NationStates Jolt Archive

I suppose we should ban homosexuals from receiving driver's licenses - because they are a threat to the sanctity of driver's licenses.


The Christian idea of sactitiy of marriage has already taken enough of a beating (easy divorce etc). I think its fair that they draw a line. Drivers lisences have no religous sanctity. A drivers liscence is to allow someone to drive and so you do not give it to someone who cannot drive (who is underaged, has not passed their test etc). A marriage liscene is for a man and women to have their union recognised so it would be silly giving it to two men as thats not what its for (according to christianity). To do so would be to insult the idea of marriage and what it stands for acording to Chrisitains. Thus banning gay marriage is a law which defends a majority and infringes on a minority. You can have "Civil Unions" all you want, we have those in the UK already. But if you are going to have "Civil Unions" on the grounds that they need it, then all those who support it better also give it to those who need it even more (Old aged pensioners living togther who are unmarried or who may be related, Children with dependent parents etc, many situations that need tax/legal recognition and protection).

i think homosexuality is a sin in the same sense that lust is a sin. i do think it is very stupid that everyone makes such a big deal about the moral wrongs of homosexuality. its not the big deal that people make it out to be. we all sin

Neo-C,

please see my comment at the bottom of the previous page.

I still stand by my challenge to you for said reasons.

The Christian idea of sactitiy of marriage has already taken enough of a beating (easy divorce etc).

Then they shouldn't allow it. No church has to recognize a *civil* institution as *religious* marriage.

I think its fair that they draw a line. Drivers lisences have no religous sanctity. A drivers liscence is to allow someone to drive and so you do not give it to someone who cannot drive (who is underaged, has not passed their test etc). A marriage liscene is for a man and women to have their union recognised so it would be silly giving it to two men as thats not what its for (according to christianity). To do so would be to insult the idea of marriage and what it stands for acording to Chrisitains.

And again, you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding (or intentional ignorance) of the issue.

A marriage license, *exactly like a driver's license,* is a civil document granted to provide certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to a citizen that has shown a need for it. A marriage license is a civil document given to a couple that has chosen to live as a single legal entity. Giving it to a heterosexual couple while not giving it to a homosexual couple is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

And in all of this, Christianity doesn't even come in. Christianity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with *civil* marriage. It only has to do with *Christian* marriage, on which it can place whatever restrictions it likes. Christian churches will never be forced to recognize gay marriages - they can easily say "they aren't married in our eyes" and *no one will care*.

Thus banning gay marriage is a law which defends a majority and infringes on a minority.

Wrong. The minority is harmed by not having access to certain protections. The majority is in no way harmed by actually living up to the Constitution, as they are not forced to get a gay marriage.

You can have "Civil Unions" all you want, we have those in the UK already. But if you are going to have "Civil Unions" on the grounds that they need it, then all those who support it better also give it to those who need it even more (Old aged pensioners living togther who are unmarried or who may be related, Children with dependent parents etc, many situations that need tax/legal recognition and protection).

Again you prove that you ignore everything that you don't like. I have already explained two things here.

(a) Civil unions are all that anyone is asking for. The fact that the government happens to currently call civil unions "civil marriage" is pure semantics.

(b) I have pointed out why the marriage protections would not help or even apply to people who just happen to live together or guardian-child relationships before.

I keep hearing that Chritianity is the chosen religion of the majority of people in the US but have there ever been any polls to find out if this is true?

When I am asked what religion I am when I am being admitted into hospital I always say I have no religion, they always say " well what religion were you brought up under?", I say "Church of Scotland" and thats what they put on the form.
I am now, as far as the hospitals records are concerned, a christian, even though I am in reality an Athiest.

My point is this: How many people just say they are C of S, or C of E, or Catholic etc just because this was the religion they were brought up with even though they may have absolutely no religious leanings whatsoever or indeed they may have changed to an Islamic faith or "turned their coat" and went from Protestant to Catholic.
If everyone was polled and asked specifically to state their religious belief, would Christianity indeed be the majority faith?

And in all of this, Christianity doesn't even come in. Christianity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with *civil* marriage. It only has to do with *Christian* marriage, on which it can place whatever restrictions it likes. Christian churches will never be forced to recognize gay marriages - they can easily say "they aren't married in our eyes" and *no one will care*.


Thats like saying "animal rights activists are not harmed by the fox hunt and thus they should let it go on".

Thats like saying "animal rights activists are not harmed by the fox hunt and thus they should let it go on".

No, it really isn't, especially when you consider that animal rights activists aren't the reason that it was banned.

The hunt was banned for several reasons

(a) there aren't enough endogenous foxes.
(b) *Human beings* who are not involved in the hunt often lose their personal property or are personally harmed during th hunt.

The hunt itself involves harm to people who are not involved.

Civil marriage, however, involves only the government and the two people getting married.

Meanwhile, you *yet again* choose to ignore the *fact* that civil and religious do not mean the same thing. There is, and never has been, any "holiness" or "sanctity" in civil marriage. The holiness and sanctity are in religious marriage - which is not going to be changed by allowing equal protections to homosexuals.

Fine OK. I concede on the grounds of Gay marriage being made legal. You can have civil unions. I dont concede however that Christians oppose it and that they have fair reasons to do so. I rearly would like it so that not only Gays are not allowed to marry in Churches but also non Christians. Its kind of disrespectful "we like your pretty building and we want to show our love here, we dont however believe in what it stands for but we would still like to use it"

Just out of curiosity, is there any justification for gay marriage in terms of practicality, not just "They need equality".

Fine OK. I concede on the grounds of Gay marriage being made legal. You can have civil unions. I dont concede however that Christians oppose it and that they have fair reasons to do so. I rearly would like it so that not only Gays are not allowed to marry in Churches but also non Christians. Its kind of disrespectful "we like your pretty building and we want to show our love here, we dont however believe in what it stands for but we would still like to use it"

I don't know about your country, but in the US, a church is never forced to let their building be used for any marriages they do not condone.

Catholic churches, for example, never marry *anyone* but Catholics (who have never been previously married or have gotten an annulment through the church). Baptist churches have been kicked out of the Southern Baptist convention for allowing their churches to be used in homosexual marriage ceremonies.

And guess what? It is their right to do this. The churches own the buildings, therefore they can bar anyone they want to from even coming in, much less holding marriage ceremonies there.

Only *the government* which performs *civil* marriage is held to non-discrimination rules.

Just out of curiosity, is there any justification for gay marriage in terms of practicality, not just "They need equality".

Again you demonstrate that you ignore posts, considering that I posted one yesterday with all sorts of reasons.

No, it really isn't, especially when you consider that animal rights activists aren't the reason that it was banned.


My point was this, many people say that Christians have no need to protest about Gay civil unions as it will not affect them. However you could argue quite easily that the existance of the foxhunt did not affect those animal rights activists. Yet it did not affect them. Very few of them lived anywhere near the countryside.

Again you demonstrate that you ignore posts, considering that I posted one yesterday with all sorts of reasons.

Could you provide a link, or repost. I will have a look myself.

My point was this, many people say that Christians have no need to protest about Gay civil unions as it will not affect them. However you could argue quite easily that the existance of the foxhunt did not affect those animal rights activists. Yet it did not affect them. Very few of them lived anywhere near the countryside.


Umm, actually, hunting an animal to extinction DOES affect everybody. Never mind the total cruelty involved in the act of the hunt itself. Or do you happen to think that being torn apart by lots of hounds is, in some way, fun.

We in the UK are 'supposed' to be a nation of animal lovers.

Also Neo-C, please read my reply at the bottom of page 333 to your comment about 'gay clubs being for gays only'.

I've given you a challenge, now its time to practice what you preach when you say that you have no problem with gay people.
What's the matter? Afraid you may enjoy it? Or were you perhaps not being entirely truthful in what you said?

My point was this, many people say that Christians have no need to protest about Gay civil unions as it will not affect them. However you could argue quite easily that the existance of the foxhunt did not affect those animal rights activists. Yet it did not affect them. Very few of them lived anywhere near the countryside.

People can protest black shoes if they want to. The fact remains that nobody has the right to bar me from wearing black shoes just because that person does not like them. My wearing black shoes is in no way an infringement on their rights, because I am not forcing them to wear black shoes.

Animal rights activists can petition the government to, for instance, stop doing medical research. However, they can not provide a compelling interest other than "we think it is bad." Therefore, it is not banned.

Christians can protest the idea of gay marriage all they want. However, the fact remains that they do not have the right to deny equal protection to homosexual couples. Two homosexuals getting marriage protections is in no way an infringement of the Christian's right to think it is wrong - and no one is forcing them to participate in gay marriage, allow one to be held on their property, or acknowledge it as "true" sanctified marriage.

Well, just for the record.. there is evidence that they were homosexual lovers... let's look at 1 Samuel 2:41 "and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded".

Shall we look at what 'exceeded' means? It comes from the Hebrew "Gadal", and means "To Grow" or "Become Great"... so, Johnathan kissed David until he swelled.... sounds pretty consclusive to me.


The word is also used to describe how Soloman was greater than others in history and many other uses of the word "Great" is it perhaps in order that what it was saying was that Davids weeping was greater than Jonothans or something to that effect. Thats what most of the translations seem to point at.

Umm, actually, hunting an animal to extinction DOES affect everybody. Never mind the total cruelty involved in the act of the hunt itself. Or do you happen to think that being torn apart by lots of hounds is, in some way, fun.


How does this affect anyone?

Christians can protest the idea of gay marriage all they want. However, the fact remains that they do not have the right to deny equal protection to homosexual couples. Two homosexuals getting marriage protections is in no way an infringement of the Christian's right to think it is wrong - and no one is forcing them to participate in gay marriage, allow one to be held on their property, or acknowledge it as "true" sanctified marriage.

What if enough people did oppose it. It is a democracy is it not? What if an overwhelming majority (like say the one that exists) oposed Gay marriage?

Could you provide a link, or repost. I will have a look myself.

In regards to a select few reasons for marriage protections:

And are you unaware that, in some countries (like the US), there is this thing called inheritance tax? Only married couples are immune to it. Would you like to know why? Because they are seen as a single legal entity with the same property and debts.

Therefore, if a married man dies - the home that he and his wife paid for automatically goes to the wife - tax free. Any children are automatically left with her, as she already had custody of them. Even if the children were the husband's from a previous marriage, she would have had the chance to adopt them legally, making her an equal legal guardian. Even before he dies, if his wife has a job that provides health insurance and he does not, she can extend that health insurance to the children.

If a lesbian in a partnership dies - the home that she and her partner paid for may get left to her partner in a will, but the partner has to pay inheritance tax, and thus will probably have to sell the house anyways in order to pay it. Any children of the woman who died get taken away and given to either her next-of-kin, or the state - ripped away from their other parent that they may have known all their lives. Even if she leaves the children to her partner, the next-of-kin can challenge that decision, resulting in a lengthy court battle in which the children could still be ripped away from their only remaining parent. Even before the biological parent dies, if her partner has a job that provides health insurance and she does not, the partner *Cannot* extend that health insurance to the children. Thus, if they are not a wealthy couple, these children are likely to have inadequate access to health care.

These are just a select few problems that homosexual couples face.

And in respect to your examples of other "couples" that need the same protections:

- A Child with a dependent disabled parent who live togther
- Two old men/women who live together for mutual financial benefit (sharing same heating bill/food etc) who may or may not be related (sisters, brothers etc)

Neither of these are the same as a marriage. The child is not going to co-own a home or need joint custody of itself, nor are the two living as if they are a single person. Sharing a heating bill and food is in no way affected by marriage protections, nor do two people who share a home simply for financial benefit live as a single legal entity.. So neither example is even close to being covered by marriage protections.

Do these people need legal protections? Absolutely. However, their situation is vastly different from that encountered by married couples, so their protections need to be different as well.

And in response to
America is a democracy is it not?

No. America is a representative republic.

And as a democracy if more people want one thing than another group then you must bow to the larger group.

Not when it comes to equal protection under the law, which is clearly stated in the Constitution to apply to *EVERYONE*.

The right is the right to equal protection. If the government stopped granting marriage licenses altogether, that would be equal protection. Otherwise, they must be granted to all couples who choose to live as a single legal entity unless a state interest (and no, "lots of people want it!" does not count - as those people's rights end where the couple's begin) is cited. There is no such interest.

What if enough people did oppose it. It is a democracy is it not? What if an overwhelming majority (like say the one that exists) oposed Gay marriage?

No, it is a representative Republic, in which *no* group, no matter how large, can take away the right of another to equal protection under the law.

Consider this. Suppose homosexuals were only 0.01% of the population, and we took equal protection from them. They are no longer full citizens, so they don't count in our population anymore.

THen, suppose that within the majority, there was a 0.01% minority that disagreed with something and the majority decided to take equal protection away from *them*. Now we have even more people that are not full citizens.

Then suppose that within *that* majority, there was another minority......

What if enough people did oppose it. It is a democracy is it not? What if an overwhelming majority (like say the one that exists) oposed Gay marriage?

You also ignore the fact that there is not an overwhelming majority of people who oppose gay marriage. In fact, if you take into account that a civil union is marriage under a different term and all it would take is calling all civil marriage civil union, there is actually a majority who *support* homosexual marriage.

There is also another big issue with you using the hunt as an analogy.

The ban is being applied equally. They aren't saying "heterosexuals can hunt, but homosexuals cannot." They are saying "nobody gets to go on the fox hunt. Sorry, that's the way it is." Therefore, this is not the same as banning homosexual marriage, but is like refusing to recognize *any* marriage, which would be equal protection.

Just out of curiosity, is there any justification for gay marriage in terms of practicality, not just "They need equality".
no more then strait people need marriage (you can procreate outside of wedlock)

Neo,

One last thought for the night. I know this will be hard for you in your white-bread, conservative, Christian mindset to understand, but think about it a little bit anyways.

Suppose there was a country made up almost completely of non-religious folk. Suppose they had marriage protections set up, but those protections were *only* for secular marriages. Nobody who ever had a religious marriage could have the protections. This, of course, would be because non-religious people would see what Christians do as being wrong, and harmful to the community.

Now, as Christians, we obviously feel that our marriage should be sanctioned by God - which would mean having a religious marriage. So, suppose Christians petitioned the government, pointing out that, other than their religious beliefs, there was no difference between the legal needs of Christian couples and those of non-religious couples.

Now, I ask you, would "The Christians are only 5% of the population and a vast majority of the country doesn't think they should get marriage protections!" be a good argument for refusing them equal protection?

Umm, actually, hunting an animal to extinction DOES affect everybody. Never mind the total cruelty involved in the act of the hunt itself. Or do you happen to think that being torn apart by lots of hounds is, in some way, fun.


How does this affect anyone?

Wellll.....by removing an animal from its place in the ecosystem it can cause upset to that entire system and cause increased population in other species (because you have removed a natural predator) or a possible decrease or extinction to others (if you remove a creatures natural prey).

That answer your question (albeit an off topic one :p)

Neo,

One last thought for the night. I know this will be hard for you in your white-bread, conservative, Christian mindset to understand, but think about it a little bit anyways.

Suppose there was a country made up almost completely of non-religious folk. Suppose they had marriage protections set up, but those protections were *only* for secular marriages. Nobody who ever had a religious marriage could have the protections. This, of course, would be because non-religious people would see what Christians do as being wrong, and harmful to the community.

Now, as Christians, we obviously feel that our marriage should be sanctioned by God - which would mean having a religious marriage. So, suppose Christians petitioned the government, pointing out that, other than their religious beliefs, there was no difference between the legal needs of Christian couples and those of non-religious couples.

Now, I ask you, would "The Christians are only 5% of the population and a vast majority of the country doesn't think they should get marriage protections!" be a good argument for refusing them equal protection?

I have already conceded for you to have your Civil unions. Just that Christians oppose and reserve the right to refuse to hold the service in church

I have already conceded for you to have your Civil unions. Just that Christians oppose and reserve the right to refuse to hold the service in church
You were never asked to

You were never asked to

Fine so can we go back to the point of the thread. That is the debate that homosexual sex is a sin. Gay marriage has had its debate and you won.

I have already conceded for you to have your Civil unions. Just that some Christians oppose it and theyreserve the right to refuse to hold the service in church

Edited ^^ but otherwise, good.

Now, are you going to ignore my other post that you specifically asked me to go back and search for?

Edited ^^ but otherwise, good.

Now, are you going to ignore my other post that you specifically asked me to go back and search for?

I concede that you were right regarding that. Now can we please return to the threads original topic (which was not gay marriage)

I concede that you were right regarding that. Now can we please return to the threads original topic (which was not gay marriage)
Well I think we just about beat that one out at least for christianity ...
I would like to hear from other religions if possible

Well I think we just about beat that one out at least for christianity ...
I would like to hear from other religions if possible

So do you agree that homosexual sex is a sin then? If not we still have a debate.

I concede that you were right regarding that. Now can we please return to the threads original topic (which was not gay marriage)

That's the last time I spend my time searching for a post you already ignored once that you *specifically* asked me to find.

So do you agree that homosexual sex is a sin then? If not we still have a debate.
No I agree that I see your view point on homosexuality ... but again christianity is not the end all of deffinintion of sin

The point of the thread was WHY is it a sin (for you) I would have to assume your premmises for me to agree to your conclusion

You are incapable of doing that ... the proof dosent exist ... you need faith, something I dont have the prerequisite of

So do you agree that homosexual sex is a sin then? If not we still have a debate.

You do realize that some debates end without "conversion" of either side.

You are most likely going to believe that homosexual relationships are sinful no matter what anybody tells you. Likewise, I am going to believe that they are not, as all the "evidence" you use is evidence I have already examined and incorporated into my interpretation of things.

The real problem here is that you refuse to admit something that *any* person in *any* debate has to admit - the possibility that you just might be wrong.

See, I agree that there is a possibility that you are right; that despite all the horrible things in the OT - it was all God's word; that despite the fact that it means that God specifically designated homosexuals for loveless lives, it is a sin.
You, however, instead of agreeing with the possibility that *my* interpretation *just might* be correct, have argued that the *only* way to interpret it is your way ((the very definition of intolerance, btw)).

This is not a debate, because, like most fundamentalists, you are not even slightly open to the idea that you might be wrong. You are not even slightly open to any questioning of what you hold to be "truth" (which is, btw, the biggest symptom of weak faith).

undefinedundefinedundefined It is a sin because in my country GB is el presidente and JK lost because he was all about gay marriage so therefore if u r gay in my country u dont run for office. :rolleyes: :mp5: :sniper: ive got ur back green guy!!

I believe that it is just the acting on it that is the sin because it says that in the bible. Also like someone said that by doing things against what the bible says are also sins and that is the reason that everyone is a sinner because noone could possibly live exactly by the bible.

