NationStates Jolt Archive

It's moot point - it's not. It's the societal norm. If people really want gay marriage, why not move to a country that already has it?

If you really don't want us to have it, why not move to a society that doesn't guarantee equality and freedom for all? Syria and Iran jump to mind.

Why, does it make you uncomfortable? ;) :D
No, it just doesn't interest me. Same reason I don't go to livestock shows.

If you really don't want us to have it, why not move to a society that doesn't guarantee equality and freedom for all? Syria and Iran jump to mind.
You really don't get my point, do you...

No, it just doesn't interest me. Same reason I don't go to livestock shows.

So if you don't go to places that don't interest you, why are you here? What about gay marriage interests you so much?

You really don't get my point, do you...

Your point makes no sense. You also refuse to understand that its not about a noisy minority demanding special rights. You dont' seem to understand that majority rule doesn't give them the right to take equality away from minorities.

In short, you are the one who just doesn't get it.

I edited my post on the previous page. :p Just so it doesn't get lost...

It's moot point - it's not. It's the societal norm. If people really want gay marriage, why not move to a country that already has it?
How did it get passed there? by people wanting it enough ... eventualy it will be a majoirty ;)

By the way how would you feel if another religious group was setting the rules ... such as islam (growing every day) when they overtake christianity in population does it make it right if they start changing laws to reflect their religion?

So if you don't go to places that don't interest you, why are you here? What about gay marriage interests you so much?
Nothing really, but the issue of preserving my society and speaking out against what I believe to be wrong does interest me. What, you want an issue where only one side gets to voice it's opinion?

Your point makes no sense. You also refuse to understand that its not about a noisy minority demanding special rights. You dont' seem to understand that majority rule doesn't give them the right to take equality away from minorities.

In short, you are the one who just doesn't get it.
Hear hear ... and you know "majority rules" will only be good for them as long as they are the majority

Your point makes no sense.
In YOUR humble opinion, obviously not.

Nothing really, but the issue of preserving my society and speaking out against what I believe to be wrong does interest me. What, you want an issue where only one side gets to voice it's opinion?

Exactly how does gay marriage threaten the existance of your society? Is your worth and the worth of your marriage and your way of life really hanging upon whether or not two men can get married? Is what two people, totally unrelated to you, do really going to have such an effect on you?

Nothing really, but the issue of preserving my society and speaking out against what I believe to be wrong does interest me. What, you want an issue where only one side gets to voice it's opinion?
Well logically, you can HAVE your morals and disapprove all you want, but gay marriage doesn't affect you in the slightest. So why are you so opposed to it?

In YOUR humble opinion, obviously not.


Everyone else reading this, feel free to share with us if you think Nycadaemon's opinion makes any logical sense.

Ooh, societal norms. I probably sound like a broken record because this has been said so many time, but once SLAVERY was a societal norm. Subjugation of women was a societal norm, disapproval of interracial marriages was the norm. (The latter two are still around to some extent, but greatly reduced)
Norms change, and people need to fight for changes to make things more equitable. That's why Pracus shouldn' move. He should be able to get married here, and people should be able to fight until justice is done.
You would compare the gay marriage issue to SLAVERY? How do you expect people to take your point seriously when you resort to histrionics.

Well logically, you can HAVE your morals and disapprove all you want, but gay marriage doesn't affect you in the slightest. So why are you so opposed to it?
Try readin the 500 times I've already stated my point and reasons for objecting to gay marriage, eh?

You would compare the gay marriage issue to SLAVERY? How do you expect people to take your point seriously when you resort to histrionics.
I do ... there are very simmilar ties between the two ... if you wish bottle does a beautifull essay on the topic she would be happy to share with you (I dont have a copy on hand and she has not yet published) but I will TG her right now for ya

You would compare the gay marriage history to SLAVERY? How do you expect people to take your point seriously when you resort to histrionics.
Actually, if you read it correctly I was using slavery to illustrate where societal norms are wrong, rather than "resorting to histrionics."

Don't take my words out of context.

You would compare the gay marriage history to SLAVERY? How do you expect people to take your point seriously when you resort to histrionics.


