bible also says the word "Brother" a lot. Are you going to tell me that the bible and the salvation that comes with what it says is for men only. Of course not. The simple reason lesbians are not mentioned then is that at that time they did not exist. Female-Female relationships come later as then they did not have the capacity....

just shows how sexist the bible is.

Honestly, I think gay marriage is cool. If people use the 'Well, it's in the scripture' deal against it, who are you to say that gays are even christian? And gay marriage isn't much different, it's still got the same emotions, the same feeling. Does that make anybody sad to realize that people are crushing other peoples' happiness when they say gay marriages should not be allowed? Some people even say that they could just live together and stuff, that weddings don't matter. Well, obviously they do if you get so hyped up about it. And not to mention gays don't get the same benefits becuase people say it's wrong for them to marry out of love and trust because they can't get insurance or anything.

just shows how sexist the bible is.

OR how sexist the hebrew language is

Honestly, I think gay marriage is cool. If people use the 'Well, it's in the scripture' deal against it, who are you to say that gays are even christian? And gay marriage isn't much different, it's still got the same emotions, the same feeling. Does that make anybody sad to realize that people are crushing other peoples' happiness when they say gay marriages should not be allowed? Some people even say that they could just live together and stuff, that weddings don't matter. Well, obviously they do if you get so hyped up about it. And not to mention gays don't get the same benefits becuase people say it's wrong for them to marry out of love and trust because they can't get insurance or anything.

1) Marriage is not a RIGHT. It is a privilage that comes with responseablities. In no national law is there anything which states that marriage is a right.

2) Marriage was originally (To Chrisitans) a Christian ideal. This is because they belive that God gave it to them at the begining of the world (Genesis 2:24)

maybe god did. but when did god say nething about christianity. who says gods got nething to do with christianity. and christianity just uses god for power and to frighten people or reward people.

If the bible was written by followers of Jesus, who were, Christians and human, it obviously may have some errors and sin attached with it, because it is a product of humans, not divine. So how can you claim that a book written by sinners can be free of sin in itself?

John 1: 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

1) Marriage is not a RIGHT. It is a privilage that comes with responseablities. In no national law is there anything which states that marriage is a right.

2) Marriage was originally (To Chrisitans) a Christian ideal. This is because they belive that God gave it to them at the begining of the world (Genesis 2:24)
actually the concept of monogamy came from animals. sorry but you just got pwned. thank you drive through.

actually the concept of monogamy came from animals. sorry but you just got pwned. thank you drive through.

Care to elaberate. I dont think your right but I am curious why you do.

its a sin as defined by some religons but when looking at it many legal things are sins, sex out of marriage for example. the problem that most people have with gays is that they feel that they must shove it down others throuts. the other end of the scale is just as guilty. but what can be ignored is that if people were to hold a hetrosexual pride rally gays would condem it as anti gay. the debate of gay marriage and if it is a sin or not has become caught up in political correctness. gay should be able to marry but if a church belives that its wrong then they can they have to get married some place else. peole should do their own thing in their own homes or churches

Care to elaberate. I dont think your right but I am curious why you do.
oh noes! he wants to be owned! *loads cannon*


http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346monogamyAnimals.html

monogamy also has downsides. such as not procreating as often which is why bigamy and having harems was often deemed acceptable because of low populations.

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/umwelt_naturschutz/bericht-18706.html

and just to rub some salt in, Who are you to question why your god doesn't want people to believe in him, and made gay animals and people?

maybe god did. but when did god say nething about christianity. who says gods got nething to do with christianity. and christianity just uses god for power and to frighten people or reward people.

The Bible is where God and Christianity are said to be linked. God says God is about Christianity and that he sent his son to die for all humans so that we might have an eterinity of paradise and avoid an infinte time of torment in hell. A God that was just a threatening vengeful God would not send his son to die as he did.

Other species often kill each other over a sexual partner. Other species eat animals while they are alive. Other animals have no concept of ethics or morals or anything like us. Just because it is found in nature does not make it nautral or good.Uhm, actually, if it is found in nature, it is technically often classified as natural. However, as humans, we have evolved to the state where we feel we can determine what is good for us, and what isn't. That doesn't mean that killing isn't natural to some degree.

oh noes! he wants to be owned! *loads cannon*


http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346monogamyAnimals.html

monogamy also has downsides. such as not procreating as often which is why bigamy and having harems was often deemed acceptable because of low populations.

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/umwelt_naturschutz/bericht-18706.html



Neither of your articles says that monogomy came from animals. They are just reporting the behaviour of monogomus animals and the likleyhood of them dieing out.

*clears throat* The bible... oh, yes... the wonderfu bible. the bible was written in a man dominated sociaty, male chauvinism.

back in the good old days it was practically a sin to be a woman. you had to be pure to be let into the church. and that means that when a woman had her period she was unpure, just like when she just had a baby, same thing. So should we say that being a woman is a sin now?

Uhm, actually, if it is found in nature, it is technically often classified as natural. However, as humans, we have evolved to the state where we feel we can determine what is good for us, and what isn't. That doesn't mean that killing isn't natural to some degree.

Perhaps I should rephrase, just because it is found in nature does not make it not a sin.

But I might love it deeply and truthfull and believe it is allive and can only communicate to me through its vibrations as the sodium in its soft glow ignites. My point is, you cannot justify anything through love. Just by saying "I am in a deep and loving relationship" does not mean you should get whatever you want.DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I JUST SAID?! It can't be love unless it is between two, consenting, humans. It doesn't matter what you 'say'. The definition of love, especially in a legal sense is what matters. You can say God told you to go off and kill all infidels in a holy war, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. both partners need to be consenting. Lamposts can't consent. End of story.

Neither of your articles says that monogomy came from animals. They are just reporting the behaviour of monogomus animals and the likleyhood of them dieing out.
and my toilet paper says nothing about monogamy. only implies. read them again and you will see how it is implied. im sure if you can stop brown-nosing god long enough you can actually understand.

i think people shud learn to live without the bible now. the bible is old and has old ideas of whats right and whats nnot. as times changed and we have a better idea of equal rights and so on. we shud use our own knowledge. looking to the bible to see whats a sin and what isnt is about as useful as asking a sexist, xenophobic, homophobic man whether its ok to sleep with a german lesbian.who cares what the bible says, we know whats fair and equal. we dont need a book to tell us. so stop bashing the bible and use ur head.

*clears throat* The bible... oh, yes... the wonderfu bible. the bible was written in a man dominated sociaty, male chauvinism.

back in the good old days it was practically a sin to be a woman. you had to be pure to be let into the church. and that means that when a woman had her period she was unpure, just like when she just had a baby, same thing. So should we say that being a woman is a sin now?

If being a women is a sin, why is there one in the Garden of Eden?

2) Marriage was originally (To Chrisitans) a Christian ideal. This is because they belive that God gave it to them at the begining of the world (Genesis 2:24)Well, does that mean if I believe God gave me, and all homosexuals the right to marry at the beginning of the world, I should be given everything I want?

*clears throat* The bible... oh, yes... the wonderfu bible. the bible was written in a man dominated sociaty, male chauvinism.

back in the good old days it was practically a sin to be a woman. you had to be pure to be let into the church. and that means that when a woman had her period she was unpure, just like when she just had a baby, same thing. So should we say that being a woman is a sin now?
heh. just to give your point further credit, i believe the spanish word for pregnent is something along the lines of "embaressed"

and my toilet paper says nothing about monogamy. only implies. read them again and you will see how it is implied. im sure if you can stop brown-nosing god long enough you can actually understand.

No where in either articles does it say anything to the effect of "Anchient humans noticed the monogomus behavior of these animals and decided to mimic them". How on earth did you get the idea that human monogomy comes from animals?

John 1: 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GodAugh, yes. But guess what, a lot of the Old Testament is supposed to have come from God himself, and yet later, that is debunked, as you have illustrated many times. I do not understand how a supreme being would contradict himself.

God did not come down from heaven and write the Bible.

No where in either articles does it say anything to the effect of "Anchient humans noticed the monogomus behavior of these animals and decided to mimic them". How on earth did you get the idea that human monogomy comes from animals?
again allow me to pwn you. humans did not exist first. animals exhibiting monogomus behavior existed before humans. humans came later. a primate trait is quick learning and adaptability. put the pieces together and get out of the confessional. other people want to releive themselves too :D

Well, does that mean if I believe God gave me, and all homosexuals the right to marry at the beginning of the world, I should be given everything I want?

IF (and I stress IF) God had said at the begining of the world that homosexuals had just as much right to marry as hetrosexuals then yes you could marry BUT he didnt and so you cant. Married couples dont get everything they want, they get the privillages (government regognition etc) and the responsablities (marriage voes) implied in marriage.

its a sin as defined by some religons but when looking at it many legal things are sins, sex out of marriage for example. the problem that most people have with gays is that they feel that they must shove it down others throuts. the other end of the scale is just as guilty. but what can be ignored is that if people were to hold a hetrosexual pride rally gays would condem it as anti gay. the debate of gay marriage and if it is a sin or not has become caught up in political correctness. gay should be able to marry but if a church belives that its wrong then they can they have to get married some place else. peole should do their own thing in their own homes or churchesIt should be noted that if white people held a white power rally, it is also denounced. This is because majorities who have been in power for a long time and have often been discriminatory towards other minorities often forfeit their politically correct rights to hold rallies, because in doing so, they often insinuate their intent to discriminate against the minorities again.

Nobody is forcing you to become gay. Nobody is telling you to look at gay porn. Nobody is making you watch gay pride parades. You need to recognize that people are gay though, and that they have the right to be, and that they shouldn't have to hide the fact that they are gay. My guess is that by some gay people being overly gay, and overly open about it, they can desensitize people to the shock of it happening, and expect it in everyday life. So that one day, someone in everyday conversation can just say, oh yeah, I'm gay, and you won't bat an eyelash.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong to be overly open about gayness. I don't like the idea of cramming one's sexual orientation down other's throats. But I guess if it makes progress, am I to argue with it?

If being a women is a sin, why is there one in the Garden of Eden?

I don't think being a woman is a sin. that was according to some christian belief

I don't think being a woman is a sin. that was according to some christian belief
pssst. NC, that means you are being mocked.

The Bible is where God and Christianity are said to be linked. God says God is about Christianity and that he sent his son to die for all humans so that we might have an eterinity of paradise and avoid an infinte time of torment in hell. A God that was just a threatening vengeful God would not send his son to die as he did.
id say neone who sends their son to die either doesnt like their son or is threatening and vengeful. but besides that, thats what the "christian" god is supposed to have done. just cos sum wacko has written summit about god doesnt meen its true.

oh, well I'm new. I'll break his face! *hides behinde a atom*

holy crap holy crap!!! i just found jesus!!!! bastard was hiding in my trunk on the way back from tiajuana >< someone call INS!!

IF (and I stress IF) God had said at the begining of the world that homosexuals had just as much right to marry as hetrosexuals then yes you could marry BUT he didnt and so you cant.Now who's being arrogant? You have no proof that your religion is any more correct than mine.

Do you even realize what you just said? You just completely decided what God did and didn't do. And that's so ridiculous it blows my mind. You BELIEVE in Christianity. Thus, you believe in God doing something. But just because you believe in something, doesn't mean it's true. I could choose to believe and convince myself that I had superpowers that allowed me to fly. I could even read books written by other humans that told me I had the ability to fly. But that wouldn't mean I had any proof, or even that I was right that I could fly.

You have faith, and you have a belief. But that doesn't mean it is true. I have a belief and a faith. It is just as legitimate as yours. You have no grounds to tell me that God didn't tell my religion something and give me rights if you wish to believe God told your religion something and gave you special rights.

Your idea of a God didn't tell homosexuals they had the right to marry. Well guess what, mine freaking did. And I have just as much proof as you. So step off you high box and stop deciding what God actually did and didn't do.

Augh, yes. But guess what, a lot of the Old Testament is supposed to have come from God himself, and yet later, that is debunked, as you have illustrated many times. I do not understand how a supreme being would contradict himself.


Your quite right, God did write the old testement and then later lots of it are debunked. By God himself. You misunderstand the diffrences between the first and second covenents. I will attempt to explain (though this is a complex theological concept so it may be dificult to understand). First off, a definition

Covenent in this context means relationship between man and God.

Here now is an extract from a sight, explaining the diffrence. The full URL is

http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/search_truth/basics/testaments2.htm


The Distinction: The Imperfect Covenant
"So what's the difference? Why have an Old and New Covenant?" The answer to this can actually be found in the above verses, but maybe this passage will make it even clearer:
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. ... And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:4, 11-14

Both covenants were ushered in by "the shedding of blood" - blood of animal sacrifices for the Old, and the blood of Christ for the New. Rereading these passages from Hebrews, we learn that Christ's blood of the New Covenant does what could not be done in the Old - forgive sins. So, did Old Testament saints not receive forgiveness of sins? If we reread Hebrews 9:15, we will learn that Christ's blood also worked retroactively and saved those Old Testament saints who had been faithful in keeping the animal sacrifices, which were symbols of the ultimate sacrifice to come.
Even the Old Testament prophets hundreds of years before, foretold the coming of a second covenant. Listen to the words of the prophet Jeremiah:

"Behold, the days are coming' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers ... which they broke, though I was a husband to them.
"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother saying, "Know the Lord," for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' says the Lord. 'For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.'" Jeremiah 31:31-34

In addition to confirming God's plan to have two covenants, this passage also does a great deal to explain the components of the covenant. Please read the last part again with this in mind.
The New Testament also teaches that Old Testament was imperfect because it could not offer forgiveness of sins, but merely "rolling them back" until Christ's ultimate sacrifice. The entire book of Hebrews is specifically focused on showing that the Old Covenant is inferior to the New, and that New Testament Christians should not abide by this inferior covenant when they have something so superior. In fact, the writer of Hebrews actually quotes the above passage from Jeremiah to make this point (Hebrews 8:6-13).