Well I think we just about beat that one out at least for christianity ...
I would like to hear from other religions if possible

All the Hindus I know (which is quite a few) are very much against homosexual behavior.

All the Hindus I know (which is quite a few) are very much against homosexual behavior.
Not saying they weren’t just curious why … we have argued Christianity to the exclusion of others … just saying I would be interested in listening /debate

Not saying they weren’t just curious why … we have argued Christianity to the exclusion of others … just saying I would be interested in listening /debate

I have tried. And here I will again post some of it.

The following is the Telegram I sent to Neo-Cannen regarding the questions I asked him that were not answered.

You asked me to TG you the questions, and I am, here you go.
However, the following are more recent ones, I decided to ask them here as well for efficency.



The Church argues that this law will protect the sactitiy of marriage.

What of the sanctity of marriage of non-Chrstian religions who support gay-marriage? Are they not entitiled to the right of the official, legal definition of "marriage"?


Out of the five main non Christian religions in the world (Islam, Judaisim, Hinduism, Buddaism and Shiekism (not all correctly spelt)) none of them support a homosexual union.

So what gives these "Major" religions the right to force their beliefs upon everyone?

You said that if any law had to be passed that persecutes a minority it must defend a majority. I explained that Christianity is said majority which is being protected here. They desereve the legal right to not allow Gays to practice the ceremony in there church, and they have the right to lobby and be listened to.

So, you're an advocate of descrimination of the minorities? That makes you a bigot, don;t you realise?

So do you agree that homosexual sex is a sin then?

Only to you. What gives you the right to say that my religion can not choose what it defines as "sin"? What gives you the right to say that "sin" is only what the Bible says?


And the ones I asked on comment 4912.

Neo Cannen:
Your reasons come from your ideology, and thus by your own logic, you can't use them. Unless YOU care to provide a practical source?
Why are you allowed to and I not. Is that or is that not discrimination.
And where are your ideologies allowed to law and mine not? I call descrimination back upon you.
NO ONE has yet provided ANY evidence that God supported homosexuality at all.
Now define which god, and this statement will be ok. I have already explained where a goddess I worship is actually bisexual. Now, if you decide to refute that as a point, arn't you descriminating my religion?
that the Bible says nothing.
So, the Bible is the only religious text ever to be considered for law?
We are discussing wether or not it is a sin. Therefore the Bible is relevent. You cannot use extra-biblical sources to prove if it is or is not a sin.
So, a "sin" is ONLY a Christian thing? That's funny, I have sins.. yet, I'm not Christian.

If you require the actual background information, then here. Comment 4697.

So, religion actually siding with the pro-gay marriage side.

Well, here's how I see it religiously.
The Great goddess Inanna, goddess of love (And war, but that doesn't count here). As well as ruler and founder of the Sacred Marriage rite, was Bisexual.
She was, to put it blatantly, a whore, and in many of the tales of her wanderings, she has sex with both men and women, and sometines at the same time.
The Sacred Marriage Rite is defined as a union of two, blessed by the Anuannaki, performed in the ceremony laid down by Inanna and her Consort Dumuzi.

Now that is a religious view, and no where do I see "Man and woman". Wo why not make that religious view law? It makes as much sense as making Christian, Muslim, or the Atheist view law.
And the fact that in many stories of Inanna, she sleeps with other women, simply proves there is no anti-gay part to the goddess presiding over marriage in itself.

Another comment to yours that recieved no reply. #4725.

Can anyone here give a better arguemnt for gay marriage other than "They need equality"? That arguement is ideological the same as mine. So untill you find a practical benefit saying "Your forcing your religion into politcs" can be countored by "Your forcing your ideology into politics". And by saying your allowed to do one and not the other, you are being discriminative. You are basicly saying "Its ok for X, Y and Z to influence govenmental decisons but not A becuase he is nasty"

Well, if I read your posts correctly, you're opposed to gay marriage because it is not between a man and a woman, as laid out in the Bible, correct?

Well, to counter that, I'll reiterate. The Great goddess Inanna didn't say either way, and she is bisexual. Since she rules the sanctity of the marriage rite, then it is her reasoning that counts. So, based on that Bisexual thing, she says it's ok!

I would appreciate a response to these, as I took the time to dig them up and present them to you.
And I would like you to remember, I am not arguing the same way as the others. I am merely arguing your why your religion should be taken any more importantly then another.
Also, as a request, can you please post your answers in the "How is homosexuality a sin?" thread? I would appreciate that to allow everyone to read them. As it goes, I will post this there as well.
That you for your time.

anyone here read Foucault's History of Sexuality.

The ancient Greeks and the Romans were bisexual, the Jews were regarded as the freaks by outlawing intersex relations. Sexuality is a societal construct. I'm also sick of this "people having equality isnt a good enough reason". Grow up. The Bible also says people with glasses should be burnt (or something to that effect, as one of our journalists revealed to a Catholic priest wearing glasses, as he tried to argue that homosexuality is a sin). Unless every single person in the world is Christian, then Christian views should not be forced upon us.

What of the sanctity of marriage of non-Chrstian religions who support gay-marriage? Are they not entitiled to the right of the official, legal definition of "marriage"?


They are not entitled to it because marriage is between man and women. They can have the same rights under another name thats fine.


So what gives these "Major" religions the right to force their beliefs upon everyone?


If they are the majority then they are being protected.


So, you're an advocate of descrimination of the minorities? That makes you a bigot, don;t you realise?


Criminals are a minority, should we not discriminate against them. Before you say "He's equating homosexuals to criminals! HOMOPHOBE!" what I am explaining is that if a majority is under threat from a minority then the majority have the right to curtail said minority. While you may belive the threat is an abstract concept, you are in the minority in that belief.


Only to you. What gives you the right to say that my religion can not choose what it defines as "sin"? What gives you the right to say that "sin" is only what the Bible says?


Sin is a Christian word is it not? By asking to define a sin you are asking to define a Chritistan term are you not?


Your reasons come from your ideology, and thus by your own logic, you can't use them. Unless YOU care to provide a practical source?
And where are your ideologies allowed to law and mine not? I call descrimination back upon you.


I never said "My idealogy is better than yours" thats what you were saying. You were arguing that your ideologies of libralism etc are better than my religious ideology. If we accept then that both are just ideologies then both have equal rights in government. Therefore it comes down to a question of numbers.


Now define which god, and this statement will be ok. I have already explained where a goddess I worship is actually bisexual. Now, if you decide to refute that as a point, arn't you descriminating my religion?


I dont belive Pagens are in the majority here.


So, the Bible is the only religious text ever to be considered for law?
Well, here's how I see it religiously.
The Great goddess Inanna, goddess of love (And war, but that doesn't count here). As well as ruler and founder of the Sacred Marriage rite, was Bisexual.
She was, to put it blatantly, a whore, and in many of the tales of her wanderings, she has sex with both men and women, and sometines at the same time.
The Sacred Marriage Rite is defined as a union of two, blessed by the Anuannaki, performed in the ceremony laid down by Inanna and her Consort Dumuzi.
Now that is a religious view, and no where do I see "Man and woman". Wo why not make that religious view law? It makes as much sense as making Christian, Muslim, or the Atheist view law.
And the fact that in many stories of Inanna, she sleeps with other women, simply proves there is no anti-gay part to the goddess presiding over marriage in itself
Another comment to yours that recieved no reply. #4725.
Well, if I read your posts correctly, you're opposed to gay marriage because it is not between a man and a woman, as laid out in the Bible, correct?
Well, to counter that, I'll reiterate. The Great goddess Inanna didn't say either way, and she is bisexual. Since she rules the sanctity of the marriage rite, then it is her reasoning that counts. So, based on that Bisexual thing, she says it's ok!


No, the Bible is a religous text from which you can get laws if your national populus demands it. And as I said pagens are not in the majority.

You know, only about a third of the population wanted the American Revolution. Sometimes, when the majority isn't clever enough to realize that they're oppressing people, they find out the hard way.

I must agree that marriage is the church's business. However, the benefits that are provided to married couples by the government are not. It is not the government's place to decide whether or not gay people get those priveleges or even to recognize the institution of marriage in the first place.

You know, only about a third of the population wanted the American Revolution. Sometimes, when the majority isn't clever enough to realize that they're oppressing people, they find out the hard way.

I must agree that marriage is the church's business. However, the benefits that are provided to married couples by the government are not. It is not the government's place to decide whether or not gay people get those priveleges or even to recognize the institution of marriage in the first place.

I agree, Gays can have the same rights but it must be somehow seen as distinct from marriage and diffrent.

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

This thread is active, and (sometimes) interesting, but will never reach a meaningful agreement of conclusion. "Sins" are defined by religions. Different religions have different (and often opposite) sins. They are sometimes RELATED to facts, but PRIMARILY serve to keep RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN POWER. The lower-class "believers" must have "faith" and follow the "teachings", REGARDLESS OF SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES, that prove the falacies of basic religious "beliefs and laws".

A good example is India(Hindu) vs. Pakistan(Muslim). In Hindu India, cows are "sacred", so they wander freely, even in cities, and you can not kill them or eat them. When they die (and there are many), they are shipped to Pakistan (including Bangladesh, which used to be "East Pakistan"). In exchange, both Pakistans ship pigs to India (because Muslims [and Jews] can not eat pork products). There is a historical basis, which is no longer a problem. Before refrigeration, more people got sick from pork than beef. This is no longer true, but the religions refuse to update.

Regarding homosexuality. The medical science is obvious. It spreads (often weird, uncontrollable) diseases, and does not help human evolution (except by terminating homosexuals). Historically, it was a major factor in the downfall of early advanced civilizations in Greece and Rome.

Please do no start a new branch on this thread called "All Current Advances Today Were Started By Homosexuals In Ancient Greece and Rome". That won't fly, and please keep your's zipped.

Sin is a Christian word is it not?

But marriage is not. There were marriages long before christianity existed. I do not know if they had gay marriages or not. But they were marriages!
Christians did NOT invent marriage!!!!!
The pagAns were doing it for thousands of years before christianity was invented!

Thank you for the reply Neo Cannen. Unfortunatly, you need a history lesson, and a bit of a reality check. Again I say I was arguing my religious beliefs to yours, and in the end asking WHY your religion must be taken more seriously then mine. And WHY you and your religious beliefs have any rights I and my religious beliefs do not.
It was a trick, I must say, since any instance to defend yourself sets you up as a bigot.

Now my reply.

They are not entitled to it because marriage is between man and women. They can have the same rights under another name thats fine.
So, you are saying, very blatantly I might add, that Christianity is the only real religion and that all others are jokes, and as so may not use the word? Regardless of the fact that mariage outdates Christianity by some 4,000 or 5,000 years in WRITTEN history.

If they are the majority then they are being protected.
You are aware that this "protected" is often used to cover up the descrimination of a minority do you?

Criminals are a minority, should we not discriminate against them. Before you say "He's equating homosexuals to criminals! HOMOPHOBE!" what I am explaining is that if a majority is under threat from a minority then the majority have the right to curtail said minority. While you may belive the threat is an abstract concept, you are in the minority in that belief.
Now here I am hearing from American news that crime is on the majority, and when I say crime, I mean any crime. J-Walking is a crime in alot of places, same with riding a bike without a helmet, and here in Nova Scotia apparently throwing a snowball at the north side of a tree is a crime. And breaking te law makes you a criminal, wether or not you're prosecuted.

Sin is a Christian word is it not? By asking to define a sin you are asking to define a Chritistan term are you not?
Actually, here's your history lesson.
Sin is the name of the Akkadian moon god, and when the Semites conquered Akkade and Sumer around 2600BCE (Before Common Era incase you don't know, just a non-religious way of saying "Before Christ") and brought about the Assyrian Empire (Later the Babylonian empire), they adopted the name for their moon god (As they were ruling a people still believing it.)
In about 1900BCE the word started to become used for "wrongdoings" as the god Marduk became the "Head" god in the pantheon.
Now where it became used for the meaning of "Wrongdoings" in Christianity comes directly from the Jews, who adopted it from the Assyro-Babylonians in around 1300BCE.
Historicly, Sin is an Akkadian term, and in it's modern context, it's still a Babylonian one.

I never said "My idealogy is better than yours" thats what you were saying. You were arguing that your ideologies of libralism etc are better than my religious ideology. If we accept then that both are just ideologies then both have equal rights in government. Therefore it comes down to a question of numbers.
As I pointed earlier, I was arguing religious view to religious view. And why your religion should be more legitimate then mine.
You were the one who said that first part of my quote, I was merely throwing it back at you. Although with all fairness, I believe Demipublicants was who said it to you.
And numbers it does not come to, actual human rights it comes down to. If Islam was the dominant religion in the US, would you advocate Islamic laws? Or perhaps Wicca? Or what if the Heaven's Gate cult had the majority?

I dont belive Pagens are in the majority here.
I have already refuted your "Majority" point when it goes against human rights. Let alone when it goes against your American Bill of Rights and the Constitution. By creating laws that go against my beliefs for yours, is it not a form of descrimination?
Also, at last count, there were over 140,000 practising pagans in the US, and when they say practising when related to the word pagan, they mean people who actually try to cast spells, partake in all retuals, and are the general "New Age" nut you probably laugh at (I do, that's for sure, laugh at them that is).
Now by the same process, to count all Christians in the US you would have to count only people who go to church every Sunday. I'm sure then, the numbers would be DRAMATICLY lower.

No, the Bible is a religous text from which you can get laws if your national populus demands it. And as I said pagens are not in the majority.
If the national populus demands you kill all Chinese people, and votes it into a law, does that make it right?
If the Bible says I may not use blood in a ritual (As I'm sure it does), and that is voted into law, is that not a infringment upon my right to freedom of religion?

I would appreciate a response to these as well. Thank you.

I agree, Gays can have the same rights but it must be somehow seen as distinct from marriage and diffrent.
I agree for easiness sake but it still seems rather silly Christians trying to control something that is not there (and again I re emphasize LEGAL marriage … lol it is the same thing you are giving them with a different fucking name) lol

Personally I don’t think the legal definition should be called marriage anymore for even strait couples. As much as I hate name changing in order to change attitudes it would just be simpler. Christians (and other religions but I haven’t noticed this trend in them as much) just wont by and large get the legal and religious separation.

Personaly (and I know I brought this up a long time ago) we should have civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual marriage with the added title of “marriage” if your religion condones the partnership
If not
No marriage title from the religions

But that wont affect your standing whatsoever as far as law is concerned

So simple

I have already refuted your "Majority" point when it goes against human rights. Let alone when it goes against your American Bill of Rights and the Constitution. By creating laws that go against my beliefs for yours, is it not a form of descrimination?

Neo Cannen isn't American. He's Brit. Also, he's one of the minority who don't even know what our Constitution is, since he keeps saying things that are counter to our document.

Also, any idiot who claims we are a Christian nation, I say one thing: Read the damn Treaty of Tripol, article 11. It'll show how much of a dumbfuck you are toi say we're a Christian Nation.

Hmm, am I hearing that it's a human right to use the orifice of your choice?

Well, as long as it's not one of my orifices used against my will, and you're not copulating in public, it's ok by me.

Whether or not it's a sin is a religious matter, not a state matter. Belong to the religion of your choice. Stop trying to convert the other religious believers.

I agree, Gays can have the same rights but it must be somehow seen as distinct from marriage and diffrent.

That's like saying women should have the same rights to vote as men, but we should call it something like 'suggesting' to make it distinct.

Regarding homosexuality. The medical science is obvious. It spreads (often weird, uncontrollable) diseases, and does not help human evolution (except by terminating homosexuals).

Wow. Such idiocy. Let's see all the diseases:
HIV: nope, sorry, but that's a majorly heterosexual disease.
Gohnnorea; See avbove
Diptheria: Above

So, what's a homosexual only disease?

Also, you show an impressive lack of evolutionary know-how. Homosexuals may not directly contribute to evolution with their genes, but they do serve indirectly by helpiong care for the offspring of the other members of the community, thus ensuring that the community's genes are continued on.

Historically, it was a major factor in the downfall of early advanced civilizations in Greece and Rome.

No it wasn't. Christianity was the downfall of them. Did you ever think of learning history before you spouted your idiocy?

Please do no start a new branch on this thread called "All Current Advances Today Were Started By Homosexuals In Ancient Greece and Rome". That won't fly, and please keep your's zipped.

E-yup. Evidence of a classic dumbfuck:"I know what I'm saying is wrong, but I don't want you to prove it, so don't say how wrong I am."

Also, any idiot who claims we are a Christian nation, I say one thing: Read the damn Treaty of Tripol, article 11. It'll show how much of a dumbfuck you are toi say we're a Christian Nation.

or, instead of being a dumbfuck like you and reading an old treaty, how about we read what your current president is saying about wanting to make Christianity the state religion of the US. If he gets his way - you will be a 'Christian Nation'. Dumbfuck

So, what's a homosexual only disease?

Homophobia Persecutia.

Ah, but you forget that we'll be a Christian nation with thousands of nuclear warheads...

Ah, but you forget that we'll be a Christian nation with thousands of nuclear warheads...

and your point is?

or, instead of being a dumbfuck like you and reading an old treaty, how about we read what your current president is saying about wanting to make Christianity the state religion of the US. If he gets his way - you will be a 'Christian Nation'. Dumbfuck

Nope. You think we are just going to let that happen? If it does, then there will be bloody revolution to cure the problem.

Besides, the Treaty was signed by our founding fathers, so it is necessary to read.

Dumbfuck.

and your point is?

"OMG DO AS i say or well kill u!?!1eleven!~!" maybe?

It's much harder to deal with an entity that has a LOT of nukes

Nope. You think we are just going to let that happen? If it does, then there will be bloody revolution to cure the problem.

Besides, the Treaty was signed by our founding fathers, so it is necessary to read.

Dumbfuck.

Hmm...like you let the war in Iraq happen...like you let Bush become President without a majority vote...like you let hundreds of thousands of civilians die in Iraq...don't try to extol your own moral virtue when you have none.

It's much harder to deal with an entity that has a LOT of nukes

Ahh...Americans. Firepower can't solve everything. And countries don't do what you want. Respect to France - I'm proud of Chirac. I also liked his trip to China...sticking one up the Americans while my crappy prime minister was in Washington sucking cock.

Now, the ultimate question of faith... God created EVERYTHING and God is all holy and beyond any act of evil... so...

How did the ultimate purity lead to the creation of evil? Its not Lucifer's fault... God destined him to be Satan... ergo... God is not love, God is a purely political animal.

I have a whole collection of similar questions... look at Judas, for example.

Undoubtedly the greatest HERO of biblical times. Jesus KNEW in advance that Judas would betray him, so God knew in advance, so Judas had NO choice... he HAD to betray Jesus - even KNOWING that he was the Son-of-God, and God-incarnate.

