NationStates Jolt Archive

The institution of marriage is recorded in Genesis. "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24). God created man and then made woman out of "bone of his bone." The process as recorded tells us that God took one of Adam's "ribs" (Genesis 2:21-22). The Hebrew word literally means the side of a person.

Therefore, Eve was taken from the "side" of Adam and it is at his side that she belongs. "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:20). The words "help and meet" are the same Hebrew word. The word is "ezer" and comes from a primitive root word that means to surround, to protect or aid, help, helper succor. Therefore it means to help, assist or aid. Eve was created to be alongside of Adam as his "other half" to be his aid and his help.

The Biblical view of marriage is found in Genesis. A man and woman when married become "one flesh." The New Testament adds a warning to this "oneness." "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6).



Okay - I might come back at a later point, to debate the rest of this post - but for now, I'll settle with just this part.

First: We look at Genesis and we see "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man....Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh".

Well - I have problems with this already - Adam cannot have said what is being attributed to him... since he did not KNOW the meaning of the word 'Mother', did he? He had no knowledge of sin yet - nor of the results of sin. He had never seen a 'mother', and had no 'mother' of his own. So - someone has edited the text at some point to put words in the mouth of Adam, that Adam could not have uttered.


Second: Adam married EVERY PERSON in Eden. Did he not? There was only ONE other person - and Adam married her. He could NOT have married another man at this point, because there WERE no other men.

You are taking one event, and claiming it as a pattern for others... when only ONE event was POSSIBLE at that point.


Third: In the Hebrew, 'adam marries Chavvah... 'adam coming from the word for the red clay - is the 'body'. Chavvah means 'life'. The pairing of Adam and Eve is metaphor - it is retelling the creation with god bringing together the clay, and the breath of life. Uniting the body with the spirit. A metaphor probably isn't the BEST reason to construct a specific marriage structure.


Fourth: Tsela' can indeed be read as side, rather than rib - in fact, of all the times Tsela' appears in the scripture, it means "side" in 19 of the 41 appearances. However - to get from THAT to "Eve was taken from the "side" of Adam and it is at his side that she belongs." is an exercise in how you CHOOSE to interpret scripture... it is not explicit in the text.

Regarding the 'help meet for him' - you are true - this is all the same word... 'ezer is here extended from one word into practically a sentence. Personally, I prefer the "one who helps" translation... but taking it direct from the Hebrew, would give us something like: "Adam gave names cattle fowl air beast field Adam found meet"

We can ASSUME a negative.. that is Adam did NOT find help... but the whole 'help meet for him' is propoganda, and not supported by the scripture.


Fifth: The 'biblical' view of marriage is NOT found in Genesis... the unification of Adam and Eve is found in Genesis. Old Testament marriage allows for multiple sex-partners, and even sex-slaves - so it is folly to ascribe one 'view of marriage' to scripture.

Marriage is never defined as man and woman, not EVEN in the Bible

There is a reference to ONE marriage of man and woman, but it DOESN'T say that that is the ONLY valid model.

Also - of course - if you had read Genesis in Hebrew, you would understand that the 'marriage of Adam and Eve' is symbolic... it is the marriage of 'flesh' and 'spirit'.

See Genesis 2:24. It talks about the idea that marriage is man-women and that it is "for this reason" or "because" it is like that in Eden that it should be so in all other cases. And since there is no other supported model in any comparable fashion, I fail to see your point.


Finally - I can show you where Paul favours gay marriage...

If your talking about the "aflame with passion, better to be married" idea, then you will already understand that it deals with men and women. Not men and men or women and women.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept information published on a religious site. Even if it came from what appears to be a scientific study, the fact that it is related to a religious site shows that the authors have bias. I don't even have to read it to know that I can totally dismiss it as a scientist.

Now, were it to be published in Nature or Genetics or the Journal of Human Sexuality or other respected scientific journal, then I would read it and consider its merit. However, if the peer review process hasn't deemed it worth reading, I am not going to waste my time.

No real scientist would ever reject information based on the source. A real scientist observes information and compiles evidence and data to disprove or prove. You're just as biased as they are. Get out.

No real scientist would ever reject information based on the source. A real scientist observes information and compiles evidence and data to disprove or prove. You're just as biased as they are. Get out.

I am a real scientist, thank you. I cannot determine the validity of their data just by reading it. They could *shock* LIE. That is why I demand a peer review process--it helps prevent that. That is why in science classrooms in a university, the won't let you cite papers written without a peer review process.

Further, your lack of knowledge of how science works is exemplified by your belief that science tries to "prove" anything. Science can never prove---only disprove or support. I could repat an experiment a billion times with the same result and it might appear that I've proven something--but it only takes one time a million years in the future for me to be proven wrong and have to go back to the drawing board.

I am a real scientist, thank you. I cannot determine the validity of their data just by reading it. They could *shock* LIE. That is why I demand a peer review process--it helps prevent that. That is why in science classrooms in a university, the won't let you cite papers written without a peer review process.


If they lie then you should be able to find evidence against what they say. Espically in science where there is a logical system


Further, your lack of knowledge of how science works is exemplified by your belief that science tries to "prove" anything. Science can never prove---only disprove or support. I could repat an experiment a billion times with the same result and it might appear that I've proven something--but it only takes one time a million years in the future for me to be proven wrong and have to go back to the drawing board.

OR you can analyise the flawed time and discover there is an error in that attempt.

If they lie then you should be able to find evidence against what they say. Espically in science where there is a logical system
This is precisely why they would be asking for a peer review. In fact, why the system was invented. So other researchers don't have to waste time replicating or disproving reported results.

OR you can analyise the flawed time and discover there is an error in that attempt.
You've got a bit of an assumption in there you might want to fix. ;)

No real scientist would ever reject information based on the source. A real scientist observes information and compiles evidence and data to disprove or prove. You're just as biased as they are. Get out.
The bit in bold is staggeringly wrong. If the data is unreliable, unverifiable or biased in the wrong direction, out it should, and does, go. And I am also a professional scientist.

The bit in bold is staggeringly wrong. If the data is unreliable, unverifiable or biased in the wrong direction, out it should, and does, go. And I am also a professional scientist.

You are implying bias implies flaw. It doesnt. It implies that people research a particular area but if it is scienctificly carried out then bias does not matter. And if this study is incorrect then you should be able to point out its inconsistanties.

Nice try. Next time cite an unbiased source. Whyprophets is a Mormon site--hardly unbiased or unreligious.
You only looked at one of the sources? Damn, thats pretty juvenile. He used www.newscientists.com as well, and others. But of course, you ignored that. Instead you decided that the Mormons must just hate you. Well done.


What a pathetic way to try and invalidate facts. Get over yourself. Argue back, or cry, or whatever, but if you can't prove the source wrong then you can't criticize it.

The bit in bold is staggeringly wrong. If the data is unreliable, unverifiable or biased in the wrong direction, out it should, and does, go. And I am also a professional scientist.
Well if he says so it must be so.......

Actually, you are wrong. Regardless of the source, a professional will still evaluate the information. Sometimes you find a diamond in the rough. You would have known that if you had ever done research outside the lab. All you have to do is test their hypothesis, or check the facts they used and how they used them. You have done neither. Thus, you cannot ague against the source, because you haven't bothered to read what they said and evaluate it.


In other words, don't be an arrogant prick.

Irrelevant.Irrelevant.

Flashing the word "irrelevent" about the place does not disprove his points. Why dont you actually be vaguely intellegent about this discussion and try and explain WHY his points are irrelevent.


Again, irrelevant. The definition in Genesis is a description of ONE INSTANCE of marriage. It is not a definition of ALL marriages in the eyes of God.


Actually if you read Genesis 2:24, it says "For this reason" saying that the reason marriage is the way it is is because of what happened in Eden. Also, Eden is the perfect model, and when they discoverd the knowledge of good and evil they did not find their union wrong so its not wrong either.


At no point in this passage is the wife referred to as a woman. Just as a 'wife'. No reason at all it coudn't be a man.

Ok thats possibley the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The word wife has never refered to a male partener in any relationship. It MEANS female partner in a marriage. It has never meant anything else.


Again, the two individual's sex is not at any point specified.

Husband and wife always means male and female elements of marriage. Male = Husband, Female = Wife. It never means anything else and doesnt suddenly mean anything diffrent now because of the age we are living in. Stop trying to quibble with tiny tiny cemantics of language. The only diffrence between husband and wife and man and women is that the former refers to A MARRIAGE!

This is precisely why they would be asking for a peer review. In fact, why the system was invented. So other researchers don't have to waste time replicating or disproving reported results.


You've got a bit of an assumption in there you might want to fix. ;)
............
Even if a peer review confirmed the methods, other researchers would still repeat the test to make sure it still happened the same way. There is always a potential for error, and the only way to check is to attempt to replicate the previous experiment. You are basically searching for straws here, whereas if you were a "professional scientist" you would already have evaluated the provided information and then based your own opinion on that.

By the way, what kind of scientist are you. See, my minister is also teaching me. He is a psycho-neuro-immunologist. And I just spoke with him, and he referred to you as "a prat" after reading what you have said so far.

Jesus did however support the idea of letting sin be between you and God and not having others interefere without invitation--why? Because everyone has sinned. If a homosexual can reconcile his or herself with God and believes it isn't a sin, why must you interefere?

Declaring what is and isn't a sin is not interferance. A thief may be able to reconcilie his sin and justify it. That does not make it right. If a thief is unrepentent about his sin and actually believes it to be right then he opposes God.

You only looked at one of the sources? Damn, thats pretty juvenile. He used www.newscientists.com as well, and others. But of course, you ignored that. Instead you decided that the Mormons must just hate you. Well done.


The whole of his post (bar the very first intro part and ending part leaving the actual argument) was copied from the Mormon site. If you had gone on the link you would have seen that straight away. The link to new scientist simply showed that there was homosexuality in animals (an argument used in favour of homosexuality being natural). There were no others as far as I can see. I don't think they ignored anything and while saying that Mormons hate gays might be a slight exaggeration I think we could safely say Mormons are opposed to gays, wish to restrict their rights and that could well be a motive to misuse science in an attempt to back up their religious beliefs.

And also to everyone talking about disproving it, I think it was Bottle who went through it and found a large large number of inconsistencies and flaws. So actually most people haven't just dismissed it but said that it was flawed (in the ways mentioned throughout the thread) and this is probably because it comes from a biased source.

Everything is biased but surely you can see that when looking at science a more reliable source will be a scientific source. A Mormon site is obviously not going to be favourable of homosexuals and could easily twist statistics, use flawed arguments and logic, use unreliable data etc etc in the aim to promote their view. A scientific site... the aim is to give an accurate scientifically sound view. Isn't that aim going to be positive towards accuracy in the investigation rather than a religious aim which could be negative towards the investigation?

Can someone, anyone, explain to me why the "religious" types are so concerned about Gays, why people are gay, etc? There are just as many gay "religious" types (I know this for a fact, believe me) as there are in the greater society, so focus on curing them of their hypocracy, and leave me alone. I am gay, biological or choice, doesn't matter, but it sure doesn't feel like choice. I didn't wake up one morning and say "Well, I'm not black, I'm not jewish, I'm not a woman,how can I become a second class citizen and be discriminated against by everyone, oh, wait, I got it!" Do you really think anyone would chose to be the subject of scorn and hatred, and chose to live their adolesence worried about being beaten up and ridiculed? Explain that one, if you are going to go with choice. Do you think there are gays that didn't try to be straight? We all did, and couldn't. Explain that. As to conversions? Brain washing. Give them five minutes in the baths and they'll be sucking cock all over again. So, there are a few things here you need to explain, if we are going to buy the "choice" crap.

I'd like to find a gay person who truly considers it their own choice to be gay despite all the discrimination, hatred and prejuduce.

I'd like to find a gay person who one day 'decided' to be straight and miraculously changed.

I'd like to find a straight person who truly believes they could choose to be gay if they wanted to.

I'd like to see a straight person try to 'turn' gay.

I'd like to find someone who truly belives they can choose who they are attracted to and who they fall in love with.

Then I might believe it's a choice.

No real scientist would ever reject information based on the source. A real scientist observes information and compiles evidence and data to disprove or prove. You're just as biased as they are. Get out.

First: Not true. If, as a scientist, I am looking for information about gravity... and I find a source claiming that gravity is a myth... I would be, at the very least, wary about any 'information' I might gain from that source.

I might not AUTOMATICALLY write off the entire source, but I would be very careful about how much I relied on data I found there.

Second: If you encounter a source, and that source contradicts other sources - you have to balance the data. Since 'strictly religious' sites often have problems with even fundamentals of science - the 'balance' is LIKELY to suggest that information from that 'source' is worthy of more skepticism.

Declaring what is and isn't a sin is not interferance. A thief may be able to reconcilie his sin and justify it. That does not make it right. If a thief is unrepentent about his sin and actually believes it to be right then he opposes God.

So, now you presume to speak for god?

Had you REALLY read the bible, you would see that some things are sins SOMETIMES, but not at other times.

For example: divination from dreams.

Divination is expressly forbidden, in all it's forms... and yet - a certain Joseph makes a pretty good living from it, in the service of his 'god'.

If a thief is able to reconcile his crime with god, it is NO concern of yours.

Again - you chose to place your own opinions above the wisdom of god.

So, now you presume to speak for god?

Had you REALLY read the bible, you would see that some things are sins SOMETIMES, but not at other times.

For example: divination from dreams.

Divination is expressly forbidden, in all it's forms... and yet - a certain Joseph makes a pretty good living from it, in the service of his 'god'.

That is becasue GOD gave him that ability himself. Jospeh did not do it himself, God told him what to tell Pharoh. It wasn't Jospeh making up stuff from Pagan ideas about dreams.


If a thief is able to reconcile his crime with god, it is NO concern of yours.


You cannot be a practicing, proud of and unrepentant thieving Christian. You just cant. You cannot go around steeling from people, not try and do something about it and expect God to reward you. You cannot be proud of your sin and proud of your profficency at sinning and be unrepentant about it. That is not what being a Chrisitan means. If you can appologise to God sincerely and make a sincere attempt to no longer sin then yes I can understand but not if you are unrepentant. That is not how the Christian life works.

Actually if you read Genesis 2:24, it says "For this reason" saying that the reason marriage is the way it is is because of what happened in Eden. Also, Eden is the perfect model, and when they discoverd the knowledge of good and evil they did not find their union wrong so its not wrong either.

Ok thats possibley the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The word wife has never refered to a male partener in any relationship. It MEANS female partner in a marriage. It has never meant anything else.


Actually, Neo - the word used is "ishshah" - for which it could be argued the BEST translation is 'woman', and that translating it as 'wife' is a matter of convenience.

Thus - a man may have a woman... it is YOU that assumes that the word used means the SAME as modern definitions of the word 'wife'.

And - of course - nowhere does it say that the 'for this reason' part is suggesting a model for ALL people, everywhere.

Meh. All that was, was problematising heterosexism (by mormons!).

As any queer-theorist will tell you: Answer why people are straight, and you will answer why people are gay. It isn't homosexuality that needs answering - it's heterosexuality.

As a gay person I happen to know why I am gay (for the same reason a straight person is straight), that I have always been it, that I never chose it, and that I would never want to be straight.

There was a time (filled with shame instilled in me by evil people) I would have sold my soul for it, for the ability to change, and I am very well aware of the self-loathing that can make gay people convince themselves that they are straight, even though they can suck copious amounts of cock in back alleys adjacent to video clubs and then suppress it like some bad memory, so excuse me if you friend's story leaves me unconvinced.

people are heterosexual because that's the way they're supposed to be; it is good, it is right to be heterosexual, God made us that way so we could reproduce and enjoy sex. people are homosexual because they let themselves be; i bet there was some point in your life when u first felt homsexual urges, and instead of fighting them, embraced them. that was your decision. homosexuality is neither good, nor right, and accomplishes no purpose. I know u guys were looking for a non-religious discussion, but if u leave God out of it then you're not looking at all the facts. the Bible condemns homosexuality, it calls it perversion, you must "flee from sexual immorality, for all other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body". u guys probably think i'm nuts, stupid, blind, rude, unethical, intolerant, biased, and a host of other things, but i'm not. I speak the truth, the only thing you could possibly spit at me is that I'm a Jesus Freak, but that is not an insult, so go ahead.

people are heterosexual because that's the way they're supposed to be; it is good, it is right to be heterosexual, God made us that way so we could reproduce and enjoy sex. people are homosexual because they let themselves be; i bet there was some point in your life when u first felt homsexual urges, and instead of fighting them, embraced them. that was your decision. homosexuality is neither good, nor right, and accomplishes no purpose. I know u guys were looking for a non-religious discussion, but if u leave God out of it then you're not looking at all the facts. the Bible condemns homosexuality, it calls it perversion, you must "flee from sexual immorality, for all other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body". u guys probably think i'm nuts, stupid, blind, rude, unethical, intolerant, biased, and a host of other things, but i'm not. I speak the truth, the only thing you could possibly spit at me is that I'm a Jesus Freak, but that is not an insult, so go ahead.

Speaking as another Jesus Freak, I can say that your post is arrant nonsense. You need to put down the stones and stop throwing them.

That is becasue GOD gave him that ability himself. Jospeh did not do it himself, God told him what to tell Pharoh. It wasn't Jospeh making up stuff from Pagan ideas about dreams.


It clearly states in Genesis that 'god' created the means by which Pagans may divine... and even says that THAT was the purpose of, for example, the stars.