Another significant difference is who was given the covenants. The Old Testament was a covenant given strictly for the Jews, or Israelites. Non-Jews, or Gentiles, could adopt the Jewish covenant and become "prostelytes", but there was no special law and relationship offered that was for the Gentiles as the Old Testament was for the Jews. However, the New Testament made no distinction. One of the great things about the New Testament is that God's message and special covenant relationship is extended to all races and peoples. Consequently, the writings of the Old Testament generally track the story of the Israelites with a few exceptions, and the New Testament writings contain the gospel of Jesus and of the spread of the gospel all over the world, as well as directions for the new Christians.

I hope this helps.

Now who's being arrogant? You have no proof that your religion is any more correct than mine.

Do you even realize what you just said? You just completely decided what God did and didn't do. And that's so ridiculous it blows my mind. You BELIEVE in Christianity. Thus, you believe in God doing something. But just because you believe in something, doesn't mean it's true. I could choose to believe and convince myself that I had superpowers that allowed me to fly. I could even read books written by other humans that told me I had the ability to fly. But that wouldn't mean I had any proof, or even that I was right that I could fly.

You have faith, and you have a belief. But that doesn't mean it is true. I have a belief and a faith. It is just as legitimate as yours. You have no grounds to tell me that God didn't tell my religion something and give me rights if you wish to believe God told your religion something and gave you special rights.

Your idea of a God didn't tell homosexuals they had the right to marry. Well guess what, mine freaking did. And I have just as much proof as you. So step off you high box and stop deciding what God actually did and didn't do.

For the *I dont know how many times Ive done this now but it is a lot*th time the tread is about Christianity. Someone asked me about what I belive and I explained. I believe its right, others belive its wrong. I am simpely explaining what I belive.

"Behold, the days are coming' says the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers ... which they broke, though I was a husband to them.
and you say your religion doesn't support homosexual tendencies?

I don't think being a woman is a sin. that was according to some christian belief

That was a retorical question you moron. The point was that being a women is not a sin, or else why would there be one in the garden of Eden. There was one in Eden, ergo it is not a sin.

For the *I dont know how many times Ive done this now but it is a lot*th time the tread is about Christianity. Someone asked me about what I belive and I explained. I believe its right, others belive its wrong. I am simpely explaining what I belive.There's a difference between explaining what you believe, and dictating what is reality and what isn't. But I'll give you that explanation for now.

However, you still have yet to explain to me how gay marriage affects you personally. Everyone sins, and everyone will have their own sins. But one should not judge either. You can personally be opposed to homosexuality but it is not up to you live other people's lives for them. Homosexual marriages effect no-one but the two people involved. And if they wish to sin in that manner, no-one should be able to stop them. It is up to them to live their own lives, and decide what to believe in.

That was a retorical question you moron. The point was that being a women is not a sin, or else why would there be one in the garden of Eden. There was one in Eden, ergo it is not a sin.
so the evil presence in the garden (which is often portrayed as a serpent...) is not a sin neither is the pursuit of knowledge, as both were in the garden. careful, your web is closing.

and you say your religion doesn't support homosexual tendencies?

Read the quote. Their FATHERS, the their is refering to the tribes of Israel, and indeed Israel itself. Often Israel (the nation) is referd to as being Jesus's bride in revelation, and throught the Gospels. He is not saying he will be a husband to their fathers, he is saying he will be a husband to Israel. And in the reference, fathers is refering to ancestors, those who came before, not just men.

so the evil presence in the garden (which is often portrayed as a serpent...) is not a sin neither is the pursuit of knowledge, as both were in the garden. careful, your web is closing.

His (the Devils) existance was not a sin. The persuit of knowlege itself is not a sin either, though it can be the cause of various sins.

Read the quote. Their FATHERS, the their is refering to the tribes of Israel, and indeed Israel itself. Often Israel (the nation) is referd to as being Jesus's bride in revelation, and throught the Gospels. He is not saying he will be a husband to their fathers, he is saying he will be a husband to Israel.
word choice is extrmely important. so they were husband and wife rather than flock and shepard hmm? sounds to me like in the new testament they realized the poor word choice and changed the concepts...

His (the Devils) existance was not a sin. The persuit of knowlege itself is not a sin either, though it can be the cause of various sins.
an omnipotent being would be aware of what is going to occur. the eden passages suggest surprise as if god did not know the plant of knowledge (don't say tree, it never was said such. it is actually more likely that eve ate a pomegrannete (sp?)

an omnipotent being would be aware of what is going to occur. the eden passages suggest surprise as if god did not know the plant of knowledge (don't say tree, it never was said such. it is actually more likely that eve ate a pomegrannete (sp?)

Where does it say God expressed surprise. I dont see it...

Where does it say God expressed surprise. I dont see it...
for someone that sees so much in there that is implied im surprised you don't see it. are you reading with your eyes or with your fanaticism?

Gay people should die!!!!!!!!! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :upyours:



:D :D :D :D Nah, i'm just kidding.

It maybe partially a good thing because they are taking away more people that can steal your girlfriend if you are a male.

I think that as long as lots of people stay straight so we can have children homosexuality is that much of a sin (then again I may just be saying this because I am sympathetic.)

Either way I don't really mind.

However, you still have yet to explain to me how gay marriage affects you personally. Everyone sins, and everyone will have their own sins. But one should not judge either. You can personally be opposed to homosexuality but it is not up to you live other people's lives for them. Homosexual marriages effect no-one but the two people involved. And if they wish to sin in that manner, no-one should be able to stop them. It is up to them to live their own lives, and decide what to believe in.

Gay marriage does not affect me personally. But again, neither does someone getting killed in Herefordshire whom I do not know, or someone being lied to in New York or someone being stolen from in Belfast etc etc. They are still sins and while I agree it is not my place to stop people doing something, I am within my rights to protest against a law being created/adjusted etc that means that gay marriage is allowed. As for what I am saying here I am simpley stating my beliefs and defending my position from those who try to undermine it.

for someone that sees so much in there that is implied im surprised you don't see it. are you reading with your eyes or with your fanaticism?

Again, where in the Eden account does God seemingly display suprise? I am asking for a verse or some kind of statement. And please let us not have to do the "God knows all/free will arguement". Im going to bed now and I dont want to have to do it again tommorw as I have done it so many times before.

there should not be anything wrong with it, im not gay but i dont downgrade people who are. there is nothing wrong with it. they made their decision and thats final, there is nothing you can do to change that.

people view gays like a new race, and they will try to make them go away for a long time, until they final start to become part of society. hopefully people learn that sooner than later :upyours:

Because there are nearly 3000 posts on this thread, I don't have time to read them all, so this has probably already been said. I'm a Christian. I believe everyone is a sinner, myself included. I believe homosexuality is a sin. ANY sexual relationship outside of marriage is a sin. No, I don't hate gays. God doesn't hate gays. God, in fact, loves everyone, but, being a just god, must punish those who don't repent of their sin and turn from it. Are homosexuals eternally damned? Yes. Everyone is if they don't repent and seek forgiveness through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned." "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God sent his son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might have eternmal life." more (http://bbnradio.org/bbnnet/readtheanswer.asp)

Yes there is. It says Men and Women. And international law is kind of defunct as there is no court to try it in. That of course is all the Amricans fault. My point is that there is no National convention of rights which says it. International law is stupid in most cases as what is law without a court and some concequences behind it.

Okay, point taken with regard to the mentino of sex in regard to the UDHR, but it makes note statement about specific combinations (i.e., that marriage must be between a man and a woman and not a man and a man, or a woman and woman).

As for the international rule of law, you're right, there is none aside from that which nations aspire to live be. The Declaration of Human Rights (and the assorted covenants on human rights) are declarations to aspire to for those nations that have signed and ratified them. It's good that you've also changed your statement to reflect this observation, that you're now asking for national laws that state marriage is a right.

The fact of the matter is that if a nation is respecting those rights laid out in International rights instruments, then as far as the international community is concerned that nation is in breach of said instruments. That is to say, that nation is not respecting internationall affirmed human rights.

I'm not really going to go on much more about this, because this is an argument about a certain Christian attitude to homosexuality, not the human rights tradition. In some places Christian theology and doctrines run counter to human rights traditions (as seen here), so much so that I have seen enough reasonably extreme avowed Christians questioning human rights simpliciter.

So, I did have one question as far as the religious aspects of the arguments are concerned. Given that the oft-quoted passage from the Bible states that man shall not lay with man as with woman, it's an abomination unto the Lord (or words to that effect), does this mean that Lesbianism is okay? Or is there a passage in the Bible saying that woman shall not lay with woman as with man (or something similar)?

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.Likewise for a child being raised by opposite sex partners. During the process of growing up they will learn to form their own opinions and discover facts not taught them by their parents. Children are a special case, but I see nothing wrong with kids being taught that same-sex marriages are ok.
Yes, since you ask. And before you jump on that by saying "What about shellfish" I have delt with that.Ah, but what about the two inconsistent creation stories? The ones Dempublicents describes in post #2018 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7397558&postcount=2018)? You may not care about the order ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7405344&postcount=2137) but it doesn't exactly jibe with an inerrant bible.
Sin: - is a crime between you and God.Out of curiosity, how do people define sin? Davistania defined sin as "rebelling against God". And Neo Cannen seem do define it as a violation in a system of laws derived in some way from the Bible.
This doesn't make any sense. How can ANYTHING be difficult for god?That would depend on what characteristics you postulate for God? It's one thing to say God is omnipotent, it's quite another to define exactly what that means. Can God make it so he never existed? Can God make everything equally easy? Can God create a rock he can't lift? And so on...
it says it should be between a man and a woman!! have u ever read the bible then u might find it!!!Where, exactly? Grave_n_idle has likely read the bible more carefully than you. Now I read only a small part of the bible, so I really couldn't say what isn't in it. But the parts I've read, I've read carefully.
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 humansThat sounds like something Paul would say, being the anti-intellectual he was. Are you sure it wasn't him that said that? Yes the devil can quote scripture, as the saying goes. But if you're going to use the Bible as an authority, it behooves you to read it carefully, and with thought.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states:D'oh, beat me too it!
It says "Wife" so marriage is impliedNo it doesn't. Many translations of that passage say "wife". Not the same thing. Grave_n_idle explained why marriage is not implied in the original Hebrew. You do have a habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, don't you?
Just because it is found in nature does not make it nautral ...Mmm'kay. Just how do you define "nautral"?
The Bible also says the word "Brother" a lot. Are you going to tell me that the bible and the salvation that comes with what it says is for men only. Of course not.No. But I am going to tell you that many of the laws of the old testament did not apply to women.
The simple reason lesbians are not mentioned then is that at that time they did not exist. Female-Female relationships come later as then they did not have the capacity....Where the heck did you get this from?
... but there was no special law and relationship offered that was for the Gentiles as the Old Testament was for the Jews. However, the New Testament made no distinction.Well, there were the Noachic laws for Gentiles, which if followed gave the Gentiles a place in the world to come.

It should be noted that sodomy of all acts was illegal in many states up until recently. Does that mean it was wrong then, and now, a few years later, it's not wrong?

Yep, because the Laws of MAN changed. In the past, the act of killing was Murder... now we have murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter 1... etc.

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.

Thank you for your honest reply Pracus, Now my next question. If you were given all the rights by the LAWS of MAN to excercise with all of the responsibility that goes with it, however, to keep the peace with those religions and 'closed minded' individuals, you could not use the word 'Marriage' (since alot of people argue that it is defined in the bible.) Would that be a satisfactory solution? I hear 'Civil Union' being tossed around... Not as romantic as Married or Wedded, but to my understanding, it would be easier to get Civil Unions accepted in most (if not) all states, with all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of Marriage. Man perhaps we need a new word for 'Civil Union' sounds so... sterile.

Gay People suck ass. I dont get it, how could some one be gay.
the only thing i could think of was that someone couldnt get pussy so
they had to take it up the tail pipe.
:fluffle: UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for your honest reply Pracus, Now my next question. If you were given all the rights by the LAWS of MAN to excercise with all of the responsibility that goes with it, however, to keep the peace with those religions and 'closed minded' individuals, you could not use the word 'Marriage' (since alot of people argue that it is defined in the bible.) Would that be a satisfactory solution? I hear 'Civil Union' being tossed around... Not as romantic as Married or Wedded, but to my understanding, it would be easier to get Civil Unions accepted in most (if not) all states, with all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of Marriage. Man perhaps we need a new word for 'Civil Union' sounds so... sterile.


I really shouldn't be posting here after my fit of anger earlier. However, I will do better to try and contorl my temper in the future, and will respond since this question was directly pointed at me.

I would be willing to accept the title of Civil Union for the rights and responsibilities that the government currently grants to "married" couples. However, I would hold that straight people would have to accept that title as well--as far as the government is concerned. IRS forms would have to have "Single" or "Civil Union" or some other term for everyone. Separate is not equal.

Taking marriage completely out of the government would be fine since many people cannot see past the religious connotations. Leave marriage to the religious organizations (of course since there ARE religious groups that will marry gay people, you do realize that homosexuals will still be getting married) and give equal rights to everyone. I think that's a fair compromise. Religious people won't have to feel that their government is taking something religious and giving it to "sinners" but everyone will still be treated fairly and equally under the law.

Yep, because the Laws of MAN changed. In the past, the act of killing was Murder... now we have murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter 1... etc.

The laws were wrong, not the act.

I really shouldn't be posting here after my fit of anger earlier. However, I will do better to try and contorl my temper in the future, and will respond since this question was directly pointed at me.

I would be willing to accept the title of Civil Union for the rights and responsibilities that the government currently grants to "married" couples. However, I would hold that straight people would have to accept that title as well--as far as the government is concerned. IRS forms would have to have "Single" or "Civil Union" or some other term for everyone. Separate is not equal.