Judas was forced to sacrifice his friend, messiah and god, all in one - to serve god's purpose... and then he killed himself because he couldn't live with the knowledge of what he had done.

Judas - the greatest Hero of the Bible.

And, once again, Go dbeing cavalier with lesser beings... Judas is discarded after he serves his purpose.

Thats rather like asking a Muslim to go and bathe in the Ganges with all the other Hindus when the planets aligned a few years ago now. A Gay nightclub is specificly for gay's. Why would a straight guy go there?

Try "Heaven". It's in London.

It is a 'gay' club, but it has a very liberal door policy.

So, provided you don't attend in your 'I hope all gays burn in hell' T-shirt, you should be okay.

And, why would a straight attend a gay club? Because, in this case, it is arguably the BEST dance music club in the country.

The word is also used to describe how Soloman was greater than others in history and many other uses of the word "Great" is it perhaps in order that what it was saying was that Davids weeping was greater than Jonothans or something to that effect. Thats what most of the translations seem to point at.

Stop being a robot. Have an original thought.

The phrasing of the KJV makes it clear that the 'David cried more' excuse is just that - just an excuse... a way to try to explain an unfortunate turn of phrase.

And, for a change - it appears the KJV is probably the most accurate translation, on this issue.

It says he 'swelled' when he was kissed by another man.

You know what that means, Neo - you just don't want to have to admit it.

Stop being a robot. Have an original thought.

The phrasing of the KJV makes it clear that the 'David cried more' excuse is just that - just an excuse... a way to try to explain an unfortunate turn of phrase.

And, for a change - it appears the KJV is probably the most accurate translation, on this issue.

It says he 'swelled' when he was kissed by another man.

You know what that means, Neo - you just don't want to have to admit it.

Even if David and Jonothan were gay (which they were not) all you have proved is that there is a mention of homosexuality in the Bible which I have not doubted.

They are not entitled to it because marriage is between man and women. They can have the same rights under another name thats fine.


No. Marriage is not between a man and a woman.
The current, christian model says man and woman... but that is not the only, the first, or the most important model.


Criminals are a minority, should we not discriminate against them. Before you say "He's equating homosexuals to criminals! HOMOPHOBE!" what I am explaining is that if a majority is under threat from a minority then the majority have the right to curtail said minority. While you may belive the threat is an abstract concept, you are in the minority in that belief.


The majority isn't under 'threat' from homosexuals.

What do you think, they'll get 'gay marriage' and then murder all the straight people?


Sin is a Christian word is it not? By asking to define a sin you are asking to define a Chritistan term are you not?


No. It is derived from Middle English, derived from German "Sunde" - which means "to break a religious law"... no religion specified.


I never said "My idealogy is better than yours" thats what you were saying. You were arguing that your ideologies of libralism etc are better than my religious ideology. If we accept then that both are just ideologies then both have equal rights in government. Therefore it comes down to a question of numbers.


They don't have equal rights in government - because government isn't religion. Religious ideology should hold sway in CHURCH, political ideology should hold sway in GOVERNMENT - unless your government is a Theocracy.


I dont belive Pagens are in the majority here.


I think it more likely than Christianity.


No, the Bible is a religous text from which you can get laws if your national populus demands it. And as I said pagens are not in the majority.

No - but I doubt that fundamentalists outnumber the combined total of agnostics, atheists, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Satanists, Jedi, Hindus... etc.

So, the christian church has no right to determine the laws of ALL of the other people.

Even if David and Jonothan were gay (which they were not) all you have proved is that there is a mention of homosexuality in the Bible which I have not doubted.

Looks like they were gay, to me... or bisexual at least.

And, since david is one of the patriarchs, and Jesus was born of the line of David... that means not only is homosexuality tolerated by god, but also, he brought forth Messiah from an overtly homosexual source.

Can't think of a much better commendation, to be honest.

Oh - no comments regarding the gay club I mentioned above?

I don't believe that any government or state should have any "interest" in marriage. I don't believe that marriage should be a "civil" institution. It is solely a religious institution.

Therefore, for those who want to be married in the eyes of their religion, let them be married in the religion of their choosing. I suppose that gays can go to a Unitarian Chuch and get married.

As for anyone else, we should then have to right, under religious freedoms, to recognize or not recognize marriages.

Heck, we could even start a Church of the No Marriage Allowed For Anyone.

But I think government needs to stay out. In Canada, it was strictly a religious thing until the 1950s. Worked fine, didn't it? Register at the local church...

Can I just say that I have conceded on Gay marriage (oppose idea but see that it is constitutional in US to let you have it, though not so in UK) so no more to say on that.

Hmm...like you let the war in Iraq happen...like you let Bush become President without a majority vote...like you let hundreds of thousands of civilians die in Iraq...don't try to extol your own moral virtue when you have none.

Don't you try to extol your morals on me, and I won't extol mine on you.

And beside,s I voted to put Kerry into office, so I tried my damndest to get him out.

And, since david is one of the patriarchs, and Jesus was born of the line of David... that means not only is homosexuality tolerated by god, but also, he brought forth Messiah from an overtly homosexual source.


David was also an adulter, murderer etc. What is wrong with Jesus coming from a sinful line. I suppose you will take that logic and say "Jesus supported conspricy to murder but not murder itself (Uriah the Hittite)" .And also there is considerable doubt that David was gay, Bathsheba anyone? And all the wives he had later?

David was also an adulter, murderer etc. What is wrong with Jesus coming from a sinful line. I suppose you will take that logic and say "Jesus supported conspricy to murder but not murder itself (Uriah the Hittite)" .And also there is considerable doubt that David was gay, Bathsheba anyone? And all the wives he had later?

I didn't say he was gay - I said he had 'homosexual' relations. Many bisexuals do.

Hell, many heterosexuals do, occasionally, or experimentally.

Here's a thought. God made Adam and Eve in his image. Adam is a man, and Eve is a woman. Jesus is god incarnate - therefore, Jesus is the image of Adam and Eve, also. So - Jesus was either bisexual, or hermaphrodite.

Don't you try to extol your morals on me, and I won't extol mine on you.

And beside,s I voted to put Kerry into office, so I tried my damndest to get him out.
what does this have to do with this forum....

I didn't say he was gay - I said he had 'homosexual' relations. Many bisexuals do.

Hell, many heterosexuals do, occasionally, or experimentally.

Here's a thought. God made Adam and Eve in his image. Adam is a man, and Eve is a woman. Jesus is god incarnate - therefore, Jesus is the image of Adam and Eve, also. So - Jesus was either bisexual, or hermaphrodite.



Jesus was bisexual? Thats a new one. Even if Jesus had those feelings, he could have easily controlled them and not allowed them to interfere with his ministry.

I didn't say he was gay - I said he had 'homosexual' relations. Many bisexuals do.

Hell, many heterosexuals do, occasionally, or experimentally.

Here's a thought. God made Adam and Eve in his image. Adam is a man, and Eve is a woman. Jesus is god incarnate - therefore, Jesus is the image of Adam and Eve, also. So - Jesus was either bisexual, or hermaphrodite.
wth????hermaphrodite.....that is the most random thiing iv heard all day, kinda like saying "mcdonalds is healthy and cures cancer"
cmon, this is just some strange sheizen u guys are thinking up in ur heads, :confused: :confused: :confused:

All the Hindus I know (which is quite a few) are very much against homosexual behavior.

Is the Kama Sutra not related to Hinduism?

What religion is it related to then? Does anyone know?

I don't believe that any government or state should have any "interest" in marriage. I don't believe that marriage should be a "civil" institution. It is solely a religious institution.

Therefore, for those who want to be married in the eyes of their religion, let them be married in the religion of their choosing. I suppose that gays can go to a Unitarian Chuch and get married.

As for anyone else, we should then have to right, under religious freedoms, to recognize or not recognize marriages.

Heck, we could even start a Church of the No Marriage Allowed For Anyone.

But I think government needs to stay out. In Canada, it was strictly a religious thing until the 1950s. Worked fine, didn't it? Register at the local church...

Based on a fallacy.

Marriage has always been a legal institution... that has been connected to various religions. A 'wedding' might be a purely religious thing... but 'marriage' is entirely secular... except in as much as a religious ceremony may be involved.

I didn't say he was gay - I said he had 'homosexual' relations. Many bisexuals do.

Hell, many heterosexuals do, occasionally, or experimentally.

Here's a thought. God made Adam and Eve in his image. Adam is a man, and Eve is a woman. Jesus is god incarnate - therefore, Jesus is the image of Adam and Eve, also. So - Jesus was either bisexual, or hermaphrodite.
anyway him being in the image of adam and eve doesnt make him bisexual



ur crayzy



hong my poe

hermaphrodite



Don't you mean hutterite? I don't think they were around then, given they are Germans living in North America and I seriously doubt Jesus was German.

I didn't say he was gay - I said he had 'homosexual' relations. Many bisexuals do.

Hell, many heterosexuals do, occasionally, or experimentally.


Convienently miss the point of my arguemnt there G&I. I would like to clear up a few things on the David angle

1) There is no proof they were Gay lovers. The most raunchy translation says David may have got an errection, but even then that only shows temptation not sin. Homosexual sex is the sin not attraction. Homosexual attraction is the temptation. There is nothing to say they had gay sex.

2) Even if David and Jonothan did have homosexual attraction that does not euqate to support for Homosexuality. If anything the fact that they did not have homosexual sex shows a resistance to temptation. The arguement "Jesus comes from Davids line" falls on its face as David also murdered and was an adulterer (will come back to this later). Jesus clearly did not support either of those two things. Where is the logic that you support everything your ancestors do? Just because it is mentioned does not mean it is supported.

3) David was very clearly a red blooded man, he had many wives (which he shouldnt have, as that was illegalised for kings) and he commited adultery with Bathsheba. Besides that one refrernce there is no other evidence to show that he was Gay.

Grave and Idle, will you please concede that you have nothing to sugest that the Bible is pro homosexuality in anyway?

Hermaphrodite:Possesing the characteristics of both genders.

Not German.

Don't you mean hutterite?

Right... Very funny Terra.
No.. he doesn't.

Hermaphrodite:Possesing the characteristics of both genders.

Not German.



Last time I checked Jesus was a man and hence would have had the male reproductive organs, unless he also had breasts, which I highly doubt because something that irregular would have been mentioned. I was joking btw.

this forum is getting very religious and sometimes off topic so im leavin,but before i do ill just say im NOT gay and that gay ppl should get brain surgery
HUWA





hong my poe

Right... Very funny Terra.
No.. he doesn't.




KAAAAAAATTTIIIC!

Based on a fallacy.

Marriage has always been a legal institution... that has been connected to various religions. A 'wedding' might be a purely religious thing... but 'marriage' is entirely secular... except in as much as a religious ceremony may be involved.

Isnt it possible that the reason for the idea of a commited monogmous long term relationship being thought of by so many various and isolated cultures over the centuries and milliena of human existance lays credence to the fact that the idea comes from the earliest time of human existance, say Adam and Eve?

Now here I am hearing from American news that crime is on the majority, and when I say crime, I mean any crime. J-Walking is a crime in alot of places, same with riding a bike without a helmet, and here in Nova Scotia apparently throwing a snowball at the north side of a tree is a crime. And breaking te law makes you a criminal, wether or not you're prosecuted.

Neo is also ignoring something here. There is a huge difference between "threat to the physical person/property" and "threat to the sensibilities." The former is protected, hence the reason that murder, theft, etc. are illegal and porn is not. If gay marriage were going to have a direct harmful affect to the person or property of the opposed, they would have an argument (not a right, necessarily, but at least an argument) against it. However, it is only a threat to their oversensitive feelings - which are *not* protected.

As I pointed earlier, I was arguing religious view to religious view. And why your religion should be more legitimate then mine.
You were the one who said that first part of my quote, I was merely throwing it back at you. Although with all fairness, I believe Demipublicants was who said it to you.

Actually, I never said any such thing. Neo just wanted so badly to be offended. I stated, quite clearly in fact, that *no one* can push their views on someone else. The problem in this debate is that only one side wants to do it. Neo wants to say "we think it is evil, therefore everyone else has to conform to our view." I, on the other hand, am saying "you may think it is evil, but not everyone believes that. It doesn't directly harm you, so you have to live and let live. You can go on believing that it is a bad thing and stating that you don't see it as proper. The people who believe it is just fine can go on believing that. No view is forced upon either side."

I have already refuted your "Majority" point when it goes against human rights. Let alone when it goes against your American Bill of Rights and the Constitution. By creating laws that go against my beliefs for yours, is it not a form of descrimination?

And not making laws based on either belief (ie. just going with equal protection) would not force Neo to conform to your beliefs. Making laws based on what Neo says would clearly force you to give up your belief to conform to his.

If the national populus demands you kill all Chinese people, and votes it into a law, does that make it right?

According to Neo, this would only be ok if the Chinese were an "insignificant" minority.

Can people stop bashing me on previous posts. I have conceded to Gay marriage but not to it being a sin.

Neo, they haven't finished playing "dogpile on the rabbit" ;)

Grave and Idle, will you please concede that you have nothing to sugest that the Bible is pro homosexuality in anyway?

Again goes Neo with the "my way is the only way that could possibly be right and I won't even admit the possiblity that I *just might* be wrong." Go ahead Neo, continue to show your utter lack of debate skills, as well as clear evidence that your faith is *incredibly* weak.

Isnt it possible that the reason for the idea of a commited monogmous long term relationship being thought of by so many various and isolated cultures over the centuries and milliena of human existance lays credence to the fact that the idea comes from the earliest time of human existance, say Adam and Eve?

Except for the fact that not all cultures limited that committed monogomous relationship to heterosexual relationship...

Again goes Neo with the "my way is the only way that could possibly be right and I won't even admit the possiblity that I *just might* be wrong." Go ahead Neo, continue to show your utter lack of debate skills, as well as clear evidence that your faith is *incredibly* weak.

I am asking a question. Is there anything in the Bible that "Supports" homosexuality. Yes or no? If yes then please provide. If no what you are saying is the Bible says nothing on the subject. Flaming at my debate tatics will not produce a verse out of thin air.

I think that when it comes down it in the end, it's personal preference/choice. Regardless of what religion a person comes from, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, or Evangical Christianity, we all have our own PERSONAL preferences. What right do any of us have to judge a person based on what they like or dislike? Pardon the pun, but who died and made us God? Who gave us the right to pass judgement on others? The answers: NO ONE!!! We are not God. We do not have the right to pass judgement on others for our own sick, twisted pleasure. What we are, are humans. That makes us ALL MORTAL, got it? We are not some devine, immortal creatures. We will never be gods. We will never have the right to judge others for what they like or don't like. Now, don't go putting words in mouth...I'm straight (not that that is any of your business). A guy friend of mine likes guys...is that really such a big deal? I mean, it's not like he has some "gay disease" that I could catch. He's my friend and I love and accept him for who he is (as a friend, people, get your heads out of the gutters). Nothing will ever change that. What I guess I'm trying to say, or ask really, is can't we just get along and love and apreciate each other...REGARDLESS OF PREFERENCES/CHOICES?

On one last note: It's called TOLERANCE people. Go look it up! :fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle:

On a second last note: Why does it matter if a marriage, between two people of the same gender, takes place in a religious or non religious atmosphere? Why all the hub-bub over two people confessing their love for one another? Who cares if they're of the same gender? Again, in the end when it all boils down, marriage is JUST A WORD! Yes, I know it means different things to different people. So, here's a question for all you people disputing over the meaning of the word marriage: If we're so upset and fighting over the meaning of a word, what's to keep us all from having another civil war of a silly little word like nincompoop? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Jesus was bisexual? Thats a new one. Even if Jesus had those feelings, he could have easily controlled them and not allowed them to interfere with his ministry.

He didn't control them, though.

There are several accounts that could throw a homosexual tint over his ministry. e.g.:

For one - he makes no exclamation of disgust, defence, or even surprise, when Judas comes and "lands one on him", in front of a whole assmebly of Roman soldiers, no less.

John 21:15 "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee..."

Note: Where Simon Peter says he 'loves' Jesus, here, he is not using the conventional 'agape' - that indicates a platonic love... he is using "Phileo" - usually interpreted as affection - or as "kissing"... in which case, the last sentence there, reads "Lord; thou knowest that I kiss thee..."

I am asking a question. Is there anything in the Bible that "Supports" homosexuality. Yes or no? If yes then please provide. If no what you are saying is the Bible says nothing on the subject. Flaming at my debate tatics will not produce a verse out of thin air.
Lets assume there is no support … if the way you said it you are conceding it doesn’t say anything against it either that cant be interpreted differently

In that case why the default “Sin”?

Except for the fact that not all cultures limited that committed monogomous relationship to heterosexual relationship...

True, but if every culture came up with the idea of a monogomus relationship, then that must mean that it comes from very far back. It would be very intersting to know of the earliest marriage of any form known to history. After all in terms of purely suvival it is fairly unhelpful. By commiting yourself to one partner you are limiting the posibility of children and thus reducing the population so it can be seen that its not a bilogical need. So if it is cultural then where did the original idea come from that so many independent cultures came up with.

Isnt it possible that the reason for the idea of a commited monogmous long term relationship being thought of by so many various and isolated cultures over the centuries and milliena of human existance lays credence to the fact that the idea comes from the earliest time of human existance, say Adam and Eve?

It's possible... except that other cultures already had marriage before the Hebrews had a religion, a specific language, or even a recognisable culture.

He didn't control them, though.

There are several accounts that could throw a homosexual tint over his ministry. e.g.:

For one - he makes no exclamation of disgust, defence, or even surprise, when Judas comes and "lands one on him", in front of a whole assmebly of Roman soldiers, no less.

John 21:15 "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee..."

Note: Where Simon Peter says he 'loves' Jesus, here, he is not using the conventional 'agape' - that indicates a platonic love... he is using "Phileo" - usually interpreted as affection - or as "kissing"... in which case, the last sentence there, reads "Lord; thou knowest that I kiss thee..."
Intresting (this is why I love having someone that can REALLY read the bible on my side) :p

Lets assume there is no support … if the way you said it you are conceding it doesn’t say anything against it either that cant be interpreted differently

In that case why the default “Sin”?

No, without support all that is left are the condemnations, which so far you have yet to undermine completely. G&I please translate this "Arsenokoitai".

True, but if every culture came up with the idea of a monogomus relationship, then that must mean that it comes from very far back. It would be very intersting to know of the earliest marriage of any form known to history. After all in terms of purely suvival it is fairly unhelpful. By commiting yourself to one partner you are limiting the posibility of children and thus reducing the population so it can be seen that its not a bilogical need. So if it is cultural then where did the original idea come from that so many independent cultures came up with.
Because maybe it lent a stronger protection to the already created kids …

Or who knows (just a theory)

Don't you mean hutterite? I don't think they were around then, given they are Germans living in North America and I seriously doubt Jesus was German.

errrr.. huh?