According to you, Neo - 'god' made all of us, with all of our abilities. Joseph was no different. If a Pagan can read the future in dreams, that is the same gift as if a Patriarch can read the future in dreams.

And, of course - I set equal store by both stories.


You cannot be a practicing, proud of and unrepentant thieving Christian.


For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


You just cant.


For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


You cannot go around steeling from people, not try and do something about it and expect God to reward you.


For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


You cannot be proud of your sin and proud of your profficency at sinning and be unrepentant about it.


For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


That is not what being a Chrisitan means.


For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


If you can appologise to God sincerely and make a sincere attempt to no longer sin then yes I can understand but not if you are unrepentant. That is not how the Christian life works.

For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


Personally, Neo. I'd rather take this up with 'god', then have you keep telling me 'how it is'. I do not trust you as my intermediary with 'god'.

I dismiss it not only because it's biased by a religious author, but I reject it for its heterosexism, its problematising, and for its downright erroneous claims. It for instance claims that heterosexuality is the most common ("dominant") sexuality among animals, which is simply not true.

ur an idiot. u reject the blatant truth he speaks just because he happens to be smart enuf to believe in God? if he spoke of religion or had allowed it to taint the research, then u'd be justified. but he doesnt and didnt; u really just don't want to accept it. if i said to u that a square has four sides, and u;d never seen a square before, would u disbelieve me just because i'm religious? THAT is the most biased thing on this forum. i don't disregard ur opinion just because ur not religious. i actually read, and then disregard because the information and reasoning is faulty. heterosexuallity IS the most common orientation in animals, and humans. if u want to discuss this, then let it be discussed.

It clearly states in Genesis that 'god' created the means by which Pagans may divine... and even says that THAT was the purpose of, for example, the stars.

According to you, Neo - 'god' made all of us, with all of our abilities. Joseph was no different. If a Pagan can read the future in dreams, that is the same gift as if a Patriarch can read the future in dreams.

And, of course - I set equal store by both stories.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


Personally, Neo. I'd rather take this up with 'god', then have you keep telling me 'how it is'. I do not trust you as my intermediary with 'god'.

How in the hell did this turn into a fricking Bible debate? GAHHHH!!!! :mad:

It clearly states in Genesis that 'god' created the means by which Pagans may divine... and even says that THAT was the purpose of, for example, the stars.

According to you, Neo - 'god' made all of us, with all of our abilities. Joseph was no different. If a Pagan can read the future in dreams, that is the same gift as if a Patriarch can read the future in dreams.

And, of course - I set equal store by both stories.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


Personally, Neo. I'd rather take this up with 'god', then have you keep telling me 'how it is'. I do not trust you as my intermediary with 'god'.

ouch. that was really crass. God is God, give Him the respect He deserves. chances are from ur attitude that you're not willing to listen to God, and when u don't listen, He doesn't speak. He also has a rather anoying habit of speaking thru others. i don't mean to take sides, but Neo seems to have been set up as God's mouth to u for now. I'd also like to mentiont that evrything Neo said that u quoted is true.

Longest. First Post. Ever.

You must have missed Keruvalia's classic "Questions for Christians" escapade... :)

ouch. that was really crass. God is God, give Him the respect He deserves. chances are from ur attitude that you're not willing to listen to God, and when u don't listen, He doesn't speak. He also has a rather anoying habit of speaking thru others. i don't mean to take sides, but Neo seems to have been set up as God's mouth to u for now. I'd also like to mentiont that evrything Neo said that u quoted is true.

True according to whom exactly?

Keep in mind that "fact" does not necessarily equal "truth".

Speaking as another Jesus Freak, I can say that your post is arrant nonsense. You need to put down the stones and stop throwing them.

could u go more in-depth as to in what way my post is nonsense please? sorry if i seem to be throwing stones, that's not my intention. i haven't slept much in the last several days, and my friend just tried to convince me that u can go to heaven without believing Jesus even exists, so i'm in a rather fowl mood.

It clearly states in Genesis that 'god' created the means by which Pagans may divine... and even says that THAT was the purpose of, for example, the stars.

According to you, Neo - 'god' made all of us, with all of our abilities. Joseph was no different. If a Pagan can read the future in dreams, that is the same gift as if a Patriarch can read the future in dreams.

And, of course - I set equal store by both stories.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.



For such is the Word of Neo Cannen. Repent, ye sinners, for Neo Cannen has spoken.


Personally, Neo. I'd rather take this up with 'god', then have you keep telling me 'how it is'. I do not trust you as my intermediary with 'god'.

Firstly, very matture on the personal insults there. Secondly, if you can reconsile the Bible to support the idea that God accepts unrepentance then perhaps I will listen to you. As far as I can see it God has only ever asked for a very small number of things from us. That we accept we are wrong, that we apologise sincerely to him for being wrong, that we accept that the way he has our lives planned for us is better than us going our way and that we try and live that way. The Bible has never said anything otherwise so stop pretending like its me saying this out of my own authority.

ouch. that was really crass. God is God, give Him the respect He deserves. chances are from ur attitude that you're not willing to listen to God, and when u don't listen, He doesn't speak. He also has a rather anoying habit of speaking thru others. i don't mean to take sides, but Neo seems to have been set up as God's mouth to u for now. I'd also like to mentiont that evrything Neo said that u quoted is true.

Not really crass.

I do not accept Neo as a prophet, and certainly not as my messiah.

I will not have him preach to me about 'what christianity is' or 'what god means', because I do not value HIS interpretations.

You are welcome to approve of Neo, if you like.

Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..."

I do not accept a self-elected teacher. I think Neo needs one to teach him again the 'first principles'.

Second Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies..."

You can chose to 'follow' Neo's path to heresy, if you chose. I prefer the teachings of Jesus, to the teachings of mundane men.

I see... so all you who claim that homosexuality is a choice must have chosen to be straight despite your attraction to the same sex?

You can chose to 'follow' Neo's path to heresy, if you chose. I prefer the teachings of Jesus, to the teachings of mundane men.

I am sorry but how does the notion of needing to repent to be a Christian and not being arrogent about yourself towards God in believeing that your sins do not need repenting for count as heresy? If you can find any teaching of Jesus to support that which isnt taken way out of context I would be impressed.

Wow! This has to be the most extensive and unbiased piece of analysis I have ever read on this subject! Way to go!

I am gay myself - well, at least for the time being.
From a purely logical point of view, gender should make no difference to me. But I have found out that my feelings towards women appear to be fundamentally different from the feelings of straight guys. I do fancy a girl from time to time. But rather than feeling a sexual desire for her, I usually end up safeguarding her in some way - somewhat like a brother - trying to look after her and shield her from undue advances from other men.

I will do pretty much anything for her - but I have no desire to have sex with her. The thought simply never crosses my mind. A matter of choice, conscious or not? I don't know, but I still curse myself for not wanting her that way.

Okay, enough. Confession time is over..

Can someone, anyone, explain to me why the "religious" types are so concerned about Gays, why people are gay, etc? There are just as many gay "religious" types (I know this for a fact, believe me) as there are in the greater society, so focus on curing them of their hypocracy, and leave me alone. I am gay, biological or choice, doesn't matter, but it sure doesn't feel like choice. I didn't wake up one morning and say "Well, I'm not black, I'm not jewish, I'm not a woman,how can I become a second class citizen and be discriminated against by everyone, oh, wait, I got it!" Do you really think anyone would chose to be the subject of scorn and hatred, and chose to live their adolesence worried about being beaten up and ridiculed? Explain that one, if you are going to go with choice. Do you think there are gays that didn't try to be straight? We all did, and couldn't. Explain that. As to conversions? Brain washing. Give them five minutes in the baths and they'll be sucking cock all over again. So, there are a few things here you need to explain, if we are going to buy the "choice" crap.
i've never heard of gays in the church, but i'll take ur word for it. i can't explain why someone would choose to be ridiculed, but i can say that u did choose. we're not made gay. the first time u had gay urges, u faced a choice. u could fight them, or embrace them. it is impossible to successfully fight them without God, and as u seem unreligious, i bet that's why u fell. ask God for help, and i promise u that if u really try, and really believe, u will succeed.

Firstly, very matture on the personal insults there. Secondly, if you can reconsile the Bible to support the idea that God accepts unrepentance then perhaps I will listen to you. As far as I can see it God has only ever asked for a very small number of things from us. That we accept we are wrong, that we apologise sincerely to him for being wrong, that we accept that the way he has our lives planned for us is better than us going our way and that we try and live that way. The Bible has never said anything otherwise so stop pretending like its me saying this out of my own authority.

Not an insult, Neo.

You continue to set forth your opinions as though they were facts. Further, you continue to set forth your opinions as thought they were scripture.

I do not consider your opinion to be equal automatically to fact. I do not consider your opinion to be as valid as scripture.

If ALL you have is opinion... still largely unsupported, then don't be surprised if someone takes exception to you assertion of 'factuality'.

I'm sorry you don't like it, Neo... but I do not hold YOU up as an example of what 'Christians' should be. You'll have to learn to live with that, just as I will.

i've never heard of gays in the church, but i'll take ur word for it. i can't explain why someone would choose to be ridiculed, but i can say that u did choose. we're not made gay. the first time u had gay urges, u faced a choice. u could fight them, or embrace them. it is impossible to successfully fight them without God, and as u seem unreligious, i bet that's why u fell. ask God for help, and i promise u that if u really try, and really believe, u will succeed.

I think my IQ dropped about 50 points just reading that.

I am sorry but how does the notion of needing to repent to be a Christian and not being arrogent about yourself towards God in believeing that your sins do not need repenting for count as heresy? If you can find any teaching of Jesus to support that which isnt taken way out of context I would be impressed.

I believe you peddle a corrupt version of christianity, Neo.

I think you have an 'organised' faith, which has blinded you to the teachings of christ.

You have to accept that you think MY religious views are flawed, and I have to accept the same about you.

i've never heard of gays in the church, but i'll take ur word for it. i can't explain why someone would choose to be ridiculed, but i can say that u did choose. we're not made gay. the first time u had gay urges, u faced a choice. u could fight them, or embrace them.

So - are you admitting here that YOU had 'gay' urges?

And that you chose to fight them?

I believe you peddle a corrupt version of christianity, Neo.

I think you have an 'organised' faith, which has blinded you to the teachings of christ.

You have to accept that you think MY religious views are flawed, and I have to accept the same about you.

Could you explain exactly what it is you mean, I am not sure I understand this idea of an "organised faith" I seem to have.

Not really crass.

I do not accept Neo as a prophet, and certainly not as my messiah.

I will not have him preach to me about 'what christianity is' or 'what god means', because I do not value HIS interpretations.

You are welcome to approve of Neo, if you like.

Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..."

I do not accept a self-elected teacher. I think Neo needs one to teach him again the 'first principles'.

Second Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies..."

You can chose to 'follow' Neo's path to heresy, if you chose. I prefer the teachings of Jesus, to the teachings of mundane men.

i stated neither that Neo was a prophet nor that he was ur messiah. i know those verses, but i do not think Neo is a "false prophet". he is not even pretending to be a prophet. please point out the differences between neo's words and Jesus' teachings. Matthew 23:34 "Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. ". i am not saying this is what u are doing, just that i'd be careful incase it is.

Not an insult, Neo.

You continue to set forth your opinions as though they were facts. Further, you continue to set forth your opinions as thought they were scripture.

I do not consider your opinion to be equal automatically to fact. I do not consider your opinion to be as valid as scripture.

If ALL you have is opinion... still largely unsupported, then don't be surprised if someone takes exception to you assertion of 'factuality'.

I'm sorry you don't like it, Neo... but I do not hold YOU up as an example of what 'Christians' should be. You'll have to learn to live with that, just as I will.

It IS scripitual fact that God will not accpept people who are un-repentent about their sin. There is no question there. I dont consider my opinions as valid as scripture. However, my opinions and beliefs are BASED ON scripture. Thats where you seem to have a misconception.

Could you explain exactly what it is you mean, I am not sure I understand this idea of an "organised faith" I seem to have.

All I can say, Neo - is that you should look to scripture.

It is not my job to help you develop a personal relationship with 'god'... that job vacancy was already filled twenty centuries ago.

I urge you to re-read Jesus' teachings, and then decide how you reconcile what you call 'church' with what Jesus preached.

So - are you admitting here that YOU had 'gay' urges?

And that you chose to fight them?
i am, and i did. i fought them on my own for about a week, and failed miserably. then i prayed sincerely for the aid of Christ, and have never been troubled since.

I think my IQ dropped about 50 points just reading that.

lol, sry 'bout that, but i never bother to use proper grammar or spelling on the internet. a habit msn has developed.

It IS scripitual fact that God will not accpept people who are un-repentent about their sin. There is no question there. I dont consider my opinions as valid as scripture. However, my opinions and beliefs are BASED ON scripture. Thats where you seem to have a misconception.

Enoch was never described as being repentant, was he?

See, here we run into problems again... "There is no question there". You state it as fact, but it clearly is NOTHING more than opinion.

'Your' 'opinions' and 'beliefs' are based on the version of scripture you were taught, my friend.

I have yet to see evidence you have ANY independent thoughts on scripture, other than what you were coached to repeat.

i am, and i did. i fought them on my own for about a week, and failed miserably. then i prayed sincerely for the aid of Christ, and have never been troubled since.

just please dont ever become a priest or get a job where you work with young children because who knows where your repressed sexual urges may lead you.

All I can say, Neo - is that you should look to scripture.

It is not my job to help you develop a personal relationship with 'god'... that job vacancy was already filled twenty centuries ago.

I urge you to re-read Jesus' teachings, and then decide how you reconcile what you call 'church' with what Jesus preached.
i'm sorry, but i'm still waiting for anything more concrete than a simple "ur wrong, that's not what Jesus says, u should read the Bible". could u please explain what neo has said that is incorrect? that Jesus disagrees with?

i am, and i did. i fought them on my own for about a week, and failed miserably. then i prayed sincerely for the aid of Christ, and have never been troubled since.

And yet - you did not CHOOSE to FEEL those urges, did you?

They happened, and you couldn't fight them, until you sought spiritual aid.

So - you WERE made gay... you were built with that as part of you. And you had to CHOOSE to repress that side of you.

I will pray for you, that one day, you learn to accept how 'god' made you.

just please dont ever become a priest or get a job where you work with young children because who knows where your repressed sexual urges may lead you.
lol, but they're not just repressed. they're actually no longer there. i can say this partly thru faith in Christ, and partly because since that day the only people i have ever found attractive have all been women.

lol, sry 'bout that, but i never bother to use proper grammar or spelling on the internet. a habit msn has developed.
Actually, it was the content not the dressing.

And yet - you did not CHOOSE to FEEL those urges, did you?

They happened, and you couldn't fight them, until you sought spiritual aid.

So - you WERE made gay... you were built with that as part of you. And you had to CHOOSE to repress that side of you.

I will pray for you, that one day, you learn to accept how 'god' made you.
tru, i did not choose to feel those urges, but neither was i made that way. all urges to sin are the devil tempting us. the only part of this that is part of me is the capacity to sin, which is part of all people. the devil just takes advantage of that. the main way he does this is by tricking us into believing it's not wrong to sin. for example, thoughts during my "urges" didn't run like "wow, he's hot, i'd like to screw him". they ran more like "there haven't been any women around for days, he looks kinda like a chick, if u think about it it's not really that different...don't worry, Jesus will forgive u, right?"

Actually, it was the content not the dressing.

and which part of the content? the fact that i believe God exists, or the fact that i believe the Bible to be His Word? or something else?

i'm sorry, but i'm still waiting for anything more concrete than a simple "ur wrong, that's not what Jesus says, u should read the Bible". could u please explain what neo has said that is incorrect? that Jesus disagrees with?

I can't even begin to list the things that are wrong with Neo, as with most modern 'christians'.... with their belief that you can be 'born' christian, because your parents are... or that you can be christian because you go to church... or that a preacher should tell you what scripture 'means'.

Anyone who desn't live the Christlike life, is not a True Christian... they are just a follower of a church constructed in Jesus' name.

I can't even begin to list the things that are wrong with Neo, as with most modern 'christians'.... with their belief that you can be 'born' christian, because your parents are... or that you can be christian because you go to church... or that a preacher should tell you what scripture 'means'.

Anyone who desn't live the Christlike life, is not a True Christian... they are just a follower of a church constructed in Jesus' name.
alright, i agree with that, but what's the difference between what neo actually said and what is true?

tru, i did not choose to feel those urges, but neither was i made that way. all urges to sin are the devil tempting us. the only part of this that is part of me is the capacity to sin, which is part of all people. the devil just takes advantage of that. the main way he does this is by tricking us into believing it's not wrong to sin. for example, thoughts during my "urges" didn't run like "wow, he's hot, i'd like to screw him". they ran more like "there haven't been any women around for days, he looks kinda like a chick, if u think about it it's not really that different...don't worry, Jesus will forgive u, right?"

Prove it.

I assume you have written testimony from 'satan', where he admits he tempted you by implanting false feelings inside you?

No?

"All urges to sin are the devil tempting us"? Sounds like a cop-out excuse to me... you are implying we have no free will, that we could ONLY do good, but for the outside attentions of some phantom being?

You felt urges - which you fought. The fact that your flesh could feel those urges, is a weakness of the flesh, perhaps. Do you not unsderstand that (even if you ACCEPT the Evil Tempter vision of Satan), we can only be tempted to do that which would appeal?