Taking marriage completely out of the government would be fine since many people cannot see past the religious connotations. Leave marriage to the religious organizations (of course since there ARE religious groups that will marry gay people, you do realize that homosexuals will still be getting married) and give equal rights to everyone. I think that's a fair compromise. Religious people won't have to feel that their government is taking something religious and giving it to "sinners" but everyone will still be treated fairly and equally under the law.I try to sift through the emotions... My philosopy, be civil. Thanks again.
Can anyone post the Same-sex Marriage ban that was voted on this past election? Would be interesting if we can get past it by wording alone.

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

I notice you ignored the part of my post where I mentioned the alternate interpretations of those verses that you say oppose homosexuality.



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

Paul was human. Humans lie.

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.

No one said homosexuality was entirely genetic. And I was simply pointing out that, as we've provided more, and more solid, proof than you have, your assertion that you were winning this debate was false.

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.

Look, homosexuals, as of now, cannot receive the rights that are attatched to marriage unless they actually get married. If you don't allow homosexuals to marry, you restrict their access to these rights, and infringe on those rights. So congratulations, you're discriminating against your fellow human beings.

Did you choose to be straight? To be male? To be female? To be white or black? To be tall or short?

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It's the way we are and is much a part of who we are as our hair color or eye color or skin tone. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes i did choose to be straight which is because being homosexual (gay does not mean homosexual... IT MEANS HAPPY DAMNIT!) is not natural. God gave men dicks for one reason: PROCREATION. How can you NOT choose to be homosexual? like i said, what forces you to screw another guy? That is a funny thing. God gave us free will for a reason. So you just screw men but you didn't choose to screw the guy, you were forced by an unseeable force.


Anyway, did you choose to be republican? Did you choose to be Democrat? did you choose to be Conservative? Did you choose to be lliberal? HELL NO!!! You were born that way!!!!!! Its da genes!!! Now for every mistake i make imma say it was my genes fault. My genes made me do it.

1) Marriage is not a RIGHT. It is a privilage that comes with responseablities. In no national law is there anything which states that marriage is a right.

2) Marriage was originally (To Chrisitans) a Christian ideal. This is because they belive that God gave it to them at the begining of the world (Genesis 2:24)

Believe it or not Neo, no where does it say that governments get to treat people unequally. Equal treatment is a human right. You cannot tell me that giving privledges to one group and not to another is equal treatment. And you cannot tell me that it matters whether marriage is a right or not. Fair is fair. If privledges are extended to one group and there is no compelling reason not to extend them to others, then it is RIGHT for the government to do so.

Out of curiosity, how do people define sin? Davistania defined sin as "rebelling against God". And Neo Cannen seem do define it as a violation in a system of laws derived in some way from the Bible.


as I see it, Sin is breaking God's laws as defined in the Bible, which IMHO is clearer than some Law books I've looked through... man, it looks like english and I recongize the words...)

I'm not saying it's right or wrong to be overly open about gayness. I don't like the idea of cramming one's sexual orientation down other's throats. But I guess if it makes progress, am I to argue with it?

I agree with a lot of what you have to say and this is way off topic, but I would just like to point out the one thing about people cramming their S.O. down other people's throats.

Heterosexual people do that everyday. They hold hands in public. They kiss. They give each other rings. If a guy and girl walk down the mall together, everyone assumes they are dating. If one of my female friends and I go out, people ask if we are dating.

Heterosexual orientation is there everyday. While I am not for overt PDA, I cannot blame my comrades in homosexuality for wanting to change that. I can see why they would want people to know they are gay and not just assume that they are heterosexual because they are male. Making that assumption is like saying "Oh Pracus, you're from the southeast? You must be illiterate!" Which by the way, has happened.

Believe it or not Neo, no where does it say that governments get to treat people unequally. Equal treatment is a human right. You cannot tell me that giving privledges to one group and not to another is equal treatment. And you cannot tell me that it matters whether marriage is a right or not. Fair is fair. If privledges are extended to one group and there is no compelling reason not to extend them to others, then it is RIGHT for the government to do so.

Umm some arguments about giving one group of people privileges over another supported by the people and the government. Affirmative Action...(turns minorites into statistics and Headcounts) Naacp, WOW, UNCF, Rainbow Coalition, ADA. of course to be fair, there's the KKK... but in all honesty (and probably innocence as well) I believe that these organizations Helped when thoses people need help... (BTW I am NOT talking about the KKK now... I just included them on the list for completeness sake.) but now, they seem to be using the differences to keep them alive by concentrating on the differences between people. Belittling the accomplishments of individuals by enforcing the ideas that they are still Minorites. If these groups actually extend their arms to others as well (in the case of the KKK, unarmed arms) I think the differences will go away.

Off topic but my $.02

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

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

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

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

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

Wahoo!
ScoMo the Homo


Alright. for a while now this has been bothering me...people keep saying "if two people love each other, why not let them get married. Well alright think of this. Billy and laura love eachother there both 30 years old and are good people. they want to get married. Why not let them? How about there COUSINS! thats just wrong isent it? well. there you have it. its the same with homosexuals. Its just not right. weather you would be brother sister, guy with a guy or girl with a girl. Its just not right.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say and this is way off topic, but I would just like to point out the one thing about people cramming their S.O. down other people's throats.

Heterosexual people do that everyday. They hold hands in public. They kiss. They give each other rings. If a guy and girl walk down the mall together, everyone assumes they are dating. If one of my female friends and I go out, people ask if we are dating.

Heterosexual orientation is there everyday. While I am not for overt PDA, I cannot blame my comrades in homosexuality for wanting to change that. I can see why they would want people to know they are gay and not just assume that they are heterosexual because they are male. Making that assumption is like saying "Oh Pracus, you're from the southeast? You must be illiterate!" Which by the way, has happened.

I, at least, am not stopping you from holding hands or kissing in public. As for mistaking you and your friend as a couple, people see a pregnant woman and automatically assume she's married. People see a white mother with a dark skinned son and it's assumed she's adopted him or just babysitting. I take my neice out for a walk and people say I got a very beautiful Daughter. and assume I am unemployed because the mother is probably working.

And other 'Normal' people do want to stop Public displays of affection... even from Heterosexual couples. Some people are just... prude.

Edited because I really cannot say anything about others

Yes i did choose to be straight which is because being homosexual (gay does not mean homosexual... IT MEANS HAPPY DAMNIT!) is not natural. God gave men dicks for one reason: PROCREATION. How can you NOT choose to be homosexual? like i said, what forces you to screw another guy? That is a funny thing. God gave us free will for a reason. So you just screw men but you didn't choose to screw the guy, you were forced by an unseeable force.


I'm not totally sure if you are being flippant or not, so excuse me for rebuffing you if you are just being funny.

You mean to tell me that you woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I could be attracted to members of my sex or the opposite sex, but the Bible says I should be attracted to members of my own gender, so I'll be straight?" Because that is what is implied by choice. It also implies that you could choose to be attracted to men (assuming you are male).

And according to Dictionary.com gay means homosexual. It's secondary definition is happy. This has of course changed over time, you are familiar with the fact that things DO change I hope?

I'm not even going to give credit to the rest of your argument by bothering to refute it. It's been done already.


Anyway, did you choose to be republican? Did you choose to be Democrat? did you choose to be Conservative? Did you choose to be lliberal? HELL NO!!! You were born that way!!!!!! Its da genes!!! Now for every mistake i make imma say it was my genes fault. My genes made me do it.

Actually, I was raised Republican by a very conservative (yet open minded family). However, I *HAVE* chosen to be far more liberal now. As I grew and learned and thought for myself, I found it to be the inevitable decision.

Oh, and just because I say being gay is NOT a choice does not automatically make it genetic. It's rather like height, its influenced by your environment and diet but is totally beyond your control.

Umm some arguments about giving one group of people privileges over another supported by the people and the government. Affirmative Action...(turns minorites into statistics and Headcounts) Naacp, WOW, UNCF, Rainbow Coalition, ADA. of course to be fair, there's the KKK... but in all honesty (and probably innocence as well) I believe that these organizations Helped when thoses people need help... (BTW I am NOT talking about the KKK now... I just included them on the list for completeness sake.) but now, they seem to be using the differences to keep them alive by concentrating on the differences between people. Belittling the accomplishments of individuals by enforcing the ideas that they are still Minorites. If these groups actually extend their arms to others as well (in the case of the KKK, unarmed arms) I think the differences will go away.

Off topic but my $.02

I actually agree with you. Many of those groups have outlived their usefullness and are now doing harm--why? Because those people have equality from the government now. I am as opposed to Affirmative Action as I am to hiring a less qualified person because they are right. Racism/bigotry works both ways and can be used against the majority as easily as the minority.

However, in the issue of gay rights, equality under the government has not been achieved.

Alright. for a while now this has been bothering me...people keep saying "if two people love each other, why not let them get married. Well alright think of this. Billy and laura love eachother there both 30 years old and are good people. they want to get married. Why not let them? How about there COUSINS! thats just wrong isent it? well. there you have it. its the same with homosexuals. Its just not right. weather you would be brother sister, guy with a guy or girl with a girl. Its just not right.

We've already discussed incest plenty. Give us reasons why you feel it (incesT) is wrong and I'll be pleased to continue debating the issue with you and to show you why homosexuality != incest.

Hint: "It's just wrong!" is not a valid reason.

I, at least, am not stopping you from holding hands or kissing in public. As for mistaking you and your friend as a couple, people see a pregnant woman and automatically assume she's married. People see a white mother with a dark skinned son and it's assumed she's adopted him or just babysitting. I take my neice out for a walk and people say I got a very beautiful Daughter. and assume I am unemployed because the mother is probably working.

And other 'Normal' people do want to stop Public displays of affection... even from Heterosexual couples. Some people are just... prude.

Edited because I really cannot say anything about others

I appreciate that. And I'm not saying that we can stop those assumptions from being made, but you will see many single pregnant women be pretty quick to correct peopel who assume they are married and the mothers of interracial children pretty quick to correct people. I do think some of my fellow-gays go a little too far sometimes--but then to each their own.

We've already discussed incest plenty. Give us reasons why you feel it (incesT) is wrong and I'll be pleased to continue debating the issue with you and to show you why homosexuality != incest.

Hint: "It's just wrong!" is not a valid reason.

When you talk about Incest, on a genetic term, you talk about limiting the Genetic pool on which many health problems may arrise. a family that has a history of Diabeties can have generations without Diabeties but if the family practices Inbreeding, they increase the risk of genetic illnesses because you are not introducing new Dominant Genetic Material into the family gene pool and are only 'dipping' into the same batch of cards... which increases the chance of said Diabeties or any other genetic problems from happening. The reason why some animals die out is when they become Isolated, again the gene pool become stagnant and Genetic problems emerge... that is why the wandering loner is occasionally let into the tribe, and sometimes wandering males win and become the new heads of the groups.

Oh and "It's Just Wrong" Quoted from the STAR WARS CCG... every time they show Luke and Lea :fluffle: .

When you talk about Incest, on a genetic term, you talk about limiting the Genetic pool on which many health problems may arrise. a family that has a history of Diabeties can have generations without Diabeties but if the family practices Inbreeding, they increase the risk of genetic illnesses because you are not introducing new Dominant Genetic Material into the family gene pool and are only 'dipping' into the same batch of cards... which increases the chance of said Diabeties or any other genetic problems from happening. The reason why some animals die out is when they become Isolated, again the gene pool become stagnant and Genetic problems emerge... that is why the wandering loner is occasionally let into the tribe, and sometimes wandering males win and become the new heads of the groups.

Oh and "It's Just Wrong" Quoted from the STAR WARS CCG... every time they show Luke and Lea :fluffle: .

That was actually going to be my big point.

But then there is always that person who is like "but what if a couple can't reproduce. . . say she has a complete hysderectomy, what then?"

To tell the truth, I haven't come up with a good response at that point. You got anything?

That was actually going to be my big point.

But then there is always that person who is like "but what if a couple can't reproduce. . . say she has a complete hysderectomy, what then?"

To tell the truth, I haven't come up with a good response at that point. You got anything?

"Then add a line in the law saying only Sterile family members can Marry..." Until then... tough.

even then there are cases where the Hysderectomy doesn't work. I heard about a case where a woman had a Hysderectomy and she still ended up preggers.

The law was put in to safeguard against genetic deseases from running rampant. And I think cousins twice removed can marry because they are not considered 'close famliy' but not sure about that.

"You might be a Redneck...
if your family tree does not fork"
You go to Famliy Reunions to pick up chicks"
Jeff Foxworthy.

I am a so called "Christian" but I believe in homosexuality. Some of my good friends are gay. I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I'm all for it. To answer the question about why it's a sin, I don't know why or even understand it myself. I think that a person cannot help what they are anymore than being born. Everyone sins, so why does it matter what orientation you are? I don't think it does, and anyone else who disagrees with me can kiss my everloving butt. I do not care because they have no right to say what is right and what isn't. They say that only God has that power and that he does use it, but that is only if you read the bible with a closed mind. If you read it with an openone you can disover many things that contradict that. I will not go into scriptures because I am not here to preach, just to give you my opinion. I will again repeat, anyone who disagrees can kiss my everloving butt.

"Then add a line in the law saying only Sterile family members can Marry..." Until then... tough.

even then there are cases where the Hysderectomy doesn't work. I heard about a case where a woman had a Hysderectomy and she still ended up preggers.

The law was put in to safeguard against genetic deseases from running rampant. And I think cousins twice removed can marry because they are not considered 'close famliy' but not sure about that.

"You might be a Redneck...
if your family tree does not fork"
You go to Famliy Reunions to pick up chicks"
Jeff Foxworthy.

I'm so glad you left the redneck line in after you editted!

And as for the effectiveness of the hysderectomy, it would depend on the type. If it was just one ovary, (actually termed an ovarectomy) then yes she could still get preggers. However, a complete hysderectomy would include both ovaries and the uterus.