I am asking a question. Is there anything in the Bible that "Supports" homosexuality. Yes or no? If yes then please provide. If no what you are saying is the Bible says nothing on the subject. Flaming at my debate tatics will not produce a verse out of thin air.

It isn't flaming to point out that you refuse to admit that debate.

And as I have pointed out *AT LEAST FIVE TIMES*. I don't need a single specific verse to come to a conclusion.

There is no verse in the Bible that says soup kitchens are good, or that boycotts and sit-ins are better than maltov cocktails, or that DUI is a bad thing to do. However, interpretation of the *basic* point of Christ's teachings would lead someone to say that these statements are Bibically backed. Likewise, my endorsement of homosexuality as a person's natural state - in which, as all of us, they should try and find love, is backed up by the Bible. There is no "homosexuality is good" verse any more than there is a "soup kitchens are good" verse.

Grave and Idle, will you please concede that you have nothing to sugest that the Bible is pro homosexuality in anyway?

Neo, will you please concede that you have nothing to suggest that the bible is anti-homosexuality in any way?

(Since, every feeble offering you have made has been left gasping in the dust).

After all in terms of purely suvival it is fairly unhelpful.

You are kidding, right? Because this is an incredibly false statement.

By commiting yourself to one partner you are limiting the posibility of children and thus reducing the population so it can be seen that its not a bilogical need.

You are *increasing* the chance that the children you do have will survive. Study biology - there are different strategies for increasing reproductive potential. Number v. nurture. Human beings use nurture.

So if it is cultural then where did the original idea come from that so many independent cultures came up with.

Like I said, it is evolutionarily helpful. On top of that, it is *definitely* socially helpful.

For one - he makes no exclamation of disgust, defence, or even surprise, when Judas comes and "lands one on him", in front of a whole assmebly of Roman soldiers, no less.


Thats because he knew. Jesus expresses very little suprise throught his entire life because he already knows whats going to happen.


John 21:15 "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee..."

Note: Where Simon Peter says he 'loves' Jesus, here, he is not using the conventional 'agape' - that indicates a platonic love... he is using "Phileo" - usually interpreted as affection - or as "kissing"... in which case, the last sentence there, reads "Lord; thou knowest that I kiss thee..."

Note, you have reverted to the Greek here, not the Hebrew. I dont know the Hebrew exactly but I have had it explained to me before. Basicly Jesus asks Peter if he loves him and he says "yes lord you know I like you" or something to that effect. Basicly he is saying it less than Jesus said it. On the third time the same word is used (or that is how I recal it)

Neo, will you please concede that you have nothing to suggest that the bible is anti-homosexuality in any way?


Translate this word "Arsenokoitai"

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?


Last I remembered, Hindus and Buhddist marry too...
What's your point?

There is no "homosexuality is good" verse any more than there is a "soup kitchens are good" verse.

Soup kitchens did not exist, homosexuality did. The Bible works both on negative and positive freedoms (it tells you what you can and cannot do). Since it is clearly specified in many places that homosexual sex is abhorent to God, the only way to disprove me is to find a verse that contridicts that. There is no such verse.

Convienently miss the point of my arguemnt there G&I. I would like to clear up a few things on the David angle

1) There is no proof they were Gay lovers. The most raunchy translation says David may have got an errection, but even then that only shows temptation not sin. Homosexual sex is the sin not attraction. Homosexual attraction is the temptation. There is nothing to say they had gay sex.

2) Even if David and Jonothan did have homosexual attraction that does not euqate to support for Homosexuality. If anything the fact that they did not have homosexual sex shows a resistance to temptation. The arguement "Jesus comes from Davids line" falls on its face as David also murdered and was an adulterer (will come back to this later). Jesus clearly did not support either of those two things. Where is the logic that you support everything your ancestors do? Just because it is mentioned does not mean it is supported.

3) David was very clearly a red blooded man, he had many wives (which he shouldnt have, as that was illegalised for kings) and he commited adultery with Bathsheba. Besides that one refrernce there is no other evidence to show that he was Gay.

I wonder what you mean by "red blooded man"?

Is that some sweeping generalisation about how homosexuals aren't as masculine as heterosexuals, or something?

Regarding David: So, Johnathon slipped him the tongue, and he got all excited... now, looking at David's history of restraint and general un-sin-ness... how likely is it he DIDN'T do his famous 'naked dance'?

I wasn't saying that Jesus had endorsed David... I was saying that god picked a line of homosexual-connection to produce the messiah - which hardly shows god's displeasure.

Soup kitchens did not exist, homosexuality did. The Bible works both on negative and positive freedoms (it tells you what you can and cannot do). Since it is clearly specified in many places that homosexual sex is abhorent to God, the only way to disprove me is to find a verse that contridicts that. There is no such verse.

You miss the point. I can find lots of support for homosexuality, just like I can find support for soup kitchens. You interpret things differently, which is your right, but to be an honest person you *have to admit that I might just be right*.

As many people have shown, there is *no* verse that says homosexual sex is abhorent to God.

There are verses that say *casual* or *prostitution* homosexual sex is wrong, as there are for heterosexual sex.

However, the *only* verse that *might* suggest that *anal* sex is wrong is very likely mistranslated, and is among a bunch of laws that any good person would never believe actually came from God anyways.

And the Bible does not work on positive freedoms. Much like with the law, it if it is not specifically prohibited, it is allowed. You are also told what you *should* do. However, only homosexuals *should* engage in homosexual sex - everyone shouldn't.

I wasn't saying that Jesus had endorsed David... I was saying that god picked a line of homosexual-connection to produce the messiah - which hardly shows god's displeasure.

By that logic are you saying God was not displeased at his adultery?

Thats because he knew. Jesus expresses very little suprise throught his entire life because he already knows whats going to happen.

Note, you have reverted to the Greek here, not the Hebrew. I dont know the Hebrew exactly but I have had it explained to me before. Basicly Jesus asks Peter if he loves him and he says "yes lord you know I like you" or something to that effect. Basicly he is saying it less than Jesus said it. On the third time the same word is used (or that is how I recal it)

If Jesus knew what was going to happen, to such an extent that a quick snog off an apostle doesn't ruffle him... why does he lose it in the temple? He should have known they'd be trading doves and stuff... but no... he sees them trade and he loses his rag.... then Judas smooches him, and he doesn't bat an eyelid...

I have reverted to the Greek because that part of the NEW TESTAMENT is in Greek... ???

But the 'like you' part was what I was illustrating... if it was just 'like' - they would have used 'agape'... but they used 'Phileo' instead.

Regarding David: So, Johnathon slipped him the tongue, and he got all excited... now, looking at David's history of restraint and general un-sin-ness... how likely is it he DIDN'T do his famous 'naked dance'?


There is no biblical proof. And although you can say "Come on hes bound to have" thats an asumption, not a biblical account. So you cant base your arguement on it. David is a great biblical figure in the sense he has both flaws and weaknesses in simmilar mesure, yet he wins through in the end.

Translate this word "Arsenokoitai"

It is an artifact. Paul invented the word... or whoever wrote the passages attributed to Paul.

It is usually taken to mean "homosexual", but it is not part of the Greek lexicon of the time - so an actual translation is not possible.

Translate this word "Arsenokoitai"
Hmm found some interesting stuff when looking this up

Translating Arsenokoitai
The main issue highlighted in recent debate over 1 Cor 6:9-11 concerns the correct way to render the Greek term arsenokoitai which occurs here. The NRSV reads, “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites (arsenokoita), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers— none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’
In this recent critical translation arsenokoitai is taken as a reference to those who practice homosexuality. Arsenokoitai poses a problem to the translator because this is its earliest known occurrence in Greek literature. Robin Scroggs has plausibly suggested that Paul created this new word by combining the two terms found in the Greek version of Lev 18:23 (LXX 18:22) and 20:13: arsen = “male,” and koite = “bed,” which translate the Hebrew for “lying with a male” (mishkav zakur; The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate [Fortress, 1983] 106-8). With the likelihood that these Levitical prohibitions are echoed in 1 Cor 6:9, the NRSV is justified in translating the term as a reference to homoerotic intercourse, even if the English “sodomites” is somewhat archaic.
The most vociferous critic of taking arsenokoitai as a reference to homoerotic practice is the late, gay scholar J. Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality [University of Chicago, 1980] 335-53). He concludes that arsenokoitai refers to male prostitutes without specifying the gender of their partners. Boswell’s theory has been popularized by the widely known work of gay Catholic J.J. McNeil, who confesses his dependence on Boswell even though his work appeared earlier (The Church and the Homosexual [Sheed, Andrews & McMeel, 1976] 200). Boswell’s broader thesis, the Bible does not justify the later homophobia that appealed to it, has not been challenged, but his lexicography has come under unfavorable review.
David F. Wright has devoted an article to demonstrating the inaccuracies of Boswell’s presentation of the data (“Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ARSENOKOITAI (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 [1984] 125-53). Wright and Boswell engage in highly sophisticated and detailed lexicographical argumentation, which space prohibits re-presenting in this brief article. Wright’s most telling argument is that Boswell seriously underestimates the use of arsenokoitai in early Christian writers, and he is especially negligent in his highly selective and inaccurate use of the early, Greek-speaking bishop John Chrysostom. Wright points out how the very texts from Chrysostom cited by Boswell, when viewed in light of their surrounding texts, both undermine Boswell ‘s interpretation and support the traditional view that arsenokoitai refers to homosexuality.
W.L. Petersen agrees with Wright’s dissection of Boswell’s lexicography but draws attention to an anachronism evident in the alternative that Wright offers (“Can ARSENOKOITAI Be Translated by ‘Homosexuals’ (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10)?”, Vigiliae Christianae 40 [19861187-91). Petersen criticizes Wright for using “homosexuals” and “homosexuality” as appropriate English terms for arsenokoitai when this is clearly anachronistic. The Oxford classicist K.J. Dover has demonstrated that there was no Greek term for homosexual identity, and the concept of sexual identity itself is a recent phenomenon (Greek Homosexuality [Duckworth, 1979]). The terms in Greek refer to homoerotic practice, not sexual identity. With this in mind the NRSV is not far off the mark, though “sodomites” wrongly draws attention to an intertextual echo suggested by the English term (to Sodom and Gomorrah), when instead arsenokoitai echoes the prohibitions of Leviticus. The NRSV translation is problematic and needs to be revised, but it is more accurate than some critics have allowed.


So even in this there is a large argument …does it mean homosexuals or male prostitutes? Since it is a newly made up word at the time …its hard for translation even in social context

It is an artifact. Paul invented the word... or whoever wrote the passages attributed to Paul.

It is usually taken to mean "homosexual", but it is not part of the Greek lexicon of the time - so an actual translation is not possible.
heheh read my last post :) covers that fairly well ... new word thing that is

Edit: I got that last article from
http://catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html

Here's a simpler concept:

If I'm not a homosexual, why should I care if someone else is?
After all, if we're following the New Testament, we can agree that we are all sinners in the eyes of God - it doesn't really matter much which one.
And, if we're following the New Testamanet, I'm not qualified to judge someone else in matters of sin. That's God's job.

And even if homosexuality is a sin, I'm sure God will forgive him. You could do a lot worse than find some pleasure with another human being.

If Jesus knew what was going to happen, to such an extent that a quick snog off an apostle doesn't ruffle him... why does he lose it in the temple? He should have known they'd be trading doves and stuff... but no... he sees them trade and he loses his rag.... then Judas smooches him, and he doesn't bat an eyelid...


He has every right to be angry in the temple. It is God's house and they are using it to sell there cheesey wares. If I knew that there was someone sleeping with my girlfriend in my house I would be angry. The reason that he doesnt bat an eyelid when Judas kisses him is that it is part of the "endgame" plan. He knew it would happen and he didnt want to do anything to throw it off course.


But the 'like you' part was what I was illustrating... if it was just 'like' - they would have used 'agape'... but they used 'Phileo' instead.

Ive seen a copy of the original greek on the web. Acording to that one they do use agape.

My curiosity is getting to me... :headbang:

What is it EXACTLY that Christians, or anyone else for that matter, are so afraid of when it comes to gay marriage and homosexuality???

I'm not asking for Biblical verses---I'm asking for personal deals; why YOU, as the offended, are...offended...by these things.

There is no biblical proof. And although you can say "Come on hes bound to have" thats an asumption, not a biblical account. So you cant base your arguement on it. David is a great biblical figure in the sense he has both flaws and weaknesses in simmilar mesure, yet he wins through in the end.

And, according to what is explicitly stated, nobody ever had to use the restroom in Biblical times. Because, they never mention it...

And, Adam and Eve produced their children by osmosis - because they are described as 'laying together', but it never explicitly describes the act of penetration.

And, god never created angels. That's not detailed in the text at all... nor the creation of satan...

And, Jesus didn't die for our sins. The accounts may describe him "giving up the ghost" but they don't actually detail him dying, and they don't say he did it for us.

etc etc etc

He has every right to be angry in the temple. It is God's house and they are using it to sell there cheesey wares. If I knew that there was someone sleeping with my girlfriend in my house I would be angry. The reason that he doesnt bat an eyelid when Judas kisses him is that it is part of the "endgame" plan. He knew it would happen and he didnt want to do anything to throw it off course.


Or, he didn't have a problem getting a mouthful off of Judas... like he was used to it?


Ive seen a copy of the original greek on the web. Acording to that one they do use agape.

You are either thinking of a different verse, lying, or very badly informed:

I can't get Nationstates to actually accept Greek characters, for some reason - so I have converted it into the English 'equivalent', but here is a quick transliteration:

John 21:15 "ote oun hristhsan legei tw simwni petrw o ihsouV simwn iwannou agapaV me pleon toutwn legei autw nai kurie su oidaV oti filw se legei autw boske ta arnia mou"

"filw" or "Phileo".

God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to punish the sexual immorality of their inhabitants is one of the most graphic episodes in the Old Testament. Genesis says that "the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground".
:confused:

This is why most christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, hence the phrases sodomize and so on. Not saying it is my belief but trying to answer your question.undefinedundefined[/COLOR]

God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to punish the sexual immorality of their inhabitants is one of the most graphic episodes in the Old Testament. Genesis says that "the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground".
:confused:

This is why most christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, hence the phrases sodomize and so on. Not saying it is my belief but trying to answer your question.undefinedundefined[/COLOR]
Did you even try to read the thread … that had to have come up on about the first damn page

Hmm found some interesting stuff when looking this up


So even in this there is a large argument …does it mean homosexuals or male prostitutes? Since it is a newly made up word at the time …its hard for translation even in social context


Just as an interesting sideline... Koit (or Koin, or Koine) is also a name given to the version of Greek spoken by all these foreigners in biblical times.

So - Arsenokoitai could just be "People that speak (bad) Greek".

That's the problem with an artifact word - there is no frame of reference.

Just as an interesting sideline... Koit is also a name given to the version of Greek spoken by all these foreigners in biblical times.

So - Arsenokoitai could just be "People that speek (bad) Greek".

That's the problem with an artifact word - there is no frame of reference.
I am going to start making up words …write them down

And 2 k later when (they weren’t even commonly used at the time) see if people can translate them and get it right :p lol

It seems so silly to me

God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to punish the sexual immorality of their inhabitants is one of the most graphic episodes in the Old Testament. Genesis says that "the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground".
:confused:

This is why most christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, hence the phrases sodomize and so on. Not saying it is my belief but trying to answer your question.undefinedundefined[/COLOR]

But, Sodom was destroyed for being sinful (there is a list in the bible somewhere... it's been discussed on the thread.... and homosexuality wasn't on that list.... It's more things like idol worship)... and because men and angels are not allowed to breed (following from the Genesis account before the flood).

Sodom wasn't destroyed for homosexuality.

But, Sodom was destroyed for being sinful (there is a list in the bible somewhere... it's been discussed on the thread.... and homosexuality wasn't on that list.... It's more things like idol worship)... and because men and angels are not allowed to breed (following from the Genesis account before the flood).

Sodom wasn't destroyed for homosexuality.
If I remember right the word you used was ‘angleophilia’ (sp) lol

If I remember right the word you used was ‘angleophilia’ (sp) lol

Close enough.... "Angelophilia", the 'love' of Angels.

According to the Book of Enoch, it was what caused the 'fall' of angels.

According to Genesis, it was what created all the sin before the flood.

And, according to what is explicitly stated, nobody ever had to use the restroom in Biblical times. Because, they never mention it...

And, Adam and Eve produced their children by osmosis - because they are described as 'laying together', but it never explicitly describes the act of penetration.

And, god never created angels. That's not detailed in the text at all... nor the creation of satan...

And, Jesus didn't die for our sins. The accounts may describe him "giving up the ghost" but they don't actually detail him dying, and they don't say he did it for us.

etc etc etc

Those are "too" obvious. There is nothing obvious about whether or not David and Jonothan had Gay sex. The most errotic translation say erection, nothing more.

Last I checked, marriage is regulated by states and not by the bible. The little marriage certificate you get doesn't really refer you to the bible either. Hmmm.

As for "God nuked a city..." show me any proof of that. Anything? Little rubble bits that show excessive lightning scorching? No? Didn't think so. Nice historical book about how people of the time saw things, not really relevant in law making.

I prefer to use the bible as an interesting view into the lives and times of people 2000 or so years ago. Not as a "blueprint" for life in the 20th century. I think most people realize that men and women are equal and that slavery is a stupid concept. Basic tenets of the bible I believe... And the whole leviticus thing, when you become Jewish and treat those laws as the ones you live by, including the shellfish and animals of cloven foot, come back and we'll talk. Until then, stop picking and choosing which parts you want to enforce.

Time to behave more like an advancing civilization and stop reaching back whenever something new comes along because it isn't the way you think or believe. Exactly when did goverment get a mandate to dictate morals? I believe I read somewhere that it is suppose to protect rights. After all, didn't people a while back take a big boat trip just to avoid being forced to accept one religion over another and avoid having the goverment make those kinds of decisions for them?

Gay marriage, since it's related, doesn't have a thing to do with straight people. Much as abortion has very little to do with men. Why do they care? Is giving someone else a new ability or better stated, treating them equally and fairly, somehow diminishing something you already have? I don't see how. I can't see gay men making the divorce rate and worse than it is. If you want to complain about something, make people take a test in order to have children. Too many stupid non-thinking people out there now. Any moron apparently can marry, have children, divorce, lather, rinse and repeat. I still fail to see how letting gay men and lesbians have the same rights would change a thing.

In the end, sin is pretty much what you make of it. As a gay man, I can't find anyone worth dating, so I'm not all that sexually active. Does that make me less "bad" than a gay man that is promiscuous? I don't think it makes me any different than any other HUMAN. Maybe if we treated each other as humans first and stopped trying to force everyone to think a certain way, questions like these wouldn't even have to be asked.