So - your flesh (an artifact, I'm sure you believe) of divine construction, has an inbuilt weakness that lends it towards such 'sin' as lust, or homosexuality.

Thus - you WERE made with 'gay' urges.... even if you believe that the 'devil' made them seem more rational.

I have yet to see evidence you have ANY independent thoughts on scripture, other than what you were coached to repeat.

"repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47)

Dead in sin = "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (Ephesians 2:1)

Alive in Christ = "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:5)

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32)

"John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus" (Acts 19:4)

"But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." (Romans 2:5)

The Bible makes it clear, you cannot be a Christian if you refuse to repent. You can be a sinner and a Christian, but not an unrepentant sinner. You cannot sin and not care about it or do nothing about your need to sin.

I can't even begin to list the things that are wrong with Neo, as with most modern 'christians'.... with their belief that you can be 'born' christian, because your parents are... or that you can be christian because you go to church... or that a preacher should tell you what scripture 'means'.

Anyone who desn't live the Christlike life, is not a True Christian... they are just a follower of a church constructed in Jesus' name.

I have never said that you can be "born" a Christian or that to be a Christian you need to go to chuch. I beleive that a Christian background is extremely helpful to your life spiritually and that Chrch is an extremely helpful institution in many places, but I do not believe either of these things are nessecary.

alright, i agree with that, but what's the difference between what neo actually said and what is true?

The problem is, that Neo set's himself up as an advocate.

He states everything in concrete terms, based upon his opinion.

Thus - he says it is 'impossible' to be an unrepentant sinner and still be accepted into the kingdom of heaven... and yet, he ignores repeated biblical references that show sin, in the patriarchal line. David was hardly free of sin, nor Solomon. Lot was a 'good man', yet had some questionable practices. Noah was an alcoholic - and, some claim that he was also a homosexual pedophile.

Neo tries to set up hard and fast rules about what god 'means'... but I argue that his contentions are flawed - because he is arguing what the CHURCH teaches, not what was in the word of Jesus.

Many people may hat me for saying this, I dont mean to offened but it is an offencive question. What purpose do gays actually serve, the things i can think of are cause huge debates and problems, and design stuff like clothes(not bad at all either)... but reall what do they help. Hetrosexuals bring children into the world one of the biggest parts of science is to reproduce. As far as i noe almost every livng organism can reproduce, but can gays?
Im willing to hear suggestions?

Thus - he says it is 'impossible' to be an unrepentant sinner and still be accepted into the kingdom of heaven... and yet, he ignores repeated biblical references that show sin, in the patriarchal line. David was hardly free of sin, nor Solomon. Lot was a 'good man', yet had some questionable practices. Noah was an alcoholic - and, some claim that he was also a homosexual pedophile.

Sin is indeed present in all these charachters but none of them got cross with God and say "Who are you to tell me how to live my life. Maybe I want to sin. Why should my sin not be considered part of my identity. Why should I have to repent" etc. I have never dismissed the fact that Biblical figures are riddled with flaws. Of course. David was an adulter, Noah was a drunk, I agree, the Bible shows that to be true. However its how these people react to sin. None of them are defiant in Gods face, and those that are are shown the error of ther ways. The ones who arent flawed though are the key. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt.

Here's the million dollar question: Why does it seem like there are more and more queers around here, on NS, and in RL these days?
Here's the real million dollar question: Why do you care?

Why does anyone care? Why does it matter? If it's a choice that doesn't make a difference. You need to let people live their own lives in the manner of their choosing so long as they aren't hurting anyone. If it's not a choice it's not a choice, but neither you nor anyone else has any business condemning it either way. Just leave us alone. Fix your scrutiny elsewhere. We aren't asking for anything that isn't given as a matter of due course to everyone else.

"repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47)

Dead in sin = "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (Ephesians 2:1)

Alive in Christ = "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:5)

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32)

"John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus" (Acts 19:4)

"But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." (Romans 2:5)

The Bible makes it clear, you cannot be a Christian if you refuse to repent. You can be a sinner and a Christian, but not an unrepentant sinner. You cannot sin and not care about it or do nothing about your need to sin.

First Peter 4:18-19 "...where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?...Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator...".

Worth noting that "Pascho" is translated as 'suffer', but merely MEANS 'to be affected'.

So - "where shall the sinner appear"? "Let them that are affected according to the will of god, commit the keeping of their souls to him..."

Repentence is not 'necessary'... it is entrusting yourself into the hands of your creator that is the NECESSARY step.

Prove it.

I assume you have written testimony from 'satan', where he admits he tempted you by implanting false feelings inside you?

No?

"All urges to sin are the devil tempting us"? Sounds like a cop-out excuse to me... you are implying we have no free will, that we could ONLY do good, but for the outside attentions of some phantom being?

You felt urges - which you fought. The fact that your flesh could feel those urges, is a weakness of the flesh, perhaps. Do you not unsderstand that (even if you ACCEPT the Evil Tempter vision of Satan), we can only be tempted to do that which would appeal?

So - your flesh (an artifact, I'm sure you believe) of divine construction, has an inbuilt weakness that lends it towards such 'sin' as lust, or homosexuality.

Thus - you WERE made with 'gay' urges.... even if you believe that the 'devil' made them seem more rational.

no, but i have written testimony from God warning me that the devil will do that. i can't remember the verse, so it'll take me a while to find, but it's in Hebrews/1st or 2nd Peter

not that we could ONLY do good, but that it would never occur to us to do evil. yes, i suppose i am. the initial sin, adam and eve eating the fruit, was caused by satan tempting them. without that initial sin, we would never sin.
not that we have no free will, just that we are inherently good beings.

yes, that's why satan cloaks things in good feelings. he shows the short term (immediate gratification) and hides the long term (emotional and physical trauma, seperation from God). u could think of it as a weakness, but it's more, to me at least, simply the capacity to sin.

the "weakness" does not lean it towards the sin, but rather allows it to be pushed.

i was not made with gay urges, but rather with the capacity to suffer them. and the question is not "is the abillity to be gay a choice or is it pre-determined?", but rather "is becoming gay a choice or is it pre-determined?". so u see, the choice to become gay is the choice to give in. u can go either way, and so we are not made gay

Many people may hat me for saying this, I dont mean to offened but it is an offencive question. What purpose do gays actually serve, the things i can think of are cause huge debates and problems, and design stuff like clothes(not bad at all either)... but reall what do they help. Hetrosexuals bring children into the world one of the biggest parts of science is to reproduce. As far as i noe almost every livng organism can reproduce, but can gays?
Im willing to hear suggestions?

Read the thread, my friend.

I REALLY hope your questions are in earnest...

Yes - homosexuals CAN reproduce... they just might not enjoy the 'mechanism' required.

Also - homosexual guardians to the offspring of heterosexual unions would greatly increase the chances of those offspring surviving.

So - heterosexuals may MAKE more babies... but homosexuals may be key in those babies surviving into adulthood.

Repentence is not 'necessary'... it is entrusting yourself into the hands of your creator that is the NECESSARY step.

"entrusting yourself into the hands of your creator" does not mean 'I dont need to do anything, God will do whatever he wants with me. I'll just lay around'. The section you quote comes from a section about not being supprised when you are perescuted becasue of being a Christian. I hardly think this is relevent. I am talking about peoples attitude towards sin. You cannot hold an attiude that sin doesnt matter and that a particular sin can be ignored. You cant just say "Ah but God's forgiven me for all my sin so it doesnt matter if I do X, Y and Z". Thats not how it works. You have to be dead to sin and make sincere efforts to stop sinning and when you do sin you should be aware of it and geinunely regretful of it and not wanting to do it again.

Sin is indeed present in all these charachters but none of them got cross with God and say "Who are you to tell me how to live my life. Maybe I want to sin. Why should my sin not be considered part of my identity. Why should I have to repent" etc. I have never dismissed the fact that Biblical figures are riddled with flaws. Of course. David was an adulter, Noah was a drunk, I agree, the Bible shows that to be true. However its how these people react to sin. None of them are defiant in Gods face, and those that are are shown the error of ther ways. The ones who arent flawed though are the key. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt.

Jesus was flawed. He was human.

Being human, means being flesh, and flesh is corrupt... it feeds on the flesh and the dirt, and it returns it's wastes to the earth. It is shown very clearly that Jesus was human - so his body was as human as anyone else... thus.. he FELT lust, even if he didn't act on it (hence, his testimony that those who COULD be eunuchs would be lucky to be so).

Jesus was born to die, as all flesh is - and that is also (according to christian mythology) an accounting for sin.

Personally - I don't recall any signs of repentence on the face of Lot, after fathering children by both of his daughters.

Conversely, I do recall descriptions of the repentance of Judas...

You are implying bias implies flaw. It doesnt. It implies that people research a particular area but if it is scienctificly carried out then bias does not matter. And if this study is incorrect then you should be able to point out its inconsistanties.

Bias does not imply flaw. But it does lead to the possibility that the researchers skewed data or sinmply lied. That is why I have asked for work from a peer reviewed process. Obvously it can't be provided or you would have done so and made me shut my mouth. Instead, people who obviously know nothing about scientific research are trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't accept!

And for the last time, its not that the authors might have a bias its that there was no peer review.

Read the thread, my friend.

I REALLY hope your questions are in earnest...

Yes - homosexuals CAN reproduce... they just might not enjoy the 'mechanism' required.

Also - homosexual guardians to the offspring of heterosexual unions would greatly increase the chances of those offspring surviving.

So - heterosexuals may MAKE more babies... but homosexuals may be key in those babies surviving into adulthood.

I accept that some homosexuals are much better parents then heterosexual parents. This can cause probelms for there children because many homosexual couples arent always very good either and they are more likely to break up and unless you live here in Ontrario they cant get married(maybe some other places) so they are even more likely to break up because there is no commitment. What happens if a girl has two days, that could get really wierd. Rosie O Donald once said on a talk show that her daughter said to her why do i have to moomies why cant i have a daddie like (almost) every one else.

I also know they can reporduce unnatural but thats unnatural.

You only looked at one of the sources? Damn, thats pretty juvenile. He used www.newscientists.com as well, and others. But of course, you ignored that. Instead you decided that the Mormons must just hate you. Well done.


What a pathetic way to try and invalidate facts. Get over yourself. Argue back, or cry, or whatever, but if you can't prove the source wrong then you can't criticize it.

Actually I didn't see any other source at the time. I'll hae to look over it again.

Declaring what is and isn't a sin is not interferance. A thief may be able to reconcilie his sin and justify it. That does not make it right. If a thief is unrepentent about his sin and actually believes it to be right then he opposes God.

But punishing people for their sin (not allowing them to "sin" if they so choose) is intereference. You are basically trying to take people's free will away.

Jesus was born to die, as all flesh is - and that is also (according to christian mythology) an accounting for sin.


It is the wage of Adam and Eve's original sin that causes physical death. Cutting us off from the fruit of life. Sin of you own life leads to spirtual death if you still have it with you at death. Which is why Jesus died, so that our sins can be removed


Personally - I don't recall any signs of repentence on the face of Lot, after fathering children by both of his daughters.

Conversely, I do recall descriptions of the repentance of Judas...

Judas was, it can be argued a Christian. He made some pretty big mistakes but those can be redeamed through repentence. However he took his repentance to too far an extreme. And with regard to Lot, it was his daughters who got him drunk and slept with him, not him sleeping with them.

"entrusting yourself into the hands of your creator" does not mean 'I dont need to do anything, God will do whatever he wants with me. I'll just lay around'. The section you quote comes from a section about not being supprised when you are perescuted becasue of being a Christian. I hardly think this is relevent. I am talking about peoples attitude towards sin. You cannot hold an attiude that sin doesnt matter and that a particular sin can be ignored. You cant just say "Ah but God's forgiven me for all my sin so it doesnt matter if I do X, Y and Z". Thats not how it works. You have to be dead to sin and make sincere efforts to stop sinning and when you do sin you should be aware of it and geinunely regretful of it and not wanting to do it again.

Wrong on two counts, friend.

You are right that my 'quote' comes from a section about persecution of Christians - but THAT part is about sinners. "If the true believer is only barely saved... what does that say about the sinner"... to paraphrase.

And - the response - is for the sinner to throw themselves upon the mercies of a loving god.

Second count - actually - it does work EXACTLY that way.... John 10:27-28 "...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me... And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand".

It's the old Baptist story of "Once Saved, Always Saved".

Once Jesus has accepted you... according to John 10:28, you can then happily fornicate and debauch as much as you please..

But punishing people for their sin (not allowing them to "sin" if they so choose) is intereference. You are basically trying to take people's free will away.

I did not advocate punishment of homosexuals for there behavior. I simpley said its a sin. I can say that and believe it and I dont have to do anything towards Gay people. Its Gods place to punish sinners not me.

I did not advocate punishment of homosexuals for there behavior. I simpley said its a sin. I can say that and believe it and I dont have to do anything towards Gay people. Its Gods place to punish sinners not me.

Have you not advocated or at least explain the advocation the banning of gay marriages?

It's the old Baptist story of "Once Saved, Always Saved".

Once Jesus has accepted you... according to John 10:28, you can then happily fornicate and debauch as much as you please..

Erm, no you cant. The New Testement makes that clear

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

(Romans 6: 1-2)

If you are not making a sincere effort to life a Christlike life and you are ignoring it when you sin and dont do anything about it then you are not behaving as a Christians should. Christians should not behave on the basis that "Oh its ok, God has saved me completely allready so I dont need to worry". You need to actively lead a Christlike life.

Have you not advocated or at least explain the advocation the banning of gay marriages?

Thats diffrent. My reasoning behind that is not a punishment for sin, but non glorification of sin. I beleieve that Homosexual sex is a sin. Therefore marriage of a homosexual nature is simpley glorifiying that sin, basicly saying "here we are, celerbrating our sin in the world because the governement says its ok". I dont believe its right to have sin glorified. Its akin to giving murders their own special city where they can go kill pepole with diplomatic immunity.

And - the response - is for the sinner to throw themselves upon the mercies of a loving god.


If you throw yourself on God's mercy, what that means is saying to him something to the effect of

"God I know I am a sinner and that I am nothing compared to you. I have no rightiousness whatsoever and I am undeserving of your salvation. But I plead with you please may you save a poor sinner like me"

You dont go to God with an attiude that is arrogent saying

"God, I'm a great guy/girl. I dont sin and I work hard so I think you should accpept me"

No one can claim not to sin and no one can claim any kind of deserving for Gods salvation. The only thing that made us worthy of saving is Jesus.

You know what Neo, I believe you're wrong. I can't prove it, hell I don't have the mental capacity right now to understand it all. You actually make my head ache (and that is intended as something akin to a compliment).

All I know (and yes this is my opinion) is that if there is a god, I doubt he cares if I am gay and is probably more concerned with whether or not I help others and try to live a good life. I also know that for this country (and yes here I am talking about the USA) to live up to the ideals to which it was founded and to which the constitution has ever protected, then gays have to achieve equal civil rights.

You can argue that however you want, but that's the way it is for me. As far as convincing you, I lead you to G_n_I's tender minstrations.

I accept that some homosexuals are much better parents then heterosexual parents. This can cause probelms for there children because many homosexual couples arent always very good either and they are more likely to break up and unless you live here in Ontrario they cant get married(maybe some other places) so they are even more likely to break up because there is no commitment. What happens if a girl has two days, that could get really wierd. Rosie O Donald once said on a talk show that her daughter said to her why do i have to moomies why cant i have a daddie like (almost) every one else.

I also know they can reporduce unnatural but thats unnatural.

I don't necessarily think that sexuality has ANY effect on parenting ability... what I have noticed is that 'extended families' are actually very secure places to raise children.

So - a 'straight' couple, with 'gay' friends living in the same house, for example - would be providing FOUR parents instead of two - and TWO of the parents would likely have no children of their own to compete.

Who on earth told you that gay couples are less stable than straight? Why do you think so many 'gay' couples WANT the right to marry? They ARE commited... I personally know several 'gay' couples, right up into their 'silver' years. On the other hand, I watch every day as the so-called 'sanctity of marriage' is made into a joke, by enforced marriages, by celebrity 24-hour marriages, by drive-through weddings...

Personally - as someone who had to relocate 4000 miles to marry my girl, I think I can testify that a relationship which has to overcome obstacles is STRONGER than an 'easy' or 'approved' relationship.

I did not advocate punishment of homosexuals for there behavior. I simpley said its a sin. I can say that and believe it and I dont have to do anything towards Gay people. Its Gods place to punish sinners not me.

And, I have argued, and still maintain - that it is LUST which is the sin... not the vectors of that lust.

Man on man, girl on girl, or boys and girls together... it is the LUST that is the sin.

You choose to believe that Jesus specifically decried homosexuality as a sin... I think not.

Therefore, to my view - you are waging a war on homosexuals with no scriptural backing.

By calling them sinners, (whether or not they sin in their orientation) you are somehow seperating THEIR lust from your lust, thus you ARE treating them differently... thus you ARE judging them.

Well if he says so it must be so.......

Actually, you are wrong. Regardless of the source, a professional will still evaluate the information. Sometimes you find a diamond in the rough. You would have known that if you had ever done research outside the lab. All you have to do is test their hypothesis, or check the facts they used and how they used them. You have done neither. Thus, you cannot ague against the source, because you haven't bothered to read what they said and evaluate it.
So far, so reasonable. At this point, I was going to write a reasoned response, though I was wary of taking things too far off-topic. Then I read ....