Slaves=denied equal rights by a bigotted majority.
Gays=denied equal rights by a bigotted majority.

Seems like a valid equator to me. Granted, the scope of the rights denied might be different, but the situation is very simliar. If you prefer, we can compare this to civil rights or to the movement for interracial marriage. It's all part of the same thing--a bigotted, self-righteous majority trying to deny equality to anyone who doesn't fit into their small minded world view while at the same time espousing the belief that everyone is create equal--as long as they agree with them.

Try readin the 500 times I've already stated my point and reasons for objecting to gay marriage, eh?

You've never sated any point other than you don't think the minority deserves equality.

Try readin the 500 times I've already stated my point and reasons for objecting to gay marriage, eh?
just no good points :p we are waiting for one

Exactly how does gay marriage threaten the existance of your society? Is your worth and the worth of your marriage and your way of life really hanging upon whether or not two men can get married? Is what two people, totally unrelated to you, do really going to have such an effect on you?
*sigh* As above, try readin where I've already answered this MANY times.

just no good points :p we are waiting for oneReal mature bucko.

*sigh* As above, try readin where I've already answered this MANY times.

No, you've said that the majority shouldn't give equality ot the minority. That doesn't explain how gay marriage affects you or what you think is the majority.

just no good points we are waiting for one
Yeah, some logic would be nice.

Slaves=denied equal rights by a bigotted majority.
Gays=denied equal rights by a bigotted majority.
Why stop there? Why not compare it to the Holocaust. sheesh. Talk about a flair for the dramatic.

Real mature bucko.
I do not have to be mature at ALL times ... I felt like jabbing fun and I did such

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Why stop there? Why not compare it to the Holocaust. sheesh. Talk about a flair for the dramatic.


While the scope and depth might not be the same, it is the same principle. It's like a drizzle vs. a flash flood. They are both still rain--just on a different scale.

I do not have to be mature at ALL times ... I felt like jabbing fun and I did such

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:


Can one of those fluffles be for me?

While the scope and depth might not be the same, it is the same principle. It's like a drizzle vs. a flash flood. They are both still rain--just on a different scale.
And still no rebuttal about my point that society's norms aren't always infallible...
Edit: Do I get a fluffle? *hopeful*

Why stop there? Why not compare it to the Holocaust. sheesh. Talk about a flair for the dramatic.
Because slavery is more analogous to the situation

And still no rebuttal about my point that society's norms aren't always infallible...

Of course not, he would hav eto totally reconsider his arguement. Just ignoring it is the motis operandi of so many people on here. . . . .

Can one of those fluffles be for me?
of course :) plenty to spare being the fluffle king :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Well, if any of you cared to READ my previous posts, you would see why I object. You mightn't agree with it, but I've already given my reason and IMHO it is prefectly valid. You have your beliefs, I have mine. You are the ones choosing your own (incorrect) interpretations of my reasons. I don't feel I need to explain myself to you any further. The difference between us is that I can at least see what your point is, even though I may disagree with it.

Well, if any of you cared to READ my previous posts, you would see why I object. You mightn't agree with it, but I've already given my reason and IMHO it is prefectly valid. You have your beliefs, I have mine. You are the ones choosing your own (incorrect) interpretations of my reasons. I don't feel I need to explain myself to you any further. The difference between us is that I can at least see what your point is, even though I may disagree with it.

Fine, let's give you a fair chance.

You may state to us what you believe OUR point to be. And you may once again attempt to state what your point is, explaining to us exactly why we are wrong.

Well, if any of you cared to READ my previous posts, you would see why I object. You mightn't agree with it, but I've already given my reason and IMHO it is prefectly valid. You have your beliefs, I have mine. You are the ones choosing your own (incorrect) interpretations of my reasons. I don't feel I need to explain myself to you any further. The difference between us is that I can at least see what your point is, even though I may disagree with it.
Ok … if you care to reference them or retype they have gotten mixed up in the clutter of thousands of posts…
I will be more then happy to type up my rebuttals or my point of view if you so wish

Ok … if you care to reference them or retype they have gotten mixed up in the clutter of thousands of posts…
I will be more then happy to type up my rebuttals or my point of view if you so wish

I guess he doesn't care to do so.