Just my thought on it.

My curiosity is getting to me... :headbang:

What is it EXACTLY that Christians, or anyone else for that matter, are so afraid of when it comes to gay marriage and homosexuality???

I'm not asking for Biblical verses---I'm asking for personal deals; why YOU, as the offended, are...offended...by these things.

Well, I worked with one christian guy... who said he opposed gays (in general, but also specifically opposed gay marriage) because he didn't want them 'trying to bum him'.

(I did point out that, just becuase someone is gay, doesn't make them desperate).

I personally think that a lot of christians want to ban gay marriage because they don't like gay people, and would try to rob them of ANY rights... and marriage is one they think they can back scripturally.

Note: I know quite a few christians who are okay with gay marriage - I don't want it to sound like I think ALL christians are mindless homophobes.

what exactly is it you're looking for?

would you like to be granted the exact same rights as heterosexual (married) couples, without actually labelling it "marriage"? e.g. would some sort of formalised legal concubination, conferring all the same rights to gay couples who adopt this institution suffice?

or would you rather like to be "married" in the traditional sense. i mean, would you like to be able to marry in the same fashion as heterosexuals now can?

i'm just asking because i'm curious... a lot of young people i know do not even want to get married anymore, but prefer to live together in a formalised manner, which in my country is possible (even though the rights conferred are not totally identical)


Well, actually... before any discussion of marriage takes place, a more pertinent desire is that of equality of basic human dignities. I've had beer bottles thrown at me from truck windows in my hometown, and i've had death threats. I've had Jehovah's witnesses come to my door and tell me that being a fag is a sin, but "it's okay because you [I] can change." It's just hard for me to comprehend how people can hate that which they don't understand.

Now, on to the issue of marriage. I have no interest in marriage at the moment, and I'm not sure I ever will, but it sure would feel nice to not be a second-class person, or one with restricted rights. Okay, I understand i have the same right to marry a woman as any other guy... but I don't have the right to marry the person I love, so how is that equal?

I digress. I think that the same-sex unions could be called "marriage." It's not like the christian church has trademarked the term, and i'm sure many couples would like to partake in traditional marriage ceremonies. That's not to say that I support forcing churches to comply with this, because I think that it would be wrong to do so. I think that any religious same-sex marriages should be performed at the discretion of the individual church or priest.

P.S. I'm spiritual but not religious, so would everyone please refrain from biblical references telling me how wrong I am, because frankly I don't give a crap what the bible says. And Country Kitchen Buffet, I'm sorry for choosing your post to enter, but i thought it was a good entry point for a summary post on my part.

:cool:

You are either thinking of a different verse, lying, or very badly informed:


Here: http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm is where it comes from.

Here: http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm is where it comes from.

Okay - I went to that site, and I looked up John 21:15... but I don't see where it told you that 'agape' was used rather than 'phileo'?

Okay - I went to that site, and I looked up John 21:15... but I don't see where it told you that 'agape' was used rather than 'phileo'?

Instructions: -

1) Set the search in to Greek/English interleader (tr) NT

2) Look up John 21:15

3) If you copy the word in Greek before number <25> you will see it is agapae.

Instructions: -

1) Set the search in to Greek/English interleader (tr) NT

2) Look up John 21:15

3) If you copy the word in Greek before number <25> you will see it is agapae.

Ah, I see where the problem lies... why are you looking there? That's not the part I mentioned...

Look before <5368>, which, in this 'version', they have translated as "Have affection for".

Those are "too" obvious. There is nothing obvious about whether or not David and Jonothan had Gay sex. The most errotic translation say erection, nothing more.

They are obvious to you because you have had them rammed into your head by a church.

There were many, many, many different interpretations for exactly why Jesus died on the cross, as well as how that dying led to salvation. For many "alternate" interpretations, such as the Abelardian view of atonement, there is the same amount of (or even more) Biblical backing for said interpretations. The fact that your particular interpretation happens to be the one the "orthodox" church in all its political bs chose to teach does not necessarily make it correct.

They are obvious to you because you have had them rammed into your head by a church.

There were many, many, many different interpretations for exactly why Jesus died on the cross, as well as how that dying led to salvation. For many "alternate" interpretations, such as the Abelardian view of atonement, there is the same amount of (or even more) Biblical backing for said interpretations. The fact that your particular interpretation happens to be the one the "orthodox" church in all its political bs chose to teach does not necessarily make it correct.
Very well said … it is so engrained he cant look passed it

That’s what I don’t get … so many of these beliefs have no real support in their religious text but it is taken like it is set in stone (too many homilies sat through … priest interpretations drive that sort of thing in peoples minds when it has vague support)

But I suppose critical thinking cant come anywhere near “Faith”
(maybe it has a restraining order)

Now, on to the issue of marriage. I have no interest in marriage at the moment, and I'm not sure I ever will, but it sure would feel nice to not be a second-class person, or one with restricted rights. Okay, I understand i have the same right to marry a woman as any other guy... but I don't have the right to marry the person I love, so how is that equal?

Don't concede something that isn't true. You don't 'have the right to marry a woman." No *individual* has the right to marry anyone. Marriage is a set of privileges provided to a *couple*. If you had the right to marry a woman, or I had the right to marry a man, I could just go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license without even telling my boyfriend. However, the entire couple has to consent. Therefore, providing marriage licenses to heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples is clear discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Very well said … it is so engrained he cant look passed it

That’s what I don’t get … so many of these beliefs have no real support in their religious text but it is taken like it is set in stone (too many homilies sat through … priest interpretations drive that sort of thing in peoples minds when it has vague support)

But I suppose critical thinking cant come anywhere near “Faith”
(maybe it has a restraining order)

Well, I am technically (according to the Catholic church) a "heretic," because I hold more to the Abelardian view of atonement than the Anselmian one. The funny thing is that the Abelardian view is completely based in Biblical backing and the idea of God's love. The Anselmian view, on the other hand, is based on the Catholic system of penance, which they came up with *with no scriptural backing*. It was a construct of the church.

Anyways, the point is that, without serious study with a willingness to give up what you were taught if it doesn't seem right, you'll never truly have faith, and you'll always be following a person, rather than God.

Well, I am technically (according to the Catholic church) a "heretic," because I hold more to the Abelardian view of atonement than the Anselmian one. The funny thing is that the Abelardian view is completely based in Biblical backing and the idea of God's love. The Anselmian view, on the other hand, is based on the Catholic system of penance, which they came up with *with no scriptural backing*. It was a construct of the church.

Anyways, the point is that, without serious study with a willingness to give up what you were taught if it doesn't seem right, you'll never truly have faith, and you'll always be following a person, rather than God.
Yeah I tend to lean agnostic … that or depending on my mood towards deism I haven’t quite decided yet
(I am fairly sure if there is a god out there that most of the religions out there haven’t got it right)

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

I would hesitate to judge a person as immoral, or at least more so than any other individual. What I judge to be immoral on the basis of scripture are specific behaviors.

I have homosexual acquaintences and colleagues and while I disagree with their behavior, they are no more or less sinful than someone who covets, or dishonors his or her parents, or does not keep the Sabbath holy. The Bible very plainly states that practicing homosexual behavior is sinful.

The fact that someone is attracted to an individual of the same gender is not a sinful behavior until that desire is acted upon. We each face personal temptations from violating our bodies that are the temple of God, but not doing everything in our power to remain healthy to the tempation to murder someone who has something we want. Obviousely, some have more serious social consequences, but we "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" and we all have our personal struggles.

It is God's place to decide whose commitment to Him and acceptance of the salvation He offers full and free is really and which of us are posers and or entirely unrepentent. So, though I would have to adamently defend that practicing homosexuality is an immoral behavior, I would not ever presume to decide whether or not you or any other individual is more damnable than I am myself.

True, but if every culture came up with the idea of a monogomus relationship, then that must mean that it comes from very far back. It would be very intersting to know of the earliest marriage of any form known to history. After all in terms of purely suvival it is fairly unhelpful. By commiting yourself to one partner you are limiting the posibility of children and thus reducing the population so it can be seen that its not a bilogical need. So if it is cultural then where did the original idea come from that so many independent cultures came up with.

Simple answer to this = money.

Marriage was about ensuring the disposition of property - including girls and women - and an attempt by men to claim reassurance about paternity.

Notions of love and "sacred" unions are a relatively recent phenomenon - but for the most part, the benefits of marriage are still predominantly economic in Western societies (tax laws, inheritance, etc)

I would hesitate to judge a person as immoral, or at least more so than any other individual. What I judge to be immoral on the basis of scripture are specific behaviors.

I have homosexual acquaintences and colleagues and while I disagree with their behavior, they are no more or less sinful than someone who covets, or dishonors his or her parents, or does not keep the Sabbath holy. The Bible very plainly states that practicing homosexual behavior is sinful.

The fact that someone is attracted to an individual of the same gender is not a sinful behavior until that desire is acted upon. We each face personal temptations from violating our bodies that are the temple of God, but not doing everything in our power to remain healthy to the tempation to murder someone who has something we want. Obviousely, some have more serious social consequences, but we "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" and we all have our personal struggles.

It is God's place to decide whose commitment to Him and acceptance of the salvation He offers full and free is really and which of us are posers and or entirely unrepentent. So, though I would have to adamently defend that practicing homosexuality is an immoral behavior, I would not ever presume to decide whether or not you or any other individual is more damnable than I am myself.

And even then the bibles position on it is lets say questionable at best

I have homosexual acquaintences and colleagues and while I disagree with their behavior, they are no more or less sinful than someone who covets, or dishonors his or her parents, or does not keep the Sabbath holy. The Bible very plainly states that practicing homosexual behavior is sinful.


well, I don't agree with the fundamentalist translations, but IF we went along with them for a minute, what is condemned for MEN, is
- casual sex with another man or men
- sex with male prostitutes

Which means, gay men in committed monogamous relationships are in the clear, and

we lesbians are saints!!

Actually, the Bible is pretty explicit in condemning the behavior of men or women having anything other than a monogamous heterosexual relationship. If you would are genuinely interested I can quote you chapt. and verse. However, if you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, there probably isn't much point. Now I certainly won't claim that my interpretation is perfectly accurate as the only being capable of that is God, but I am reasonably certain on this particular subject that the above statement is consistent with scripture.

Actually, the Bible is pretty explicit in condemning the behavior of men or women having anything other than a monogamous heterosexual relationship. If you would are genuinely interested I can quote you chapt. and verse. However, if you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, there probably isn't much point. Now I certainly won't claim that my interpretation is perfectly accurate as the only being capable of that is God, but I am reasonably certain on this particular subject that the above statement is consistent with scripture.
I bet you cant … the only one I know in here that can ACTUALY read the bible is grave

(unless you can read Hebrew /Greek too)


And explicit that is a joke :-P even in the English translation (note READ Some of the last specifically 20 pages or so ... we have tore apart ever quote np) well mostly grave but he is the expert

Personal responsibilit, please read the thread!!

a small recap:
Types of marriages mentioned in the Bible:

The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. In ancient Israel: Inter-faith marriages were theoretically forbidden. Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.

Polygyny marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired.

Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations.

A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: Genesis 16,

A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives.

A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.

And explicit that is a joke :-P even in the English translation (note READ Some of the last specifically 20 pages or so ... we have tore apart ever quote np) well mostly grave but he is the expert

Gloat all you want, you havnt succeded.

Gloat all you want, you havnt succeded.
Not against you maybe but your dogmatic nor have you seceded … but I highly doubt the newcomer is ready to debate on the level that you have put forth either, nor do I think he will take the time to learn before he posts

Actually, the Bible is pretty explicit in condemning the behavior of men or women having anything other than a monogamous heterosexual relationship. If you would are genuinely interested I can quote you chapt. and verse. However, if you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, there probably isn't much point. Now I certainly won't claim that my interpretation is perfectly accurate as the only being capable of that is God, but I am reasonably certain on this particular subject that the above statement is consistent with scripture.

If you care to present your arguments, I will show you why they are wrong.

Oh - and regarding 'inspired word of god'.... if you want to go THERE, I can guarantee you an entertaining ride.

Which reminds me, how is it that the 'divine author' didn't know that Bats are mammals?

If you care to present your arguments, I will show you why they are wrong.

Oh - and regarding 'inspired word of god'.... if you want to go THERE, I can guarantee you an entertaining ride.

Which reminds me, how is it that the 'divine author' didn't know that Bats are mammals?
Because they are not


pffft god cant be wrong!

[/sarcasm]

I think we should end this now with the following statement. Homosexuality may or may not be a sin. I belive it is, you believe it isnt. However since what you believe is and isnt a sin in the long run affects nothing accept you behaviour then it does not matter. It is for God to judge as I have explained previously so Christians have no place treating homosexuals any diffrently even if they do believe it is a sin. I appologise now for any arrogence on my part throught the thread. But the fact is wether you believe it or not, it has little to no effect on your life. It is God's place to judge.

Gloat all you want, you havnt succeded.

Let me check:

Proved that the bible promotes the union of homosexuals: Check.

Given examples of homosexual activity as positively endorsed in scripture: Check.

Utterly refuted any of the 'alleged' condemnations of homosexuality: Check.

I don't know, Neo - looks like we have!

Of course, the fact that you are still standing with your hands on your ears singing "la-la-la" means we haven't convinced YOU, but that is okay.

I respect your right to have and express an opinion - I just had to prove it to be erroneous so that your misconceptions didn't accidentally influence anyone less versed in scripture.

I think we should end this now with the following statement. Homosexuality may or may not be a sin. I belive it is, you believe it isnt. However since what you believe is and isnt a sin in the long run affects nothing accept you behaviour then it does not matter. It is for God to judge as I have explained previously so Christians have no place treating homosexuals any diffrently even if they do believe it is a sin. I appologise now for any arrogence on my part throught the thread. But the fact is wether you believe it or not, it has little to no effect on your life. It is God's place to judge.
Exactly lets leave it up to him/her/it if he/she/it exists defiantly

(very enlightened pov why more Christians cant understand baffles me) oh and don’t worry about the arrogance … at least for me it comes with the territory or argument and debate.
Everyone at one time things their pov is the best in inherently right … usually only time and access to info changes it. But arrogance comes with the territory (from every side)

Probably part of the “battle” mentality as well in debate

Proved that the bible promotes the union of homosexuals: Check.

Given examples of homosexual activity as positively endorsed in scripture: Check.

Utterly refuted any of the 'alleged' condemnations of homosexuality: Check.


All three of these are false. You have not done all three of these. Show me positively endorced homosexual relationships ANYWHERE in the Bible. You have not "Utterly" refuted anything. And you CERTIANLY have found nothing to show the Bible promotes homosexual unions. I was going to leave but this is purest arogence.

Let me check:

Proved that the bible promotes the union of homosexuals: Check.

Given examples of homosexual activity as positively endorsed in scripture: Check.

Utterly refuted any of the 'alleged' condemnations of homosexuality: Check.

I don't know, Neo - looks like we have!

Of course, the fact that you are still standing with your hands on your ears singing "la-la-la" means we haven't convinced YOU, but that is okay.

I respect your right to have and express an opinion - I just had to prove it to be erroneous so that your misconceptions didn't accidentally influence anyone less versed in scripture.


Lol you should make up an article with all the info you/we have gone through :) you can have webspace on my server ;) lol or on my website lol cause this WILL come up again ... a linky would be so handy

I think we should end this now with the following statement. Homosexuality may or may not be a sin. I belive it is, you believe it isnt. However since what you believe is and isnt a sin in the long run affects nothing accept you behaviour then it does not matter. It is for God to judge as I have explained previously so Christians have no place treating homosexuals any diffrently even if they do believe it is a sin. I appologise now for any arrogence on my part throught the thread. But the fact is wether you believe it or not, it has little to no effect on your life. It is God's place to judge.

I believe this thread should continue as long as people are willing to contribute - but it will be up to the Mods, not I.

You are ignoring a simple fact - several of the people discussing ARE homosexuals... it could, in very real terms, affect them.

You assume that it is of no ultimate importance, because it doesn't affect YOU.

I agree, Christians have no place treating homosexuals any different. To do so is non-Christian.

I do, of course, still maintain that a true understanding of scripture does not show homosexuality to be sinful.

But, feel free to leave it at that, Neo. And all the best to you.

Lol you should make up an article with all the info you/we have gone through :) you can have webspace on my server ;) lol or on my website lol cause this WILL come up again ... a linky would be so handy

I was actually giving serious consideration to archiving some of the material on my hard-drive... until I realised we were about 3000 Posts into it... and, I notice, it is now considerably more than THAT! :)

Maybe we can persuade the mods to archive this thread due to it's magnificence (and the fact that it's really big!).

:)

You assume that it is of no ultimate importance, because it doesn't affect YOU.


While you are correct in that it does not affect me, nor does it affect anyone else. If you are a Christian and have sincerely accepted Christ then all your sins are done away with and forgoten and so God will count you with him at the end.

All three of these are false. You have not done all three of these. Show me positively endorced homosexual relationships ANYWHERE in the Bible. You have not "Utterly" refuted anything. And you CERTIANLY have found nothing to show the Bible promotes homosexual unions. I was going to leave but this is purest arogence.

Neo - it's getting boring dragging stuff back out to you again and again.

The Paulian example endorses homosexual union.

Genesis was proved wrong, and irrelevent; Leviticus was proved wrong and irrelevent... etc.

Jesus, David and Noah all clearly show that being gay doesn't hold you back in biblical terms, any more than paedophilia or incest do.

(Lovely book, isn't it).

I don't think you get to call it arrogant, when I have so conclusively proved all of my points. I think it's only arrogance when you make claims you DON'T back up.

Sorry, Neo - but for the sake of this thread, the debate has most certainly been decided - and myself, and my erstwhile compatriots, have done pretty much everything but tie it with a ribbon.

Feel free to leave, if you wish. I really am not stopping you.

Of course, it's just my OPINION that we have discredited all your arguments... you OPINION, I'm sure, suggests a very different view.

Because the people who developed the rules in early Christianity probably were a bit scared by homosexuals, and how they were different from most of the other world (not inferior, different), so they tried to get rid of it by making it one of the most powerful laws ever: religious law. :)

Please show me the verse where somehow homosexuality is supported?. So far all you have shown me is proof that homosexuality existed durng the Bible, you have not shown a single homosexual relationship that GOD supported. Jesus was not Gay your phili example is extremely suspect, David may or may not have been Gay but as far as I can see it the evidence is far more in favour of the latter than the former. Even in the raunchest translation all you have found is an erection. Nothing else. You asumed the rest, and consider how many women he had later. If your saying the fact that he was the line of Jesus proves that God supported him then you are wrong. By that logic God also supports adultery and conspiricy to murder, David did those too. Noah was not gay, he cursed his son for whatever the indecent act was, so even if it was an act of homosexual sex, it still set him back a long way.