In other words, don't be an arrogant prick.
And I thought, "Oh sod it. Who cares?"

Good luck with your ongoing attempts to persuade people to your point of view.

It is the wage of Adam and Eve's original sin that causes physical death. Cutting us off from the fruit of life. Sin of you own life leads to spirtual death if you still have it with you at death. Which is why Jesus died, so that our sins can be removed


I disagree.

I think that Jesus died 'because' they beat the tar out of him, then nailed him to a cross, where he slowly bled, and strangled to death.

Or - do you believe he CHOSE to die?

Okay - so Jesus sins on the cross, by suiciding.


Judas was, it can be argued a Christian. He made some pretty big mistakes but those can be redeamed through repentence. However he took his repentance to too far an extreme. And with regard to Lot, it was his daughters who got him drunk and slept with him, not him sleeping with them.

How did he take his repentence too far? One version of the Gospels says he suicided... but I seem to recall it says elsewhere that he was murdered.

Regarding Lot - I have heard some pathetic excuses in my time, but I personally don't buy the 'my daughters got me drunk, then slept with me' story.

Maybe it's just MY hang-up... but I don't have sex with people just because I've had a drink.

Erm, no you cant. The New Testement makes that clear


Curious - are you arguing that John 10:28 is NOT in the New Testament?

Thats diffrent. My reasoning behind that is not a punishment for sin, but non glorification of sin. I beleieve that Homosexual sex is a sin. Therefore marriage of a homosexual nature is simpley glorifiying that sin, basicly saying "here we are, celerbrating our sin in the world because the governement says its ok". I dont believe its right to have sin glorified. Its akin to giving murders their own special city where they can go kill pepole with diplomatic immunity.

You make me laugh, Neo.

Have you still not finished reading the bible?

The Old Testament DID set up cities which granted 'diplomatic immunity' for murder.

But - that aside... do you honestly view marraige as nothing more than a "Glorification of sex"?

I feel very sad for you, if you do.

If 'straight' marriage is more than just a 'glorification of sex', why can you NOT accept the same for 'gay' marriage?

My guess would be hypocrisy.

I disagree.

I think that Jesus died 'because' they beat the tar out of him, then nailed him to a cross, where he slowly bled, and strangled to death..

Thats HOW Jesus died, not the puropose behind his death.


Or - do you believe he CHOSE to die?

Okay - so Jesus sins on the cross, by suiciding.

No, he knew he was going to die but that does not mean that he did it himself. He knew he was going to die but he himself did not put himself on the cross. And on a gramatical point, suiciding is not a word. You commit suicide.


Regarding Lot - I have heard some pathetic excuses in my time, but I personally don't buy the 'my daughters got me drunk, then slept with me' story.

Maybe it's just MY hang-up... but I don't have sex with people just because I've had a drink.

Its called "date rape". And thats what the Bible describes as happening towards the end of Genesis 19.

If you throw yourself on God's mercy, what that means is saying to him something to the effect of

"God I know I am a sinner and that I am nothing compared to you. I have no rightiousness whatsoever and I am undeserving of your salvation. But I plead with you please may you save a poor sinner like me"

You dont go to God with an attiude that is arrogent saying

"God, I'm a great guy/girl. I dont sin and I work hard so I think you should accpept me"

No one can claim not to sin and no one can claim any kind of deserving for Gods salvation. The only thing that made us worthy of saving is Jesus.

Actually - I can claim not to sin. And, you have no way to prove that I DO sin... you are letting your bias get the better of you.

You approach 'god' in your way, and leave everyone else to find 'god' on their own terms. That was what Jesus preached.

You make me laugh, Neo.

Have you still not finished reading the bible?

The Old Testament DID set up cities which granted 'diplomatic immunity' for murder.

But - that aside... do you honestly view marraige as nothing more than a "Glorification of sex"?

I feel very sad for you, if you do.

If 'straight' marriage is more than just a 'glorification of sex', why can you NOT accept the same for 'gay' marriage?

My guess would be hypocrisy.

Marriage is an instiution set up by God with many purposes and designs. The creation of families is one, the rearing of children and others. One of the primary points of it however is that it is only within marriage that sex is accpetable. Homosexuality as a sin in mind, creating a special ceremony and legal standing for it is a glorification of that sin. Hetrosexual sex is not a sin, the same is not true of homosexuals. Marriage is never described in the Bible as being for anyone else except men and women. Homosexaulity existed in Biblical times, of that there is no doubt but it is never sacntioned by marriage. By creating a legal regocnition of it you are basicly saying that it is the equal of hetrosexual relations. By Biblical standards it isnt.

And, I have argued, and still maintain - that it is LUST which is the sin... not the vectors of that lust.

Man on man, girl on girl, or boys and girls together... it is the LUST that is the sin.

You choose to believe that Jesus specifically decried homosexuality as a sin... I think not.

Therefore, to my view - you are waging a war on homosexuals with no scriptural backing.

By calling them sinners, (whether or not they sin in their orientation) you are somehow seperating THEIR lust from your lust, thus you ARE treating them differently... thus you ARE judging them.

Lust I agree is a sin in all cases. And I have explained this to you already, sex, regardless of type is forbidden outside of marriage according to the Bible. Since also according to the Bible, gays cannot marry, any sex they have is a sin.

Marriage is an instiution set up by God with many purposes and designs. The creation of families is one, the rearing of children and others. One of the primary points of it however is that it is only within marriage that sex is accpetable. Homosexuality as a sin in mind, creating a special ceremony and legal standing for it is a glorification of that sin. Hetrosexual sex is not a sin, the same is not true of homosexuals. Marriage is never described in the Bible as being for anyone else except men and women. Homosexaulity existed in Biblical times, of that there is no doubt but it is never sacntioned by marriage. By creating a legal regocnition of it you are basicly saying that it is the equal of hetrosexual relations. By Biblical standards it isnt.

Have to say it:

By secular standards (the basis of law) it is.

all i've got to say is any gay person that has gone through "reparative therapy" to become straight but represses any feelings of lust towards someone of the same sex because they don't want to be "a homosexual" is lying to themselves.

Lying is a sin, you know.

You approach 'god' in your way, and leave everyone else to find 'god' on their own terms. That was what Jesus preached.

Jesus did not advocate going to God with anything other than humilty. You recall the story of the Pharashiee and the Tax collecter. The Pharashiee was going on about what a great Jew he was, about how he did all these great things and how glad he was that he wasnt like the tax collector. And all the tax collecter asked for was mercy.

You cannot go to God arrogent and blind to your sin, believeing that somehow you are in the right. Your not. No one is.

Have to say it:

By secular standards (the basis of law) it is.

Im not explaining secular standards, I am simpely trying to explain the religous position on Gay marriage and why religious people choose to oppose it.

Im not explaining secular standards, I am simpely trying to explain the religous position on Gay marriage and why religious people choose to oppose it.


Then perhaps the more important arguement--and more relevant one--is why religious people think that a secular government should make decisions based on religion.

No, he knew he was going to die but that does not mean that he did it himself. He knew he was going to die but he himself did not put himself on the cross. And on a gramatical point, suiciding is not a word. You commit suicide.


Actually - Neo - the text kind of specifies that Jesus WAS the insturment of his own death.... he allowed himself to be put on the cross, for sure. And he allowed himself to hang there, also.

But, what KILLED him, according to scripture?

Matthew 27:50 "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost".

And, Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost".

It is very clear that Jesus CHOSE to die... he willingly surrendered the life from his body.

That is STILL suicide.


Oh - and before you decide to pick ME up on my use of the language (remember, it is you who started a thread about copyright infringement, and whether or not it is 'steeling' (sic)) - might I suggest you actually check the claims your mouth makes, BEFORE it gets you into trouble?


One entry found for suicide.


Main Entry: suicide
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): sui·cid·ed; sui·cid·ing
intransitive senses : to commit suicide
transitive senses : to put (oneself) to death


You shouldn't assume that, just because it is outside of YOUR exeperience, that it is automatically erroneous, my friend.


Its called "date rape". And thats what the Bible describes as happening towards the end of Genesis 19.

I still don't buy it, Neo.

Maybe that works for you... but I can honestly claim that nobody has ever got me so drunk I had sex with them unwillingly... and certainly not my own family. Maybe they do things differently at your church, but where I come from, this story just doesn't hold water.

If he was SO drunk he didn't recognise his OWN DAUGHTERS... I don't see how he could have 'performed'. Thus - he KNEW what he was doing. I don't know which is worse... Lot living a lie, the Bible preserving the lie, or you swallowing the lie.

Lust I agree is a sin in all cases. And I have explained this to you already, sex, regardless of type is forbidden outside of marriage according to the Bible. Since also according to the Bible, gays cannot marry, any sex they have is a sin.

You should research before you speak.

In biblical times, the 'marriage' WAS the consummation.

Thus - if a man and woman had sex, they WERE married.

(Thus - why Joseph and Mary were just 'promised'... if they had been 'married', Jesus would have been assumed the child of Joseph).

That is why ADULTERY is such a clearly marked sin - since you cannot be married twice.

Thus - if homosexuals have sex, they ARE married.

And Paul says it would be better for 'homosexuals' to marry than to sin outside of marriage.

Marriage is an instiution set up by God with many purposes and designs. The creation of families is one, the rearing of children and others. One of the primary points of it however is that it is only within marriage that sex is accpetable. Homosexuality as a sin in mind, creating a special ceremony and legal standing for it is a glorification of that sin. Hetrosexual sex is not a sin, the same is not true of homosexuals. Marriage is never described in the Bible as being for anyone else except men and women. Homosexaulity existed in Biblical times, of that there is no doubt but it is never sacntioned by marriage. By creating a legal regocnition of it you are basicly saying that it is the equal of hetrosexual relations. By Biblical standards it isnt.

Rubbish... Mesopotamians were getting 'married' while Hebrews were still wandering the wilderness following their polytheistic faith.

Also - nobody WANTS a special ceremony for 'gay marraige'... they want the SAME rights, the same ceremony even.

All sex is equal. It is the product of lust. It CAN be sanctified by the institution of marriage... and Paul says those who feel lust SHOULD marry.

Thus - Paul teaches 'gay marriage' as, not only a good thing, but a necessity.

Im not explaining secular standards, I am simpely trying to explain the religous position on Gay marriage and why religious people choose to oppose it.

And - why are you doing this... in a thread about SCIENTIFIC investigation of the causes of homosexual behaviour?

Why do you feel the need to preach your prejudice on an unrelated thread?

You want to discuss the 'religious significance' of homosexuality? Why didn't you do it in a 'religious thread'?


This thread is about 'secular standards', Neo... go read the first post.

Actually - Neo - the text kind of specifies that Jesus WAS the insturment of his own death.... he allowed himself to be put on the cross, for sure. And he allowed himself to hang there, also.

But, what KILLED him, according to scripture?

Matthew 27:50 "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost".

And, Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost".

It is very clear that Jesus CHOSE to die... he willingly surrendered the life from his body.

That is STILL suicide.


Yeilded the ghost, gave up the ghost etc means that his spirit left him. Ergo he died. He gave up the stuggle to remain alive. He would have died, even if he had kept on going. There is no question. No one survives crucifixtion. But to play along with you for a second, if you were on a table and being very slowly laserd to death but were just about holding out at that moment by your own power of will but the laser would kill you in then end anyway, would you giving up then be suicide, or would the death be the responablity of the person who straped you to that table.

And - why are you doing this... in a thread about SCIENTIFIC investigation of the causes of homosexual behaviour?

Why do you feel the need to preach your prejudice on an unrelated thread?

You want to discuss the 'religious significance' of homosexuality? Why didn't you do it in a 'religious thread'?


This thread is about 'secular standards', Neo... go read the first post.

People asked the question about why religous people feel the need to oppose gay marriage, I answered.

All sex is equal. It is the product of lust. It CAN be sanctified by the institution of marriage... and Paul says those who feel lust SHOULD marry.

Thus - Paul teaches 'gay marriage' as, not only a good thing, but a necessity.

Funny how you support Paul only when he agrees with you. In this case, though you are wrong. Paul made it clear earlier that male to male lusts and female to female lusts were un-natural.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men (Romans 1:27)

Im not explaining secular standards, I am simpely trying to explain the religous position on Gay marriage and why religious people choose to oppose it.
well there's your mistake, in that case. we already know why some Christians (who, incidently, do NOT comprise "the religious position" on homosexuality) oppose gay rights. in fact, i don't think you have presented a single thing we haven't all heard before. this thread isn't about Bible-based homophobic theories, so how's about you not continue to hijack with this tangent? you can always start a new thread if that's what you want to talk about.

Why does religion always have to come into it?
If you think that all homophobes are religious, or all religious people are homosphobes, then you are just fooling yourself.

Why does religion always have to come into it?
If you think that all homophobes are religious, or all religious people are homosphobes, then you are just fooling yourself.
Um err... Because Neo Cannen was arguing from a Christian persepecive? Duh.

Why does religion always have to come into it?
If you think that all homophobes are religious, or all religious people are homosphobes, then you are just fooling yourself.

What Preebles said.

Yeilded the ghost, gave up the ghost etc means that his spirit left him. Ergo he died. He gave up the stuggle to remain alive. He would have died, even if he had kept on going. There is no question. No one survives crucifixtion. But to play along with you for a second, if you were on a table and being very slowly laserd to death but were just about holding out at that moment by your own power of will but the laser would kill you in then end anyway, would you giving up then be suicide, or would the death be the responablity of the person who straped you to that table.

If you wish to start a new thread, I will happily discredit your hollow mockeries in that premise.

I refuse to assist you in your thread-jacking tangent, any further.

Um err... Because Neo Cannen was arguing from a Christian persepecive? Duh.
Sorry, I didn't mean in response to that particular post, I meant in discussion of gay issues in general.



Duh ;)

Sorry, I didn't mean in response to that particular post, I meant in discussion of gay issues in general.

Well, to answer your original question then. . .religion always has to come into it because, it seems, the majority of really vocal people that oppose civil equality for gays use religious reasons as their only real backing. They might grasp for other excuses, but religion is always there and it never stays hidden for long.

This is, of course, not always true. There are non-religious people who oppose equality--but they seem to be, at least in my experience, pretty few and far between. So, in short, religion has to always come into this because A. Religious people cannot stay out of it and B. We've come to expect it because they cannot stay out of it.

Bible-based homophobic theories

This is the mistake people make which I am getting rather fed up of. So I will just spell it out in basic points to you

- The Bible states that homosexual sex is a sin

- Believing that something is a sin does not equate to being afraid of it

- The Bible advocates the hating of sin, but the loving of all people (If your going to take that word 'Love' out of context, you are very sad)

- The Bible does not advocate either the hating or fearing of homosexual people. Just the sin of homosexuality. However in modern society it becomes hard when the homosexual community are constantly trying to blur the line between the two by saying homosexuality is part of who they are.

If you wish to start a new thread, I will happily discredit your hollow mockeries in that premise.

I refuse to assist you in your thread-jacking tangent, any further.

Are you just admitiing you cant answer, or are you mocking my ideas.

- The Bible states that homosexual sex is a sin


I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again: No, it doesn't. At least not outside of Leviticus, which contains lots of rules that no one cares about anyway.

Nice try. Next time cite an unbiased source. Whyprophets is a Mormon site--hardly unbiased or unreligious.

whatever the bias of the provider of the information, is the information accurate?

whatever the bias of the provider of the information, is the information accurate?

No, it isn't. Had there existed evidence that truly was as "conclusive" as they attempt to make it seem it would certainly have received more attention. As it is, different studies contradict each other in this area. Those studies that indicate the opposite of what the website claims were conveniently left out.

I have been attracted to men (I am one myself) my entire life, or at least since puberty. I made no choice anywhere. Having gained access to various porno magazines at a young age I saw the pictures of the men and got turned on, but the women made me feel nothing or, if anything, mild disgust.

I personally believe that it has to do with hormonal balance in the womb. That would explain that twins don't display the same sexuality, as one can receive more hormones than the other. Genetics and environment seem to me to be secondary.

I have been attracted to men (I am one myself) my entire life, or at least since puberty. I made no choice anywhere.
If I feel that i have chosen to be homosexual, would you say that i'm not a real homosexual? Or that my homosexuality is less valid than yours?

Genetics:

Twins, they arn't genetically identical. I know theyre supposed to be but they are not, incredibly similar yes, but identical no.

However the differences are likely minute, the chance that this would change anything so fundamental is so very slim it can be discounted.

Second. We don't understand what genes do. And we dont understnad the complex sugars that accompany genes, in fact in the case of the sugars we dont understand anything about themat all really, including whether or not they stay the same in twins.

Lastly, Genetics in cases like this are almost certainly more predisposition towards, rather than certainty of.

Piontless thing over.

If I feel that i have chosen to be homosexual, would you say that i'm not a real homosexual? Or that my homosexuality is less valid than yours?
No, i very much think not. We'd probably doubt you actually were a homosexual rather than just pretending, and that would be a hard thing to over come, to get people to trust you that youd actually managed to chose, but if you could do that... It's just never come up.

No, i very much think not. We'd probably doubt you actually were a homosexual rather than just pretending, and that would be a hard thing to over come, to get people to trust you that youd actually managed to chose, but if you could do that... It's just never come up.

So you would in fact consider someone who feels that they "chose" to be homosexual to be "pretending". As such, you have defined the idea of choice in homosexuality out of existence, so you can't even begin to debate it as you start from the viewpoint that it is impossible.