And I bleieve you are right, in most areas beyond second cousins is okay.

I'm not totally sure if you are being flippant or not, so excuse me for rebuffing you if you are just being funny.

You mean to tell me that you woke up one morning and thought "Gee, I could be attracted to members of my sex or the opposite sex, but the Bible says I should be attracted to members of my own gender, so I'll be straight?" Because that is what is implied by choice. It also implies that you could choose to be attracted to men (assuming you are male).

And according to Dictionary.com gay means homosexual. It's secondary definition is happy. This has of course changed over time, you are familiar with the fact that things DO change I hope?

I'm not even going to give credit to the rest of your argument by bothering to refute it. It's been done already.

yes, i could be attracted to other members of my gender, but i know it is unnatural so i choose not to be and i never will be. Actually, a big part of homosexuality is the accepting that you are homosexual like when you think you may think a guy you saw looked good, or you just cannot get a girlfriend for some reason. Have you seen the movie Saving Silverman? You know J.D.? If you have seen the movie you will get my point.

AND WHAT DOES A DICTIONARY KNOW??! OF COURSE GAY DOES NOT MEAN HOMOSEXUAL!! IT MEANS HAPPY!!!!!! HOMOSEXUAL *PPHHBBPHBB* THAT'S POPOSTROUS!!

Seriously though, the word gay is just an adaptation by homosexuals. And that adaptation is backfiring. The other definition for gay is now becoming "stupid" in some cases. i play starcraft on battle.net and if a map we are on is poorly made the words most likely to be heard is "this is gay". He is not callng the map homosexual. it can't be homosexual. It's not happy. It can't be that either. It's just sayin that the map is stupid or it sucks. ANd this is not trying to make fun of homosexuals either. Just stating fact.

and for the last part of my last post, is it uncreditable or can you just not counter it? hmm... whatever.

Actually, I was raised Republican by a very conservative (yet open minded family). However, I *HAVE* chosen to be far more liberal now. As I grew and learned and thought for myself, I found it to be the inevitable decision.

So one day you just woke up and said "I will be liberal" and changed your feelings. It's not any different from homosexuality.

Oh, and just because I say being gay is NOT a choice does not automatically make it genetic. It's rather like height, its influenced by your environment and diet but is totally beyond your control.

Ok i wil restate what i said earlier. *AHEM* If I ever make a mistake i will blame it either on my genes or the environment. OOPS!!! I pushed the button and blew up that truck!!! Umm.. ahhh... ummmmm... IT WAS MY GENES!! YEAH THATS IT! MY GENES!! AND IF IT WAS NOT THAT IT WAS THE ENVIRONMENT!!! THE ENVIRONMENT MADE ME DO IT!!!! IT WASN"T MY CHOICE TO PUSH THE BUTTON!!! IT WAS THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!!!

The excuses homosexuals are making are getting better as time passes. What next?

Random homosexual: I am homosexual because my parents did not buy me a bike for my birthday last year and i went insane. The insanity caused me to go homosexual!! It's not my fault. It wasn't my choice. It's the insanity's fault and since you caused my insanity it is YOUR fault.

yes, i could be attracted to other members of my gender, but i know it is unnatural so i choose not to be and i never will be. Actually, a big part of homosexuality is the accepting that you are homosexual like when you think you may think a guy you saw looked good, or you just cannot get a girlfriend for some reason. Have you seen the movie Saving Silverman? You know J.D.? If you have seen the movie you will get my point.

AND WHAT DOES A DICTIONARY KNOW??! OF COURSE GAY DOES NOT MEAN HOMOSEXUAL!! IT MEANS HAPPY!!!!!! HOMOSEXUAL *PPHHBBPHBB* THAT'S POPOSTROUS!!

Seriously though, the word gay is just an adaptation by homosexuals. And that adaptation is backfiring. The other definition for gay is now becoming "stupid" in some cases. i play starcraft on battle.net and if a map we are on is poorly made the words most likely to be heard is "this is gay". He is not callng the map homosexual. it can't be homosexual. It's not happy. It can't be that either. It's just sayin that the map is stupid or it sucks. ANd this is not trying to make fun of homosexuals either. Just stating fact.

and for the last part of my last post, is it uncreditable or can you just not counter it? hmm... whatever.



So one day you just woke up and said "I will be liberal" and changed your feelings. It's not any different from homosexuality.



Ok i wil restate what i said earlier. *AHEM* If I ever make a mistake i will blame it either on my genes or the environment. OOPS!!! I pushed the button and blew up that truck!!! Umm.. ahhh... ummmmm... IT WAS MY GENES!! YEAH THATS IT! MY GENES!! AND IF IT WAS NOT THAT IT WAS THE ENVIRONMENT!!! THE ENVIRONMENT MADE ME DO IT!!!! IT WASN"T MY CHOICE TO PUSH THE BUTTON!!! IT WAS THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!!!

The excuses homosexuals are making are getting better as time passes. What next?

Random homosexual: I am homosexual because my parents did not buy me a bike for my birthday last year and i went insane. The insanity caused me to go homosexual!! It's not my fault. It wasn't my choice. It's the insanity's fault and since you caused my insanity it is YOUR fault.


You're what, twelve?

What is sin?

It's the ancient Babylonian Moon God's name. Look it up. Research it. You'll find that ancient Sumerian myths are used throught the old testament.


And yea, I'd say that Pyrad is twelve.

What is sin?

It's the ancient Babylonian Moon God's name. Look it up. Research it. You'll find that ancient Sumerian myths are used throught the old testament.


And yea, I'd say that Pyrad is twelve.it's also the main bad guy in FFX

it's also the main bad guy in FFX

I seriously need to start playing that again.

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.

No worries about me mentioning shellfish. I've read the Bible.

So how do you harmonize all of the errors, both scientific and other kinds, in the Bible?

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.


So by your logic, this is how it goes:

Freedom to be gay is a human right.
Freedom to believe in God, Christian or otherwise, is a human right.

BUT

Freedom to commit consensual homosexual acts is not a human right.
Freedom to marry someone of the same sex is not a human right.
Freedom to PRACTICE Christianity (i.e., read the Bible, go to church, perform the religious portion of the wedding ceremony) is not a human right.

See the kinks?

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


The one verse that you've pointed out that no one has contradicted/disproved/invalidated/whatevered is the Corinthians one. I forgot which one that is. Can you tell me again so I can look into it?

How about King David and his male lover?

Or Jesus and his. ;)

Because there are nearly 3000 posts on this thread, I don't have time to read them all, so this has probably already been said. I'm a Christian. I believe everyone is a sinner, myself included. I believe homosexuality is a sin. ANY sexual relationship outside of marriage is a sin. No, I don't hate gays. God doesn't hate gays. God, in fact, loves everyone, but, being a just god, must punish those who don't repent of their sin and turn from it. Are homosexuals eternally damned? Yes. Everyone is if they don't repent and seek forgiveness through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned." "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God sent his son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might have eternmal life."


You'd think that if eternal damnation was the result of disbelief, that God would do a better job at giving people reason to believe in him, eh?

Thank you for your honest reply Pracus, Now my next question. If you were given all the rights by the LAWS of MAN to excercise with all of the responsibility that goes with it, however, to keep the peace with those religions and 'closed minded' individuals, you could not use the word 'Marriage' (since alot of people argue that it is defined in the bible.) Would that be a satisfactory solution? I hear 'Civil Union' being tossed around... Not as romantic as Married or Wedded, but to my understanding, it would be easier to get Civil Unions accepted in most (if not) all states, with all the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of Marriage. Man perhaps we need a new word for 'Civil Union' sounds so... sterile.


I agree with you. Civil Union IS a pretty dull, impassionate word. Honestly, if it comes to that, if it's the only way, then I'm okay with the "everyone gets a civil union legally, and then if you want a marriage you go to church to get it, and never the twain shall meet" thing. After all, it doesn't keep people from using the word "marriage" in their private lives. It's just silly quibbling over semantics. Bah.

Out of curiousity, what do you and Neo Cannon think of this verse? It's from the King James Version of the Bible.

Luke 17:34-36: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

ETA: It seems to be referring to two homosexual men, and even two homosexual men being in bed together, i.e. having sex, or at least having had sex recently. So one would think that, if homosexual acts were a sin, and these two men were obviously sinning and one would assume aren't repenting of it...then why was one taken?

Luke 17:34-36: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

ETA: It seems to be referring to two homosexual men, and even two homosexual men being in bed together, i.e. having sex, or at least having had sex recently. So one would think that, if homosexual acts were a sin, and these two men were obviously sinning and one would assume aren't repenting of it...then why was one taken?

To take it at face value I would have to agree with your reading of it. Of course, I'm sure that Neo will give us some stuff about how we have to take it in the context of the time because people would often sleep in the same bed. Nevermind that he refuses to take the verses condemning homosexuality in the context of the time . . .

Random homosexual: I am homosexual because my parents did not buy me a bike for my birthday last year and i went insane. The insanity caused me to go homosexual!! It's not my fault. It wasn't my choice. It's the insanity's fault and since you caused my insanity it is YOUR fault.

So... what's your excuse?
:p

Luke 17:34-36: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."


Check again. It is about the rapture. It has nothing to do with homosexual sex. In my NIV translation it says two "People" in one bed. The "men" here is likely to be more acurately translated as meaning "human" or "mankind". Basicly a member of the human species. We say "man" all the time refering to humanity, but that doesnt mean all humans are men.

To take it at face value I would have to agree with your reading of it. Of course, I'm sure that Neo will give us some stuff about how we have to take it in the context of the time because people would often sleep in the same bed. Nevermind that he refuses to take the verses condemning homosexuality in the context of the time . . .

Recontexify this

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

One Corinthians 6: 9-10

Sooooooooo.... in christianity, No-one is going to "Inherit the Kingdom of God." Kind of a Lame idea for a religion, dontcha think?

Recontexify this

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

One Corinthians 6: 9-10

Wow! The word homosexual was in the bible centuries before it entered the english language. *yawns*

Wow! The word homosexual was in the bible centuries before it entered the english language. *yawns*
coffee?

Check again. It is about the rapture. It has nothing to do with homosexual sex. In my NIV translation it says two "People" in one bed. The "men" here is likely to be more acurately translated as meaning "human" or "mankind". Basicly a member of the human species. We say "man" all the time refering to humanity, but that doesnt mean all humans are men.

Oh, I know it's about the rapture. I'm just offering it as a possibility. I'd wait until Dempublicrats gets on, though, to be more sure about what the accurate translation is, as s/he seems to know more about that then either of us, but I'll try to find out for myself until then.

Paul was human. Humans lie.


Yes, but humans don't just "lie" whenever they feel like it. Most of the time there is a reason behind it. Paul was in prision nearly all of the time while he was writing his letters, so what reason would he have to lie?

coffee?

Isn't drinking coffee a sin? It contains the stimulant caffeine which is a drug and that is bad and God will deny me my inheritance.

Isn't drinking coffee a sin? It contains the stimulant caffeine which is a drug and that is bad and God will deny me my inheritance.Only if you are a Mormon (sp)

Wow! The word homosexual was in the bible centuries before it entered the english language. *yawns*

The word "Dinosaur" was a 19th Centurary creation, but that does not stop them existing.

The word "Dinosaur" was a 19th Centurary creation, but that does not stop them existing.Shouldn't that be 'didn't stop they from existing?"

GYYAAAAHHHH, I once swore I would never correct another posters spelling/grammar.... GYAAAAAHHHHHH
[runs screaming from room]

Yes, but humans don't just "lie" whenever they feel like it. Most of the time there is a reason behind it. Paul was in prision nearly all of the time while he was writing his letters, so what reason would he have to lie?

What reason didn't he have to lie? Jesus was gone (dead or risen, whichever you prefer) and he had the chance to start up a religion. L. Ron Hubbard did it, why shouldn't Paul've?

Only if you are a Mormon (sp)

I had a Mormon friend who drank coffee everyday. I don't know, maybe she was a heretic or something.

Shouldn't that be 'didn't stop they from existing?"

GYYAAAAHHHH, I once swore I would never correct another posters spelling/grammar.... GYAAAAAHHHHHH
[runs screaming from room]

DUH, Loch Ness.

I had a Mormon friend who drank coffee everyday. I don't know, maybe she was a heretic or something.I dunno, could it have been DECAFFINATED Coffee?

or maybe they changed that as well.

DUH, Loch Ness.As much as I hate to debunk my favorite monster... Loch Ness was proven false. All the Photographs were faked or botched.

You're what, twelve?

Insulting your oposition does not help your case. One of the great things about the Internet is the complete annonminity it gives those communicating on it.

The word "Dinosaur" was a 19th Centurary creation, but that does not stop them existing.

Yes but we never refer to large warm blooded herbivores as dinosaurs.

As much as I hate to debunk my favorite monster... Loch Ness was proven false. All the Photographs were faked or botched.

Yes, well, Nessie is a very elusive lizard.

What reason didn't he have to lie? Jesus was gone (dead or risen, whichever you prefer) and he had the chance to start up a religion. L. Ron Hubbard did it, why shouldn't Paul've?


Because Pault was in PRISION. He could only communicate with the outside world through these letters. He did not get any power over these people. (Ok he wasnt in Prision ALL the time but for a large part of it). And SUPPOSING he did want to start a new religion, for what reason would he have wanted particlularly to oppose homosexuals?

Yes, well, Nessie is a very elusive lizard.
and very thin... what does Nessie eat. No one reports missing cattle, and a creature of Nessie's size would've depopulated the loch of fish a long time ago.

Yes but we never refer to large warm blooded herbivores as dinosaurs.

My point was that there proberbly was a hebrew word meaning something to the equivelent of homosexuality in that writing, so just saying "The word homosexuality did not exist then" is a flawed argement because you dont know that. The "Term" homosexuality is a recent creation but not the idea or the concept behind it.

and very thin... what does Nessie eat. No one reports missing cattle, and a creature of Nessie's size would've depopulated the loch of fish a long time ago.