I guess he doesn't care to do so.
Goddamnit! I'm always deprived of a good argument. :p

Here's my two cents.

1. Stop bringing these what is 'natural' arguments into this.
Firstly, there are a number of other animals that have been observed to have homosexual sex. This includes our closest relatives, the great apes, dolphins etc. Secondly, in a biological sense, we exist to pass on our genes. But if this is not as simple as our reproduction. In the animal kingdom, some animals sacrifice their own reproduction for the sake of their relatives and assist in caring for young. They are actually helping to pass on their genes, because they share a lot of their genes with their closest relatives. So they do not need to reproduce...

2. As a biologist and an atheist I find it incredibly weird that many on this forum combine religious arguments with biological ones, especially when they apparently know very little about biology. 'Natural' has to be the most bandied about, but least well defined term used here. There are a myriad of definitions including:
Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.

Now, to look at point one, I think it could be argued that gay people where created by nature, but I know many would disagree and say 'it is a product of society, poor role models, their own minds' etc. But aren't all people a product of nature? Is society natural? If so, then gay people being a product of society is natural.. If not, then how do you fit into society. I think one could make a good case that people have separated themselves a lot from nature. In many ways we no longer behave as part of nature. I mean look around - no other animal modifies their environment like us, we make choices that effect natural selection (eg. assisting people to survive using drugs and modern medicine, assisting the impotent and infertile to reproduce etc.). So is society natural? If yes, then I think homosexuality as a product of society is natural. If not, then don't you have a problem with our society and all its unnatural aspects? Would you advocate living like hunter gatherers, or going even further back, not using tools at all?
I mean, where are you going to draw the line? If we ban homosexuality because of its perceived unnaturalness should we abandon medical care? I mean in nature the sick would just die...

2. I resent, as an atheist, people with religious views trying to force them down my throat. You may have views about homosexuality, abortion etc., but where do you get off telling people how they should behave? Who told you that your brand of christianity is the right one? I mean, islam is a newer religion which accepts Jesus was a prophet, maybe islam is right. How am I supposed to know? Should I accept islamic doctrine relating to women's rights? I think that religion serves a number or uses in society. In the past it has provided moral guidance, it is a means of social control, it assists people to feel that there is hope etc. But I think that today religion has become unnecessary, even redundant. Most western societies have now based their decisions on a moral and ethical code separated from mainstream religions and I believe this should continue. I don't believe its right for religions to institute social control, and I believe many people find hope and enrich their lives through other ways....

Finally, I do not accept and will NEVER accept the church having a say in how I run my life.

Goddamnit! I'm always deprived of a good argument. :p

That's because no good arguements exist to oppose gay marriage. I wish that there were a good one--it would help restore my waning faith in mankind.

I guess he doesn't care to do so.
I see that :) which is fine but with a thread this big saying "I said it back awhile" is vague at best

Why?
Honestly I don't think that "marriage" is a nice form of staying together for two people but...

is someone want to, why not? Why should I discriminate and say "no you cannot be married"?

I strongly believe that if a man wants a marriage with another man, or a woman with another woman, they must have the right to marry.

Ciao,
Myszka, harald of Ferantia

I see that :) which is fine but with a thread this big saying "I said it back awhile" is vague at best

It's basically saying he doesn't have an argument.

It's basically saying he doesn't have an argument.
Lets give him/her the benefit of the doubt and say that they could but it got lost in the clutter … I just want to see a cohesive argument first before I make judgment on it (even in my own mind)

What? :confused: Are you still arguing about whether gays or lesbians should be allowed to get married? :) It's not really any of your business, is it?

Of course, because none of us are gay. None at all. Nope.

What? :confused: Are you still arguing about whether gays or lesbians should be allowed to get married? :) It's not really any of your business, is it?
As long as it effects my choices it effects me (I am not gay but I should have the choice)

Of course, because none of us are gay. None at all. Nope.