If I feel that i have chosen to be homosexual, would you say that i'm not a real homosexual? Or that my homosexuality is less valid than yours?

Yes, I would say that. If you could choose to be either homo- or heterosexual I would call you bisexual, which IMO is the most optimal way to be. That means there's so many more to choose from! :) It is my belief that most people in actuality are bisexual, but society doesn't really allow for much experimentation, which is a pity, really.

So you would in fact consider someone who feels that they "chose" to be homosexual to be "pretending". As such, you have defined the idea of choice in homosexuality out of existence, so you can't even begin to debate it as you start from the viewpoint that it is impossible.
Just that i, and many others would find it hard to believe. Not impossible, but pretty hard all thigns considered.

But then wouldnt you find it hard to believe me if i said i was in fact the 778th earl of the lost kingdom of Prepsonite where all the fishes fly on wings of frozen pastry?*

*which in fact i am !!!!**

**Lie

I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again: No, it doesn't. At least not outside of Leviticus, which contains lots of rules that no one cares about anyway.

Er, yes it does. See the New Testement Romans 1:26-27 1 Corinthians 6:9

whatever the bias of the provider of the information, is the information accurate?

As I have stated many times, I cannot say if it is accurate or not. There is no way for me to examine their studies or data. For all I know the researched could've sat down and pulled everything out of their butt! It's happened before. That's why peer review is so critical, they cover those bases. They have contact with the authors and can ask questions and demand to see their original logs, etc. There is no way to know if the info. is accurate. Even with peer review there is a little shadow of doubt--without it, there is no point in even reading it.

If I feel that i have chosen to be homosexual, would you say that i'm not a real homosexual? Or that my homosexuality is less valid than yours?
if you felt you could choose between homosexuality and heterosexuality then i would say you are a bisexual. if you felt you could choose to have sexual relationships with people of your own gender despite being "straight" i would obviously believe you, since you don't have to feel attracted to have sex with somebody. if you claimed that you could simply turn off your natural feelings of attraction at will then i would call you a liar.

So you would in fact consider someone who feels that they "chose" to be homosexual to be "pretending". As such, you have defined the idea of choice in homosexuality out of existence, so you can't even begin to debate it as you start from the viewpoint that it is impossible.
put it to you this way: it has been thoroughly established that human beings are NOT in conscious control of their "natural" or innate sexual attractions. we certainly can choose how we will act on certain attractions, and a person who physically attracts us may consciously repulse us if their personality is especially odious or something, but we cannot consciously suppress our attractions without causing serious damage to our psychological well-being and sexual "Self."

if you are a person who is innately attracted only to members of the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. you can choose to have homosexual sex, or even a homosexual relationship, because those are actions and choices under your control. you will not be able to change your innate feelings of attraction (or lack thereof), and therefore you are not able to choose to BE innately homosexual, but you can certainly choose to live as a homosexual. many homosexuals live as heterosexuals, as we all know, and this is because their innate attractions do not completely dictate what their expressed sexuality will be.

by definition, the only people who can really choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual are the people who naturally feel both homosexual and heterosexual attractions. the ONLY way you can fairly be said to choose between the two is if both options are available to you. in that case, you are bisexual.

in my opinion, the vast majority of human beings--and perhaps all human beings--are innately bisexual. environmental and social factors contribute to the polarized expression of sexuality we see in our current world. this does not mean that sexuality is necessarily a "choice," however; environmental factors can cause cancer, but we don't tell cancer patients that they are sick by choice because they very often were not even aware that these environmental factors were at work.

Er, yes it does. See the New Testement Romans 1:26-27 1 Corinthians 6:9

Romans:
This one, as are most of Paul's letters, is unclear at best. Remember that we're only hearing one side of the conversation. Still:

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

The most likely thing Paul is referring to here is frenzied sexual acts adhering to various Paganistic rituals. This is enforced by the statement that "God gave them up", that is, they were cast from the "true faith" to the Pagan ways. Also, note that God himself actively gave them up unto these actions, which implies that he was the one that made them partake in the sexual acts to begin with.

Strike one.

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

Hmm... no mention of homosexuality here at all is there? There probably is in your version of the Holy Book though. See, the word "homosexuals" actually never appeared in the Bible until some genius replaced "sexual perverts" with it some time in the 50's. In the original text, the word used here is more akin to "paedophiles". This shines light on the single greatest problem with quoting from the Bible: It's been translated and retranslated so many times that no one today can be certain about the meaning in it.

Strike two. You've got one left.

The most likely thing Paul is referring to here is frenzied sexual acts adhering to various Paganistic rituals. This is enforced by the statement that "God gave them up", that is, they were cast from the "true faith" to the Pagan ways. Also, note that God himself actively gave them up unto these actions, which implies that he was the one that made them partake in the sexual acts to begin with.

Strike one.

First of all, not being American I dont play baseball (which is just rounders slightly modified anyway, another American 'Invention' stolen from Britain) I play cricket, the sport of gentlemen and the REAL football as well. So you can cut out the "strikes" nonsense right now.

Secondly, the term "God gave them up to" does not mean that he caused them to become engaged in homosexuality. Basicly it means that they chose to leave his path and chose to go to the strange pagan path which includes homosexuality. And the fact that homosexuality is a pagan ritual does not detract from it being a sin.


Hmm... no mention of homosexuality here at all is there? There probably is in your version of the Holy Book though. See, the word "homosexuals" actually never appeared in the Bible until some genius replaced "sexual perverts" with it some time in the 50's. In the original text, the word used here is more akin to "paedophiles". This shines light on the single greatest problem with quoting from the Bible: It's been translated and retranslated so many times that no one today can be certain about the meaning in it.

Strike two. You've got one left.

I had a feeling someone would bring up the translation of this one. Well guess what. My version of the Bible (the NIV) was translated in part by an open homosexual, so I doubt if it was mistranslated to oppose homosexuals. Also the word used here is "arsenokoitai" which means "men who lie with males". The word "malakoi" is also there which means "effeminate men who play the sexual role of females"

Here is an interesting PDF on the subject

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

- The Bible states that homosexual sex is a sin

Not conclusively.

- Believing that something is a sin does not equate to being afraid of it

Pedant.

- The Bible does not advocate either the hating or fearing of homosexual people. Just the sin of homosexuality. However in modern society it becomes hard when the homosexual community are constantly trying to blur the line between the two by saying homosexuality is part of who they are.

Well, it is. What do you expect them to do?

Pedant.


Not rearly. Love sinners hate sin. You shouldnt be afraid of those who commit any sin. Nor should you treat people diffrently because of a sin (note: Crime is diffrent to sin). Because, surprise suprise, all have sinned. Sin is in everyone and no one sin is greater than any other in Gods eyes. It all comes to the same thing. So why should you treat them diffrently for something you yourself have done.

Not rearly. Love sinners hate sin. You shouldnt be afraid of those who commit any sin. Nor should you treat people diffrently because of a sin (note: Crime is diffrent to sin).
see, and i look at it completely the opposite way:

i don't care about the "sin" unless the "sinner" is taking actions that impact me directly. for instance, if their "sin" is gluttony, so they steal my cheeseburger; i don't care whether or not they suffer from gluttony, nor do i care if anybody else is sinning in that manner, i am only concerned with the sinner who chooses to take a particular action based on the sin.

similarly, i don't care if somebody is guilty of the sin of wrath, but i care deeply about those sinners who express their wrath upon others in harmful ways.

i don't believe feelings are wicked, and i don't believe desires are sins. i don't believe in hating feelings, drives, wishes, and other "mental" forces, i only believe in hating the specific actions a given individual may choose to take based upon those forces. hating the sin, to me, is totally unjust because it overlooks the importance of personal control and consciousness...but then, i suppose that fits with many brands of faith.

Not rearly. Love sinners hate sin. You shouldnt be afraid of those who commit any sin. Nor should you treat people diffrently because of a sin (note: Crime is diffrent to sin). Because, surprise suprise, all have sinned. Sin is in everyone and no one sin is greater than any other in Gods eyes. It all comes to the same thing. So why should you treat them diffrently for something you yourself have done.

So why do you think that gays shouldn't come into a church?

Better yet, why should you even care about anyone else's sin?

And for the record, that's Dr. Queer to you.

Hey, I KNOW you! You're the doc that grabbed me and told me to cough...over and over and over again.

I think I love you.

Hey, I KNOW you! You're the doc that grabbed me and told me to cough...over and over and over again.

I think I love you.

I thought he was the one with the sigmoidoscope...

I thought he was the one with the sigmoidoscope...

Must. . . .resist . . . urge. . . . to . . . .make. . . . dirty . . . . pun . . . .

Must. . . .resist . . . urge. . . . to . . . .make. . . . dirty . . . . pun . . . .

I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots, or only five. Now, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kinda lost track myself...

I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots, or only five. Now, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kinda lost track myself...

5 actually, but he had to take a twenty minute break between each one.

What the heck are we talking about again?

i am constantly amazed at the lengths that people go to to justify their bigotry. scientific research, "un-biased" conclusions, "expert opinions"... it boggles my mind. i jsut don't understand it. people keep making the same mistakes. and they don't realize it. gay people are people, whether you believe it's wrong, right, (or understand that regardless of what you think about homosexuality, it still exists, and will continue), these are people that you're talking about. i have gay friends, i have straight friends, i have white friends, black friends, asian friends, and never, ever have i thought of them as being less of a person for their sexual tendencies, race, gender, whatever. how can you possibly see this as something evil, or sub-human? Do you feel the same way about mental retardation? About the sick? About the poor? I mean... someone please, explain this to me. Do you think that if someone is gay, that they're perverts, who flaunt their homosexuality? I swear that i have heard hundreds of people complain that "these gays" kiss in public, or hold hands in public just to piss heterosexuals off. But I have never heard a straight person complain about a man and a woman holding hands in public. Nor have I ever heard a gay person complain about straight people that way? This isn't about them being "wrong" for you, it's about them being different. You need to accept that not all people are the same as you. But we're all people. And regardless of what you think, they deserve the same rights, the same treatment, as everyone. I would have thought that we would have figured this out by now. This country should learn from the mistakes of slavery, the years of legalized bigotry, and realize that we don't have the right to judge. And there's nothing to judge. It is none of your business who someone else loves, just like it's nobody's business who you love, so think about that the next time you feel like calling something bad "gay" or getting mad and calling someone a queer, because it's you who has the problem, and no one else.

So why do you think that gays shouldn't come into a church?

Better yet, why should you even care about anyone else's sin?
Hmm.
Why shouldn't homosexuals come into a church? Hell if I know. I didn't know that was a rule at my church. Maybe some intolerant pricks believe that, but not my group. See, it's rather impossible to try and change a lifestyle if you refuse to even associate with that person and show that you love them regardless of what they do, even if you disapprove.

And why should i care about someone else's sins? Well, as a Christian I am required to go out into the world and teach the people about Jesus. If I meet a person who is sinning, and I fail to try and help him, then he will burn in hell forever, and his blood is on my hands. So basically, there are two reasons. One, I don't want anyone to burn in hell forever if possible. Two, I don't want to be responsible for that person's eternal death because I didn't bother to take time out of my life to talk to them. If they turn me away, then fine. I'll take my opportunities as they come.

I'm a Christian, too. If I meet someone who is interested in hearing about Jesus, I'll tell them about him. But I don't ask them about their sins, or tell them how to live. That's between them and God. Not my business to tell them that "fill in the blank" is a sin.

I feel that if you can find a way to have a relationship with God, you're most of the way there, and God won't begrudge you the rest.

I also don't believe any of the crap from Paul.

I'm a Christian, too. If I meet someone who is interested in hearing about Jesus, I'll tell them about him. But I don't ask them about their sins, or tell them how to live. That's between them and God. Not my business to tell them that "fill in the blank" is a sin.

I feel that if you can find a way to have a relationship with God, you're most of the way there, and God won't begrudge you the rest.

I also don't believe any of the crap from Paul.

I like you.

i am constantly amazed at the lengths that people go to to justify their bigotry. scientific research, "un-biased" conclusions, "expert opinions"... it boggles my mind. i jsut don't understand it. people keep making the same mistakes. and they don't realize it. gay people are people, whether you believe it's wrong, right, (or understand that regardless of what you think about homosexuality, it still exists, and will continue), these are people that you're talking about. i have gay friends, i have straight friends, i have white friends, black friends, asian friends, and never, ever have i thought of them as being less of a person for their sexual tendencies, race, gender, whatever. how can you possibly see this as something evil, or sub-human? Do you feel the same way about mental retardation? About the sick? About the poor? I mean... someone please, explain this to me. Do you think that if someone is gay, that they're perverts, who flaunt their homosexuality? I swear that i have heard hundreds of people complain that "these gays" kiss in public, or hold hands in public just to piss heterosexuals off. But I have never heard a straight person complain about a man and a woman holding hands in public. Nor have I ever heard a gay person complain about straight people that way? This isn't about them being "wrong" for you, it's about them being different. You need to accept that not all people are the same as you. But we're all people. And regardless of what you think, they deserve the same rights, the same treatment, as everyone. I would have thought that we would have figured this out by now. This country should learn from the mistakes of slavery, the years of legalized bigotry, and realize that we don't have the right to judge. And there's nothing to judge. It is none of your business who someone else loves, just like it's nobody's business who you love, so think about that the next time you feel like calling something bad "gay" or getting mad and calling someone a queer, because it's you who has the problem, and no one else.
my kingdom for a paragraph-splitter...

My question is...why do people care wether the guy next to him is a fudge packer or the girl next door is a clam digger. Who fucking cares..fucking relious wack jobs nhave to make such a big deal over nothin.

Hello people..worry about where you put your mouth and lets move on

I'm a Christian, too. If I meet someone who is interested in hearing about Jesus, I'll tell them about him. But I don't ask them about their sins, or tell them how to live. That's between them and God. Not my business to tell them that "fill in the blank" is a sin.


Perhaps you dont understand. I do not advocate going round the gay community complaining about their sin. Thats their perogative. What I do complain about is the gay community insulting the church for their beliefs and forcing the church to accept the idea of homosexual marriage as equal to that of actual marriage. I dont tell people how to live and I dont people on their sins. In recent years the only reason that the church has seen more focused on homosexuallity is because of the change in society, not the change in the church. Society has almost encouraged homosexuality by doing two things, firstly by encoraging individualsim on a large scale and secondly being more open about previously stigmatised ideas such as homosexuality. This creates a problem. By encouraging individuality, a large number of people have to find an even larger number of diffrent directions to travel in. Everyone wants to be diffrent from those around them in some respects. Nautrally people also want to identify with a group (also becoming a strong need) but withtin that group they still want to feel individual. This means society is becoming more accepting of these previous stigmas as a form of expression of individuality. Now I am not saying here that people choose to be gay (at least not consiously) but society is prepared to accept homosexuality as another form of individualism. Its another group to be with which you can be individual within. The ultimate individualist is someone who belongs to a great number of groups simultaniouly, so their intersets and activitys and to a certian extent beliefs are so wide and varied that they are extremely unique and impossible to replicate.

Are you just admitiing you cant answer, or are you mocking my ideas.

If you want to 'test' me, Neo... start a new thread.

I told you - this thread was intended to be a secular analysis, and I refuse to assist your rampage of hate.

I do not consider many of your ideas worthy of being mocked, so I shouldn't worry there, my friend.

And, you've yet to present an argument that I cannot destroy with humiliating speed and grace. Try if you wish - but I won't be responding to any more of your scriptural terrorism in this thread.

And, you've yet to present an argument that I cannot destroy with humiliating speed and grace. Try if you wish - but I won't be responding to any more of your scriptural terrorism in this thread.

Im getting rather fed up of you claiming this. You "Destroy" the arguements, only to your own standard. To mine you often sidestep and avoid the issue. Would you stop playing your "Im better than you" card in your tone and listen to people.

Perhaps you dont understand. I do not advocate going round the gay community complaining about their sin. Thats their perogative. What I do complain about is the gay community insulting the church for their beliefs and forcing the church to accept the idea of homosexual marriage as equal to that of actual marriage.

Gay people are not trying to force the church to accept the idea of homosexual marriage. They are trying to make the SECULAR government recognize their unions and give them equality as guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment.

Im getting rather fed up of you claiming this. You "Destroy" the arguements, only to your own standard. To mine you often sidestep and avoid the issue. Would you stop playing your "Im better than you" card in your tone and listen to people.

Funny Neo, cause you are the only one here not listening. Someone posts a rebuttle to your arguement and you ignore it. You don't address it, you just pretend it doesn't exist. Then a few pages or one a different thread, you post the same tired arguements again as if the responses haven't been made.

Funny Neo, cause you are the only one here not listening. Someone posts a rebuttle to your arguement and you ignore it. You don't address it, you just pretend it doesn't exist. Then a few pages or one a different thread, you post the same tired arguements again as if the responses haven't been made.

Exactly... and I'm getting kind of bored whacking the same old moles in the same threads - when THIS thread isn't even ABOUT the 'religiosity' of the issue.

But, he just can't let it lie...

I even said - if he starts a new thread, I'll dismantle him there.

I think he likes the attention. :)

Funny Neo, cause you are the only one here not listening. Someone posts a rebuttle to your arguement and you ignore it. You don't address it, you just pretend it doesn't exist. Then a few pages or one a different thread, you post the same tired arguements again as if the responses haven't been made.