I like the seven faces of Dr. Lao theory where she is a small size goldfish that increases in size magically!

I like the seven faces of Dr. Lao theory where she is a small size goldfish that increases in size magically!
boy I would certainly want to be there when a kid catches Nessie in his net and put her in his aquarium. :eek:

and very thin... what does Nessie eat. No one reports missing cattle, and a creature of Nessie's size would've depopulated the loch of fish a long time ago.

Just on the nessie point, no one has ever done a complete underwater survey of Loch Ness so it is possible there is some sort of tunnel/cave/channel call it what you will, between loch ness and the ocean where Nessie could have swam to get to the ocean to get fish and other food. She may live in loch ness because it is an isolated enviroment away from the rest of the ocean. I would love to keep talking about her but nessie is not what we are talking about.

boy I would certainly want to be there when a kid catches Nessie in his net and put her in his aquarium. :eek:


Maybe she would accidentally get flushed into Lake Michigan. Did I spell that right? That ugly frankenfish would have a run for it's money!

Just on the nessie point, no one has ever done a complete underwater survey of Loch Ness so it is possible there is some sort of tunnel/cave/channel call it what you will, between loch ness and the ocean where Nessie could have swam to get to the ocean to get fish and other food. She may live in loch ness because it is an isolated enviroment away from the rest of the ocean. I would love to keep talking about her but nessie is not what we are talking about.LOCH Ness is Isolated. If Ness could get out into the ocean, then she'll be gone and not returned. Of course with all them Military subs and deep sea fisheries... someone would've spotted her.

Just on the Nessie point, someone has done a complete underwaer survey. I watched a documentary on it on the BBC. No tunnels, no caves and no nessie. Sorry Junii.

It also says in the new testament that all things are permissable but not all things are profitable. It does denounce homosexuality. I do believe that all people should make their own choices and be willing to face the consequences. I don't force my lifestyle on you and I would like you to not force yours on me or my religion. If you are a decent person in most respects then I will know you as an individual not as a homosexual. I may have friends that are gay, rascist or athiest. These are not things on a questionaire when I meet someone. Some will be close-minded when finding out others will not. Treat others with respect forst and you may be able to at least get them to see you as you see yourself. Jesus hung with prostitutes and thieves to spread kindness not to condemn them.

Just on the Nessie point, someone has done a complete underwaer survey. I watched a documentary on it on the BBC. No tunnels, no caves and no nessie. Sorry Junii.

Oh well, it was a nice idea

Just on the Nessie point, someone has done a complete underwaer survey. I watched a documentary on it on the BBC. No tunnels, no caves and no nessie. Sorry Junii.[sniff] I know... I just didn't [sniff] want to believe... Nessie WWWHHHHHYYYYYY! [sniff]

It also says in the new testament that all things are permissable but not all things are profitable. It does denounce homosexuality. I do believe that all people should make their own choices and be willing to face the consequences. I don't force my lifestyle on you and I would like you to not force yours on me or my religion. If you are a decent person in most respects then I will know you as an individual not as a homosexual. I may have friends that are gay, rascist or athiest. These are not things on a questionaire when I meet someone. Some will be close-minded when finding out others will not. Treat others with respect forst and you may be able to at least get them to see you as you see yourself. Jesus hung with prostitutes and thieves to spread kindness not to condemn them.also to show anyone can be forgiven... they just have to accept Jesus as their savior (Christian POV)

It also says in the new testament that all things are permissable but not all things are profitable. It does denounce homosexuality. I do believe that all people should make their own choices and be willing to face the consequences. I don't force my lifestyle on you and I would like you to not force yours on me or my religion. If you are a decent person in most respects then I will know you as an individual not as a homosexual. I may have friends that are gay, rascist or athiest. These are not things on a questionaire when I meet someone. Some will be close-minded when finding out others will not. Treat others with respect forst and you may be able to at least get them to see you as you see yourself. Jesus hung with prostitutes and thieves to spread kindness not to condemn them.

For the *This is rearly getting stupid now*th time, I am just explaining my views. Homosexuals are sinners, like me, everyone on this forum and everyone in the world. I treet them no diffrently when I meet them, I dont go shouting "Pervert, Fag (is that just an American word, I've never heard it used on this side of the pond) etc" at them. You are quite right, Jesus did not condem people, he condemned sin. As do I. Love the sinner, hate the sin a simple rule that more Christians should live by in my opinion.

Just on the Nessie point, someone has done a complete underwaer survey. I watched a documentary on it on the BBC. No tunnels, no caves and no nessie. Sorry Junii.


That's it. Steal our thunder. Next you will tell me there is no King Brian of the Leprechauns and his little people. Break my heart why don't you!

For the *This is rearly getting stupid now*th time, I am just explaining my views. Homosexuals are sinners, like me, everyone on this forum and everyone in the world. I treet them no diffrently when I meet them, I dont go shouting "Pervert, Fag (is that just an American word, I've never heard it used on this side of the pond) etc" at them. You are quite right, Jesus did not condem people, he condemned sin. As do I. Love the sinner, hate the sin a simple rule that more Christians should live by in my opinion.And if you read through the mountianous terrain of Past Posts. alot of people agree with you. It's just that People want to argue. Sometimes it's best to step back and take a breater...

and while Brits don't use fag they do Use Poofs

WHAADA YA MEAN THERE'S NO KING BRIAN... NOOOOOOOO! :headbang:

And if you read through the mountianous terrain of Past Posts. alot of people agree with you. It's just that People want to argue. Sometimes it's best to step back and take a breater...


WHAADA YA MEAN THERE'S NO KING BRIAN... NOOOOOOOO! :headbang:


What the heck is a breater? That isn't gay talk is it?

ScoHoMoLand is not interested in the truth. He's merely interested in making an arguement. He's interested in creating controversy.

Here's the deal. Your relationship to God is your own. Nobody else can force you to believe in what you don't want to believe. A church nor the bible have control over what you think is right or wrong. They can point you in the right direction, but cannot show you the way.

I personally believe it is immoral and against the teachings and intentions of God. I don't care to look up certain passages in the bible or find hidden meanings in the text. The act of which is trivial. The act of homosexuality is disgusting and wrong. Period.

But you have your own choices to make. God gives us these rights. He gives us the choice between right and wrong, the lightness and the darkness.

Here's where my first statement comes in. If he's really concerned about the answer, he should ask himself these questions. The answer ultimately is within himself. No one has the true answers, only their own. In other words, God gave us a roadmap, and it's up to us where to go from there. Only God and the person knows their final destination.

Just remember that for everybody there is a day of judgement. Arguing the insignificant points of "which verse in the bible says it's a sin" doesn't matter much in the eyes of God. If he is worried about his day of judgement or what God thinks (by admitting that he believes God finds homosexuality wrong), perhaps he should reconsider his actions. Perhaps he should ask for forgiveness. If he doesn't think God classifies it as a sin, then why are we even discussing it?

At either rate, what I am trying to say is that by asking why it is a sin deep down ScoHoMoLand must think in one way or another it is one. Otherwise he should have no qualms about it.

The "Term" homosexuality is a recent creation but not the idea or the concept behind it.

Not quite true, however so is the concept of institutional homophobia.

What the heck is a breater? That isn't gay talk is it?nope, its "beenupforover24hrswithastuckkeyboardspeak"

nope, its "beenupforover24hrswithastuckkeyboardspeak"

That frightens me. Why are your keys sticky?

He was watching my vid! :D

He was watching my vid! :DI use protection...keeps things nice and tidy.

I work in Tech support and I tend to test keyboards that the users claim are damaged. this one has that skin on it to protect it from dust... however, it tends to stick the keys so I need to pound the keys to get them typing. Hell on my fingers.

What sort of vid was it? I know what SORT, but what sort of... THAT sort?

Well, Go on New Fuglies, Nekomimmi wants to know [wink][wink][nudge][nudge]

Because Pault was in PRISION. He could only communicate with the outside world through these letters. He did not get any power over these people. (Ok he wasnt in Prision ALL the time but for a large part of it). And SUPPOSING he did want to start a new religion, for what reason would he have wanted particlularly to oppose homosexuals?

Because it's icky and he was insecure in his own sexuality?

No need to keep arguing on this point, as I'm not being entirely serious. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't take everything Paul says at face value.

and very thin... what does Nessie eat. No one reports missing cattle, and a creature of Nessie's size would've depopulated the loch of fish a long time ago.

Pixies. It eats pixies. Lots and lots of pixies.

Plus, she's invisible, which is why people can't see her.

I win.

What sort of vid was it? I know what SORT, but what sort of... THAT sort?

Dead chimp porn. :fluffle:

Pixies. It eats pixies. Lots and lots of pixies.

Plus, she's invisible, which is why people can't see her. R..ree...really? You're not just making a joke or nuthing like that?

R..ree...really? You're not just making a joke or nuthing like that?

Of course not. I never joke. I'm the most humourless being since...um...think of someone who has no sense of humour. Since them. Yes.

Of course not. I never joke. I'm the most humourless being since...um...think of someone who has no sense of humour. Since them. Yes.WWWHHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!!

WWWHHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Oh, don't be such a baby or I'll have to abort you belatedly.

(heh, we have completely derailed this topic, haven't we? *hangs head in shame*)

Oh, don't be such a baby or I'll have to abort you belatedly.

(heh, we have completely derailed this topic, haven't we? *hangs head in shame*)Yeah... but really, was it going anywhere... Other than a circle?

http://www.thebible.com/wtbsah.html

According to their interpretation of the bible, Christianity isn't anti-homosexual.

I called myself a Christian for a while, tried to live my life by the Christian creed. Reason finally won over though. I don't know, Creationism may be the way the world was created, God may be real... I don't care for the hatred Christianity spreads.

My €0.02

Rob

Yeah... but really, was it going anywhere... Other than a circle?

Point.

as I see it, Sin is breaking God's laws as defined in the Bible, which IMHO is clearer than some Law books I've looked through... man, it looks like english and I recongize the words...)Having seen some U.S. federal laws I can believe that.
but now, they seem to be using the differences to keep them alive by concentrating on the differences between people.Advocacy gourps do evolve so as to maintain a reason for being, yes.
Belittling the accomplishments of individuals by enforcing the ideas that they are still Minorites. If these groups actually extend their arms to others as well (in the case of the KKK, unarmed arms) I think the differences will go away.I don't think so, there is still much bigotry against the minorities you mention (well, possibly except UNCF, I haven't heard of them), and the advocacy groups are not the source.

Having seen some U.S. federal laws I can believe that.
Advocacy gourps do evolve so as to maintain a reason for being, yes.
I don't think so, there is still much bigotry against the minorities you mention (well, possibly except UNCF, I haven't heard of them), and the advocacy groups are not the source.If race/color/sex don't matter for employment, why does the government REQUIRE a certain percentage of the workforce be comprised of a number of Race/Color/Sex fullfilling members. (ok, that sounds disgusting but It's 2:00 in the morning right now.)

Here in Hawaii, an Elementary/High School is fighting for it's right to only admit children with Hawaiian ancestery. And that has to be above a certain percentage.

When the Jewish Correspondant was captured, did you even hear about Jessie Jackson pleading for his safe return? Let them hold a person of color... WOW he'll be on a plane so fast to meet with them trying to bargin for their release. Does the Naacp and others give schoolarships to equally poor non-colored children? Yet anyone tries that for non-colored chilren, and count howmany of these organizations scream discrimination. How many small store owners were sued by lawers using ADA out of the blue because the Lawyers know they will get rich on these case.

I'm not saying these people, programs, and organizations didn't do wonders. But now, they emphasise the differences. state how many Colored children use drugs, drop outta school, or get pregnant early. When there are Colored Children from the same area that graduate with honors, get great jobs and the only drugs they touch are Asprins. The problem isn't the color of one's skin but the Neighborhood. Clean up the Neigborhood and you'll see the changes.

Wanna remove the bigotry, reduce everyone to numbers. when filing for anything, jobs, welfare, anything, don't require Sex, Race, Religion, or Ethnic Background. No Photos, nothing. Keep it up for two or three generations then see what happens.

If race/color/sex don't matter for employment, why does the government REQUIRE a certain percentage of the workforce be comprised of a number of Race/Color/Sex fullfilling members. (ok, that sounds disgusting but It's 2:00 in the morning right now.)

Here in Hawaii, an Elementary/High School is fighting for it's right to only admit children with Hawaiian ancestery. And that has to be above a certain percentage.

When the Jewish Correspondant was captured, did you even hear about Jessie Jackson pleading for his safe return? Let them hold a person of color... WOW he'll be on a plane so fast to meet with them trying to bargin for their release. Does the Naacp and others give schoolarships to equally poor non-colored children? Yet anyone tries that for non-colored chilren, and count howmany of these organizations scream discrimination. How many small store owners were sued by lawers using ADA out of the blue because the Lawyers know they will get rich on these case.

I'm not saying these people, programs, and organizations didn't do wonders. But now, they emphasise the differences. state how many Colored children use drugs, drop outta school, or get pregnant early. When there are Colored Children from the same area that graduate with honors, get great jobs and the only drugs they touch are Asprins. The problem isn't the color of one's skin but the Neighborhood. Clean up the Neigborhood and you'll see the changes.

Wanna remove the bigotry, reduce everyone to numbers. when filing for anything, jobs, welfare, anything, don't require Sex, Race, Religion, or Ethnic Background. No Photos, nothing. Keep it up for two or three generations then see what happens.


Wow. If only everyone could be that way juNii.

Wow. If only everyone could be that way juNii.I credit it with growing up in Hawaii. no Ethnic Majority here (of course there is still the bigotry but it's more who you know, now who you are.) I've never understood seperating someone by their skin color nor by their race (although koreans trying to cook chinese foods produce... interesting flavors)
[sigh]

Not quite true, however so is the concept of institutional homophobia.