Ok, if you are, then I suppose it's your business. I just don't see how people who are not gay, can be so opposed to this as to actively try to convince other people that gay marriage is "wrong". I suppose I only think it's none of your business if you're straight and anti-gay-marriage. :)

I say make marrage manditory! After you get X0 years old, you should be forced into a relationship and be allowed to never back out. Bwaha!

Seriously... Marriage is an theological idea... Churches should be able to not allow gays to marry if they don't want to, but if they can, then they should. Sides, many are doing it anyway, just not legally.

ok on this topic i have to say let them get married, because i know there going to hell. im a strong beliver in god and es i will try and get them to stop but aftert while ill give up and letthem go to hell.




p.s. if people have a problem with what i just said email me @ swimer@gmail.com

ok on this topic i have to say let them get married, because i know there going to hell. im a strong beliver in god and es i will try and get them to stop but aftert while ill give up and letthem go to hell.




p.s. if people have a problem with what i just said email me @ swimer@gmail.com
Then you don’t follow the Christian faith in many aspects (good and bad) including your “giving” up on them and letting them go to hell

church and state should be kept seprate. not everyone is a christian. that alone is bigotry.

but even your own bible says that what is held ture on earth is held true in heaven. i have heard christian groups state the same thing. and than say they don't care, marriage should be sacred.

so if you don't even care about your own relgious beleifs, what exactly do you believe in? you just are based in the fear of satan. enjoy you trip to hell.

ok on this topic i have to say let them get married, because i know there going to hell. im a strong beliver in god and es i will try and get them to stop but aftert while ill give up and letthem go to hell.




p.s. if people have a problem with what i just said email me @ swimer@gmail.com

This is a prime example of a so called 'christian'. You know they're going to hell eh? How about you actually read the bible, so called christian? If you have and wouldn't be a hyprocrite, you would know that what a man or woman does in their life is strictly between them and god, not for others to judge. You have alot of work to do, to actually pass off as a christian next time.

Anyway the bible forbids homosexuality,but I have a hard time believing that a homosexual who is law abiding, and treats others with respect will goto the same hell as Hitler and others.

Anyway the bible forbids homosexuality

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. The gist of a passage I remember is something like,' another man shall not lie with another man'.

Yes it does.
You are making a positive statement ... prove it

Yes it does.

Show me a passage from the bible that is about homosexuality, and not about gay sex or even something completely different.

Show me a passage from the bible that is about homosexuality, and not about gay sex or even something completely different.
*Waiting for Leviticus post*

I'd search for my bible, except for the fact, I'm too damned lazy. Go look it up yourself if you're worried about.

I'd search for my bible, except for the fact, I'm too damned lazy. Go look it up yourself if you're worried about.

I see. Well that sure convinced me. :rolleyes:

I'd search for my bible, except for the fact, I'm too damned lazy. Go look it up yourself if you're worried about.
So no proof got it … could have just said that

church and state should be kept seprate. not everyone is a christian. that alone is bigotry.

but even your own bible says that what is held ture on earth is held true in heaven. i have heard christian groups state the same thing. and than say they don't care, marriage should be sacred.

But didn't Jesus say something about how marriage is only for this world? Something about one of the Saduces attempting to prove that there can't be an afterlife by asking who will a woman be married to in the afterlife if her husband dies and she remarries. Jesus then tells him something along the lines of "you think you're so clever Mr. Fancy Hat, but in the afterlife we don't have gender anymore, we're like the angels, so marriage is a non issue."

But didn't Jesus say something about how marriage is only for this world? Something about one of the Saduces attempting to prove that there can't be an afterlife by asking who will a woman be married to in the afterlife if her husband dies and she remarries. Jesus then tells him something along the lines of "you think you're so clever Mr. Fancy Hat, but in the afterlife we don't have gender anymore, we're like the angels, so marriage is a non issue."
Though according to the catholic church remarriage without annulment is a sin in and of itself (so wont be going to heaven)

So no proof got it … could have just said that


You could always check yourself instead of bashing others because they don't want to. But no...

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

But using those quotes to point the homosexuality issue in your favor you should always think of this quote first. Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

Cant at work … besides I did not make the statement … you did. It is not up to me to support your point of view



You could always check yourself instead of bashing others because they don't want to. But no...

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."


Will leave this one alone till I get my notes


Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

If you accept this you also accept that it is a sin to wear cloths of two different fabrics or eat shellfish (both in leviticus)
Though traditionaly these are left out by most christians being that 1) silly rules in same book 2) new testament is gods new covinant and invaladates these
(though I never got why they hold true to the 10 commandments which are also OT)




I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

Not possible ... either your version of the bible is mis-translated or there are other issues (no word for homosexual in hebrew nor aramaic)




But using those quotes to point the homosexuality issue in favor you should always think of this quote first. Matthew 7:1-5 "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
And I agree with your last quote

Though I should get gravy in here being he is the hebrew/latan/aramaic speaker of the group

You would compare the gay marriage issue to SLAVERY? How do you expect people to take your point seriously when you resort to histrionics.
This is not histrionics!
This really is a matter of a minority demanding equal rights. EVERYONE deserves the right to marry their mate; those who claim otherwise are as blind and wrong as slaveowners who honestly believed society would end if they couldn't own people.

Leviticus is a history book about laws from a long time ago. When's the last time you went out of town to defecate and covered it with sand using a paddle dedicated to this purpose? It's a law in the Bible, but I've never met any supposed Christian who has done it. My point is, Leviticus is not a valid source for your arguments any more than the Klingon-English dictionary.

Leviticus is a history book about laws from a long time ago. When's the last time you went out of town to defecate and covered it with sand using a paddle dedicated to this purpose? It's a law in the Bible, but I've never met any supposed Christian who has done it. My point is, Leviticus is not a valid source for your arguments any more than the Klingon-English dictionary.

It validates my point perfectly. Katamari Damacys said that The Bible forbids homosexuality, Leviticus is a prime example of this, it be a history book or not. Anyway my whole point was, even though The Bible forbids homosexuality, that in no way proves that God does as well. The Bible was written by men, not God.

Okay, it proves your point, as you're using it to show its weakness.

My point was that anyone using Leviticus to show that the Bible is on their side will lose that argument. You're not doing that. Sorry for rushing to post.

What? :confused: Are you still arguing about whether gays or lesbians should be allowed to get married? :) It's not really any of your business, is it?
yeah, and why did white people become involved in the Civil Rights movement? i mean, as long as we've got ours, it's none of our business if fellow citizens are being denied rights and discriminated against.

*eye roll*

what is this? the 1950s? if a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, or call their civil union marrage, who the hell are we to say they cant? it doesnt impeed on their rights as homosexuals, it impeeds on their rights as human beings. you wouldnt like it if they came into your place and told you what to do, so what authority do you have to do it to them? i cant believe this crap is being debated. yes, it is up to particular churches, mosques (sp?), synagoges (sp?), etc to determen if same sex unions are allowed in their places, but no-one should deny them the right to call it marrage, and deny them the benefits of that union. as for the debate over procreation, that is for them to sort out. if they are happy, what gives you the right to piss on their happiness?

You could always check yourself instead of bashing others because they don't want to. But no...

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

The people referred to here had forsaken God and avoided praising him. As such, God gave up on them, making them "consumed with passion" as punishment. In essence. God made them behave homosexually. Also, no real condemning of the homosexuality is made here.


I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

The word "homosexuals" here was added to the Bible sometime in the 1950's. The original text was closer to "sexual perverts" and, more specifically, pedophiles.

Hope that cleared things up a little regarding these quotes!

The people referred to here had forsaken God and avoided praising him. As such, God gave up on them, making them "consumed with passion" as punishment. In essence. God made them behave homosexually. Also, no real condemning of the homosexuality is made here.



The word "homosexuals" here was added to the Bible sometime in the 1950's. The original text was closer to "sexual perverts" and, more specifically, pedophiles.