Genesis was proved wrong, and irrelevent; Leviticus was proved wrong and irrelevent... etc.


Yes just ignore the creation of the world and all the mosiac laws shall we... Why are they in the Bible at all

(sarcasm)

All three of these are false. You have not done all three of these. Show me positively endorced homosexual relationships ANYWHERE in the Bible. You have not "Utterly" refuted anything. And you CERTIANLY have found nothing to show the Bible promotes homosexual unions. I was going to leave but this is purest arogence.

I have demonstrated Biblical reasons for my belief that homosexuality is not a sin at least 5 times. It's not my fault that you ignore them.

As I pointed out before, if you wish to be an honest person, you have to admit that your interpretation might be wrong.

Please show me the verse where somehow homosexuality is supported?

Ignorance yet again. Do you just *pretend* to read my posts?

Jesus was not Gay your phili example is extremely suspect,

You can't make statements like this - you have stated time and time again that there is nothing suspect in the Bible. And when we have pointed out that many of the verses *you* use are suspect, you have stated that it is not a valid argument. Therefore, you cannot use it.

David may or may not have been Gay but as far as I can see it the evidence is far more in favour of the latter than the former.

Actually, it appears that he was bisexual.

Even in the raunchest translation all you have found is an erection. Nothing else. You asumed the rest, and consider how many women he had later.

Exactly. Bisexual.

Yes just ignore the creation of the world and all the mosiac laws shall we... Why are they in the Bible at all

(sarcasm)

Considering that the creation story is clearly metaphor and the vast majority of the "Mosaic" laws were made up, passed down, and eventually written down by human beings...

They are in the Bible because *human beings* believed them to be true or wanted to use them to make a point. There is no reason to believe that everything included was actually God's will - especially when some of it could clearly *not* be the will of an omnibenevloent God.

I had started a post that was a continuation of the rational, but when I attempted to post it, it dissappeared. I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, though I have read Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the old and new testiment on this as well as other subjects with the aid of Greek and Hebrew dictionaries as well as reading numerous commentaries on Bible.

As Neo Cannen stated, it is probably going to do no one any good to argue the subject further as it has already been going on for hundreds of pages, which I do not have the time to digest now. Suffice it to say, monogamous, heterosexual marriage relationships are clearly condoned and supported by scripture where as other sexual relationships are far more questionable, and not in any way is homosexuality in particular condoned or sanctioned in the Greek, English or Hebrew manuscripts or translations.

As for the inspiration of scripture, that is another debate entirely and while I am able to defend its inspiration by both internal exegtics and external sources, to do so would probably be a waste of your time, unless you are honestly willing to reconsider your opinions on the subject.

Alas, I must go as I have a date with my wife and father-in-law that takes precidents over my presense here.

You should know that the time I have to spend here is limited and if you desire to discuss these or other issues with me in a calm, dignified, civilized, i.e. no name calling manner, I'm willing to do so, but it will require patience on your part due to my limitations. God bless and have a good evening, morning or whatever is appropriate where you happen to live.

Please show me the verse where somehow homosexuality is supported?. So far all you have shown me is proof that homosexuality existed durng the Bible, you have not shown a single homosexual relationship that GOD supported. Jesus was not Gay your phili example is extremely suspect, David may or may not have been Gay but as far as I can see it the evidence is far more in favour of the latter than the former. Even in the raunchest translation all you have found is an erection. Nothing else. You asumed the rest, and consider how many women he had later. If your saying the fact that he was the line of Jesus proves that God supported him then you are wrong. By that logic God also supports adultery and conspiricy to murder, David did those too. Noah was not gay, he cursed his son for whatever the indecent act was, so even if it was an act of homosexual sex, it still set him back a long way.

You saying "Jesus was not gay" is speculation. It doesn't say that in the bible, although it does describe him being kissed by a close personal friend...

You think my example suspect? I wondered if you were ever going to resurface after I pointed out you were using the wrong sentence...

I thought I said that David was bisexual? And, in that context, if John got him hot, looking at his track-record... it DOES seem unlikely he refused him...

God does support all kinds of evil acts, in scripture. Hell, Jesus was born of an act of 'divine' adultery.

Oh - and re-read your bible (again). To 'uncover someone's nakedness' is to 'know them' carnally... so Ham had sex with Noah... however - THAT isn't why Noah cursed him... Noah cursed him for going and telling his brothers.

So - at least three of the Patriarch figures INCLUDING Messiah have suspiciously homo-erotic histories, and yet are still lauded and magnified as the purest individuals of their times... Seems pretty conclusive, don't you think?

Ignorance yet again. Do you just *pretend* to read my posts?


I still see no verse and like it or not you need one to prove that it is not a sin. Since every single time you encounter homosexuality in the Bible it is condemed you have a problem

1 Corinthans 6: 9-10
Romans 1: 18-27
1 Timothy 1:9-10

Now while I accept my interpretaiton may be wrong, if it is then the Bible says nothing, which is very uncharecteristc of it. There is very little that happened in its time that the Bible does not comment on either by praise or condemnation. Saying your "soup kitchens" arguemnt flops at the first hurdle, soup kitchens did not exist at the time of the Bible

Yes just ignore the creation of the world and all the mosiac laws shall we... Why are they in the Bible at all

(sarcasm)

Neo, I have clearly demonstrated where Mosaic Law contradicts ITSELF. It is a flawed document, probably because it was largely 'inspired' by the Babylonian code of laws, which Hammurabi had carved onto stone pillars in Babylon.... sound familar?

And, of course, the Mosaic Law wasn't written until AFTER the 'interval' in Babylon... sound.... suspicious?

If you want to argue Christianity... yours is probably good advice - you should ignore the Old Testament.

I still see no verse and like it or not you need one to prove that it is not a sin. Since every single time you encounter homosexuality in the Bible it is condemed you have a problem

1 Corinthans 6: 9-10
Romans 1: 18-27
1 Timothy 1:9-10

Now while I accept my interpretaiton may be wrong, if it is then the Bible says nothing, which is very uncharecteristc of it. There is very little that happened in its time that the Bible does not comment on either by praise or condemnation. Saying your "soup kitchens" arguemnt flops at the first hurdle, soup kitchens did not exist at the time of the Bible

Does it mention Buddhists?

Buddhist documentary evidence, as well as archeological trade relics show, quite clearly, that Orient influence was very much in evidence in the biblical 'area' at the biblical 'time' (certainly, from Daniel onward).

And yet, the Bible neglects to mention it at all....

And then, of course, Christianity seems to have borrowed some of it's motifs... maybe THAT is why they don't mention it.... scripture makes a habit of demonising or ignoring it's earthly inspirators.

The Paulian example endorses homosexual union.

Genesis was proved wrong, and irrelevent; Leviticus was proved wrong and irrelevent... etc.

Jesus, David and Noah all clearly show that being gay doesn't hold you back in biblical terms, any more than paedophilia or incest do.


This sounds like a long argument, but none of the above can be proved with the exception of the latter statement, which is partially true, although I would say that Paedophilia or incest are condoned either. The only sense in which that latter statement is correct, however, is that homosexuality is as forgiveable as David's murder and that in Noah's example that God is always looking for a way to save His creation that has willfully cut itself off from Him.

You may provide evidence that suggests that the Genesis account is not factual, but there is evidence that it is as well. The primary issue here is not what one of us can prove as much as it is what we choose to believe, and quite frankly in my opinion it takes a lot more faith not to believe in creation than to believe in it. If you'd like we can site all the scientific research on the subject and the opinions and interpretations of Creation scientists verses like Michael Behe and Ben Carson and the opinions and interpretations of evolutionary scientists until we are blue in the face and I don't think any of us is likely to change our mind.

I have to confess that, even though I admit I kind of butted into a conversation here, I am less than impressed with the lack of magnanimity and openmindedness in this crowd. If you would all prefer, I can leave. I'd rather not be the source of a fight.

So - at least three of the Patriarch figures INCLUDING Messiah have suspiciously homo-erotic histories, and yet are still lauded and magnified as the purest individuals of their times... Seems pretty conclusive, don't you think?

Flaws in your argument

1) None of these were praised by God
2) Aside from you passing refernce to philli there is no evidence Jesus was gay. If it is phillo or whatever affectionate love is, then what is that agape doing there at all?
3) The kissing thing is cultural, and was a sign of honour and respect at the time.
4) There is no evidence to support the idea that Noah cursed him for the fact that he told his brothers it just says "When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him he said (and then goes on to curse), nor is there that he had sex with his son. It says "uncovered his nakedness"
5) Only the most raunchy translation comes up with the errection idea. None other. The word is "Gradel" (or something v simmilar, I have bad spelling) which is also used for how much greater Soloman was than his other kings. Is it therefore not "possible" that what it actually meant was that he wept more greatly than Johnathan. And furthermore Davids 'record' of suposed inablity to control has not happened yet. Bahsheba is later as is his aquistion of wives
6) Even if Noah and David had homosexual sex, guess what THEY WERE SINNERS. Like every other human except Jesus they did things that were detestable to God. Your speculation that Jesus was gay is just that, speculation. Beyond your one plilli refence you seem to have no evidence. All you have proved is that men had faults, which is true and I have not disputed that.
7) "Conclusive" is rather a strong word for speculation. The pro homosexuality side here has nothing certian.

I still see no verse and like it or not you need one to prove that it is not a sin.

No, I really don't. I have demonstrated why I feel that all of the verses that supposedly condemn it are either mistranslated or due to human error.

This means that there is nothing really either way *specifically.* (And no, this is not "unusual for the Bible") The Bible never specifically says that you should make sure your child is educated, it develops out of the fact that you are supposed to love and take care of your child. The Bible never specifically says that you should eat, it develops out of the fact that eating is required for life. The Bible never says that you should try to form a loving relationship with another human being, but this is certainly supported by the Bible. And it is this suggestion that leads me to believe that homosexual relationships receive just as much blessing as heterosexual relationships - since, for many, they cannot find love outside their gender.


There is very little that happened in its time that the Bible does not comment on either by praise or condemnation.

You can't make a stupid statement like this unless you have a time machine and can prove that nothing was going on that the Bible doesn't mention. Some things are common sense.

[QUOTE=Neo CannenSaying your "soup kitchens" arguemnt flops at the first hurdle, soup kitchens did not exist at the time of the Bible[/QUOTE]

Guess what? I would be willing to bet money that the people who wrote the Bible believed, just as many do today, that there were no long-term, loving homosexual relationships. THis would be why all references to homosexual sex in the Bible refer to *casual* relationships or *prostitution* or *lying with a man as you do with a woman (which a homosexual would not do*. Much like many straight people today, the idea that a man can love another man or a woman can love another woman was probably foreign to them.

If you don't expect someone to write about soup kitchens because they don't exist, how can you reasonably expect someone to write about relationships that they probably couldn't fathom existing?

Guess what? You can't.

Seems to me that homosexuality is a "sin" for the simple reason that "go forth and multiply" was the mandate of the day.

When things like the bible were written (or, perhaps more importantly, translated) it was in everyone's best interest that men and women be interested in the kind of sex that makes babies (because at least half of them would die in infancy) and formed partnerships in which they could be certain who the father was such as marriage in which a woman's sexuality was kept in check (otherwise without DNA testing you cannot know who the father is). Also explains young wives being desirable, because she is less likely to die in childbirth, has more years left to bear children, etc.

So, my guess is that it was all about making babies. Two men or two women cannot make a baby, so it becomes "sin".

This is not the situation of the world today, but like many other things it is now considered a religious issue. The facts have changed, but the religion (being "sacred") has not.

It took the Vatican until sometime in the 19th or 20th century to admit that the world was indeed round and not flat. What do you expect?

And now we run into the issue of moral absolutes again. If everything is relative, you could be right, however everything is not relative...

This sounds like a long argument, but none of the above can be proved with the exception of the latter statement,

Actually, it can. There is conclusive evidence that disproves parts of the Genesis creation stories, thus demonstrating that they cannot be literally true. Not to mention the fact that the current version of Genesis is actually a melded book from at least two authors. There are *two* creation accounts in Genesis, which contradict each other in details, style, and mood.

You may provide evidence that suggests that the Genesis account is not factual, but there is evidence that it is as well.

To come close to truth, you have to examine *all* evidence. The scientific viewpoint uses all evidence, those that try and prove whichever Genesis account they pick to be true ignore half of the evidence.

I could find evidence that a dog gave birth to a chicken, but that wouldn't make it factual.

The primary issue here is not what one of us can prove as much as it is what we choose to believe, and quite frankly in my opinion it takes a lot more faith not to believe in creation than to believe in it.

It depends on how you define faith. For something to truly be faith, it cannot be blindly following what someone else told you. It requires questioning. And while one can question and examine all the evidence and believe in creation, one cannot examine all the evidence and believe Genesis to be *literally* true. Thus, to believe that Genesis is literally true, you have to demonstrate a supreme *lack* of faith.

If you'd like we can site all the scientific research on the subject and the opinions and interpretations of Creation scientists verses like Michael Behe and Ben Carson and the opinions and interpretations of evolutionary scientists until we are blue in the face and I don't think any of us is likely to change our mind.

"Creation scientist" is a misnomer. They are theologians, but are in no way scientists. Please use terms correctly.

I have to confess that, even though I admit I kind of butted into a conversation here, I am less than impressed with the lack of magnanimity and openmindedness in this crowd. If you would all prefer, I can leave. I'd rather not be the source of a fight.

You have to understand that Neo asks for evidence after being provided with it, ignores posts altogether that he doesn't want to have to defend, and has overall been very rude in the past few days. I know that some of us are rather fed up with his antics, but we do try to be polite.

G&I would you please admit that you have not conclusively proven anything. I have not conclusivley proven anything either but it would save us all a great deal of time if we both admited that both our sides have faults which they do.

Well, given that there are literally thousands of books and research projects on the subjects, for any one person to claim to have examined "all the evidence" is rather ludicris. Further, if scientific knowledge is always re-interpreting and revising previous information that was previously thought to be factual it lends one to questions whether or not its findings can safely be trusted. Any scientist with a genuine knowledged of scientific theory will admit that nothing, not one blessed thing can be "proven" to be true. It is always plus or minus x% likely and that is only assuming that all of the original assumptions in any given experiment are correct and since assumptions cannot be proven scientifically you are still dealing with an issue of faith and the potential for variables, such as the possibility of divine, unmeasurable, intervention haven't even been addressed yet.

Well, given that there are literally thousands of books and research projects on the subjects, for any one person to claim to have examined "all the evidence" is rather ludicris.

No, but anyone with a knowledge of how science works knows that science as a whole has done so.

Further, if scientific knowledge is always re-interpreting and revising previous information that was previously thought to be factual it lends one to questions whether or not its findings can safely be trusted.

Actually, the fact that science reinterprets based on new evidence is it's strength. It guarantees that we are always moving closer and closer to the actual facts. The current theory in science is the one with the most backing evidence. If this status changes, we move to the more correct theory. That is the beauty of the approach.

Any scientist with a genuine knowledged of scientific theory will admit that nothing, not one blessed thing can be "proven" to be true. It is always plus or minus x% likely and that is only assuming that all of the original assumptions in any given experiment are correct and since assumptions cannot be proven scientifically you are still dealing with an issue of faith and the potential for variables, such as the possibility of divine, unmeasurable, intervention haven't even been addressed yet.

There is a *huge* difference between knowing that assumptions have to be verified and knowing that there are variances and what most people call "faith." Faith steps in where things *cannot* be described by physical evidence. I have faith that there is a God who created the universe. This is a statement that science cannot check. However, we *can* find the way in which the world has changed since, or at least a damn good approximation. This is not for the realm of faith, because it is something that science can describe.

Damn Republicans! If Bush gets his way, gays will probably get exported from the country, I know gay people, they are normal people, they dont have lisps, they dont wave their hand down and say, oh you thilly gooth! And they dont rap other men all day (I actually heard someone say that once, talk about a closed mind) in the US this is a huge fiery debate, we have had problems like this in the past, my guess is like most issues it will work out for the better (meaning in the gays favor) if it doesnt work out for them, than this country is not free and therefor the founding fathers will turn over (once again) in their graves.

Also some Republicans say (and these people work right under Bush) that gay marriage should be banned because they are often bad parents, again wrong, and in fact gay relations are often more stable and they can be just as good if not better parents.

you know what really gets me. All these people who claim to be bible bashers, take quotes from whatever passages, claim to live a religious life when really it's so far from "what the bible wants" than they could ever imagine. So when i see people quote something or another about adam and eve and whatever god implied about no gay marriages or whatever nonsesne is bullshit! In our modern world, religon is based on faith, faith in God, not so much in the bible anymore. So in our new world people should be free to love or fuck...excuse my french whoever they like. Right? of course right :headbang:

Actually, the fact that science reinterprets based on new evidence is it's strength. It guarantees that we are always moving closer and closer to the actual facts. The current theory in science is the one with the most backing evidence. If this status changes, we move to the more correct theory. That is the beauty of the approach.


Something that keeps changes what is "Certian" is not to be trusted. A few thousand years ago everyone knew the Earth was the centre of the universe (science not religion there, there were SCIENTIFC diagrams and they had observation to back them up). God never changes and the accounts never change. Scinece has not completely disproved religion. There is a possiblity the scientists failed to consider, what if God chose to work outside the laws of physics, which he could have done.

Sorry, Neo - but for the sake of this thread, the debate has most certainly been decided - and myself, and my erstwhile compatriots, have done pretty much everything but tie it with a ribbon.


Right there THAT is arrogence. Assuming you have won. You havent. The debate is contnuing. All you have done is provided possible alternitve meanings to the passages that condem homosexuality but there is no way for you to prove for certian that your way is the way to interpret it, in the same way I have no way to be certian. Just admit that you have faults, I admit the same. I agree it is possible that all the refrences refer to male prostitutes and not homosexuals but it is equally possible that it refers to homosexuals. You dont know for certian, I dont know for certian. Admit please. Assuming you have won is arrogence.

Actually, science hasn't even scratched the surface of the infinite information on this planet, in this century alone. To suggest that it has examined all of the possible explanations for the current world in which we live is something that only a person who wishes to have blind faith in a current theory would choose to do.

As for faith, not the Word of God, being the "appropriate" methodology for religion, I'd be careful what you wish for. The last time Christianity strayed from the word of God in major ways the Dark Ages and the Inquisition occured. I'm not sure a minority group would fare so well if similar disregard of the Bible takes place again. No that is not a threat or wish on my part as I don't believe it is my place to condemn people or groups there of. It is just an observation based on the evidence of human history.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the only way anyone truly wins a debate is when the sides are able to come to agreement with truth. If only one side accepts the truth and is unable to persuade the other to join, there is a loss. If both sides accept an error, both sides have lost. Only when both sides find absolute truth can a debate be won, in my opinion. Hence, I would have to say we have no winners yet in this debate.