For the *see previous numbers*th time, Christianity is NOT INSTITUTIONALY HOMOPHOBIC. We are not fearful of hateful of homosexuals. No where in the Bible is there any reference to percecuting any kind of sinner, because that would be then to persceute yourself. We hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Love the sinner, hate the sin. A basic motto which I dont think is to hard to live by. The difficulty comes when the people intentionaly try to blur that seperation between sin and sinner by forcing it in your face (Gay pride marches). For Christians, the problem they have with open Gays is this. People who claim to be openly gay are saying to Christians in their church (Ok not all Chrisitans) that "I am a sinner, I am proud of my sin and I am unrepentent of it". At that point what can the Chruch do?

http://www.thebible.com/wtbsah.html

According to their interpretation of the bible, Christianity isn't anti-homosexual.

I called myself a Christian for a while, tried to live my life by the Christian creed. Reason finally won over though. I don't know, Creationism may be the way the world was created, God may be real... I don't care for the hatred Christianity spreads.

My €0.02

Rob

Then become a Deist like so many of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America (and it's Constitution). [For those of you that don't know what a Deist is, a Deist is someone who believes, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, taking no control over life, and exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Because it's icky and he was insecure in his own sexuality?

No need to keep arguing on this point, as I'm not being entirely serious. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't take everything Paul says at face value.



Pixies. It eats pixies. Lots and lots of pixies.

Plus, she's invisible, which is why people can't see her.

I win.



Dead chimp porn. :fluffle:

Exactly, taking anything that Paul has said out of it's context is just like trying to drive a car blindfolded - you don't know where you are, where you have been, where exactly you are going, or who you just ran over and killed. His writings have been taken out of context and used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world.. jews, women, children, african americans, slaves, politicians, divorcees, convicts, pro-choice supporters, lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill (the list goes on and on..). Since paul is so often difficult and confusing (among other things) to understand, it is very difficult to translate. Doesn't help that most of his letters were written in response to news from outside sources, so reading Paul is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what he is saying - but we have to guess what the other side has said. There even is a verse in the Bible that says to be on the guard against using his writings in unhealthy and destructive ways, peter 3:18? or somewhere around there.. i'll have to look

There even is a verse in the Bible that says to be on the guard against using his writings in unhealthy and destructive ways, peter 3:18? or somewhere around there.. i'll have to look

Christians are not using the writings of Paul in a destructive way. We are not going around percecuting Homosexuals because they are sinners. Sin is sin and we cannot distinguish one from the other. To perceute sinners would be to prececute everyone as all have sinned .Paul's writings here are supported by the old testement and the old testement is supported by Paul's writings. The fact that it is in both testements is reason enough to explain it. And its not as if the old testement is made completely redundent by the new. See the URL I gave regarding the first and second covenent

http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/search_truth/basics/testaments2.htm

.
I don't think so, there is still much bigotry against the minorities you mention (well, possibly except UNCF, I haven't heard of them), and the advocacy groups are not the source.

Part of the problem with majority/minority relations in a lot of cases is that whilst the majority are keen to reach out and intigrate, the minority are not. This is half of the problem of racisim in the UK. Minority groups (primaryly Asians) are often unwilling to mix with the British culture in the way the British are with Asian culture.

Wanna remove the bigotry, reduce everyone to numbers. when filing for anything, jobs, welfare, anything, don't require Sex, Race, Religion, or Ethnic Background. No Photos, nothing. Keep it up for two or three generations then see what happens.

Thats the great thing about the Internet. None of us know what race/gender/age any of us are unless we chose to say. Thus we all treet each other as equals as we have no frame of refrence and we are only judged by what we say (Although how we act is a far better judgement system, but that's not possible to be analysed here)

Yes, but humans don't just "lie" whenever they feel like it. Most of the time there is a reason behind it. Paul was in prision nearly all of the time while he was writing his letters, so what reason would he have to lie?

His own prejudices towards homosexuals.

His own prejudices towards homosexuals.

And what evidence do you have for this? Where would these have come from? What would he stand to gain by simpley spouting off his own prejudices as he wrote these letters in jail? And to those who say "In the writings of Paul, women are often opposed" I will say that some of what Paul says is made defunct by the Old Testement. If women were to be downtrodden in the way that Paul sometimes describes, then why would God have created them as equals in the garden of Eden.

(Your name is very apt at this point)

I don't see why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks, as I have done no such thing to you.

And what evidence do you have for this? Where would these have come from? What would he stand to gain by simpley spouting off his own prejudices as he wrote these letters in jail?

The same amount of evidence you have that he was telling the truth. Look, I'm not claiming that I'm correct that Paul was lying, I'm just saying that there's reasonable doubt that your interpretation is correct, and therefore it is inadmissible as evidence for your viewpoint. That's how debate work. You discredit your opponent's evidence, and, IF POSSIBLE, prove your own to be correct.

I don't see why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks, as I have done no such thing to you.


Apologies, I will edit it out


The same amount of evidence you have that he was telling the truth. Look, I'm not claiming that I'm correct that Paul was lying, I'm just saying that there's reasonable doubt that your interpretation is correct, and therefore it is inadmissible as evidence for your viewpoint. That's how debate work. You discredit your opponent's evidence, and, IF POSSIBLE, prove your own to be correct.

The reason I support Paul's view in the case of Homosexuals is that it is supported by the Old Testement. That is also why I dont support his view on Women. They are not supported in the Old Testement.

Apologies, I will edit it out

Thank you.



The reason I support Paul's view in the case of Homosexuals is that it is supported by the Old Testement. That is also why I dont support his view on Women. They are not supported in the Old Testement.

Where is it supported in the Old Testament other than in Leviticus and Jude?

Homosexuality is a sin because Paul's statements were poorly (or deliberately mis-) translated, because Jewish priests aren't supposed to engage in homosexual sex during Church, and because God and Jesus never said anything against it.

But hey a Pharisee's sure to be a higher authority for your religion than either your God or your first Messiah (for some reason there will now be two, silly Jews must have been listening to God badly or something,) right.

Recontexify this

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

One Corinthians 6: 9-10

I don't have to change its context. All I have to do is ask someone knowledgeable of Greek whether or not the translation is correct. Particularly given that the word homosexual has only existed for fifty years or so.

Seriously though, the word gay is just an adaptation by homosexuals.As I heard it it was originally a euphemism for homosexuals and then adopted by gays.
The excuses homosexuals are making are getting better as time passes.I don't think homosexuals need any excuses.
Yes, but humans don't just "lie" whenever they feel like it. Most of the time there is a reason behind it. Paul was in prision nearly all of the time while he was writing his letters, so what reason would he have to lie?Maybe what Jesus actually said didn't fit his ideology?
The word "Dinosaur" was a 19th Centurary creation, but that does not stop them existing.Aye, but when something before the 19th century is translated as "dinosaur", the translation is suspect. Dinosaur bones were known back to antiquity, but the "dragons" of early ages were rather different beasties than the "dinosaurs" of today. Similarly, gays likely existed 2000 years ago, but the conceptual categories were likely different 2000 years ago.
And SUPPOSING he did want to start a new religion, for what reason would he have wanted particlularly to oppose homosexuals?He seems to have had some issues regarding sex is general.
If race/color/sex don't matter for employment, why does the government REQUIRE a certain percentage of the workforce be comprised of a number of Race/Color/Sex fullfilling members. (ok, that sounds disgusting but It's 2:00 in the morning right now.)I believe the idea is that race/color/sex still does matter for employment, and thus such a blunt instrument is needed. Racism is very much alive, but hiring quotas probably aren't a good way to combat it.
state how many Colored children use drugs, drop outta school, or get pregnant early. When there are Colored Children from the same area that graduate with honors, get great jobs and the only drugs they touch are Asprins. The problem isn't the color of one's skin but the Neighborhood. Clean up the Neigborhood and you'll see the changes.Racism is a big problem in many neighborhoods. But the causes behind the poor standing of Blacks in society are more subtle than just the man keeping them down. That unfortunately gets ignored (as it tends to play into the hands of the racists), but some of the problems really need to be addressed. Up here in Canada there is an anti-education culture among many of our Black youth. That needs to be fixed. I will continue to speak out against racism. As a white male, I am well positioned to have a positive effect in that regard. But there are other problems.
Wanna remove the bigotry, reduce everyone to numbers. when filing for anything, jobs, welfare, anything, don't require Sex, Race, Religion, or Ethnic Background. No Photos, nothing. Keep it up for two or three generations then see what happens.I like that idea. But I'm not for sitting back in the meantime.
I credit it with growing up in Hawaii.I know not Hawaii. Things may well be different there; I hope so.
Part of the problem with majority/minority relations in a lot of cases is that whilst the majority are keen to reach out and intigrate, the minority are not. This is half of the problem of racisim in the UK. Minority groups (primaryly Asians) are often unwilling to mix with the British culture in the way the British are with Asian culture.White racists are indeed not the entire problem. (I'll not quibble about proportions of the problem, I'm not sure how one could meaningfully define that, and in any event solutions are more important than assigning blame). However, some degree of non-integration is not necessarily a problem. Toronto does well and has linguistic/cultural enclaves.

Insulting your oposition does not help your case. One of the great things about the Internet is the complete annonminity it gives those communicating on it.

That wasn't an insult, it was a legitimate question based upon his lack of debating abilities. You can't simply say something isn't true "because its not". Further, you will forgive me if I'm not going to take the time to debate with a concrete operational twelve year old.

Exactly, taking anything that Paul has said out of it's context is just like trying to drive a car blindfolded - you don't know where you are, where you have been, where exactly you are going, or who you just ran over and killed. His writings have been taken out of context and used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world.. jews, women, children, african americans, slaves, politicians, divorcees, convicts, pro-choice supporters, lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill (the list goes on and on..). Since paul is so often difficult and confusing (among other things) to understand, it is very difficult to translate. Doesn't help that most of his letters were written in response to news from outside sources, so reading Paul is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what he is saying - but we have to guess what the other side has said. There even is a verse in the Bible that says to be on the guard against using his writings in unhealthy and destructive ways, peter 3:18? or somewhere around there.. i'll have to look

Found it in my trusty Bible, 2 Peter 3:16-18


And on the note of the cited Corinthians verse, it is widely contested by many linguists and religious scholars the translation of the Greek words into effeminate and homosexual as seen in the NKJV of the Bible. Many believe that the words were incorrectly translated. No, I do not have a reference on hand to back up my claim - only my personal conversations with Professors of Linguistics at Illinois State University and many religious leaders throughout the world via online conversations.

Chill lady. The last time I checked we believe in the same faith (more or less). You can't have it both ways you know. You can't slag off the Bible then make sarcastic remarks about my well explained remarks in that way.

Your "well-explained remarks" were: THe Bible says people are going to mislead me. I know that you are simply going back to original translations, but since I don't like what you're saying, I'm going to assume that you're one of those people.

And I've never "slagged off" the Bible. I have simply pointed out that it *is* a flawed document and followers of Christ must take it with a grain of salt and a lot of prayer.

The BNP is the British National Party. For that, read the British Nazi Party. They're violently against people of other races although they are trying token measures like employing a single non-white. Policies include their 'Run Islam out of Britain' campaign. They are anti-gay and hold a variety of other bizarre policies but are mainly known for being totally against asylum seekers and have recently picked up more support because of that situation.

That's what I figured. In other words, they are directing hate specifically against other groups.

I'd disagree with that on the basis of my beliefs in the same way that the constant barrage of sex and violence on TV is going against Christianity. But those are only my beliefs and I'm not likely to go out to Brighton and start beating the crap out of guys wearing pink shoes (again with the 'only male homosexuality is wrong angle' :rolleyes: . bad!!)

Read it again. I said that they are not *targetting* Christianity. You can disagree with what they say all you want, but they are not out there to say "HEY! WE HATE ALL THE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS SO WE'RE GONNA DO THIS PARADE!" They are out there to say "This is us, we are gay and no one is going to force us into not living our lives. To all you people still living in fear, don't - you *can* be yourself."

You make sarcastic comments (again) but that situation's getting close with the New Labour government in power!!

If it is, it is stupid. Sounds like England has taken way to many notes from France.

BNP = British National Party

Both the BNP and Gay pride have something in common. They are minority groups shouting about their views to the masses. And your Jehovah's wittness's parralel is actually put into practice (not exactly but something simmilar), in that in Liverpool, Guy Fawkes night is not celebrated for fear of offending Catholics .This is what I say to both of them, you can be raceist and Gay all you want but dont shout about it in marches.

You're comparing racism (hating other people) to being gay (being yourself)? Dear God, you really are a bigot.

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p
I am Jewish. I think it's a sin.

You're comparing racism (hating other people) to being gay (being yourself)? Dear God, you really are a bigot.
"Being yuorself" is not objected. After all, you can say that being in KKK is being yourself and expressing your thoguht.

You're comparing racism (hating other people) to being gay (being yourself)? Dear God, you really are a bigot.

Some can argue that those raceists are being themselves. Are you going to condition them or something to stop them holding that view? I think that smacks of hypocracy. Freedom of speech is something that should be held by all. In Britain freedom of speech is curtailed with regards to racial hatered but my point is the racesists can be considered to be "Being themselves" in the same way that Gays can, so why should they be stoped and not Gays. (note I dont actually think this, Im just rebuting your point). It can easyly argued that Gays "Hate" the Christian church because it seemingly hates them. It doesnt but their opposition is based on a preconception, as is that of the BNP

"Being yuorself" is not objected. After all, you can say that being in KKK is being yourself and expressing your thoguht.

There is a difference in your thoughts which can be changed and hurt others and your sexuality which cannot be changed and does not harm to anyone else.

I don't have to change its context. All I have to do is ask someone knowledgeable of Greek whether or not the translation is correct. Particularly given that the word homosexual has only existed for fifty years or so.