No I do adress it, but people dont seem to understand it when I do. Or I dont see that the person has adressed it correctly or acurately so I rebut them again and they continue. I try to explain but people dont listen.

Gay people are not trying to force the church to accept the idea of homosexual marriage. They are trying to make the SECULAR government recognize their unions and give them equality as guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment.

Marriage is primaryly religous not governmental. By creating marriages for homosexuals that are identical to hetrosexuals other than the partners involved you are forcing the church's idea of marriage to be compromised. Marriage is religious first, civil second.

Marriage is primaryly religous not governmental. By creating marriages for homosexuals that are identical to hetrosexuals other than the partners involved you are forcing the church's idea of marriage to be compromised. Marriage is religious first, civil second.

So if homosexuals were satisfied with civil unions, you'd be happy? Even if civil unions do not grant the same rights as marriage does?

Even if certain couples are not religious, do not want to get married before God, and have no way of getting the same rights?

Even if certain couples' religion does accept homosexual unions as viable? Can they get married?

People are too diverse to go by one religion's definition of marriage.

Marriage is primaryly religous not governmental. By creating marriages for homosexuals that are identical to hetrosexuals other than the partners involved you are forcing the church's idea of marriage to be compromised. Marriage is religious first, civil second.

Stop trying to steal marriage, Neo.

People were getting married long before your 'christians' started deciding to unite themselves, long before their Hebrew predecessors decided to legalise the ownership of females.

Marriage IS a civil arrangement, which just HAPPENS to have religious ceremonies that celebrate it.

Marriage is civil first... and religious... well, only if you choose it.

The church doesn't OWN marriage, Neo... no church ever has.

No I do adress it, but people dont seem to understand it when I do. Or I dont see that the person has adressed it correctly or acurately so I rebut them again and they continue. I try to explain but people dont listen.
well, put it this way: i think you make your responses very clear, and the meaning doesn't seem in any way difficult for me to grasp, but i think you very clearly either dodge, ignore, or warp the arguments you are supposed to be responding to. i think you fail to rebutt points convincingly, and you tend to just repeat yourself even after one of your own points has been rebutted very cleanly.

now, if you think you are simply failing to communicate well, that's possible. you may just be doing a very poor job of expressing yourself. but i don't think that's the problem.

Stop trying to steal marriage, Neo.

People were getting married long before your 'christians' started deciding to unite themselves, long before their Hebrew predecessors decided to legalise the ownership of females.

if Neo really wants to protect the religious concept of marriage, why is he choosing an upstart religion like Christianity for his focus? even IF (big if) you want to assume that marriage is religious, it belongs to many other religions before Christianity...i guess, since we are all supposed to recognize the "true" origin of marriage, we should be banning Christian ceremonies because they are very obviously just ripping off the REAL religious roots of marriage. :)

if Neo really wants to protect the religious concept of marriage, why is he choosing an upstart religion like Christianity for his focus? even IF (big if) you want to assume that marriage is religious, it belongs to many other religions before Christianity...i guess, since we are all supposed to recognize the "true" origin of marriage, we should be banning Christian ceremonies because they are very obviously just ripping off the REAL religious roots of marriage. :)
Yay, pagan marriages for ALL! And does that mean polygamy and polyandry are allowed too?

No I do adress it, but people dont seem to understand it when I do. Or I dont see that the person has adressed it correctly or acurately so I rebut them again and they continue. I try to explain but people dont listen.

Neo, I try to give all people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you think you have addressed the responses--but here's a message for you. No one else does. I have never seen you directly address the rebuttals of your arguement. And I've seen you raise the same arguement over and over and over without adjusting it to include that woudl refute the responses you know are coming.

Seriously, this is not an insult, take it as advice on becoming a better debater.

Marriage is primaryly religous not governmental. By creating marriages for homosexuals that are identical to hetrosexuals other than the partners involved you are forcing the church's idea of marriage to be compromised. Marriage is religious first, civil second.

To you maybe. And that's fine. But if marriage were religious first ATHEISTS wouldn't get married and the government couldn't give rights to married couples.

How does homosexuality being a choice make it wrong? You've just assumed that if you can convince people it is a choice, you've proven it is immoral.

First of all, not being American I dont play baseball (which is just rounders slightly modified anyway, another American 'Invention' stolen from Britain) I play cricket, the sport of gentlemen and the REAL football as well. So you can cut out the "strikes" nonsense right now.

Secondly, the term "God gave them up to" does not mean that he caused them to become engaged in homosexuality. Basicly it means that they chose to leave his path and chose to go to the strange pagan path which includes homosexuality. And the fact that homosexuality is a pagan ritual does not detract from it being a sin.



I had a feeling someone would bring up the translation of this one. Well guess what. My version of the Bible (the NIV) was translated in part by an open homosexual, so I doubt if it was mistranslated to oppose homosexuals. Also the word used here is "arsenokoitai" which means "men who lie with males". The word "malakoi" is also there which means "effeminate men who play the sexual role of females"

Here is an interesting PDF on the subject

http://robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

Fine, I'll lay off the baseball terms. I'm not American either and actually find it a boring sport in general. At least we can both agree on what real football is. :)

To the quotes: Your rebuttal to the first quote doesn't completely adress the fact that the major reason homosexual intercouse is forbidden both here and in Leviticus is because it's part of Pagan religion. In Christianity's early days, spreading the religion was of utmost importance, which is why as much energy as possible was diverted to discrediting the Pagan traditions. Those areas that could not be erased through rules were instead absorbed and transformed into Christian traditions, i.e. Christmas, Easter, etc.

The translations of "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi" have been debated for some time. While the literal meaning of arsenokoitai today may be most closely translated to homosexual intercourse, various scholars believe that in Paul's day, the very idea of being homosexual didn't exist. Indeed, the definition of sexual preference seems to be a modern idea. Arsenokoitai is likely a word Paul created to describe pederasty, prostitution, and a master’s sexual abuse of his slaves, which likely were the only versions of homosexual behavior that Paul was even familiar with. As for malakoi, the word malakos generally means "soft", and the term malakoi most probably refers to sexual promiscuity.

I always find it peculiar that homophobes (I'm not calling you one as I don't know you, I'm just saying this in general) pay so much attention to these single questionable quotes that weren't even made by Jesus, and forget entire chapters involving "turning the other cheek" and "loving thy neighbor".

(Source: http://catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html )

I always find it peculiar that homophobes (I'm not calling you one as I don't know you, I'm just saying this in general) pay so much attention to these single questionable quotes that weren't even made by Jesus, and forget entire chapters involving "turning the other cheek" and "loving thy neighbor".

(Source: http://catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html )

Yeah - so right. I'm not at all sure how "Christians" justify being so hateful - not only to gay people - when Jesus seemed to be all about forgiveness, love and not judging others. Chuck out the OT and Paul, and you got a pretty nice religion, I reckon.

Anyway good to see so many gay brothers - and sisters (?) - on NS. Feel quite at home now. :fluffle:

QRBMLXXVII

To you maybe. And that's fine. But if marriage were religious first ATHEISTS wouldn't get married and the government couldn't give rights to married couples.

I dont think you understand what I mean by primaryly religous

Firstly, the notion of marriage was first idealised by religious institutions not civil ones (Note here: Im not just talking about Christianity but other religions too). The government just came in because it is easier to regulate this way.

Secondly, while it is primaryly religious this does not exclude its use by non religious people. What it does do however is mean that it was the religions who created it and thus religion should define what it is/means and not the government.

Thirdly, by forcing the religions to redefine it your basicly telling them they are wrong. It would be like the government forcing Muslims to eat pork during Ramadan in daylight.

Yeah - so right. I'm not at all sure how "Christians" justify being so hateful - not only to gay people - when Jesus seemed to be all about forgiveness, love and not judging others. Chuck out the OT and Paul, and you got a pretty nice religion, I reckon.

Anyway good to see so many gay brothers - and sisters (?) - on NS. Feel quite at home now. :fluffle:

QRBMLXXVII

I'm going to keep explaining this and one day someone is actually going to listen and understand.

Believeing something is a sin does not equate to actually hating the perpretratiors of that sin. The Bible makes it clear, you hate sin, not sinners. In God's eyes all sin is sin. Disobedieance to God. We are all the same in that. Which means that if you hate someone because of any one sin, you should hate yourself even more because of your own sins.

I dont think you understand what I mean by primaryly religous

Firstly, the notion of marriage was first idealised by religious institutions not civil ones (Note here: Im not just talking about Christianity but other religions too). The government just came in because it is easier to regulate this way.

Secondly, while it is primaryly religious this does not exclude its use by non religious people. What it does do however is mean that it was the religions who created it and thus religion should define what it is/means and not the government.

Thirdly, by forcing the religions to redefine it your basicly telling them they are wrong. It would be like the government forcing Muslims to eat pork during Ramadan in daylight.

Unfortunately, marriage today is a very civil establishment. Until marriage implies a purely religious bond without benefits such as taxes, next-of-kin etc the church has no right to monopolize it. I know that civil unions for all has been discussed here to death already, so I'll leave it at that.

To the quotes: Your rebuttal to the first quote doesn't completely adress the fact that the major reason homosexual intercouse is forbidden both here and in Leviticus is because it's part of Pagan religion. In Christianity's early days, spreading the religion was of utmost importance, which is why as much energy as possible was diverted to discrediting the Pagan traditions. Those areas that could not be erased through rules were instead absorbed and transformed into Christian traditions, i.e. Christmas, Easter, etc.

Im not sure what your getting at here. Are you trying to say that the reason for calling it a sin is outdated. Because thats very had to prove. Even if it is because Paganism is sinful that doesnt change. Paganism was sinful then, it is now. The ideas of sin do not change from one generation too the next.


The translations of "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi" have been debated for some time. While the literal meaning of arsenokoitai today may be most closely translated to homosexual intercourse, various scholars believe that in Paul's day, the very idea of being homosexual didn't exist. Indeed, the definition of sexual preference seems to be a modern idea. Arsenokoitai is likely a word Paul created to describe pederasty, prostitution, and a master’s sexual abuse of his slaves, which likely were the only versions of homosexual behavior that Paul was even familiar with. As for malakoi, the word malakos generally means "soft", and the term malakoi most probably refers to sexual promiscuity.

Its not "being" a homosexual which is the sin. Its the act of homosexual sex.

Unfortunately, marriage today is a very civil establishment. Until marriage implies a purely religious bond without benefits such as taxes, next-of-kin etc the church has no right to monopolize it. I know that civil unions for all has been discussed here to death already, so I'll leave it at that.

Ok so if religion somehow hijacked the welfare state and offered it only to religous people would you be so compromisng.

Oh, and to say that marriages were originally religious institutions is false. They were primarily used as a means to secure property rights and such:

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Oh, and to say that marriages were originally religious institutions is false. They were primarily used as a means to secure property rights and such:

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

Yes of course, Marriage did not exist in the Old Testement at all

Im not sure what your getting at here. Are you trying to say that the reason for calling it a sin is outdated. Because thats very had to prove. Even if it is because Paganism is sinful that doesnt change. Paganism was sinful then, it is now. The ideas of sin do not change from one generation too the next.

I beg to differ. Just look at how the rights of women have evolved throughout the history of Christianity. Female priests, for example, was unheard of not too long ago. Religions change with the world around them. Also, my point still stands that it was Paganism that was considered sinful in the quotes, not homosexual sex.


Its not "being" a homosexual which is the sin. Its the act of homosexual sex.

Again, I disagree. Since in Paul's time the notion of two men (or women) having sex because they were a loving couple was an alien notion, it could not be encompassed in Paul's definition of it. According to this interpretation, he was only referring to pederasty, prostitution, and sexual abuse of slaves, and that is vastly different than all homosexual sex.

Yes of course, Marriage did not exist in the Old Testement at all

Point. But it was not the sacramental holy bond between one man and one woman. OT marriages were often of polygamous nature. How many wives did King Solomon have?

I beg to differ. Just look at how the rights of women have evolved throughout the history of Christianity. Female priests, for example, was unheard of not too long ago. Religions change with the world around them. Also, my point still stands that it was Paganism that was considered sinful in the quotes, not homosexual sex.

Firstly, it was not considered "sinful" for women to preach. Just unconventional and against the original ideas of the church. The vein of women priests and homosexualuity are completley diffrent.

Does the quote actually say that its paganism they are targeting. No. Obviouly many things that are part of paganism are sins, many things that are part of modern life today are considered sin (eg its now considered expected for partners to have sex before marriage). That does not mean all modern life is sinful, just elements of it. It does not say with a blanket statement "paganism is sinful". It refers to specific things which wheter practised as part of paganism or not are still sinns.


Again, I disagree. Since in Paul's time the notion of two men (or women) having sex because they were a loving couple was an alien notion, it could not be encompassed in Paul's definition of it. According to this interpretation, he was only referring to pederasty, prostitution, and sexual abuse of slaves, and that is vastly different than all homosexual sex.

Whether or not they are in love is irrelevent. Its nothing to do with their emotional state, its what they are doing. A hetrosexual couple could be very deeply in love but that does not mean that them having sex before marriage is any less of a sin.

Point. But it was not the sacramental holy bond between one man and one woman. OT marriages were often of polygamous nature. How many wives did King Solomon have?

Indeed. However the New Testement dispells pologmoy, telling us all to ascribe to the rules of kings. Soloman should not have taken all the wives he did as he was a king and at that time the law given by God said they should not. Thats one of the many reasons why many of his plans failed.

Does the quote actually say that its paganism they are targeting. No. Obviouly many things that are part of paganism are sins, many things that are part of modern life today are considered sin (eg its now considered expected for partners to have sex before marriage). That does not mean all modern life is sinful, just elements of it. It does not say with a blanket statement "paganism is sinful". It refers to specific things which wheter practised as part of paganism or not are still sinns.

Does the quote actually say that homosexual sex is sinful? No. It says that the people were acting in sinful ways, with indiscriminate sex as an example. Actually, the quote doesn't really specifically say anything about what's sinful and what's not. It's a description written in a letter, and little more. Show me a quote where Jesus himsef condemns it and I will agree that homosexual sex is sinful according to Christianity.


Whether or not they are in love is irrelevent. Its nothing to do with their emotional state, its what they are doing. A hetrosexual couple could be very deeply in love but that does not mean that them having sex before marriage is any less of a sin.

Again, simple, monogamous sex between two men is not part of Paul's definition. And as for the tenant that all pre-marital sex is sinful, that should be all the more reason to allow homosexuals to marry, because the reasoning that:

- Premarital sex is sinful, therefore, homosexuals are sinners.
- Homosexuals shouldn't be married because they are sinners.

doesn't really flatter a religion that's supposed to endorse love.

What does nature has to do with it? Im a grown up male, if i want to be screwed by another male, to hell with nature! To hell with your gods! Its a matter of personal freedom, that doesnt hurt anyone.

What does nature has to do with it? Im a grown up male, if i want to be screwed by another male, to hell with nature! To hell with your gods! Its a matter of personal freedom, that doesnt hurt anyone.
it hurts u. maybe not in the short-run, maybe u can even explain away the long-term pain, but in the end, it will hurt u.

The problem is, that Neo set's himself up as an advocate.

He states everything in concrete terms, based upon his opinion.

Thus - he says it is 'impossible' to be an unrepentant sinner and still be accepted into the kingdom of heaven... and yet, he ignores repeated biblical references that show sin, in the patriarchal line. David was hardly free of sin, nor Solomon. Lot was a 'good man', yet had some questionable practices. Noah was an alcoholic - and, some claim that he was also a homosexual pedophile.

Neo tries to set up hard and fast rules about what god 'means'... but I argue that his contentions are flawed - because he is arguing what the CHURCH teaches, not what was in the word of Jesus.

but all of those people u have listed repented. tru, neo is arguing what the church teaches, but i see no diff between that and what Jesus taught. on this matter, that is.

Here's the real million dollar question: Why do you care?

Why does anyone care? Why does it matter? If it's a choice that doesn't make a difference. You need to let people live their own lives in the manner of their choosing so long as they aren't hurting anyone. If it's not a choice it's not a choice, but neither you nor anyone else has any business condemning it either way. Just leave us alone. Fix your scrutiny elsewhere. We aren't asking for anything that isn't given as a matter of due course to everyone else.

we're not condemning you, we're condemning ur actions. we're trying to help. the only people who are hurt are yourselves and any u "convert" to homosexuallity.

Wrong on two counts, friend.

You are right that my 'quote' comes from a section about persecution of Christians - but THAT part is about sinners. "If the true believer is only barely saved... what does that say about the sinner"... to paraphrase.

And - the response - is for the sinner to throw themselves upon the mercies of a loving god.

Second count - actually - it does work EXACTLY that way.... John 10:27-28 "...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me... And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand".

It's the old Baptist story of "Once Saved, Always Saved".

Once Jesus has accepted you... according to John 10:28, you can then happily fornicate and debauch as much as you please..
not true. the key part of the verse being "they follow Me", the sheep must FOLLOW to be saved. 2 main parts of following Jesus are

trying not to sin, and to be like Him in every way, and
repenting when u do sin.

Have you not advocated or at least explain the advocation the banning of gay marriages?

facilitating the sin of others is a sin. and marriage is described in the Bible time and again as a man and a woman. we are not banning gay marriage, there never was and never will be such a thing as gay marriage, because marriage, by definition, is not gay. if u wanna get married, u should come up with a diferent ceremony. sex outside marriage isn't illegal, just sinful, so u guys shouldn't care if u get married or not.

And, I have argued, and still maintain - that it is LUST which is the sin... not the vectors of that lust.

Man on man, girl on girl, or boys and girls together... it is the LUST that is the sin.

You choose to believe that Jesus specifically decried homosexuality as a sin... I think not.

Therefore, to my view - you are waging a war on homosexuals with no scriptural backing.

By calling them sinners, (whether or not they sin in their orientation) you are somehow seperating THEIR lust from your lust, thus you ARE treating them differently... thus you ARE judging them.
first bit's good:

Mat. 5:28 "but I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfuly has already commited adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus Himself never decreed homosexuallity specificaly as a sin. Paul, however, did, hence giving us scriptural backing.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I disagree.

I think that Jesus died 'because' they beat the tar out of him, then nailed him to a cross, where he slowly bled, and strangled to death.

Or - do you believe he CHOSE to die?

Okay - so Jesus sins on the cross, by suiciding.



How did he take his repentence too far? One version of the Gospels says he suicided... but I seem to recall it says elsewhere that he was murdered.

Regarding Lot - I have heard some pathetic excuses in my time, but I personally don't buy the 'my daughters got me drunk, then slept with me' story.

Maybe it's just MY hang-up... but I don't have sex with people just because I've had a drink.
that is the physical reason why Jesus died, yes. but the reason Jesus LET them kill Him was so save all from their sins. He did not suicide, He allowed Himself to be executed. He could have prevented it, either simply by denying He was the Christ, or

"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" - Matthew 26:53

You should research before you speak.

In biblical times, the 'marriage' WAS the consummation.

Thus - if a man and woman had sex, they WERE married.

(Thus - why Joseph and Mary were just 'promised'... if they had been 'married', Jesus would have been assumed the child of Joseph).

That is why ADULTERY is such a clearly marked sin - since you cannot be married twice.

Thus - if homosexuals have sex, they ARE married.

And Paul says it would be better for 'homosexuals' to marry than to sin outside of marriage.

paul is not talking about homosexuals. he is talking about normal people. that is, people who have sex with the kinds of people God designed them to have sex with. the actual quote is that it is "better to marry than to burn with passion", and it has nothing to do with gays.

"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" - Matthew 26:53
Not only that. He could have used his magic powers and gone Old Testamant on all of their asses!

paul is not talking about homosexuals. he is talking about normal people. that is, people who have sex with the kinds of people God designed them to have sex with. the actual quote is that it is "better to marry than to burn with passion", and it has nothing to do with gays.
Homosexuals are normal people.

facilitating the sin of others is a sin. and marriage is described in the Bible time and again as a man and a woman. we are not banning gay marriage, there never was and never will be such a thing as gay marriage, because marriage, by definition, is not gay. if u wanna get married, u should come up with a diferent ceremony. sex outside marriage isn't illegal, just sinful, so u guys shouldn't care if u get married or not.
Marriage isn't meant to be happy?

But seriously, are you aware of how many rights married couples get? There is a reason to get married.

Furthermore, the christian church had nothing to do with marriage entirely until the late middle ages... marriage is a civil thing as far as the government is concerned and no one is proposing forcing churches to marry gay couples.

Also, last I checked, there were no christian theocracies around, so the bible isn't law in any part of the world, fortunately.

I dont think you understand what I mean by primaryly religous

Firstly, the notion of marriage was first idealised by religious institutions not civil ones (Note here: Im not just talking about Christianity but other religions too). The government just came in because it is easier to regulate this way.

Secondly, while it is primaryly religious this does not exclude its use by non religious people. What it does do however is mean that it was the religions who created it and thus religion should define what it is/means and not the government.

Thirdly, by forcing the religions to redefine it your basicly telling them they are wrong. It would be like the government forcing Muslims to eat pork during Ramadan in daylight.

How about you see if you can find a source to back you up?

'Marriage' has existed as a contractual means of allying groups, transferrring power, and concentrating wealth for far longer than it has had any 'spiritual' connection.

I don't know who told you that it was 'first idealised by religious groups', but it seems highly unlikely to be true. I'd like to see some evidence.

And, nobody is trying to tell 'religious groups' to redifine marriage. Marriage IS the union of some people (most societies accept a standard of two, one of each gender - but those rules are ENTIRELY societal).

Religious groups should perhaps consider staying the hell out of marriage, and other civil affairs. The 'church' should consider itself lucky that it is allowed to perform marriages at all.

I dont think you understand what I mean by primaryly religous

Firstly, the notion of marriage was first idealised by religious institutions not civil ones (Note here: Im not just talking about Christianity but other religions too). The government just came in because it is easier to regulate this way.

No, as has been explained numerous times, with sources provided, marriage was around before religions got their hands on it. They were matters of CIVI: process involved in sharing of proprty and alliances. You must address this, not just keep repeating what you believe to be true.


Secondly, while it is primaryly religious this does not exclude its use by non religious people. What it does do however is mean that it was the religions who created it and thus religion should define what it is/means and not the government.

Fine, let the religions that created it define it. Let's get some Pagans to tell us what marriage should be--since afterall they were the first religion. Of course, if we let religions define it, the government can't give rights for it because the government cannot favor one religion over another.

Beyond that, what of my religion that says gay marriage is okay?


Thirdly, by forcing the religions to redefine it your basicly telling them they are wrong. It would be like the government forcing Muslims to eat pork during Ramadan in daylight.

I haven't asked your religion to do shit Neo Cannen. I wouldn't want to infringe upon your delicate sensibilities. All I have asked is for the secular government to recognize me as an equal citizen--and to recognize my "religious" beliefs.

Firstly, it was not considered "sinful" for women to preach. Just unconventional and against the original ideas of the church. The vein of women priests and homosexualuity are completley diffrent.


I suggest you read your bible, Neo.

What you have just said is a lie.

Absolute.

And you are STILL parading your 'religious righteousness' on a secular debate.

As I said before, if you wish to divert these energies elsewhere, I will be happy to quash your untruths in a non-secular thread.

Yes of course, Marriage did not exist in the Old Testement at all

The point is that marrige existed BEFORE the Old Testament.

it hurts u. maybe not in the short-run, maybe u can even explain away the long-term pain, but in the end, it will hurt u.


If you can't explain how it will hurt me, how do you know it will? Sounds to me more like grasping at straws.

And for the record, as someone with first hand knowledge, the only thing hurtng me is homophobes who know nothing of what htey are talking about and still insisting that I'm an evil abhomination who should be treated as a second-class human being.

we're not condemning you, we're condemning ur actions. we're trying to help. the only people who are hurt are yourselves and any u "convert" to homosexuallity.

And if we don't want your help, if we outright refuse, why can't you back the hell off?

facilitating the sin of others is a sin. and marriage is described in the Bible time and again as a man and a woman. we are not banning gay marriage, there never was and never will be such a thing as gay marriage, because marriage, by definition, is not gay. if u wanna get married, u should come up with a diferent ceremony. sex outside marriage isn't illegal, just sinful, so u guys shouldn't care if u get married or not.


You are confusing a ceremony with marital rights. You probably won't believe this, but I don't want to walk down a church aisle in a long whit dress and veil and light candles, etc. I want to stand outside somewhere, proclaim I love the person I've chosen to be my spouse, then go to a courthouse, sign a marriage license, and automatically be his next of kin and he mine.

Alright everyone listen up and listen good cause I'm only gonna say this once. Homosexuality has no genetic cause, it is completely and totally environmental in nature. There is nothing to disprove any of the assertions made by the mormons (even if they are religious extremists. It frightens me when I agree with mormons. :eek: ). The scientific community has put the burden of proof on homosexuals not heterosexuals, that is to say that we as heterosexuals do not need to prove it is unnatural, but that homosexuals have to prove that it is natural. This is not a court of law, the burden of proof does not rest on the accuser but on the accused. Science never ever ever in any circumstances PROVES anything, science DISPROVES previously accepted fact and replaces it with new fact that can be disproved at a later time. I have done extensive research as a private citizen and have found nothing that disproves previously held theory on the matter and as such the case for homosexuality is looking mighty weak right now. You may say that I am a bigot and a racist and a gay basher but I tell you now that I am not. You may say that I'm a religious nut and my arguments are flawed because I'm probably basing them off scripture and there is no God, to this I say "As I have never seen God, you have never seen the wind, you've seen the effects of the wind and you know it is there but you have never seen the wind, so too have I seen the effects of God and I know he is there for the same reason." In other news the constitution of the USA does not protect homosexuals, it protects only race gender creed or religion, not sexual preference, as such homosexuals are TECHNICALLY second class citizens but NOT second class PEOPLE, another fine distinction that most people do not care to make.

but all of those people u have listed repented. tru, neo is arguing what the church teaches, but i see no diff between that and what Jesus taught. on this matter, that is.

Lot is a 'good man' before any evidence comes of repentence... that's the whole point.

And therein lies the rub. 'Christianity' has a very clear view of what is required to be one of the good guys, and join the big heavenly gang.

And their view is corrupt. And to THINK they know any better, is a sin of pride.

So - people like Neo sit around prescribing who is sinner, and who is saved... and he lacks the authority to make the decision, or the 'truth' to back it up.

Jesus taught not to judge, and that doesn't mean not to punish - he meant us to be BLIND to the sins of others, and ONLY concerned with our OWN problems.

I would imagine that Neo has enough problems of his own to work out with his 'god'. He should stop adding his assumed majesty to the list.

How about you see if you can find a source to back you up?

'Marriage' has existed as a contractual means of allying groups, transferrring power, and concentrating wealth for far longer than it has had any 'spiritual' connection.

I don't know who told you that it was 'first idealised by religious groups', but it seems highly unlikely to be true. I'd like to see some evidence.

And, nobody is trying to tell 'religious groups' to redifine marriage. Marriage IS the union of some people (most societies accept a standard of two, one of each gender - but those rules are ENTIRELY societal).

Religious groups should perhaps consider staying the hell out of marriage, and other civil affairs. The 'church' should consider itself lucky that it is allowed to perform marriages at all.

Now GI, you know as well as anyone, if an individual accepts the Genisis account of creation, marriage was essentially instituted by God Himself. (man leaving father and mother, cleaving to wife with whom he becomes one flesh and Christ later added that God joined them and man shouldn't pull them apart). If the Bible is considered accurate world history, Neo's perspective isn't ungrounded.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Gov. should provide special favors for "married" or "civil unioned" people, verses others anyway. Its just another demographic group that demands special treatment. It makes no sense.

Now GI, you know as well as anyone, if an individual accepts the Genisis account of creation, marriage was essentially instituted by God Himself. (man leaving father and mother, cleaving to wife with whom he becomes one flesh and Christ later added that God joined them and man shouldn't pull them apart). If the Bible is considered accurate world history, Neo's perspective isn't ungrounded.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Gov. should provide special favors for "married" or "civil unioned" people, verses others anyway. Its just another demographic group that demands special treatment. It makes no sense.
Hardly marrige creation they had no choice :p no one else to sleep with lol

not true. the key part of the verse being "they follow Me", the sheep must FOLLOW to be saved. 2 main parts of following Jesus are

trying not to sin, and to be like Him in every way, and
repenting when u do sin.

I disagree - I think the key part is the 'once saved, always saved' element.

Sure, he says you have to believe on him to be saved, and he says that believing on him is the ONLY WAY to be saved... but THEN he goes on to say, that once you ARE saved... saved you shall remain.

If it was a contract you were reading, with your lawyer looking on - he'd be pointing out that the ONLY requirement for you to be able to 'sign' this contract in GOOD FAITH, is to 'believe' in salvation through Jesus' name... for the duration of the 'contract' signing.

Thus - you opt in, you are saved. After that - do as you will... you are still saved.

Christian Science has always been an oxymoron. And no matter how often fundie 'science' gets it proverbial teeth knocked out by real science. It somehow always, like a shark, generates new teeth to leave in the flesh of the innocent and the gullible.

Like a shark, it may make good soup though.

But seriously. I think them religious ****ers should just shut the hell up about homosexuality already. First it was 'them soulless niggers' and now its 'the fags.'

Way to preach a god that claims to be love fellows.

Now GI, you know as well as anyone, if an individual accepts the Genisis account of creation, marriage was essentially instituted by God Himself. (man leaving father and mother, cleaving to wife with whom he becomes one flesh and Christ later added that God joined them and man shouldn't pull them apart). If the Bible is considered accurate world history, Neo's perspective isn't ungrounded.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Gov. should provide special favors for "married" or "civil unioned" people, verses others anyway. Its just another demographic group that demands special treatment. It makes no sense.

And yet G_n_I has shown several times how that Genesis account doesn't forbid gay marriage.

I hate white bigots as much as I hate religious bigots, black bigots, and gay bigots. Your logic is flawed. :mad:

I hate white bigots as much as I hate religious bigots, black bigots, and gay bigots. Your logic is flawed. :mad:
Perhaps you could tell us who you're addressing?
:confused:

Now GI, you know as well as anyone, if an individual accepts the Genisis account of creation, marriage was essentially instituted by God Himself. (man leaving father and mother, cleaving to wife with whom he becomes one flesh and Christ later added that God joined them and man shouldn't pull them apart). If the Bible is considered accurate world history, Neo's perspective isn't ungrounded.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Gov. should provide special favors for "married" or "civil unioned" people, verses others anyway. Its just another demographic group that demands special treatment. It makes no sense.
So if yo uchoose to spend your life with someone and they get sick and end up in the hospital... let's say their parents hate you. Their parents don't let you see them when they're sick.

And hey, since there are no government instilled rights for marriage, what her parents say goes.

Good job.

And yet G_n_I has shown several times how that Genesis account doesn't forbid gay marriage.

No, it just defines it as man leaving father and mother and becoming one flesh with a woman. If that is its definition, it is hard to say that it has another, "Biblically" acceptable definition.

So if yo uchoose to spend your life with someone and they get sick and end up in the hospital... let's say their parents hate you. Their parents don't let you see them when they're sick.

And hey, since there are no government instilled rights for marriage, what her parents say goes.

Good job.

There are numerous ways to solve that problem legally. Try a DPOA or living will....

This genious Quarnessa who associates all religious teachings with those of the Klan and Jerry Falwell.

There are numerous ways to solve that problem legally. Try a DPOA or living will....

So you should go and fill out a thousand forms that give the person you choose to live your life with the same rights as marriage (for which there are over a 1000 rights associated). Yeah, really wise.

This genious Quarnessa who associates all religious teachings with those of the Klan and Jerry Falwell.

That isn't what he was saying. What he said was true. Christianity was used to justify slavery and now its being used to justify denying homosexuals equality (though different in scope they are on the same continuum--why am I suddenly flashing back to the Holocaust argument?). This doesn't mean all Christians feel this way and the only ones to jump on that conclusion are likely the ones who DO feel that way and are self-conscious about it.

In Andalucia (Spain, i'm not sure if all regions do this) you can apply to a certificate at the town hall giving you, (straight and unmarried, lesbein or gay) the same rights as married couples.

No ceramony (but that can be arranged seperatly) but the same legal rights as any married couple.

And Spain is a very Roman Catholic country. If they can live and let live, why is everyone else so dead against? :confused:

"As I have never seen God, you have never seen the wind, you've seen the effects of the wind and you know it is there but you have never seen the wind, so too have I seen the effects of God and I know he is there for the same reason.
Yes, there are no possibilities to measure wind, eh? Not how fast, which direction etc. Wind is completely immeasurable, just like God.

And their view is corrupt. And to THINK they know any better, is a sin of pride.

Jesus taught not to judge, and that doesn't mean not to punish - he meant us to be BLIND to the sins of others, and ONLY concerned with our OWN problems.


Actually, He said to first remove the plank in your own eye, before helping your brother with his speck, not that you shouldn't ever help your brother with a speck.

You are correct that we are not to judge (condemn) others per Christ's teaching, however, that does not mean we are not also to recognize sin and refer to it as sin. Yes, we must treat everyone like a sinner, because we all are, but it is perfectly reasonable to call a sinful act a sinful act.

As for the issue of pride, when any of us take on that sin, which we all do at some level or another, we take on the very essence and heart of sin. I can't sit in judgment of Neo on the subject as I'm not inside his head, so I don't know for sure that he's guilty of that sin. I do know that I am from time to time, and sincerely hope to be free of it completely someday.

I disagree - I think the key part is the 'once saved, always saved' element.

Sure, he says you have to believe on him to be saved, and he says that believing on him is the ONLY WAY to be saved... but THEN he goes on to say, that once you ARE saved... saved you shall remain.

If it was a contract you were reading, with your lawyer looking on - he'd be pointing out that the ONLY requirement for you to be able to 'sign' this contract in GOOD FAITH, is to 'believe' in salvation through Jesus' name... for the duration of the 'contract' signing.

Thus - you opt in, you are saved. After that - do as you will... you are still saved.

Are you suggesting that a "once saved always saved" theology is Biblically defensable? I'm confused.

Actually, He said to first remove the plank in your own eye, before helping your brother with his speck, not that you shouldn't ever help your brother with a speck.

You are correct that we are not to judge (condemn) others per Christ's teaching, however, that does not mean we are not also to recognize sin and refer to it as sin. Yes, we must treat everyone like a sinner, because we all are, but it is perfectly reasonable to call a sinful act a sinful act.

As for the issue of pride, when any of us take on that sin, which we all do at some level or another, we take on the very essence and heart of sin. I can't sit in judgment of Neo on the subject as I'm not inside his head, so I don't know for sure that he's guilty of that sin. I do know that I am from time to time, and sincerely hope to be free of it completely someday.
If that is true then I dont want to be told ever be told anything is a sin or atempt to be converted (helped) unless the person doing so is SINLESS

If they are not sinless then they better focus on that plank

So you should go and fill out a thousand forms that give the person you choose to live your life with the same rights as marriage (for which there are over a 1000 rights associated). Yeah, really wise.

It doesn't take a thousand forms. It really only takes about as much as filing for a marriage license. Maybe a couple more, but not really that different. I have helped numerous families of my mentally ill or developmentally disabled clients complete them. (incidentally, i'm a socialworker, not a lawyer)

It doesn't take a thousand forms. It really only takes about as much as filing for a marriage license. Maybe a couple more, but not really that different. I have helped numerous families of my mentally ill or developmentally disabled clients complete them. (incidentally, i'm a socialworker, not a lawyer)

So, why not just call it a marriage license and let people fill them out?

And by the way--I'm not just talking about a living well and medical POA. I filled mine out yesterday because I don't want to be caught like Terry Schiavo--and I know my parents wouldn't obey my wishes not to be kept alive artificially if its not written.

If that is true then I dont want to be told ever be told anything is a sin or atempt to be converted (helped) unless the person doing so is SINLESS

If they are not sinless then they better focus on that plank

I can tell you something is a sin without trying to help you remove it or convert you UT :p ;)

As for the trying to convert (make disciples), Christ gave very explicit commands that every Christian is to engage in this activity, though I don't think that means trying to ram stuff down someones throat who has already stated they aren't interested. I think Jesus said something to His disciples about shaking the dust off of their feet or something like that that pertains here...

Anyway, not every 'c'hristian is going to allow you the freedom to chose that every 'C'hristian should know they have to allow you. :rolleyes:

So, why not just call it a marriage license and let people fill them out?

And by the way--I'm not just talking about a living well and medical POA. I filled mine out yesterday because I don't want to be caught like Terry Schiavo--and I know my parents wouldn't obey my wishes not to be kept alive artificially if its not written.

Very wise of you.

The problem is, that marriage is, by historical definition, a religious institution first and formost, though it also has civil issues tied to it. It is a very difficult legal baby to manage in terms of maintaining a seperation of church and state on this subject. Far more challenging than the whole "historical documents/ten commandments" issue IMO.

I can tell you something is a sin without trying to help you remove it or convert you UT :p ;)

As for the trying to convert (make disciples), Christ gave very explicit commands that every Christian is to engage in this activity, though I don't think that means trying to ram stuff down someones throat who has already stated they aren't interested. I think Jesus said something to His disciples about shaking the dust off of their feet or something like that that pertains here...

Anyway, not every 'c'hristian is going to allow you the freedom to chose that every 'C'hristian should know they have to allow you. :rolleyes:
I dont know ... planks hurt in eyes ... you might want to get it looked at :p LOL

Very wise of you.

The problem is, that marriage is, by historical definition, a religious institution first and formost, though it also has civil issues tied to it. It is a very difficult legal baby to manage in terms of maintaining a seperation of church and state on this subject. Far more challenging than the whole "historical documents/ten commandments" issue IMO.
Not to mention WHICH religion should be in controll of it

Very wise of you.

The problem is, that marriage is, by historical definition, a religious institution first and formost, though it also has civil issues tied to it. It is a very difficult legal baby to manage in terms of maintaining a seperation of church and state on this subject. Far more challenging than the whole "historical documents/ten commandments" issue IMO.

Marriage, as has been explained, was originally a civil issue. I will leave that to GnI and/or Bottle to defend better than I can.

Further, by historical definition (and indeed religious definition) wives were property, interracial marriage was forbidden, inter-religious marriages were unheard of, and divorce--no matter how bad the abuse--was banned. The definition of marriage has already changed by societal standards--and religion has followed suit. It is the civil society that determines what is and isn't allowed in marriage and who can and cannot get the RIGHTS from the government associated with marriage--not religious organizations.

Not to mention WHICH religion should be in controll of it

And what of the religion's that allow gay marriage? We're stamping all over their rights.

I dont know ... planks hurt in eyes ... you might want to get it looked at :p LOL

I have asked "The Great Physician" for assistance with that. And you're right, it does hurt. I'll be very happy when He's done healing me and I'm amazed that He's willing to help such a difficult case as mine.

I have asked "The Great Physician" for assistance with that. And you're right, it does hurt. I'll be very happy when He's done healing me and I'm amazed that He's willing to help such a difficult case as mine.
I cant feel mine so I am good ... I learned plank removal 101 in self understanding course :p

Yes, there are no possibilities to measure wind, eh? Not how fast, which direction etc. Wind is completely immeasurable, just like God.


I said you could see the effects of the wind, speed and direction of air flow are both effects of the wind that are easily measurable, as are some of the effects of God on this planet. There are some things that are inixplicable by modern science, things like the man caught in an explosion caused by a ruptured indoor natural gas tank and feed lines that combined to make a near optimum fuel air explosive, and minutes later sat up in the wreckage of his home with only minor injuries, or maybe the case in Cali. where-in a man broke into a house and proceeded to kill the children within, but one child escaped to get help from a neighbor and two more survived through their sisters sacrifice, but never would have made it had not the previously swift and athletic intruder become suddenly slow and clumsy as though, to quote the children "He was fighting a team of linebackers" to get at them the childrens mother credits a team of angels with saving her childrens lives and I cannot find anything to make me think otherwise.

Marriage, as has been explained, was originally a civil issue. I will leave that to GnI and/or Bottle to defend better than I can.

Further, by historical definition (and indeed religious definition) wives were property, interracial marriage was forbidden, inter-religious marriages were unheard of, and divorce--no matter how bad the abuse--was banned. The definition of marriage has already changed by societal standards--and religion has followed suit. It is the civil society that determines what is and isn't allowed in marriage and who can and cannot get the RIGHTS from the government associated with marriage--not religious organizations.

Well if that's the case, everyone's opinion on the subject is equal and no one has a moral authority on the subject and what ever the majority wants rules I suppose. So, if there's more people that agree with Neo, that's how it is, until there's more people that agree with some other idea. Frankly, I think majority rule is a poor way to govern.

However, I disagree very strongly with GI and Bottle on the "historical" definition and very much see society past as having greatly distorted marriage when it defined a wife as property and the other 'rules' humanity has attached to "marriage".

Incidentally, do civil rights change just because society changes or are they absolute?

I cant feel mine so I am good ... I learned plank removal 101 in self understanding course :p

Then you're miles ahead of me. Oh wait, you just said you can't feel it... does that mean that you've just anesthetized yourself to cope with its presence ;) ? :p

:headbang: I don't understand why you are so stupid. Everyone is so flipping liberal. CRAP!!!!! :gundge:

putting religious intentions behind just look at the content.. while it is apealing (almost belivable) one has to ask what this article is saying.. that sexual orientation is a product of social conditioning ? why then when children recieve the same social conditioning the result is not the same. And even if I were to accept that social conditioning i the cause for sexual orientation it would have to be true for all if not most other animal speicies or atleast readibly observable. However, again this is not the case.. few animal species can even be indentified within the animal kingdom to engagein this diviant activity and even in the speicies it does arise in it comes in no meaningful percentages unlike the Human race.

If sexual orientation was a product of social conditioning why is it it does not appear in more speices especially when the young of any race is rasied without parents (due to death or seperation).

While I do not argue some social issues probably do come into play from all meaningful observations most young who survive without parents or social conditioning remain heterosexual making a strong suggestion that something inherently instictual is at work (nature)

putting religious intentions behind just look at the content.. while it is apealing (almost belivable) one has to ask what this article is saying.. that sexual orientation is a product of social conditioning ? why then when children recieve the same social conditioning the result is not the same. And even if I were to accept that social conditioning i the cause for sexual orientation it would have to be true for all if not most other animal speicies or atleast readibly observable. However, again this is not the case.. few animal species can even be indentified within the animal kingdom to engagein this diviant activity and even in the speicies it does arise in it comes in no meaningful percentages unlike the Human race.

If sexual orientation was a product of social conditioning why is it it does not appear in more speices especially when the young of any race is rasied without parents (due to death or seperation).

While I do not argue some social issues probably do come into play from all meaningful observations most young who survive without parents or social conditioning remain heterosexual making a strong suggestion that something inherently instictual is at work (nature)

The thing that you may be missing here is an internal locus of control. It is possible for us to make choices that are contridictory to both our genetic predispositions and social environment. Yes, that seems to happen on a rare basis these days, but it is still possible.

Well if that's the case, everyone's opinion on the subject is equal and no one has a moral authority on the subject and what ever the majority wants rules I suppose. So, if there's more people that agree with Neo, that's how it is, until there's more people that agree with some other idea. Frankly, I think majority rule is a poor way to govern.

Actually, the majority has really already spoken (in America anyways). You see we have this little thing called the 14th Amendment that guarantees all citizens equal rights under the laws of the nation and states. It's pretty basic. And if you look at most polls, they show that most people favor at least some recognition of gay relationships--and of those that favor at least SOME recognition, the majority are for full civil marriage.


Incidentally, do civil rights change just because society changes or are they absolute?

The platonic ideal of civil rights does not change--but the way society chooses to cast their shadows does change. I cannot believe this--I just basically described myself as a neoplatonist. <Sighs>

I dont understand how people can accept homosexuality as a choice when we are simply more advanced animals.. and no one is suggesting that other animal races choose heterosexuality intellegently when most of their actions are dictated by instinct, and instinct is primarly a gentic/biological mechanism...

The 14th ammendment DOES NOT protect homosexuals, if you read the text it specifically protects people from discrimination on the basis of RACE GENDER CREED or RELIGION. Homosexuals are not considered a minority by the government because they are all different races, most (that I know at least) are atheist and as such have no religion, they are of both sexes, and homosexuality is not a creed but a sexual preference.

The thing that you may be missing here is an internal locus of control. It is possible for us to make choices that are contridictory to both our genetic predispositions and social environment. Yes, that seems to happen on a rare basis these days, but it is still possible.

yes you can choose to suppress it... but this choice is not in the determinant... in other words genetics may determine your sexuality and you may choose to never act in a homosexual manner marry a woman live and die in a heterosexual relationship .. however the choice to not act on the impulses and to suppress the desires doesn't change what he/she is.

Then you're miles ahead of me. Oh wait, you just said you can't feel it... does that mean that you've just anesthetized yourself to cope with its presence ;) ? :p
Nope (two different thoughts coliding made for a bad post lol) mine is gone :) was born with that ability :p

Actually, the majority has really already spoken (in America anyways). You see we have this little thing called the 14th Amendment that guarantees all citizens equal rights under the laws of the nation and states. It's pretty basic. And if you look at most polls, they show that most people favor at least some recognition of gay relationships--and of those that favor at least SOME recognition, the majority are for full civil marriage.



The platonic ideal of civil rights does not change--but the way society chooses to cast their shadows does change. I cannot believe this--I just basically described myself as a neoplatonist. <Sighs>

So then, civil rights are just shadows or apparitions upon which we base imaginary ideas of good and bad and right and wrong that have little to do with reality. Am I getting this right?

As for who has said what, I believe the majority would pass civil unions, but not marriage. In any case, I think the Gov. should stay out of the whole marriage business anyway. If you want to create a legally binding civil contract that pertains to assets, custody of children etc, fine, but quite frankly, if you have to do that, your relationship with the person you chose to "marry" is probably suspect anyway...

The 14th ammendment DOES NOT protect homosexuals, if you read the text it specifically protects people from discrimination on the basis of RACE GENDER CREED or RELIGION. Homosexuals are not considered a minority by the government because they are all different races, most (that I know at least) are atheist and as such have no religion, they are of both sexes, and homosexuality is not a creed but a sexual preference.

Now I cannot get the damned internet to load a text of the Consitution right now, but I'm pretty sure that the 14th Amendment makes no specification beyond having to be a Citizen of the US. Guess what, I'm gay and I'm a citizen. I deserve equality.

And homosexuality isn't a preference--its an orientation. No choice involved. Check with the APA.

yes you can choose to suppress it... but this choice is not in the determinant... in other words genetics may determine your sexuality and you may choose to never act in a homosexual manner marry a woman live and die in a heterosexual relationship .. however the choice to not act on the impulses and to suppress the desires doesn't change what he/she is.

Well, I suppose if you want to define someone as being a thing on the basis of what inate urges they have, most of us are murders, theives, liars, adulters, pedifiles, rapists, etc... you get the point. I think it is dangerous to define a person on the basis of their urges.

Well, I suppose if you want to define someone as being a thing on the basis of what inate urges they have, most of us are murders, theives, liars, adulters, pedifiles, rapists, etc... you get the point. I think it is dangerous to define a person on the basis of their urges.
Then why strait marrige ... if I remember right the bible makes it clear that celabacy is the way to go :p

And homosexuality isn't a preference--its an orientation. No choice involved. Check with the APA.

Please don't tell me you think the APA knows whether or not there is a choice involved in homosexuality. There are so many competing Psychological theories on this subject that it would be entirely unscientific to claim anything one way or the other.

As one with Psychology as my educatianal back ground, I'd have to say that the APA is far from being the difinitive authority on much of anything.

Then why strait marrige ... if I remember right the bible makes it clear that celabacy is the way to go :p

Yes, but it also says that not all have this "gift" and that the marriage bed is "undefiled". And Christ did say, "What God has joined let not man put assunder."

Please don't tell me you think the APA knows whether or not there is a choice involved in homosexuality. There are so many competing Psychological theories on this subject that it would be entirely unscientific to claim anything one way or the other.

As one with Psychology as my educatianal back ground, I'd have to say that the APA is far from being the difinitive authority on much of anything.
I could say the same thing about the bible :p

Well, I suppose if you want to define someone as being a thing on the basis of what inate urges they have, most of us are murders, theives, liars, adulters, pedifiles, rapists, etc... you get the point. I think it is dangerous to define a person on the basis of their urges.

The point you make is valid.. but there is a flip side to it.. Alcholics are alcholics weather they are in remission and dont drink for 30 years or drink everyday... they still have the urges because the body wants/needs it... I would place sexual orientation in this same camp (not as a sickness but as an urge) .. Im a male who finds men more attractive... but if ive never had exeriances with either sex.. are you saying im still be default heterosexual ??

EDIT: By the way.. i would argue that anyone suppressing pediofelic desires is still a pedofile.. just "in the closet" so to speak

Yes, but it also says that not all have this "gift" and that the marriage bed is "undefiled". And Christ did say, "What God has joined let not man put assunder."
Gift of celabacy ... that would deffinatly be a "take back" present for me :p

We both screwed up. 14 protects from removal of property without due process and eligibility for government service. It would actually be 15 and that only protects from discrimination because of race and previous condition of servitude, so you are still wrong.

The point you make is valid.. but there is a flip side to it.. Alcholics are alcholics weather they are in remission and dont drink for 30 years or drink everyday... they still have the urges because the body wants/needs it... I would place sexual orientation in this same camp (not as a sickness but as an urge) .. Im a male who finds men more attractive... but if ive never had exeriances with either sex.. are you saying im still be default heterosexual ??

I guess, I'd argue against the "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic" mentality. I do know there are very specific physiological elements to alcohol addiction, but I still have a hard time defining someone by something they are not currently, actively participating in. The "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic" mentality comes from one treatment paradigm and fits the medical/disease model very well, but there are aspects of that mentality that are somewhat lacking IMO. It is possible for someone who was once considered an "alcoholic" to return to being a "social drinker" albeit those cases tend to be rare.

I'm not saying I would define someone as hetero or homo sexual. I would only say that someone is behaving in a hetero or homo sexual manner. This creates a delema for those who insist on catagorizing people, but I prefer not to or at the very least, not according to their sexual behavior.

Gift of celabacy ... that would deffinatly be a "take back" present for me :p

I can identify with that statement. ;) Though, if you think about it, imagine all the headaches you could avoid if you had no sexual desires.

I can identify with that statement. ;)
I wonder if you need a reciept :rolleyes: :p

I wonder if you need a reciept :rolleyes: :p

I imagine it would be unnecessary.

I imagine it would be unnecessary.
But the service department always gets mad at me if I dont have one

But the service department always gets mad at me if I dont have one

That's cause you go to the wrong service department :p

I was born neither gay nor straight. My family brought me up as a straight faced, mannered person. My father is a military southern gentleman, and my mother is a southern baptist christian. My whole family is all brought up str8. I myself chose to be gay, not to be different, but because I just dont get turned on as much with a girl as i do with a guy. I find that a person who can handle themselves out in the woods for days on end, who loves to be out doors, and is totaly not a femanine perosn is just my type. I usually find this in a male quality. I look for those in boyfriends, or girlfriends. I havnt found a girl who can fit that quality. I just chose to sleep with men and not women. Men have ruffer hands than most girls (the ones ive been with, then again, i was raised in a small town). If there comes a day I find a women with those qualitys, who isnt a preppy, snot nosed girl, who doesnt mind getting muddy, or nasty i will most likely be with them. Till then, i remain gay.

It for instance claims that heterosexuality is the most common ("dominant") sexuality among animals, which is simply not true.

It isn't? Where do all these damn baby animals keep coming from then? :confused:

It isn't? Where do all these damn baby animals keep coming from then? :confused:

you don't have to be heterosexual to produce children

you don't have to be heterosexual to produce children
you can be a sexual, hell, look at the Sea Horse.