Hope that cleared things up a little regarding these quotes!
hehe, i LOVE when people claim the Bible specifically forbids homosexuality, given that the word "homosexuality" didn't appear anywhere in the Bible until almost 2000 years after it was written. makes me wonder if 2000 years from now there will be people claiming that the Bible clearly condemns gorjiblagerism and hjilbitikilimistism.

hehe, i LOVE when people claim the Bible specifically forbids homosexuality, given that the word "homosexuality" didn't appear anywhere in the Bible until almost 2000 years after it was written. makes me wonder if 2000 years from now there will be people claiming that the Bible clearly condemns gorjiblagerism and hjilbitikilimistism.
I pointed the same thing out but no one payed attention to me :p

I pointed the same thing out but no one payed attention to me :p

Don't take it personally. It's kind of hard to read everything when a thread is up to 105 pages. ;)

The word "homosexuals" here was added to the Bible sometime in the 1950's. The original text was closer to "sexual perverts" and, more specifically, pedophiles.

Hope that cleared things up a little regarding these quotes!

Any idea where I could find a source on that. Between McCartyism, rewriting the pledge of aliegance, and now I hear re-writing the bible I have to wonder what sort of anti-drug they were smoking in the 50's.

Any idea where I could find a source on that. Between McCartyism, rewriting the pledge of aliegance, and now I hear re-writing the bible I have to wonder what sort of anti-drug they were smoking in the 50's.

A quick Google came up with this site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

Biased most likely, but at least it cites its references. Sorry, I don't really have time to search more right now...

The thing is about raising children!!! It's not normal 2 people of same sex educate children :gundge:

The thing is about raising children!!! It's not normal 2 people of same sex educate children :gundge:
Why is it wrong?
If it is, what if they don't have children?

This thread is eating it's own tail. :rolleyes:

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?


Wouldn't that be the same as marriage? Marriage is a union of two people and it's all leagally about property sharing. Emotionally it's about love. Why not let them have these things? Marriage has been the union of one man and one woman, but why can't men marry men and women marry women if that is their hearts desire? Any straight person who wants to marry one day understands why gays want to marry too, it's all for the same reasons. What's so wrong with that? Why do you feel so threatened by that? If you don't think it's right, then don't marry someone of your own gender. :fluffle:

This thread is eating it's own tail. :rolleyes:
It tastes vaguely of lemon.

Leviticus is a history book about laws from a long time ago. When's the last time you went out of town to defecate and covered it with sand using a paddle dedicated to this purpose? It's a law in the Bible, but I've never met any supposed Christian who has done it. My point is, Leviticus is not a valid source for your arguments any more than the Klingon-English dictionary.

Hey - steady on there... it's an importnant book, based on truth, and I don't agree with you regarding it so flippantly.

A man's Klingon-English dictionary is sacred, damn it!




:)

The thing is about raising children!!! It's not normal 2 people of same sex educate children :gundge:
Thank you for participating. Too bad you didnt make it to the finals for "Most eloquent poster".

*zooms straight form page three to here*

Homosexuality is NOT a sin in the Bible - it's ACTS that are sinful. Homosexuality is basically a genetic abnormality - illness if you like - that is wired into your genes. It's whether you ACT on it or not.

Hey, everyone's gone off topic! Oh well… I'll post this anyway and see if I can get everybody's flamethrowers relit…

You could always check yourself instead of bashing others because they don't want to. But no...

Hey, you're the Christians here.

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Homosexuality as a result, not as a cause.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Not about homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Not about homosexuality.

I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

See other people's posts about this one.


Cmon, don't you think I knew of these already? I asked about passages on *homosexuality*, not man-man lovin'.

Why? Let me tell you why, it is not marriage, marriage is not the joining of two people. It is the joining of one man and one woman. I dont care if gays stay together, do what they want, I dont believe in discrimination, but if they want to be joined so bad why dont they get their own Union?

They did in Britain and noone else really took much notice

The thing is about raising children!!! It's not normal 2 people of same sex educate children :gundge:

Actually, according to the American Psychological Association its quite all right for two people of the same gender to raise a child. The kid grows up normal--same IQ scores, same emotional strength, same acceptance amongst peers, completely normal. Oh, I guess except that the child is a lot more likely to tolerate diversity. How terrible.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#goodparents