The series of words "Giant noisey flying Iron eagle" in an anchient language can be translated as meaning "Fighter jet" (if one happened to travel back in time) in the same way the words "Men who love and sleep with other men" can be translated as meaning "Homosexual". Its just that our language has evolved to the point where eight words can be replaced with one.

There is a difference in your thoughts which can be changed and hurt others and your sexuality which cannot be changed and does not harm to anyone else.

Some may argue that raciest beliefs cannot be changed as they are too deeply entrenched. Actions based on that racisim (murdering Pakistanis for no reason bar being Pakistani) I agree are inexcuseable. But in the same way that their views harm nobody, neither does people being Gay. Except in the terms that both are an insult to other groups.

Neo, the difference is that racists' views are harmful, whereas gays harm no one. Simple as.

Some may argue that raciest beliefs cannot be changed as they are too deeply entrenched. Actions based on that racisim (murdering Pakistanis for no reason bar being Pakistani) I agree are inexcuseable. But in the same way that their views harm nobody, neither does people being Gay. Except in the terms that both are an insult to other groups.

Being gay should not be an insult to other groups. Its not an external matter but something within. Further being gay is not learned. Being racist is. And being a racist can be unlearned, I reference my father and my maternal grandfather (who was once a KKK member but later joined the NAACP).

Neo, the difference is that racists' views are harmful, whereas gays harm no one. Simple as.

IF (and I stress if) the racesitst restrict their views to just being views, then what harm do they do.

Words hurt.

IF (and I stress if) the racesitst restrict their views to just being views, then what harm do they do.

No harm. Where are you going with this?

Words hurt.

I agree. But I do concede on this point. Being Gay alone is not an insult to the church. Being a Gay Christian however is more complicated. And there are Gays who oppose the church because they believe the church "Hates" Gay people. These people are the ones who are directly attacking the church and the ones I have a problem with, since I have proven again and again that the church does not "Hate" gay people. We hate homosexuality. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

No harm. Where are you going with this?

Free Speech I'd assume. Which would also apply for homosexuals off course.

Free Speech I'd assume. Which would also apply for homosexuals off course.

In this country (The UK) freedom of speech is curtailed with regard to religious and racial insults. Gay's who insult the church by calling it homophobic I would say are breaching this.

Free Speech I'd assume. Which would also apply for homosexuals off course.

Of course.

In this country (The UK) freedom of speech is curtailed with regard to religious and racial insults. Gay's who insult the church by calling it homophobic I would say are breaching this.

I doubt perceived insults count.

replying to the original post ...... homosexuality is NOT considered a sin. Only homsexual acts are considered sinful.

In this country (The UK) freedom of speech is curtailed with regard to religious and racial insults. Gay's who insult the church by calling it homophobic I would say are breaching this.

Ahah, but if you see it as an insult that means you think homophobia is bad... which means that the church is bad... so you're kinda stuck.

Some can argue that those raceists are being themselves. Are you going to condition them or something to stop them holding that view? I think that smacks of hypocracy. Freedom of speech is something that should be held by all. In Britain freedom of speech is curtailed with regards to racial hatered but my point is the racesists can be considered to be "Being themselves" in the same way that Gays can, so why should they be stoped and not Gays. (note I dont actually think this, Im just rebuting your point). It can easyly argued that Gays "Hate" the Christian church because it seemingly hates them. It doesnt but their opposition is based on a preconception, as is that of the BNP

I never stated that racist remarks should be banned. They are protected free speech just like your condemnation of homosexuals is.

However, comparing a demonstration with the *purpose* of spreading hate to a demonstration that says nothing other than "I am proud to be who I am" is like comparing murder to prayer. They simply aren't even in the same category.

I agree. But I do concede on this point. Being Gay alone is not an insult to the church.

Thank you - that's the point I've been trying to make you understand. Thus, Gay Pride demonstrations are in no way attacking the church.

Being a Gay Christian however is more complicated.

Not if you aren't trying to force your personal beliefs on others.

And there are Gays who oppose the church because they believe the church "Hates" Gay people. These people are the ones who are directly attacking the church and the ones I have a problem with, since I have proven again and again that the church does not "Hate" gay people.

I have never seen a homosexual "attack" the church. I have seen comments about fundamentalist Christians that are somewhat uncalled for - but these are based in actual mistreatment of homosexuals by fundies, and are thus understandable, although not excusable.

We hate homosexuality. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Arg. This is the same as saying: We hate the state of liking purple. We have nothing against the person who likes purple, but we hate the state of liking purple.

IF (and I stress if) the racesitst restrict their views to just being views, then what harm do they do.


Holding a view does no harm as long as you do not express that view or try to force it off on others.

And in the difference between racist attacks on minorities and the "affront" Christians claim that gays make agains them?

Racism directly believes that someone is inferior and seeks to keep them that way. Being gay is not a direct affront on Christians. They may be offended as a biproduct of their own views, but not by the deliberate intent of the homosexual.

I agree. But I do concede on this point. Being Gay alone is not an insult to the church. Being a Gay Christian however is more complicated. And there are Gays who oppose the church because they believe the church "Hates" Gay people. These people are the ones who are directly attacking the church and the ones I have a problem with, since I have proven again and again that the church does not "Hate" gay people. We hate homosexuality. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

I agree with you totally. It is not fair for gays to think that all Christians hate them because its not true. I disagree with any type of stereotyping. All Christians do NOT hate gays.

But I can see where the gays who are attacked feel liek it sometimes. When you have to listen to Falwell and Robertson and hear what they have to say, it does feel like you are being attacked. Perhaps it is not all Christians who do it, but even you must admit that there are some who call themselves Christians who do (the arguement of whether they are true Christians or not is ancilliary). It is those Christians who cause the homosexual response, no matter how unfair. Gays didn't set out to attack Christians, SOME Christians took it upon themselves to attack gays. The response has been unfair--but not unprovoked.

This thought may have already been advanced, but since I'm too lazy to read all 197 pages of this thread I'll risk repeating it.

An amendment to ban gay "marriage" was passed in 11 states by a wide majority. "Marriage" is a committment in the name of God in the minds of most Christians. As the Bible specifically condemns homosexual behavior, gay marriage is considered sacreligious.

Gays say they are looking for the same rights as heterosexual marriages. 60% of people polled during the election said they would be in favor of civil unions. Why can't we offer 2 forms of legal binding? Marriage as defined a union between a man and a woman in sight of God, and a civil union available to gays, atheists, and anyone else not wanting a church involvement in their personal lives?

Gays insist it be called "marriage" and reject "civil union". Could it be they're not really looking for equal rights or just trying to raise a fuss?

I think it's because the name is symbolic of equality. There's something in saying "marriage" that isn't quite there in "civil union".

This thought may have already been advanced, but since I'm too lazy to read all 197 pages of this thread I'll risk repeating it.

An amendment to ban gay "marriage" was passed in 11 states by a wide majority. "Marriage" is a committment in the name of God in the minds of most Christians. As the Bible specifically condemns homosexual behavior, gay marriage is considered sacreligious.

Gays say they are looking for the same rights as heterosexual marriages. 60% of people polled during the election said they would be in favor of civil unions. Why can't we offer 2 forms of legal binding? Marriage as defined a union between a man and a woman in sight of God, and a civil union available to gays, atheists, and anyone else not wanting a church involvement in their personal lives?

Gays insist it be called "marriage" and reject "civil union". Could it be they're not really looking for equal rights or just trying to raise a fuss?

No, most probably wouldn't care, provided they receive the same rights as everyone else. The problem is, civil unions only provide some of the same rights, if any.

"Men who love and sleep with other men" can be translated as meaning "Homosexual".It can, but that translation would be incorrect. "Men who love and sleep with other men" is a different conceptual category than "homosexuals". It includes members who are not homosexual (some bisexuals), and excludes people who are (lesbians, and homosexuals who haven't engaged in same sex sex).

It can, but that translation would be incorrect. "Men who love and sleep with other men" is a different conceptual category than "homosexuals". It includes members who are not homosexual (some bisexuals), and excludes people who are (lesbians, and homosexuals who haven't engaged in same sex sex).

You know what I ment, various words can be translated into a single one.

Ahah, but if you see it as an insult that means you think homophobia is bad... which means that the church is bad... so you're kinda stuck.

There is a flaw in your logic. The church is not homophobic. It neither fears nor hates homosexuals.

If women were to be downtrodden in the way that Paul sometimes describes, then why would God have created them as equals in the garden of Eden.Genesis 3:16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.(due to the eating the apple thing). Which fits in with Genesis 2:18-22
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Now the first creation story is a very different one. The adam was created "male and female" in the image of God (which the original Hebrew is sometimes described as male, and sometimes as female (and sometimes as plural) by the grammar). There is none of the sexism there is in the second account.

The translation "rib" in the second version is highly suspect, noone really knows what the original word means, and appearantly it's used only in one other place in the Bible in the description of the tabernacle. But look at the surrounding language. Rather than describing the splitting of the adam into male and female halves, it describes the woman as being taken out of the adam, a derivative version if you will.

Equality is supported by one creation account, but not the other. (The verse you like quoting, Gen 2:24, is in the sexist account).

It can, but that translation would be incorrect. "Men who love and sleep with other men" is a different conceptual category than "homosexuals". It includes members who are not homosexual (some bisexuals), and excludes people who are (lesbians, and homosexuals who haven't engaged in same sex sex).You know what I ment, various words can be translated into a single one.Yes I understand your point. But your example was an excellent demonstartion of my point. You incorrectly translated a phrase as "homosexuals". How do you know the translators of the Bible (with their own agendas) did not make the same mistake? I do not trust the translation, particularly when early translations not only did not use the word "homosexual", they used phrasing that did not add up to the category "homosexual". Like Pracus, I would be interested in what someone knowledgeable in biblical Greek would have to say.

I think it's because the name is symbolic of equality. There's something in saying "marriage" that isn't quite there in "civil union".

In the UK in December 2002 there was an introduction of something called "Civil partnerships" which granted gay couples some of the same rights as married couples, see here

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-064.pdf

This is not adopted policy yet. But if the government continues down this route it will be. However things come unstuck at where the ceremony for this will be performed. At present Churches have the right to say "no we will not house your ceremony" but there is a question as to wether or not they will be allowd to do that if this is passed. I personally think they should as its their beliefs. It would be like asking a Mosque's Imarm (thats proberbly spelt wrong) if Christians could use the hall to celebrate the end of the crusades (not that we do, this is just a metaphor).

From what I've seen over the past few weeks, the "church" would wipe every homosexual from the face of the planet if it could. The only reason to deny gay couples the same rights as straight couples is fear, ignorance and yes, good old-fashioned hatred.

I am curious as to why you think that. If that is from church experiance then you have a problem. If its the forum then I will explain in simple terms as I can. When Jesus died this meant that humans had an option. If they so wished they could chose to become Christians and follow him. All they had to do to do that was to sincerely accept they were sinners and thank Jesus for what he did on the cross. This meant that if someone did that, when God looked at what sins those people had commited that had accepted Jesus, there he saw nothing. No sin, because he saw Jesus's perfectness instead. This shows how sinner and sin are seperated. God hates sin but loves sinners. If he couldnt make that seperation then he would hate us all but he doesnt. He loves us. Enough to die for us. Christians should try to hate sin but love sinners, just as God does. And that is the case with homosexuality here. We may hate homosexuality (the act) but we love homsexauls the people in the same way we love those around us. We are no diffrent from them in that we are all sinners.

Genesis 3:16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.(due to the eating the apple thing).

And? Thats post fall punishment. That doesnt mean being a women is a sin. God created man and women. Why would being one be a sin. God punished Eve because of what she did, not because she was a women.

Gays insist it be called "marriage" and reject "civil union". Could it be they're not really looking for equal rights or just trying to raise a fuss?

did equal but seperate work for black people?

marriage didnt' even start as a religious thing anyways, it started as a societial thing.

Yes I understand your point. But your example was an excellent demonstartion of my point. You incorrectly translated a phrase as "homosexuals". How do you know the translators of the Bible (with their own agendas) did not make the same mistake? I do not trust the translation, particularly when early translations not only did not use the word "homosexual", they used phrasing that did not add up to the category "homosexual". Like Pracus, I would be interested in what someone knowledgeable in biblical Greek would have to say.

It would be very hard to mistranslate Pauls passage in romans on the subject. Its not just one word that is said but several individual words, and describes men becoming inflamed with unnautral lusts for one another, and the same for women.

did equal but seperate work for black people?

marriage didnt' even start as a religious thing anyways, it started as a societial thing.

Not to Christians. To Christians marriage began at the begining of the world (Genesis 2: 24)

And? Thats post fall punishment. That doesnt mean being a women is a sin. God created man and women. Why would being one be a sin.I never said being a women is a sin, or that the bible says so. I was offering evidence to refute your statement that man and women were created as equals by God. (I've expanded my post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7428370&postcount=2961) by the way. One account supports equality, the other is sexist. 2:24 is in the sexist account.)
God punished Eve because of what she did, not because she was a women.I've added more analysis, as I said. In the second creation account, the women was created (pre-fall) to help the man. And we are all subject to at least some of the consequences of adam's and eve's actions no?
It would be very hard to mistranslate Pauls passage in romans on the subject. Its not just one word that is said but several individual words, and describes men becoming inflamed with unnautral lusts for one another, and the same for women.Yup, clearly God abandoned "them" to homosexuality. Strange thing is, most folks don't actually have an inclination to homosexuality. The ideas that the law is what is stopping everyone from becoming homosexual, and that homosexuality consists of nothing but lust are very curious ones. It sounds to me like Paul was a closet-case.

http://whosoever.org/index.shtml

Or if you're more specifically interested in what the bible says:
http://whosoever.org/bible/

For the *see previous numbers*th time, Christianity is NOT INSTITUTIONALY HOMOPHOBIC. We are not fearful of hateful of homosexuals. No where in the Bible is there any reference to percecuting any kind of sinner, because that would be then to persceute yourself. We hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Love the sinner, hate the sin. A basic motto which I dont think is to hard to live by. The difficulty comes when the people intentionaly try to blur that seperation between sin and sinner by forcing it in your face (Gay pride marches). For Christians, the problem they have with open Gays is this. People who claim to be openly gay are saying to Christians in their church (Ok not all Chrisitans) that "I am a sinner, I am proud of my sin and I am unrepentent of it". At that point what can the Chruch do?