Right there THAT is arrogence. Assuming you have won. You havent. The debate is contnuing. All you have done is provided possible alternitve meanings to the passages that condem homosexuality but there is no way for you to prove for certian that your way is the way to interpret it, in the same way I have no way to be certian. Just admit that you have faults, I admit the same. I agree it is possible that all the refrences refer to male prostitutes and not homosexuals but it is equally possible that it refers to homosexuals. You dont know for certian, I dont know for certian. Admit please. Assuming you have won is arrogence.
So if there are two possible and probible alternitives to all the stated anti-homosexual quotes why do you assume the mre restrictive and condeming of the two? (personaly I think it is a reflection on the churches atitude in general)

Something that keeps changes what is "Certian" is not to be trusted. A few thousand years ago everyone knew the Earth was the centre of the universe (science not religion there, there were SCIENTIFC diagrams and they had observation to back them up). God never changes and the accounts never change. Scinece has not completely disproved religion. There is a possiblity the scientists failed to consider, what if God chose to work outside the laws of physics, which he could have done.

If God never changes, then how did he change from a "Wages of sin is death, so I'm killing these fuckers" to a "I love you all, so I'm not gonna kill you when you sin" type of Diety?

And if he never was a kill everything type of diety, and was a"loving" diety, then why did he mercilessly slaughter people still?

You still have a contradiction and hold it dear, because it still doesn't make a damn lick of sense. If he never changes, did why did he change?

Actually, science hasn't even scratched the surface of the infinite information on this planet, in this century alone. To suggest that it has examined all of the possible explanations for the current world in which we live is something that only a person who wishes to have blind faith in a current theory would choose to do.


They dident say all has been found ... rather all can be found using the scientific method ... we just have not gotten there yet (lack of technology/ or backround knoledge restricting us ... but as we learn more we are able to interpret farther)


As for faith, not the Word of God, being the "appropriate" methodology for religion, I'd be careful what you wish for. The last time Christianity strayed from the word of God in major ways the Dark Ages and the Inquisition occured. I'm not sure a minority group would fare so well if similar disregard of the Bible takes place again. No that is not a threat or wish on my part as I don't believe it is my place to condemn people or groups there of. It is just an observation based on the evidence of human history.


Lol - you atribute it to the lack of god
I atribute it to letting christianity lead things
(either could be true ... though thanks for making a strong case against letting religion in politics)

Maybe to be doubly safe we should do both ... christians listen to god (please make a recording I am curious on what he sounds like) and we wont let you lead as much as possible

Then we are doubly safe

Actually, science hasn't even scratched the surface of the infinite information on this planet, in this century alone. To suggest that it has examined all of the possible explanations for the current world in which we live is something that only a person who wishes to have blind faith in a current theory would choose to do.

As for faith, not the Word of God, being the "appropriate" methodology for religion, I'd be careful what you wish for. The last time Christianity strayed from the word of God in major ways the Dark Ages and the Inquisition occured. I'm not sure a minority group would fare so well if similar disregard of the Bible takes place again. No that is not a threat or wish on my part as I don't believe it is my place to condemn people or groups there of. It is just an observation based on the evidence of human history.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the only way anyone truly wins a debate is when the sides are able to come to agreement with truth. If only one side accepts the truth and is unable to persuade the other to join, there is a loss. If both sides accept an error, both sides have lost. Only when both sides find absolute truth can a debate be won, in my opinion. Hence, I would have to say we have no winners yet in this debate.

Actually, history shows that the Dark Ages were after the fall of Rome. And the Fall of Rome happened NOT because of homosexuality, but because of Christianity and it's different RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Corruption, internal conflict, and strife ate the foundations, but the conflict of religion were what really took down Rome.

Also, the Word of God WAS the primary instigator of the Inuisition, what with it constantly talking about burning witches and such, so I don't see why you believe faith in God is worse than faith in a book of MAN's words.

If God never changes, then how did he change from a "Wages of sin is death, so I'm killing these fuckers" to a "I love you all, so I'm not gonna kill you when you sin" type of Diety?

And if he never was a kill everything type of diety, and was a"loving" diety, then why did he mercilessly slaughter people still?

You still have a contradiction and hold it dear, because it still doesn't make a damn lick of sense. If he never changes, did why did he change?

Are you really interested in a complete answer to this question? If you are, I would suggest some reading material. There is a book entitled "The Great Controversy" by E.G. White that explains it pretty well.

In a nutshell though, sin= violation of the law of life/love as set forth by God = a desire for seperation from adherance to His direction = choosing self over God and others = leaving the presence of God = willful seperation from the infinite source of all life = eternal death. Essentially, the most loving and merciful thing God can do for those who desire, choose to seperate themselves from and walk away from the love that would so much rather save them. It is sort of like a baby refusing to be fed by its parent, it will eventually die as this planet has been gradually doing since sin entered this world.

Also, the Word of God WAS the primary instigator of the Inuisition, what with it constantly talking about burning witches and such, so I don't see why you believe faith in God is worse than faith in a book of MAN's words.

The problem here was not the Word of God, it was man's fallible interpretation of that word. I don't beleive homosexuality was the cause of Rome's fall, just a symptom of a bigger issue and one that the United States is rapidly approaching. I can agree that so called christianity has done aweful things in the name of God, but in general they were done without a divine imperitive.

Are you really interested in a complete answer to this question? If you are, I would suggest some reading material. There is a book entitled "The Great Controversy" by E.G. White that explains it pretty well.

In a nutshell though, sin= violation of the law of life/love as set forth by God = a desire for seperation from adherance to His direction = choosing self over God and others = leaving the presence of God = willful seperation from the infinite source of all life = eternal death. Essentially, the most loving and merciful thing God can do for those who desire, choose to seperate themselves from and walk away from the love that would so much rather save them. It is sort of like a baby refusing to be fed by its parent, it will eventually die as this planet has been gradually doing since sin entered this world.
That’s all great and good but how do you know your interpretation is correct? What if you are basing your whole life on assumptions (we all do to some extent … but religion seems like a bigger one) there are so many pitfalls to assuming things specially that big that has the possibility to not only interfere with your life but those around you.

The problem here was not the Word of God, it was man's fallible interpretation of that word. I don't beleive homosexuality was the cause of Rome's fall, just a symptom of a bigger issue and one that the United States is rapidly approaching. I can agree that so called christianity has done aweful things in the name of God, but in general they were done without a divine imperitive.
But THEY thought they had divine imperative … as do Christians now … what makes you thinks yours is any better then theirs?

Are you really interested in a complete answer to this question? If you are, I would suggest some reading material. There is a book entitled "The Great Controversy" by E.G. White that explains it pretty well.

In a nutshell though, sin= violation of the law of life/love as set forth by God = a desire for seperation from adherance to His direction = choosing self over God and others = leaving the presence of God = willful seperation from the infinite source of all life = eternal death. Essentially, the most loving and merciful thing God can do for those who desire, choose to seperate themselves from and walk away from the love that would so much rather save them. It is sort of like a baby refusing to be fed by its parent, it will eventually die as this planet has been gradually doing since sin entered this world.

What the? None of that crap is used in the Bible to describe why.

Also, that's not how it was. It would be more akin to a baby not wanting to eat, and then the parent just beating it savagely to death because it didn't want to eat when they wanted it to.

What the? None of that crap is used in the Bible to describe why.

Also, that's not how it was. It would be more akin to a baby not wanting to eat, and then the parent just beating it savagely to death because it didn't want to eat when they wanted it to.
Don’t you know that makes them eat better :p [/sarcasm]

According to recent polls, 4 out of 5 Baptist Divorcees want gays to stop undermining the sanctity of marriage.

According to recent polls, 4 out of 5 Baptist Divorcees want gays to stop undermining the sanctity of marriage.
Wow that’s down from 5 out of 5 Roman Catholic adulterers

That’s all great and good but how do you know your interpretation is correct? What if you are basing your whole life on assumptions (we all do to some extent … but religion seems like a bigger one) there are so many pitfalls to assuming things specially that big that has the possibility to not only interfere with your life but those around you.

I recognize that for some, religion, faith in God and His Word seems based on something that lacks evidence. First, what one believes in is always a choice.
Second, that choice can be based on evidence or not, though if one chooses "not" I think we would both agree that individual is a fool. Third, there is evidence both within and without the Word of God for the existance of a Creator. Fourth, there is evidence, though I consider it false evidence or a misinterpretation of evidence, that there is not a Creator. Fifth, in my opinion and my experience, it takes far more faith to disbelieve the Bible and to disbelieve in a Creator than it takes to believe in one.

You are entitled to your life experience that has to date not offered you compelling evidence to disbelieve. However, if you choose to disbelieve in the light of compelling evidence something that is true, i.e. to willfully disregard something you know to be true you will have violated your conscience, if you do that enough times you will cease to be able to here it and be left simply with your own selfish desires and benevolent and altruistic desires will gradually disappear. I don't know if you have violated your conscience or not, only God can judge that and the Bible make that pretty clear, which is why I believe "The Dark Ages" activities of so called "christianity" to have been in violation of God's Word.

But THEY thought they had divine imperative … as do Christians now … what makes you thinks yours is any better then theirs?

I believe I have Divine imperitives for my life and for how I am to interact with others, but that imperitive does not include violating the free will of another.

What the? None of that crap is used in the Bible to describe why.

Also, that's not how it was. It would be more akin to a baby not wanting to eat, and then the parent just beating it savagely to death because it didn't want to eat when they wanted it to.

The first great commandment is "to love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets." "Sin is the transgression of the law." "The wages of sin is death, but the Gift of God is eternal life (note God being the source of life here) through Jesus Christ our Lord." Not beating to death, just not forcing eternal life on those who prefer/choose sin instead of the gift.

If God never changes, then how did he change from a "Wages of sin is death, so I'm killing these fuckers" to a "I love you all, so I'm not gonna kill you when you sin" type of Diety?

And if he never was a kill everything type of diety, and was a"loving" diety, then why did he mercilessly slaughter people still?

You still have a contradiction and hold it dear, because it still doesn't make a damn lick of sense. If he never changes, did why did he change?

He did not change the situation did. What do you think the crucifixtion was for?

I believe I have Divine imperitives for my life and for how I am to interact with others, but that imperitive does not include violating the free will of another.
That’s good… but how do you know it is right? (Don’t get into direct bible quoting … that will only lead me to quoting all the wars/rape forced conversion and so on and so forth in the bible)

Everyone that lives their life by religion believes they have a divine imperative … how is yours more right then theirs? (and some of those that do not feel the way you do on rights in some cases studied the bible itself WAY more then we will in a lifetime)

He did not change the situation did. What do you think the crucifixtion was for?
You are trying to imply that the crucifixion changed between the sin and death one and the love?

But zode was specifically pointing out how Christianities pov changed … it really was not a religion till after then so its not like the crucifixion is what made it happen

Also I think he was pointing out things like crusades and inquisition which happened after the crucifixion so how did that mark a turning point?

Just so you know, my definition of marriage is a life long commitment to a monogamus, hetersexual relationship between a man and a woman before God and essentially has nothing to do with the gov. or at least shouldn't. Having violated marriage by divorce, myself, and as an admitted and repentent adulterer, I acknowledge God's Word as being correct and my actions incorrect. I have chosen, to the best of my ability and by the Grace of God, to accept His gift of forgiveness and out of love for Him will attempt to live in accordance with His Word to the best of my understanding and ability. As a result of being a repentent sinner, I can acknowledge God's law as correct and binding on humanity, but I can clearly not condemn another sinner as I am in the same boat.

As far as I'm concerned, it is not the governments place to punish sinful behavior, to state that it is wrong perhaps but not punish. The only place the government should punish behavior is when that behavior violates the rights of another. Examples would include but not be limited to murder, rape, theft, breach of contract etc...

Because :p

Just so you know, my definition of marriage is a life long commitment to a monogamus, hetersexual relationship between a man and a woman before God and essentially has nothing to do with the gov. or at least shouldn't. Having violated marriage by divorce, myself, and as an admitted and repentent adulterer, I acknowledge God's Word as being correct and my actions incorrect. I have chosen, to the best of my ability and by the Grace of God, to accept His gift of forgiveness and out of love for Him will attempt to live in accordance with His Word to the best of my understanding and ability. As a result of being a repentent sinner, I can acknowledge God's law as correct and binding on humanity, but I can clearly not condemn another sinner as I am in the same boat.

As far as I'm concerned, it is not the governments place to punish sinful behavior, to state that it is wrong perhaps but not punish. The only place the government should punish behavior is when that behavior violates the rights of another. Examples would include but not be limited to murder, rape, theft, breach of contract etc...

Like I said(or maybe just thought) it is great that you feel this way … I wish more people did but we are still arguing WHY it is a sin (sorry had to drag it back I not trying to be rude)

You are trying to imply that the crucifixion changed between the sin and death one and the love?

But zode was specifically pointing out how Christianities pov changed … it really was not a religion till after then so its not like the crucifixion is what made it happen

Also I think he was pointing out things like crusades and inquisition which happened after the crucifixion so how did that mark a turning point?

Actually, I'm talking about God's genocidal rampages that happened in the Bible. You know, the flood, the repeated killing of the recently freed Jews, the fire, the killing of Egypt's first born, you know, THOSE things that show God's true character.

Considering God kept going off the handle so frequently, and killing because of it, I find it interesting that his character can be changed from a constantly-pissed-off being to a kind-love-people-but-be-saddened-by-their-sins type of being.

Not beating to death, just not forcing eternal life on those who prefer/choose sin instead of the gift.

Isn't forcing conversion the exact same thing as threatening them with Hell if they don't convert?

Also, if an atheist who has lived a good life died, and a person who was like Hitler but converted dued, and the atheist went to hell, and the Hitler-like person went to Heaven, don't you think there's something wrong with it? It doesn't seem like justice to me, but more like a "You kiss my ass, I'll kiss yours" type of deal.

That's really what I get out of Christianity: it doesn't matter if you're a saint or a sinner in reality, only thing that matters is if worship Jealous.

Something that keeps changes what is "Certian" is not to be trusted.

More proof of your ignorance. Science does not change what is "certain," as nothing is ever considered certain. It is sometimes considered to be very close to certain, as repeated measurements back it up time and time again, but science is *always* open to the possiblity of change if the evidence points another way.

Take, for instance, Newton's laws. They seemed perfect for *years*. We can still do experiments that back them up, because they apply closely enough in most scales. However, we now know them to be wrong. They have been replaced with the (more complicated, but also more correct) quantum mechanics. For years, people like you who are ignorant of the way science works would have claimed (and many still would) that Newton's laws are "certain." However, scientists always knew that they were uncertain, and when we found instances in which they don't hold, the theory was changed. This is the way to move closet to an accurate description of the world.

A few thousand years ago everyone knew the Earth was the centre of the universe (science not religion there, there were SCIENTIFC diagrams and they had observation to back them up).

They were there because the *church* deemed it so. As more evidence came in, scientific thinkers were moving *away* from a geocentric view of the universe. However, doing so meant you might get killed by the church, so many did the Creationist thing and searched for evidence to back up a particular theory, instead of looking at *all* the evidence.

God never changes and the accounts never change.

According to you, God has changed.
The accounts have definitely changed.

Scinece has not completely disproved religion.

I never said it has. The true realm of religion is outside of science, just as the realm of science is outside of true religion.

There is a possiblity the scientists failed to consider, what if God chose to work outside the laws of physics, which he could have done.

This is also undisputed, but irrelevant. An assuption like "God just put this all here to trick us" makes God evil.

the best question here is WHY IS THIS A 348 PAGE THREAD

"why is homosexuality a sin"
"the bible says so"

THATS THE ONLY REASON. things are only sins in the bible, to ask why something is a sin is to ask a rhetorical question

the best question here is WHY IS THIS A 348 PAGE THREAD

"why is homosexuality a sin"
"the bible says so"

THATS THE ONLY REASON. things are only sins in the bible, to ask why something is a sin is to ask a rhetorical question
I know chess is ignoring me but I had to post


Lol complaining about the length of a thread by adding to it … that’s just lovely

Secondly

We want to know why … because the bible by no means gives out a solitary message on the subject it and has been skewed even farther through things like translation error and bias teaching.

You are trying to imply that the crucifixion changed between the sin and death one and the love?

But zode was specifically pointing out how Christianities pov changed … it really was not a religion till after then so its not like the crucifixion is what made it happen

Also I think he was pointing out things like crusades and inquisition which happened after the crucifixion so how did that mark a turning point?

The Crucifixtion marked a turning point in the relationship between God and man. At the begining there was God and man and the two shared a relationship unparreled now, why? Because in the begining the world was without sin. Then there was the fall and sin destroyed that relatioship, it created a casam between us and God. The Crucifixtion bridged that gap by removing sin. The Criucifixtion removes sin of all humans and so man and God can be one again. The problem was, pre-Crucifixtion God had no way of removing sin beyond the very complex system of sacrifice that he showed to the Isralites. And it was during the time between the fall and the Crucuifixtion that God is percieved to be harsher, because at this time there was nothing to seperate sin from sinner. Thus God had the right to kill anyone at any time, because the wages of sin are death. The Crucifixtion changed this. It broke the sin death cycle. Now God could not kill anyone at any time and has to let us have our full natural live as we may yet make the choice to accept Jesus and become a Christian. He hopes for everyone of us to do that but in the end it is our choice.


According to you, God has changed.
The accounts have definitely changed.


While the accounts may have changed, they are God's word. The core message stays intact throught. The details (Like homosexuality, which are important, but not as important as the message) may be blured but in the end they themselves cannot alter the message.

Actually, science hasn't even scratched the surface of the infinite information on this planet, in this century alone. To suggest that it has examined all of the possible explanations for the current world in which we live is something that only a person who wishes to have blind faith in a current theory would choose to do.

Of course, that isn't even close to what I said. Science has examined all current available evidence - therefore the *current* explanation is the best we have based on all of the *available* evidence. The strength of science over idiotic blind "faith" is that the theory changes to match all available evidence. So if we get evidence tomorrow that a red guy with big horns dug up the Earth and buried a lot of fake bones, the theory will change to match that. Of course, I don't suspect that we'll find any such evidence.

As for faith, not the Word of God, being the "appropriate" methodology for religion, I'd be careful what you wish for. The last time Christianity strayed from the word of God in major ways the Dark Ages and the Inquisition occured. I'm not sure a minority group would fare so well if similar disregard of the Bible takes place again. No that is not a threat or wish on my part as I don't believe it is my place to condemn people or groups there of. It is just an observation based on the evidence of human history.

You need to study history darling. The people in the Dark Ages were *not* following the word of God - they were picking and choosing a few passages that appeared to condemn people (often because of mistranslations), just like you guys. Then they improperly used them to control and kill people. Meanwhile, your average person was told that (a) they could not read scriptures for themselves and (b) they should never, ever question *anything* that their church leaders said. This is the source of religious persecution - unquestioning deference to *human beings*.

Hence, I would have to say we have no winners yet in this debate.

Certain parts of the debate have been won. We have demonstrated that all available evidence shows that homosexuality is not a choice - which Neo has basically conceded except for some idiotic statement that young children actually can control their environment. We have demosntrated that all of the verses that Neo likes to bring up have equally or undisputably correct interpretations other than those that Neo gets out of his flawed translation of Scripture. We have demonstrated verses that seem to condone homosexuality equally as Neo's seem to condemn it.

The end point, however, is that we are human beings. None of us can ever say that we conclusively know the will of God. We can only listen to what God tells us and interpret it as best we can. If you cannot admit that you may be wrong, and that other people will come to different interpretations than you - you are an *incredibly* dishonest person.

And it was during the time between the fall and the Crucuifixtion that God is percieved to be harsher, because at this time there was nothing to seperate sin from sinner.
i assume you havnt read it then. he wasnt "presumed" to be harsher, he WAS harsher, he killed people on purpose, if some one pissed him off he had his followers slay or enslave whole nations and cities

i would go into something about jesus but that would take too long to type, but looking at the ludicrous amount of differences between old testament god and new testament god, some weird shit went down here.

Certain parts of the debate have been won. We have demonstrated that all available evidence shows that homosexuality is not a choice - which Neo has basically conceded except for some idiotic statement that young children actually can control their environment. We have demosntrated that all of the verses that Neo likes to bring up have equally or undisputably correct interpretations other than those that Neo gets out of his flawed translation of Scripture. We have demonstrated verses that seem to condone homosexuality equally as Neo's seem to condemn it.

I agree with you for the most part, except the part about verses which condone homosexuality. I still have yet to see any. Also I resent the idea that my translation is flawed.

Second, that choice can be based on evidence or not, though if one chooses "not" I think we would both agree that individual is a fool.

Of course, you think that people who choose to ignore half the evidence are smart. Do you not see the contradiction here?

Third, there is evidence both within and without the Word of God for the existance of a Creator. Fourth, there is evidence, though I consider it false evidence or a misinterpretation of evidence, that there is not a Creator. Fifth, in my opinion and my experience, it takes far more faith to disbelieve the Bible and to disbelieve in a Creator than it takes to believe in one.

This is completely untrue. There is no measurable evidence for or against the existence of a Creator. Belief in the existence or non-existence of such a creator is an axiomatic statement - with no hard evidence either way.

I don't know if you have violated your conscience or not, only God can judge that and the Bible make that pretty clear, which is why I believe "The Dark Ages" activities of so called "christianity" to have been in violation of God's Word.

It was a misuse of God's word as a tool to hold most people down, rather than furthering their relationship with God.

While the accounts may have changed, they are God's word. The core message stays intact throught. The details (Like homosexuality, which are important, but not as important as the message) may be blured but in the end they themselves cannot alter the message.

I have never argued that the core message has been corrupted (although many human beings *have* corrupted it). However, the point is that too many people try to force details that can be shown to be ambiguous and have *nothing* do do with the core message onto others who find a different interpretation.

I agree with you for the most part, except the part about verses which condone homosexuality. I still have yet to see any.

The verses which Grave N Idle have brought up are just as ambiguous as your verses, but can be interpreted to condone homosexuality. You don't accept them, because you don't want to accept them. However, they are just as valid as yours.

That’s good… but how do you know it is right? (Don’t get into direct bible quoting … that will only lead me to quoting all the wars/rape forced conversion and so on and so forth in the bible)

Everyone that lives their life by religion believes they have a divine imperative … how is yours more right then theirs? (and some of those that do not feel the way you do on rights in some cases studied the bible itself WAY more then we will in a lifetime)

Other than by describing the impact of God's Word, in my life and what I have witnessed it doing in the lives of others, which I can't do without quoting scripture, it is well nigh impossible to answer your first question.

In answer to your second question, I can only answer scripture as well, "by their fruits ye shall know them." I have studied the Bible most all of my life and even within my church who are supposed to be "one in Christ" and of "one mind" there is vast disagreement and that doesn't begin to take into account all of "christianity", who is supposed to be bound by the same principles, and even among those who have studied all their lives. It is clear that one's salvation is based on a personal relationship with Christ and that this relationship will bare the fruits described in scripture. I attempt to live my life in such away that it does that. I am certainly not perfect at it, but the church is suppose to be for those who need a Physician and are on the way to recovery, not those already perfect.

I have never argued that the core message has been corrupted (although many human beings *have* corrupted it). However, the point is that too many people try to force details that can be shown to be ambiguous and have *nothing* do do with the core message onto others who find a different interpretation.

But it does say, quite clearly, that homosexual acts are a sin. Oh and by the way, this thread is wrong in essence - the Bible NEVER at ALL states that homosexuality is a sin, just homosexual acts.

Lots of people prefer to focus on this, and not other, less comfortable aspects of the bible, like caring for your fellow creatures…

The verses which Grave N Idle have brought up are just as ambiguous as your verses, but can be interpreted to condone homosexuality. You don't accept them, because you don't want to accept them. However, they are just as valid as yours.

Can you actually SHARE them with us. If you are talking about the examples of Noah and David, all that proves is that homosexuality happened not that it was endorsed

But it does say, quite clearly, that homosexual acts are a sin. Oh and by the way, this thread is wrong in essence - the Bible NEVER at ALL states that homosexuality is a sin, just homosexual acts.

Only in translations - which are inherently flawed. As has been pointed out numerous times, the only things *definitively* condemned are

*casual* homosexual sex
homosexual sex with *prostitutes* and *young boys*

Do remember that the Bible was not originally written in English.

So, no, homosexual sex is not "quite clearly" labeled as a sin.

Wow that’s down from 5 out of 5 Roman Catholic adulterers

Technically, it's impossible for many Catholics to be adulterers, because they are disallowed from marriage because they're priests; and what about the under-16s adn unmarrieds? Are you accusing my parents of adultery?

Think carefully before you make these stupid comments. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, be sensible about it.

Only in translations - which are inherently flawed. As has been pointed out numerous times, the only things *definitively* condemned are

*casual* homosexual sex
homosexual sex with *prostitutes* and *young boys*

Do remember that the Bible was not originally written in English.

So, no, homosexual sex is not "quite clearly" labeled as a sin.

Marriage is between a man and a woman (I think so. I am not a Bible scholar).

Can you actually SHARE them with us. If you are talking about the examples of Noah and David, all that proves is that homosexuality happened not that it was endorsed

And Ruth.

It is not condemned at these points, therefore - according to your logic, these passages suggest that it is condoned.

There is also the fact that *several* passages in the Bible tell human beings not to do things that are unnatural. Well, for a homosexual, pretending to be heterosexual is unnatural. And *any* human being completely giving up the search for a person to make a long-term committment to without some sort of direct sign from God is against their nature.

undefinedOkay its very simple and explained in the bible. When man was created woman was created for man thus Adam and Eve. NOT Adam and Steve :headbang:

Only in translations - which are inherently flawed. As has been pointed out numerous times, the only things *definitively* condemned are

*casual* homosexual sex
homosexual sex with *prostitutes* and *young boys*

Do remember that the Bible was not originally written in English.

So, no, homosexual sex is not "quite clearly" labeled as a sin.




Given that English was written in Aramiac and Ancient Greek, I find it quite possible that quite a few things that are now in our English Bibles were not actually, thigns could have been mistranslated.

Marriage is between a man and a woman (I think so. I am not a Bible scholar).

Again, there is nothing definitive to say this.

Ruth is said to cleave unto another woman - the *exact* same Hebrew word used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve.

undefinedOkay its very simple and explained in the bible. When man was created woman was created for man thus Adam and Eve. NOT Adam and Steve :headbang:

^^ Perfect example of very weak faith.

undefinedOkay its very simple and explained in the bible. When man was created woman was created for man thus Adam and Eve. NOT Adam and Steve :headbang:


God dammit, thats the lousiest saying, its like saying God didn't create whites, so are white people sinful based on that?

Frankly, I don't know if anyone has said this, but I did read on the first page a post about benefits from using marriage. In my opinion, I believe that if the country was founded on the ideals that its religion should stay out of federal government, the idea of "keeping marriage sacred" has no politcal legitimacy!!!
If christians want to stop gay "marriage" than let the churches stop it themselves.
I have also heard of many places trying to stop gay unions altogether. This just seems like discrimination. This IS discrimination. It is making homosexuals, (specifically homosexual couples) second class citizens, and should be against the constitution. I myself am not gay, nor do I closely know any gay people. This does not stop me from seeing that there is absolutely no problem with a union of two people of the same sex. The only legitimate excuse that I have seen to end this was that two people of the same sex could claim that they are a couple and recieve tax benefits.
If you reply to this message, tell me a legitimate reason that gay marriage, or legal unions should be banned. Please refrain from using religion as a reason, because although this is what the thread is about, I feel that it is more important to address the fact that politically, this cannot or should not be banned. Thank you.

It is not condemned at these points, therefore - according to your logic, these passages suggest that it is condoned.


I never said that. You will HAVE to quote me on that if it is my logic. Love and sex between man and women is blessed by God. For love and sex between man and man or woman and women to be condoned by God then God must have supported this too. But there is no evidence of this.

well obviously it says in the bible that being gay is wrong (read Leviticus for the full story) and christians belive that the bible should be obeyed whoever you are. that still means that if you're not a christian the bible applies to your life.and why on earth are evangelicals fundamentalists? all we do is take the bible as read, especially when it's really clear like ' a man shall not lie with another man' i mean how and why should you try and interpret that into another mening?? crazy andyways the bottom line is God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Adele and Eve so i supose iot's your choice but take it this way, if christians are wrong about thier faith, they have wasted thier lives on soem stupid lie about how you should live and have not enjoyed all the pleasurs of life. However if they are not wrong all none christians are screwed

Frankly, I don't know if anyone has said this, but I did read on the first page a post about benefits from using marriage. In my opinion, I believe that if the country was founded on the ideals that its religion should stay out of federal government, the idea of "keeping marriage sacred" has no politcal legitimacy!!!
If christians want to stop gay "marriage" than let the churches stop it themselves.
I have also heard of many places trying to stop gay unions altogether. This just seems like discrimination. This IS discrimination. It is making homosexuals, (specifically homosexual couples) second class citizens, and should be against the constitution. I myself am not gay, nor do I closely know any gay people. This does not stop me from seeing that there is absolutely no problem with a union of two people of the same sex. The only legitimate excuse that I have seen to end this was that two people of the same sex could claim that they are a couple and recieve tax benefits.
If you reply to this message, tell me a legitimate reason that gay marriage, or legal unions should be banned. Please refrain from using religion as a reason, because although this is what the thread is about, I feel that it is more important to address the fact that politically, this cannot or should not be banned. Thank you.

Um… in my ideal theocratically-inspired society, it would be not allowed, because it is mentioned several times (I'm pretty sure of that) in the Bible that homosexual acts are wrong. I don't have a secular reason.

Again, there is nothing definitive to say this.

Ruth is said to cleave unto another woman - the *exact* same Hebrew word used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve.

"Cleave" means in the Hebrew "to be faithful too". It does not mean married. The Hebrews had words for "wife", "husband", "marriage" etc. Though this word may be used in this context, no where in the Bible is marriage ever described as being same sex.

Oh, and by the way, The forums on this site are an awesome place to argue, because there are a lot of smart people, and tons and tons of normal people. The smart people bicker among themselves while the average people contribute a constant stream of new points. Sorry bout the topic change (I have ADD).

There is also the fact that *several* passages in the Bible tell human beings not to do things that are unnatural. Well, for a homosexual, pretending to be heterosexual is unnatural. And *any* human being completely giving up the search for a person to make a long-term committment to without some sort of direct sign from God is against their nature.

The word "natural" today has many conotations. When in the Bible it refers to sexual acts and other actions, it means anything that is unautral to creation "Eden".

Isn't forcing conversion the exact same thing as threatening them with Hell if they don't convert?

Also, if an atheist who has lived a good life died, and a person who was like Hitler but converted dued, and the atheist went to hell, and the Hitler-like person went to Heaven, don't you think there's something wrong with it? It doesn't seem like justice to me, but more like a "You kiss my ass, I'll kiss yours" type of deal.

That's really what I get out of Christianity: it doesn't matter if you're a saint or a sinner in reality, only thing that matters is if worship Jealous.

Please see Exodus 34:6 and 7. God has always been merciful even when dealing out justice. He looks for every possible reason to avoid destruction, but sin ultimately destroys itself. The is never "forced conversion" that is an oxymoron. Conversion is a change of the mind/heart, not a subversion of differences. The lesson of the book of Job is that it is that there is an extra-terrestrial trial of God and His government going on and that we don't always understand the how's and why's, that it is okay to question, but that we may not always get the answer or even understand it if it is given. The reality is that God is both complete just and completely loving and merciful. We, as finite humans, myself included don't always understand where those to realities intersect and this is where faith comes in... I can see evidence of God acting justly and I can see evidence of Him acting mercifully and lovingly and sometimes I just have to accept by faith that every one of God's actions is actually an outpouring of both even when I don't understand how it all fits together.

Again, there is nothing definitive to say this.

Ruth is said to cleave unto another woman - the *exact* same Hebrew word used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve.

Ah - but it's not in Hebrew, is it? It's translated. (this topic will most likely go round in repeated cycles for years on end.)

Um… in my ideal theocratically-inspired society, it would be not allowed, because it is mentioned several times (I'm pretty sure of that) in the Bible that homosexual acts are wrong. I don't have a secular reason.

Yes, but I am saying that the United States, where I live, was designed NOT to be a theocratically inspired society. It was designed for freedom of everyone. "All men are created equal." Even the gay ones. I agree that in your theocratically inspired society that you can frown upon the homosexual marriages, but I don't believe that legally they can't be joined.

well obviously it says in the bible that being gay is wrong (read Leviticus for the full story) and christians belive that the bible should be obeyed whoever you are. that still means that if you're not a christian the bible applies to your life.and why on earth are evangelicals fundamentalists? all we do is take the bible as read, especially when it's really clear like ' a man shall not lie with another man' i mean how and why should you try and interpret that into another mening?? crazy andyways the bottom line is God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Adele and Eve so i supose iot's your choice but take it this way, if christians are wrong about thier faith, they have wasted thier lives on soem stupid lie about how you should live and have not enjoyed all the pleasurs of life. However if they are not wrong all none christians are screwed

The Bible was not written in English, especially not Leviticus. We have shown pretty clearly that the Levitical reference, in Hebrew, could mean something else.

And if your entire faith hinges on "gays er bad mmmm, kay," you missed the whole point of Christianity.

"Cleave" means in the Hebrew "to be faithful too". It does not mean married. The Hebrews had words for "wife", "husband", "marriage" etc. Though this word may be used in this context, no where in the Bible is marriage ever described as being same sex.

Again, a matter of interpretation, not fact. It is the *exact* same word used to describe Adam's relationship with Eve, and just as clear as the references you use to condemn homosexuality. The point is that *neither* reference is completely clear.

The word "natural" today has many conotations. When in the Bible it refers to sexual acts and other actions, it means anything that is unautral to creation "Eden".

Another matter of interpretation. Nearly all Biblical scholars agree that "Eden" is metaphorical anyways.

The Bible was not written in English, especially not Leviticus. We have shown pretty clearly that the Levitical reference, in Hebrew, could mean something else.

And if your entire faith hinges on "gays er bad mmmm, kay," you missed the whole point of Christianity.

You are correct. Just goes to show that, however much you support abortion or gay marriage ;-) you can still be more Christian than someone who follows the rules.

Anyone notice how Bush is damn keen on gay marriage being banned - but not at all keen on helping the poor? I would say that a degree of socialism is a very Christian thing.

WHY are they called Fundamentalists when they MISS the fundamentals? Odd lingo.

Ah - but it's not in Hebrew, is it? It's translated. (this topic will most likely go round in repeated cycles for years on end.)

What part of "exact same ****Hebrew**** word" do you not understand?

The Bible was not written in English, especially not Leviticus. We have shown pretty clearly that the Levitical reference, in Hebrew, could mean something else.

And if your entire faith hinges on "gays er bad mmmm, kay," you missed the whole point of Christianity.

Yeah... Exactly. I am christian, but I admit that I am not completely devoted to my faith. I feel that whatever God told people to put into the bible, was completely twisted and jumbled over thousands of years, through different languages. (Hebrew, latin, english, and all other european languages and many more as well) Also if it is not blasphemous to say so, I think that the "transcribers" of the bible could have placed their own values into the bible. Either way this opinion probably doesn't effect the arguement that the bible says "a man and a woman = marriage."

Of course, you think that people who choose to ignore half the evidence are smart. Do you not see the contradiction here?



This is completely untrue. There is no measurable evidence for or against the existence of a Creator. Belief in the existence or non-existence of such a creator is an axiomatic statement - with no hard evidence either way.



It was a misuse of God's word as a tool to hold most people down, rather than furthering their relationship with God.

No I don't think people that ignore half the evidence are smart. I think that those who are ignorant of evolutionary claims and have no alternate explations for the evidence that evolutionary theologians/theorists spout as "proof" of said theory do themselves a disservice.

If you believe Charles Darwin, there is evidence of a Creator, see Michael Behe's book entitled "Darwins Black Box" for further explanation of irreducibly complex systems (things that couldn't evolve).

As far as holding people down, violation of God's Word is the only thing that holds any of us down or keeps us from accomplishing His ideal for our lives.

sorry i wrote my answer before i read the thread in full it says clearly in the bible: " if a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. they shall surely be put to death. their blood shall be upon them." Liviticus ch20 v 13 NKJV do you need it any clearer? the bible says male here not just bouy "young" boys it's all males. telgram me if you have anything to say about htis as i can't guaranatee to keep cheking back on this thread all the time. im dark force users by the way.

Yeah... Exactly. I am christian, but I admit that I am not completely devoted to my faith. I feel that whatever God told people to put into the bible, was completely twisted and jumbled over thousands of years, through different languages. (Hebrew, latin, english, and all other european languages and many more as well) Also if it is not blasphemous to say so, I think that the "transcribers" of the bible could have placed their own values into the bible. Either way this opinion probably doesn't effect the arguement that the bible says "a man and a woman = marriage."

Actually, it does affect that argument. There is no statement of "A man plus a woman are the only form of marriage," anywhere in the Bible. It is all a matter of interpretation.

You have chosen to hold onto one idea that many other people feel could have been one of the "transcribers" own values and something that could have gotten twisted and jumbled.