*falls off chair*

Is this why you yourself have repeatedly equated homosexualty to murder etc. And as far as gay pride marches go what the hell business is it of the church to percieve that as an in your face act anymore so than the Church spewing anti-gay literature, influencing government and law to support discrimination against homosexuals not to mention there was a time when Christian beliefs were the basis of the psychiatric field as viewing homosexuality as a severe personality disorder and thus as well criminal behavior. I should also add in a number of versions of the bible it calls for the killing of homosexuals if not the outright expulsion of them from the church if not society as a whole and this love the sinner hate the sin is utterly PC bullcrap that evolved in the last few decades because the mantra of the church prior to that was somewhat less liberal.

Do you even understand what gay pride means? Any idea what those colours on that flag mean? No you do not and they represent such things as spirituality and healing, not unlike Christianity itself. Something not to be had by homosexuals in Christianity unless as a second class member at best. Perhaps if the church dispensed of its draconian biblical brain farts "the line" between would disappear. If you dislike gay pride marches too bad coz its a reaction to being denied elsewhere what it represents and the church has only itself to blame for what it sees as an affront to its beliefs.

No, most probably wouldn't care, provided they receive the same rights as everyone else. The problem is, civil unions only provide some of the same rights, if any.But if we can Amend the Constitution to Prohibit... why can't we give the full rights to "Civil Unions" or whatever it'll be called.

Racism is a big problem in many neighborhoods. But the causes behind the poor standing of Blacks in society are more subtle than just the man keeping them down. That unfortunately gets ignored (as it tends to play into the hands of the racists), but some of the problems really need to be addressed. Up here in Canada there is an anti-education culture among many of our Black youth. That needs to be fixed. I will continue to speak out against racism. As a white male, I am well positioned to have a positive effect in that regard. But there are other problems.

But the environment that we live in (the Neighborhood) does play a key role while we are growning up. Sorry but this is the first time I've heard of an Anti-Education Culture anywhere... are they activly refusing to learn? or are they claiming the current "Education system" is ignoring their Ethnic Culture?


I like that idea. But I'm not for sitting back in the meantime.

True, but in that case, it forces people to look at skills and not skin... ok that too doesn't sound right.


I know not Hawaii. Things may well be different there; I hope so.

Hard to be superior when you don't have an ethnic Majority. :D

But there is still descrimination. just more of a "He's my friend's friend so I'll hire him." mentallity.

Thats the great thing about the Internet. None of us know what race/gender/age any of us are unless we chose to say. Thus we all treet each other as equals as we have no frame of refrence and we are only judged by what we say (Although how we act is a far better judgement system, but that's not possible to be analysed here)actually, In General, Our views/feelings/opinions can also speak volumes. The problem is there are few places here in General that can give room for just sitting back and chatting.... wait, there is one... Club Paradise [cough]shameless plug[cough] the only rules are Keep the Politics outside and keep the profanity out even farther. :D

But if we can Amend the Constitution to Prohibit... why can't we give the full rights to "Civil Unions" or whatever it'll be called.

Because, like it or not, ultimately, the word marriage is a right of marriage.

Not to mention that nobody is even trying to make civil unions happen. It's the ground that both sides take when it's clear they're going to lose for the moment.

Because, like it or not, ultimately, the word marriage is a right of marriage.

Not to mention that nobody is even trying to make civil unions happen. It's the ground that both sides take when it's clear they're going to lose for the moment.No, the Word Marriage is a Word. People use Wedded, Wed, Wife/Husband, but Married carried a public viewpoint of being Religious in nature. (that's why almost all Marriages take place in churches or church-like settings.)

So you're saying, it's not the rights you want. it's to use the word Marriage. That's why it's a losing battle. Instead of running full tilt into the wall, try give a little and see what 'they' are willing to give. Say you won't use 'Marriage' they may allow Civil Unions. then use that as a starting point for compromise.

Gays insist it be called "marriage" and reject "civil union". Could it be they're not really looking for equal rights or just trying to raise a fuss?

No, that's not it. We reject Civil Unions because they do not include all the rights of marriage, plus Separate is Not Equal. If everyone, as far as the government was concerned, got a Civl Union and they all go tthe same rights, then gays would have no problems with that. Marriage could be left up to religious organizations to decide.

There is a flaw in your logic. The church is not homophobic. It neither fears nor hates homosexuals.

Your church maybe. Some churches do sadly.

In the UK in December 2002 there was an introduction of something called "Civil partnerships" which granted gay couples some of the same rights as married couples, see here

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-064.pdf

This is not adopted policy yet. But if the government continues down this route it will be. However things come unstuck at where the ceremony for this will be performed. At present Churches have the right to say "no we will not house your ceremony" but there is a question as to wether or not they will be allowd to do that if this is passed. I personally think they should as its their beliefs. It would be like asking a Mosque's Imarm (thats proberbly spelt wrong) if Christians could use the hall to celebrate the end of the crusades (not that we do, this is just a metaphor).

Sounds like a step in the right direction (though homosexuals should have ALL the same rights). And no, churches shouldn't be forced to perform it if they don't believe in it. That would violate freedom of religion (at least as far I understand it in the context of the US, again I cannot speak for the legal systems of other nations).

But if we can Amend the Constitution to Prohibit... why can't we give the full rights to "Civil Unions" or whatever it'll be called.

We can and should do that. It has to be the same name for straight and gay people though (as far as the government is concerned) because again, separate is not equal.

But the environment that we live in (the Neighborhood) does play a key role while we are growning up. Sorry but this is the first time I've heard of an Anti-Education Culture anywhere... are they activly refusing to learn? or are they claiming the current "Education system" is ignoring their Ethnic Culture?


I think I've observed what he is talking about. In junior high I had a really good friend who was African American. He was very intelligent and hard working and an all around nice guy. However, he was constantly ragged on by other members of his race for trying to be "white". They never gave him a moment's rest--and it was all because he was trying to get an education and was working hard.

Now, I'm not saying all African Americans are like this (as witness my friend) or that I would assume that this is the way it is. However, it does at least appear to be a very predominant philsophy in many African American areas.


True, but in that case, it forces people to look at skills and not skin... ok that too doesn't sound right.


I agree. The best qualified person should get the job, regardless of race, gender, creed, sexuality, nationality, or anything else.


But there is still descrimination. just more of a "He's my friend's friend so I'll hire him." mentallity.

And that's the type that the government cannot fight. Only time and hope and good people are going to change that--time more than anything.

You're what, twelve?
GATCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! couldnt say anything about it so you flame instead. NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So... what's your excuse?
:p

yeah. just like the smoking commercials, instead....GAY!!!. " HEY.Whats your excuse?"

GATCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! couldnt say anything about it so you flame instead. NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ummm, no it was a legitimate question. Read back and I will already have explained that it was not an insult, but a question based on the lack of logic that I see in your posts. To me you appear to still be in your concrete operational stage. Couple that with the lack of spelling and grammar and you have a picture of a twelve year old.

As I heard it it was originally a euphemism for homosexuals and then adopted by gays.

w/e. they adopted it.



I don't think homosexuals need any excuses.

that was partially a joke, but they are making excuses here like its genes or the environment.

Ummm, no it was a legitimate question. Read back and I will already have explained that it was not an insult, but a question based on the lack of logic that I see in your posts. To me you appear to still be in your concrete operational stage. Couple that with the lack of spelling and grammar and you have a picture of a twelve year old.


I dont think you can think of anything to say about your post so your going off like a twelve year old and calling me a name basically because you can't write about my post. Its kinda like the dumb bully at school who says: "umm... uhhh...ahhh..ummmm... YOU'RE STUPID!!!" after being confused by another student's simple logic.



note: i have to do a paper so i can't stay and chat even though i would like to.

w/e. they adopted it.





that was partially a joke, but they are making excuses here like its genes or the environment.

I don't see gays making excuses. Nobody needs to make an excuse for being gay.

However I do see people making a variety of piss-poor excuses as to why gay people should not be afforded the same legal right of marriage as straight people.

For the *see previous numbers*th time, Christianity is NOT INSTITUTIONALY HOMOPHOBIC. We are not fearful of hateful of homosexuals. No where in the Bible is there any reference to percecuting any kind of sinner, because that would be then to persceute yourself. We hate homosexuality but not homosexuals. Love the sinner, hate the sin. A basic motto which I dont think is to hard to live by. The difficulty comes when the people intentionaly try to blur that seperation between sin and sinner by forcing it in your face (Gay pride marches). For Christians, the problem they have with open Gays is this. People who claim to be openly gay are saying to Christians in their church (Ok not all Chrisitans) that "I am a sinner, I am proud of my sin and I am unrepentent of it". At that point what can the Chruch do?

"We hate black skin but not black people."

Please. It's homophobia. Just deal.

And what evidence do you have for this? Where would these have come from? What would he stand to gain by simpley spouting off his own prejudices as he wrote these letters in jail? And to those who say "In the writings of Paul, women are often opposed" I will say that some of what Paul says is made defunct by the Old Testement. If women were to be downtrodden in the way that Paul sometimes describes, then why would God have created them as equals in the garden of Eden.

One moment--I thought you were going with the second creation story? You know, the one where they aren't treated as equals? And either way, that precedes the fall--the fact that Eve ate the apple first has often been used to keep the ladies down throughout history.

Also, if you're going to say it goes against the Old Testament, please be correct. Have you even read the OT?! Do I have to show you all of the misogynistic laws and verses in the OT? Better to say that it goes against the New Testament, where Jesus is mostly for equality with women.

Of course, you can't pick and choose which of Pauls writings were shaded by his personal feelings and which weren't, can you? It's all or nothing.

w/e. they adopted it.

Faggot is an insult for homosexuals originally meaning "a bundle of sticks". I don't see you complaining about that.

Language evolves. Deal.

that was partially a joke, but they are making excuses here like its genes or the environment.

Valid excuses. Just as genes and the environment are valid excuses for being tall.

I dont think you can think of anything to say about your post so your going off like a twelve year old and calling me a name basically because you can't write about my post. Its kinda like the dumb bully at school who says: "umm... uhhh...ahhh..ummmm... YOU'RE STUPID!!!" after being confused by another student's simple logic.



note: i have to do a paper so i can't stay and chat even though i would like to.

You can think what you like.

I will however offer my apologies that you took it as an insult. It was not intended to be, but I can see where it might have come across that way.

Not to Christians. To Christians marriage began at the begining of the world (Genesis 2: 24)
and to the rest of the world, it's a societal thing.

stop assuming everyone worships the same god you do.

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


Simple. It is a perversion of the way God intended us to be.

Simple. It is a perversion of the way God intended us to be.
Man, you are going to killed for this. Whatch this! ;)

Man, you are going to killed for this. Whatch this! ;)

What? For being a devout Christian?

What? For being a devout Christian?

For being a misinformed one.

At present Churches have the right to say "no we will not house your ceremony" but there is a question as to wether or not they will be allowd to do that if this is passed.I'm sure there is. But without having the text of the proposed legislation it's hard to know if there is any merit to the question. Offhand, I'd look at whether churches can refuse to marry inter-racial couples. Same-sex couples will probably be treated similarly.
I think I've observed what he is talking about. In junior high I had a really good friend who was African American. He was very intelligent and hard working and an all around nice guy. However, he was constantly ragged on by other members of his race for trying to be "white". They never gave him a moment's rest--and it was all because he was trying to get an education and was working hard.

Now, I'm not saying all African Americans are like this (as witness my friend) or that I would assume that this is the way it is. However, it does at least appear to be a very predominant philsophy in many African American areas.I have only second+ hand knowledge of this, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. But yes, this is essentially what I am talking about. My dad is a teacher and reports that the anti-education attitude is not limited to Blacks, but is more common among them. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and even if racism by Whites is at the bottom of it somehow, I think it is a problem that needs to be addressed by rather more than just combatting racism. Unfortunately, I don't know how to address this problem. (For those of you in the United States, you have another problem. Your public schools suck. Not all of them, but on the whole the next generation is not recieving the education it needs for the United States to maintain its standing in the world.)
There is a flaw in your logic. The church is not homophobic. It neither fears nor hates homosexuals.The church is composed of individuals. Some which I don't doubt hate the sin but not the sinner. And others for which that claim rings hollow.

For being a misinformed one.

God intended for us to be homosexual?

Since when?

God intended for us to be homosexual?

Since when?

I doubt, should he exist, that he intended for all of us to be homosexual. However, nowhere in the Christian Bible does he forbid it--though many people seem to think he does. These people haven't been able to stand up to scurtiny.

Of course, that's just the Old and New Testaments. I'm not sure about what many other religions believe, so if you aren't Jewish or Christian, beats me.

Hindu views on homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_of_homosexuality)
I found this on wikipedia. It was interesting to me as I was raised Hindu, but now identify as agnostic.
There is a debate going on within Hinduism that I was basically unaware of. I like that the people who think homosexuality is sanctioned by hinduism are pro gay marriage. Hurrah.

God intended for us to be homosexual?

Since when?

When he decided to make people born into homosexuality.

Out of curiosity, anyone know the at-least-as-official-as-you-can-get Buddhist view on homosexuality or the marrige of?

Out of curiosity, anyone know the at-least-as-official-as-you-can-get Buddhist view on homosexuality or the marrige of?
Here you go. It's kinda long and dry though.
http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm