NationStates Jolt Archive

Who are they not allowing?

<sigh>

In some cases, everybody but the Boy Scouts were not allowed.

Tell ya what, here is the Supreme Court case in which the Boy Scouts prevailed on the grounds that it is a private religious organization and that anti-discrimination laws violated its First Amendment rights. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-699.html ), 530 US 640 (2000)

Here are articles regarding some of the actual instances the ACLU has challenged government endorsement or favoritism towards the Boy Scouts.
Pentagon Agrees to End Direct Sponsorship of Boy Scout Troops in Response to Religious Discrimination Charge (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17023&c=141)
In Final Chapter of San Diego Park Lease Case, Court Rules Against Boy Scouts on All Issues (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15481&c=100)
ACLU of San Diego Secures Landmark Settlement in Boy Scout Lease Case (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14694&c=100)
Civil Liberties and the Boys Scouts: What are the issues? (http://www.aclu-or.org/litigation/powell/scoutmain.html)

Enjoy!

Human beliefs. It is to laugh.

Makes me wonder if the Kingdom of Heaven ever watches these debates like we watch "reality" television.

I've been involved in this back-and-forth far too many times to ever get deeply involved with it again. Suffice it to say that the answer, as it usually is with regard to human affairs, is somewhere in the middle between the extremes.

Again I say to live and let live -- do as you will but harm none. If the ultra-charismatic/televangelists are right, God'll sort us all out anyway.

I accept your call for a truce. However, if this discussion comes up in a few months when the more recent article has been archived online, or if I can find it in paper, I shall post it up here for the deliberation of all, and hostilities can be renewed. However, it's always nice to debate with someone polite - kudos to you, Antheridia.
I will probably be there to debate you again if the article does show up, just because I hate sitting back and watch what I believe get crapped on. I appreciate your comments about my debating, and that's the point that I go for. Too many people have a skewed view of how every Christian in the world acts because of those that mess it up. I know I'm not perfect and I never will be, and if I were, there would be no need for my beliefs. I do sincerely believe what I say, and I almost always try to find a scripture that will back me on them. If you don't believe what I say, then that's your opinion. I only hope to provide a less crazy view of Christians.

I understand that, but I just wanted to let everyone out there know that compared to everyone else, Christians aren't as bad as they're made out to be. Everyone in this world has their own set of faults, and it's how you deal with those that really matters.

And your response illustrated New Fuglies point rather well.

It is common for some to suggest that "gays and lesbians are okay as long as they keep it to themselves" or some such nonsense -- as if allowing gays and lesbians to exist was tolerance or equality.

Or they "hate the sin, but love the sinner."

Yet make the same suggestions re Christians ....

--schnipp--
Too many people have a skewed view of how every Christian in the world acts because of those that mess it up. I know I'm not perfect and I never will be, and if I were, there would be no need for my beliefs. I do sincerely believe what I say, and I almost always try to find a scripture that will back me on them. If you don't believe what I say, then that's your opinion. I only hope to provide a less crazy view of Christians.

I second that view and put it to you that you have presented a rational Christian view -- something that I know is indeed possible and desirable, but all too rare. Thank you. One Christian I know said it this way: "God doesn't want idiots for followers." Amen.

Yet make the same suggestions re Christians ....
Christians are, however, directed to tell the world about their faith. Jesus clearly states this in the Bible, and as a Christian, I'm required to let you know. If you want to accept it or reject it, it's your choice. We are supposed to pray for your salvation, but ultimately, it's your free will that determines what will happen to you.

Christians are, however, directed to tell the world about their faith. Jesus clearly states this in the Bible, and as a Christian, I'm required to let you know. If you want to accept it or reject it, it's your choice. We are supposed to pray for your salvation, but ultimately, it's your free will that determines what will happen to you.

:headbang:

Did you not get the point?

Or are you deliberately acting obtuse?

Either way, it ain't pretty.

:headbang:

Did you not get the point?

Or are you deliberately acting obtuse?

Either way, it ain't pretty.
I'm just letting you know man. Like I said, if you don't like it, then that's your deal. I said nothing in my post about throwing Bibles on you and making sure you understood them all.

I revoke my vote...that addage gets more and more dumb every time I hear it.

i am a christian, and before you judge me, i do not have anything against gays and lesbians, but just wish to point out the there is a bible passage that is VERY anti-homosexuality. not that i am against it

I'm a Christian, I also think I'm gay, and I'm celibate while I figure all this stuff out. It really sucks. I also have medical/hormonal problems which the doctors haven't got to the bottom of (yet). I'm actually not decided on whether homosexual relationships are sinful or not, but I can't bear to see some of the appalling arguments and justifications "Christians" use against gays. Some are fairly sensible, but many just fall apart if you just think about them for more than a couple of seconds. Also, trite slogans which hide a weak argument bother me. As does the deliberate attempt some organisations make to paint gays as extra-evil people with an uber-evil agenda and an extra-uber-evil lifestyle bug me. There is no one gay agenda, no one gay lifestyle, and for goodness sake the majority of gays are *not* child molesters! Oh, and getting saved doesn't automatically make you suddenly be straight.

This is my first instance of hearing it. I think it's pretty witty and clever, but it will probably get, in my mind, old pretty fast.

Okay, does anyone else get sick and tired of that arguement/statement?

I find it unoriginal, and so overdone.

Your views?

Im an athiest. To me, neither part of the statement is correct nor could it ever be.

I prefer the

gays are evil aliens tying to take over the world and decimate the human species so that they can steal our oil.

line of reasoning.

I'm a Christian...I'm actually not decided on whether homosexual relationships are sinful or not...Some are fairly sensible, but many just fall apart...getting saved doesn't automatically make you suddenly be straight.

What would the fairly sensible arguements be, pray tell?

Don't you think your god should love and accept you for who you are, and not put you through mental anguish?

If about half the male population has had a homosexual experience, don't you think calling it sinful is kind of... well, stupid?

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882)

I'm a Christian, I also think I'm gay, and I'm celibate while I figure all this stuff out. It really sucks. I also have medical/hormonal problems which the doctors haven't got to the bottom of (yet). I'm actually not decided on whether homosexual relationships are sinful or not, but I can't bear to see some of the appalling arguments and justifications "Christians" use against gays. Some are fairly sensible, but many just fall apart if you just think about them for more than a couple of seconds. Also, trite slogans which hide a weak argument bother me. As does the deliberate attempt some organisations make to paint gays as extra-evil people with an uber-evil agenda and an extra-uber-evil lifestyle bug me. There is no one gay agenda, no one gay lifestyle, and for goodness sake the majority of gays are *not* child molesters! Oh, and getting saved doesn't automatically make you suddenly be straight.
1 Cor. 6:9-10
Rom 1:26-28

I can't help what it says, I just wanted to let you know.

I'm just letting you know man. Like I said, if you don't like it, then that's your deal. I said nothing in my post about throwing Bibles on you and making sure you understood them all.
I'll try, though I don't know why if Cat-Tribe can't get through I don't know what chance I have...

There is a conciet that some give that gays and lesbians can be gays and lesbians as long as they don't tell anyone and keep it all to themselves. They must deny thier very nature by being 'secretive' about it.

To illustrate what is being asked of them, the request is reversed-asked to be a christian but be quite about it and keep it to yourself. Deny the nature by being secretive about it. As an illustration of what you are asking of other people. You are so resistant to that suggestion about your nature that you've jumped to it's defence without understanding the context, (which is to say NO ONE is ACTUALLY suggesting that you be secretive about your faith, just pointing out that asking the gay and lesbian community to be 'secretive' is akin to asking christians to be secretive.)

That you are this immediately defensive about it underlines what was being demonstrated. Do you understand now?

I'll try, though I don't know why if Cat-Tribe can't get through I don't know what chance I have...

There is a conciet that some give that gays and lesbians can be gays and lesbians as long as they don't tell anyone and keep it all to themselves. They must deny thier very nature by being 'secretive' about it.

To illustrate what is being asked of them, the request is reversed-asked to be a christian but be quite about it and keep it to yourself. Deny the nature by being secretive about it. As an illustration of what you are asking of other people. You are so resistant to that suggestion about your nature that you've jumped to it's defence without understanding the context, (which is to say NO ONE is ACTUALLY suggesting that you be secretive about your faith, just pointing out that asking the gay and lesbian community to be 'secretive' is akin to asking christians to be secretive.)

That you are this immediately defensive about it underlines what was being demonstrated. Do you understand now?
I guess I misunderstood you.

1 Cor. 6:9-10
Rom 1:26-28

I can't help what it says, I just wanted to let you know.

So we've moved on passed biblical literalism of the OT, and now we have to dismember NT literalism as well? Sheesh. Tenacious little buggers, aren't you?

Woah! I'm gone for half a day and 6 more pages are added! Gotta catch up, so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been stated.

*snip*

Don't you think your god should love and accept you for who you are, and not put you through mental anguish?

If about half the male population has had a homosexual experience, don't you think calling it sinful is kind of... well, stupid?

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882)

[quote source pun intended]

The thing is, God does love us for who we are. He loves us even if we don't love Him in return.

True. Homosexual attractions due spur up within most at least once in their lifetime. I don't want to go too deep into it unless called for, but, as I've stated before in another thread (possibly more?), there is a strong difference between who we're physically attracted to and choosing to love another. Scripture never once condemns the attraction one gets. Instead, it condemns the action taken through that attraction. Leviticus says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as would with womankind..." If you read carefully, it's not saying "Thou shalt not have attractions to mankind as would with womankind." Romans and Corinthians (scriptures stated above) state homosexual behavior is offensive, not homosexual desire. We can't always prevent a thought or emotion, but we can control what we do with them. That was what was being put across through the commandments.

As for Nietzsche, I don't really put a whole lot of trust into someone who died in a mental institution. Besides, true Christian resolution finds the world a beautiful creation of God. While we have fallen from original glory, we can still find the beauty His creations hold fo us. Just a thought. :)

Debating can be taxing. I'm out.

I thought we already moved beyond OT literalism; if not, you're in for a shit load of comments exposing the sexism, racism, intolerance, and insensitivity that pervade that hodgepodge work that is [for the past century or so admitted to be] a collection of advice by various Jewish scholars and scribes.

Homosexual desire (or love) is prevalent only in 10% of males. Homosexual activity is prevalent in over 50%. The difference lies in the genetics, and the defining term is the element of "love" or "desire" (if you will), not the will, want, or enjoyment of the sexual act itself.

The behavior is only condemned because it seems anithetical to reproduction, something people saw as important and to be fierecely upheld, supported, and protected in their continuing struggle toward conquest and wiping out those with differing views. In light of the population, and the instability it's created, there's hardly anything wrong with promoting it, or enjoying it.

And logically, as well as theologically, the claim by man or deity that homosexuality is wrong is entirely flawed. To give desire but forbid the act is that modus operandi of a sadist.

To love the sinner but hate the sin is antithetical, and extremely hypocritical, in light of all the threats that are directed toward the sinner.

Nietzsche went insane because he couldn't stand the hypocrisy of his time; the pain and anguish indoctrination causes; the realization of ultimate nothingness; and his own personal childhood trauma and problems.

Debating can be taxing. I'm out.

You should try and master debate. It makes life less stressful.

I love my partner more than anyone else i've ever met. We've been together for 3 years and are having a commitment ceremony in a few months where over 60 people will watch us having our relationship blessed.

i guess it would be beautiful, honourable, biblical thing to do if we weren't both girls!

Never judge a lifestyle you haven't experienced. i don't judge the Christians who say we're wrong, i just dont' listen anymore as i'm sick of them judging me

'To love the sinner but hate the sin is antithetical, and extremely hypocritical, in light of all the threats that are directed toward the sinner'

i like that a lot. classy point :)

I thought we already moved beyond OT literalism; if not, you're in for a shit load of comments exposing the sexism, racism, intolerance, and insensitivity that pervade that hodgepodge work that is [for the past century or so admitted to be] a collection of advice by various Jewish scholars and scribes.

Homosexual desire (or love) is prevalent only in 10% of males. Homosexual activity is prevalent in over 50%. The difference lies in the genetics, and the defining term is the element of "love" or "desire" (if you will), not the will, want, or enjoyment of the sexual act itself.

The behavior is only condemned because it seems anithetical to reproduction, something people saw as important and to be fierecely upheld, supported, and protected in their continuing struggle toward conquest and wiping out those with differing views. In light of the population, and the instability it's created, there's hardly anything wrong with promoting it, or enjoying it.

And logically, as well as theologically, the claim by man or deity that homosexuality is wrong is entirely flawed. To give desire but forbid the act is that modus operandi of a sadist.

To love the sinner but hate the sin is antithetical, and extremely hypocritical, in light of all the threats that are directed toward the sinner.

Nietzsche went insane because he couldn't stand the hypocrisy of his time; the pain and anguish indoctrination causes; the realization of ultimate nothingness; and his own personal childhood trauma and problems.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting your statistics from, but I don't see all that much homosexual behavior in the men I see on the streets and in town every day. Sure, it's there, but only minimally. I doubt the number could be as high as half of all men.

And your assumption that God would give such desires is off-base. According to what we as Christians believe, after the Fall of Man, we were introduced to the wide world of sin. New emotion, new cravings, and new deeds appeared. Homosexual desire was not in the original schematic of things.

As for the claim that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is antithetical and hypocritical, I do admit that there are extremists and ignorants under the "Christian wing" that do not practice this. I'd like to hope that I'm not one of them. If you have read this thread all of the way through, I hope that you see that this is true. If you are referring to God's punishments required for sin, he isn't punishing because he enjoys it. Sin is something that needs to be punished, but you can't very well punish the sin itself, doncha think? God can't give thievery or murder a spanking, so he needs to show those who commit them why it's bad. Sometimes it's harsh, but it's never overdone.

And your assumption that God would give such desires is off-base. According to what we as Christians believe, after the Fall of Man, we were introduced to the wide world of sin. New emotion, new cravings, and new deeds appeared. Homosexual desire was not in the original schematic of things.

I point to an oft-quoted anti-abortionist verse: "Before I formed you in the belly I knew you." Sorry I can't quote chapter and verse on that. I'd take that to mean God had a hand in designing us all. Hermeneutical inferences have been made on much less tenuous quotes than that in the past.

Edit: Reductio: If you claim the anti-abortionists are wrong and, in this sense, biology has nothing to do with temptation, explain why many people are tempted to do things they desperately don't want to do, who hate themselves for it? By that model, temptation should only ever be something people want to do which is wrong, not something which is going on beneath the surface which the person, while compos mentis and all that, hates and regrets.

Also edited for spelling. Damn, I'm just rubbish with this laptop keyboard.

New Watenho']I point to an oft-quoted anti-abortionist verse: "Before I formed you in the belly I knew you." Sorry I can't quote chapter and verse on that. I'd take that to mean God had a hand in designing us all. Hermeneutical inferences have been made on much less tenuous quotes than that in the past.

Edit: Reductio: If you claim the anti-abortionists are wrong and, in this sense, biology has nothing to do with temptation, explain why many people are tempted to do things they desperately don't want to do, who hate themselves for it? By that model, temptation should only ever be something people want to do which is wrong, not something which is going on beneath the surface which the person, while compos mentis and all that, hates and regrets.


Ah, but that's implying that we were already born with carnal desires and the like, to which most Christians disagree.

EDIT, to add your edit: True temptation involves anything that leads the tempted away from God's presence, be it a blatantly wicked thing, or something questionable. It's not the state of mind that is questioned (usually). It's the action done. However, there are instances where, if you can control a particular thought, then to do so. Jesus stated in 1 John 3:15 "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." which pretty much states, if you can do what is right in your thought and action, do so.

I don't see all that much homosexual behavior in the men I see on the streets and in town every day.

Homosexual desire was not in the original schematic of things. The OT?

As for the claim that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is antithetical and hypocritical, I do admit that there are extremists and ignorants under the "Christian wing" that do not practice this. It's said so often it's cliche.

Sin is something that needs to be punished, but you can't very well punish the sin itself, doncha think? God can't give thievery or murder a spanking, so he needs to show those who commit them why it's bad. Sometimes it's harsh, but it's never overdone.

Bold by Saipea for emphasis and response


You make so many dogmatic assumptions it's painful to read.

"God" doesn't necessitate anything; you've never heard him communicate to you directly, and therefore all you know is the tripe that you are indoctrined with. Hell, people can overlook the original scripts, be they the OT or NT (which were written by men, sexist, racist, prejudice, elitist, homophobic men with their own personal desires and motives) simply because they were rasied in a setting where such petty things as literalism and facts were overlooked.

Morals are subjective. Who's to say murder and stealing is wrong? Are you so pathetic and mentally soft that you need invisible deities to tell you that (if it is true) ?
I think it's only bad because it disrupts the course of life and gets in the way of the society as a whole. It impedes upon progress, and therefore it is "bad".

Homosexuality does not. It has no bearing on society, and doesn't affect it negatively in the slightest. In fact, it helps relieve some of the population stress that selfish and ignorant people like Catholics, fundamentalists, and peasants put on it by having so many children with no regard whatsoever to the ramifications.

[It was a "problem" before a man declared himself a god, which incidentally preceded Christ by several centuries, with Buddha, Mithra, et al, who were also born of virgin birth (the latter on December 25th).
Homosexuality was prevalent in many societies, and in animals. But this is an irrelevant and futile point which can be attacked by the less knowledgable ad naseum.]

I do believe killing people for loving one another is over done, sick and twisted, and no god or goddess would ever do that, unless they were evil themselves.

Ah, but that's implying that we were already born with carnal desires and the like, to which most Christians disagree.

I've got to stop putting substantial edits on. Sorry. Um, see above. And also: yes, they do, but there's plenty of scientific evidence to suggest otherwise, particularly in the case of humans. Plenty of evidence that some things just aren't simple surface preferences. If nothing else, the attempts to re-orientate homosexuals of both genders and all religions, beliefs and so on in the 1950s htrough the 1970s failed massively. Some were converted, and which often accompanied a strong religious conversion which served the function of eradicating guilt. Most of these admitted they still had the desire, and hated themselves for it, despite now thinking themselves "above" it. The overhwelming majority, subjected to electroshock aversion therapy and the like, either experienced no change overall or became afraid of seeing members of their own gender naked, which is an unfortunate side effect of electroshock.

Though I believe its natural being a gay, if it were a choice it still shouldn't matter. People can't tell how someone to live. Whether it be natural or by choice and doesn't harm another person you can't tell someone otherwise. Christians argue its their way or no other way. There are so many other religons, plus agnostics and athiests out there that aren't Christian. Many dispute what the bible says... Whos to say whos right or wrong, but bottom line it doesn't hurt anyone and if its natural it can't be helped and if its a choice nobody has a right to tell them to live otherwise.

Though I believe its natural being a gay, if it were a choice it still shouldn't matter. People can't tell how someone to live. Whether it be natural or by choice and doesn't harm another person you can't tell someone otherwise. Christians argue its their way or no other way. There are so many other religons, plus agnostics and athiests out there that aren't Christian. Many dispute what the bible says... Whos to say whos right or wrong, but bottom line it doesn't hurt anyone and if its natural it can't be helped and if its a choice nobody has a right to tell them to live otherwise.

Christians comprise only 33% of the world, though their Muslim counterparts (who are currently breeding hapazardously) share the same narrow minded ideas, making the total about 50%. Still, these numbers pretend that they are all narrow-minded, which luckily they are not.

The extremist views and backhanded "tolerance" for homsexuals only comprise about 40% of Christians (though probably a larger percent of Muslims), so you can safely supposes that only about 25% harbor these views.

But as religion chases upon the coattails of science, this number will happily diminish, so, no worries. ;P

I'm not jumping into the overall debate here. But this one deserved counter...

What about the Boy Scouts? They not only sued to be allowed in, when they lost, they sued to have the Boy Scouts banned from public schools.
That's because the Boy Scouts are funded by the government. Government funded institutions are not allowed to be discriminatory.

how ......... sad ....... only in america

Don't you think your god should love and accept you for who you are, and not put you through mental anguish?

If about half the male population has had a homosexual experience, don't you think calling it sinful is kind of... well, stupid?

Like I said, I'm still figuring things out. And lots of people go through all sorts of mental and physical anguish. Life isn't fair, and I haven't really got it any worse than someone born disabled, or somoene with an abusive family. As to your second point, the fact that everyone lies doesn't mean it's not sinful. Just because "everybody does it" doesn't make it right.

1 Cor. 6:9-10
Rom 1:26-28

I can't help what it says, I just wanted to let you know.

I know all the quotes and arguments very well, thankyou. The more sensible arguments tend to be based on those two passages. (Probably the most rubbish arguments are the ones based on Sodom and Gomorrah). I hope to study new testement greek at some point so I can look closer for myself, since neither side is above manipulating scripture to support their veiw. There are well-reasoned arguments that these passages do not refer to homosexuality in a modern, adult, monogamous, lifelong relationship, but I am not 100% sure they are correct. Hence the undecidedness. Romans 1 is of particular interest as it is the only biblical reference to female homosexuality, but I have been looking at the other references too, since they still have some relevance.

I am also having some questions about the infallability of the Bible, and to what extent it is divinely inspired, but I plan to look at this more thoroughly after I've finished my exams.

So many Christians are so full of hate, I wonder if they are missing something important. I think the most important thing is to love God and work on that relationship so that he can guide you, and the second most important thing is to love other people so you behave in a loving, respectful, peaceful and helpful way towards them.

You make so many dogmatic assumptions it's painful to read.

"God" doesn't necessitate anything; you've never heard him communicate to you directly, and therefore all you know is the tripe that you are indoctrined with. Hell, people can overlook the original scripts, be they the OT or NT (which were written by men, sexist, racist, prejudice, elitist, homophobic men with their own personal desires and motives) simply because they were rasied in a setting where such petty things as literalism and facts were overlooked.

Morals are subjective. Who's to say murder and stealing is wrong? Are you so pathetic and mentally soft that you need invisible deities to tell you that (if it is true) ?
I think it's only bad because it disrupts the course of life and gets in the way of the society as a whole. It impedes upon progress, and therefore it is "bad".

Homosexuality does not. It has no bearing on society, and doesn't affect it negatively in the slightest. In fact, it helps relieve some of the population stress that selfish and ignorant people like Catholics, fundamentalists, and peasants put on it by having so many children with no regard whatsoever to the ramifications.

[It was a "problem" before a man declared himself a god, which incidentally preceded Christ by several centuries, with Buddha, Mithra, et al, who were also born of virgin birth (the latter on December 25th).
Homosexuality was prevalent in many societies, and in animals. But this is an irrelevant and futile point which can be attacked by the less knowledgable ad naseum.]

I do believe killing people for loving one another is over done, sick and twisted, and no god or goddess would ever do that, unless they were evil themselves.

I don't wish to insult you or your beliefs like you are doing with me and mine, so I won't. I'm sorry if my beliefs upset you or if I had said something that has personally offended you. The latter was never an intent.

I'm not going to try to convince you out of your beliefs either. That would be wrong and selfish of me. I was merely pointing out what I believe and why I believe it, not attempting at evangelising. Again, sorry if it came across that way.

You believe morality and truth are subjective. I believe morality and truth are absolute. You believe the belief in God derides progress. I believe the lack of it causes us to fall further. To argue back and forth on who's right and who's wrong will lead us nowhere, so I will keep from doing so.

Again, sorry for any offenses.

1 Cor. 6:9-10
Rom 1:26-28

I can't help what it says, I just wanted to let you know.
"Arsenkotai" translates not as "homosexuals", but rather as "male temple prostitutes".

*snip*

I am also having some questions about the infallability of the Bible, and to what extent it is divinely inspired, but I plan to look at this more thoroughly after I've finished my exams.

So many Christians are so full of hate, I wonder if they are missing something important. I think the most important thing is to love God and work on that relationship so that he can guide you, and the second most important thing is to love other people so you behave in a loving, respectful, peaceful and helpful way towards them.

It's just a matter of faith, Sonho. It's never wrong to express doubts, so don't think that. I just encourage you to pray about it and for God to guide you to what He wants you to know. :)

And yes, I agree whole-heartedly with your second statement. We shouldn't focus on pointing out what's wrong in others' lives and instead let others see what's right in living ours. So yes. Love God first and foremost. Everything else will come a lot easier. ^^

Not so. The same can be said of chimps. And incidentially, homosexual behaviour has been observed in both chimps and dolphins.

another interresting fact - there has been several cases of male dolphins trying to rape women who thought they would have a nice 'swim with the dolphins' experience.

There have been cases of male dolphins trying to rape men who thought swimming with the dolphins would be fun.
When a dolphin rolls over and exposes its belly to you don't rub it belly, whatever you do. People look at that behavior and think that the dolphin wants to be petted like a dog. To the dolphin,however, he is simply exposing his gential slit.

If a grown man droped his pants in front of you would you rub his belly? If so, would you blame him for seeing your rubbing as a sign of sexual desire?

To be with two hot looking females. That's like paradise.
Are they lesbian or bi?

Okay, does anyone else get sick and tired of that arguement/statement?

I find it unoriginal, and so overdone.

Your views?

I've never actually heard that before......

It brings up the saying "A witty saying proves nothing".

There have been cases of male dolphins trying to rape men who thought swimming with the dolphins would be fun.
When a dolphin rolls over and exposes its belly to you don't rub it belly, whatever you do. People look at that behavior and think that the dolphin wants to be petted like a dog. To the dolphin,however, he is simply exposing his gential slit.

If a grown man droped his pants in front of you would you rub his belly? If so, would you blame him for seeing your rubbing as a sign of sexual desire?

I admit that there have been many recorded cases of things like dolphin infanticide, and of dolphins murdering other mammals. I say murder because they are the attacker and they don't eat their victims, but I have never heard of dolphins (really porpoises if you are thinking of the bottlenose variety) sexually attacking anything outside of their own species.

I think you should verify even one sexual attack by a dolphin on a human before you go around spewing such utter balderdash. Sounds like a crock of shit to me.

"Arsenkotai" translates not as "homosexuals", but rather as "male temple prostitutes".

Where do they get homosexuality out of male temple prostitutes??

I'm not quite sure where you're getting your statistics from, but I don't see all that much homosexual behavior in the men I see on the streets and in town every day. Sure, it's there, but only minimally. I doubt the number could be as high as half of all men.
--snipples-- --emphasis added--


Uh...could that be because, oh, gee, I dunno...THEY'RE NOT DOING IT ON THE STREETS OR IN TOWN?!?! :rolleyes:

You should know better than that. HETEROSEXUAL folks aren't doing it in the streets, either. Plenty of men in history and at present are sodomites whether with men or women, and they tend to do that kind of thing in the privacy of their own homes. So no, you're apt NOT to see it in the streets.

Furthermore, plenty of men have had sex with other men while condemning homosexuality and firmly believing they're NOT gay (Spokane, WA mayor James West and Red-hunter Roy Cohn come to mind). So -- like God -- just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Where do they get homosexuality out of male temple prostitutes??

Hey, for enough drachmas, you could get anything you wanted out of a male temple prostitute! *ba-dum-bump, crash* Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week.

Where do they get homosexuality out of male temple prostitutes??
He's guessing, that and he's not the only one. The word is problematic, it is only used in two places and is not really a greek word, howerver, it breaks into 'male' ~ 'bed' but it wasn't used as a word before. The revisionist would like us to believe that it doesn't mean homosexual, but they seem to be wishful thinking when all is said and done. Another group of gay-defenders has tried to translate the word as man-boy relationship, but that too seems to be wishful thinking.

He's guessing, that and he's not the only one. The word is problematic, it is only used in two places and is not really a greek word, howerver, it breaks into 'male' ~ 'bed' but it wasn't used as a word before. The revisionist would like us to believe that it doesn't mean homosexual, but they seem to be wishful thinking when all is said and done. Another group of gay-defenders has tried to translate the word as man-boy relationship, but that too seems to be wishful thinking.

So, no matter how royally you cloak your pretensions, you're guessing, too. Good. So long as we're all clear on that.

So, no matter how royally you cloak your pretensions, you're guessing, too. Good. So long as we're all clear on that. He's not arguing with me, he's arguing with the hundreds and thousands of translators over the last four hundred years.

Uh...could that be because, oh, gee, I dunno...THEY'RE NOT DOING IT ON THE STREETS OR IN TOWN?!?! :rolleyes:

You should know better than that. HETEROSEXUAL folks aren't doing it in the streets, either. Plenty of men in history and at present are sodomites whether with men or women, and they tend to do that kind of thing in the privacy of their own homes. So no, you're apt NOT to see it in the streets.

Furthermore, plenty of men have had sex with other men while condemning homosexuality and firmly believing they're NOT gay (Spokane, WA mayor James West and Red-hunter Roy Cohn come to mind). So -- like God -- just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.


My apologies. I didn't intend for it to come across as sexual behavior, but even then, not even the majority of homosexuals are flamboyant, or so I'm assuming. Sorry for the assumptions and generalizations. You're right. I should know better than that.

My whole point though, albeit holding weak footing, was that I find it very difficult to believe that half of the male population delves in homosexual activity. (Granted, I could have just said that and stopped typing after it. :P)

Again, apologies.

He's guessing, that and he's not the only one. The word is problematic, it is only used in two places and is not really a greek word, howerver, it breaks into 'male' ~ 'bed' but it wasn't used as a word before. The revisionist would like us to believe that it doesn't mean homosexual, but they seem to be wishful thinking when all is said and done. Another group of gay-defenders has tried to translate the word as man-boy relationship, but that too seems to be wishful thinking.


Funny, since the word homosexual itself is a revision that occurred within the last 200 years. I wonder what word was there first in the english translation, it sure wasn't homosexual.

So again, who is doing the revising here?

My apologies. I didn't intend for it to come across as sexual behavior, but even then, not even the majority of homosexuals are flamboyant, or so I'm assuming. Sorry for the assumptions and generalizations. You're right. I should know better than that.

My whole point though, albeit holding weak footing, was that I find it very difficult to believe that half of the male population delves in homosexual activity. (Granted, I could have just said that and stopped typing after it. :P)

Again, apologies.


Not all homosexuals are flamboyant. That is a gross and often repeated generalization that simply isn't true. You probably know several gay men and lesbians who do not fit their stereotypes--and therefore you don't know because gays are just like you!

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy to say "All gays are flamboyant fairies" and "everyone who acts like that is gay". It automatically ignores the rest of us who lead fairly conservative lifestyles (as far as our behavior goes, politically I am a somewhat middle fo the road libertarian).

As for homosexual behavior goes, that doesn't mean that they are all and out gays. It means that 50% of men, at some point in their lives, have taken part in a sex act with another male. I believe the study also included fantasizing about such sex acts---been a while since I read it. I do remember that sex acts included mutual masturbation--something many teenaged boys take part in. Of course there are more blatant and extreme examples, as have already been pointed out.

Hmm. I think the slogan proves nothing, because its irrelevant. At the time of Adam and Eve, there were no other human beings around. And even the most ardent homosexual supporter won't suggest that they can somehow procreate.

However, that doesn't imply the Scriptures are cool with gay. They refer to it as abomination in Leviticus, at least the male on male variety. (I'm not kidding, there is nothing written about women on women)

My belief? Homosexuality is a sin. So're half the actions I take before leaving the house. Once I manage no sin, I'll start casting stones. Until then, gays and straights are all the same to me...human first, orientation second. (Actually, orientation is a lot farther down the list of "things I give a damn about" but you get the picture.)

As far as the US being founded on freedom, it wasn't. It was founded on Christianity. However, it has evolved into Freedom for All, making it wrong for laws to attempt to illegalize homosexuality.

As far as the US being founded on freedom, it wasn't. It was founded on Christianity. However, it has evolved into Freedom for All, making it wrong for laws to attempt to illegalize homosexuality.

Exactly where did you get the idea tha the US was founded on Christianity? Certainly not from the Constitution--you know that pesky document that actually FOUNDED the nation.

As far as the US being founded on freedom, it wasn't. It was founded on Christianity. However, it has evolved into Freedom for All, making it wrong for laws to attempt to illegalize homosexuality.

The US was founded on many things because it was founded by many individuals. The athiests and agnostics and those of religious faiths other than Xianity most definitely did not found the country on Xianity though the various Xian sects most certainly did, though their mindset was more "founding this nation on Puritan beliefs" or "founding this nation on Anglican beliefs" or "founding this nation of Catholic beliefs" etc. What we got was one big compromise, much like today. ;)

Hmm. I think the slogan proves nothing, because its irrelevant. At the time of Adam and Eve, there were no other human beings around. And even the most ardent homosexual supporter won't suggest that they can somehow procreate.

However, that doesn't imply the Scriptures are cool with gay. They refer to it as abomination in Leviticus, at least the male on male variety. (I'm not kidding, there is nothing written about women on women)

My belief? Homosexuality is a sin. So're half the actions I take before leaving the house. Once I manage no sin, I'll start casting stones. Until then, gays and straights are all the same to me...human first, orientation second. (Actually, orientation is a lot farther down the list of "things I give a damn about" but you get the picture.)

As far as the US being founded on freedom, it wasn't. It was founded on Christianity. However, it has evolved into Freedom for All, making it wrong for laws to attempt to illegalize homosexuality.


Yeah but Leviticus also bans eating of shell fish and wearing clothing made of more then 1 fabric (Im not kidding either)

If you uphold the correctness Leviticus in the case of homosexuals do you also think that people that wear t-shirts (cotton polly blend often) or eat lobster are also going to hell for it?

Funny, since the word homosexual itself is a revision that occurred within the last 200 years. I wonder what word was there first in the english translation, it sure wasn't homosexual.

So again, who is doing the revising here?

What is your point? My point is, even if they had to write an entire sentence to express what we now use the word 'homosexual' for, they still came to the same conclussion. A rose by any other name is still a rose... The same with homosexuality:

King James
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

NIV
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. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

NASB
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Wycliffe
9 Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men,
10 neither thieves, neither avaricious men [neither covetous men, or niggards], neither men full of drunkenness, neither cursers, neither raveners, shall wield the kingdom of God.
11 And ye were sometime these things [And these things ye were sometime]; but ye be washed, but ye be hallowed, but ye be justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

See for yourself. KJ version, top, was four hundred years ago. The translators of the other versions came to the same conclussion, and none of them referenced the KJ version, but the original scriptures.




Note: This forum sure has a lot of people that seem to require me to quote scripture at them. I wonder why that is?

Yeah but Leviticus also bans eating of shell fish and wearing clothing made of more then 1 fabric (Im not kidding either)

If you uphold the correctness Leviticus in the case of homosexuals do you also think that people that wear t-shirts (cotton polly blend often) or eat lobster are also going to hell for it?

I am a Jew, and I do follow those rules.

As far as hell goes, people are going to Hell regardless, they are sinful. It's not someplace God sends us, its where we are destined due to our nature.

I have never heard of it before. And it took a while to get.

Note: This forum sure has a lot of people that seem to require me to quote scripture at them. I wonder why that is?

Not me. I'm a Bible scholar which is precisely why I'm staying out of this whole sub argument... ;) :D

I am a Jew, and I do follow those rules.

As far as hell goes, people are going to Hell regardless, they are sinful. It's not someplace God sends us, its where we are destined due to our nature.

I didn't think Jews believed in hell.

I'm Canadian and I've heard it.

I think it's funny, and true.
i do too :D :p

Adam> :fluffle: <Eve
Not Adam> :fluffle: >Steve
:D

I am a Jew, and I do follow those rules.

As far as hell goes, people are going to Hell regardless, they are sinful. It's not someplace God sends us, its where we are destined due to our nature.
I somehow doubt that you have followed all of those ridiculous rules but whatever I don’t have to believe something that far out there is true lol to each their own
I somehow doubt that you have followed all of those ridiculous rules but whatever I don’t have to believe something that far out there is true lol to each their own ( and you sound very Calvinist … all you need to do is throw a riotous “reprobate” , not saying exact but seems to be their kind of “down” view on our future)

Exactly where did you get the idea tha the US was founded on Christianity? Certainly not from the Constitution--you know that pesky document that actually FOUNDED the nation.

From saints to secularists, the American Founding Fathers had complex and thought-provoking ideas (even compared to our own day) about the role of religion in society, politics, and government. But to deny that they were Christians in the foundation of America is to close one eye and keep the other unfocused.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that you can quote Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin at me, of which I know to disagree. But neither can you ignore the first two presidents of our country… Although I’m sure you would like to ignore them.

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

John Adams:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

Adam> :fluffle: <Eve
Not Adam> :fluffle: >Steve
:D

:fluffle: look alot more like an adam and steve to me... ok, more like pac-man and pac-man vs. pac-man and ms. pac-man... :D

From saints to secularists, the American Founding Fathers had complex and thought-provoking ideas (even compared to our own day) about the role of religion in society, politics, and government. But to deny that they were Christians in the foundation of America is to close one eye and keep the other unfocused.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that you can quote Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin at me, of which I know to disagree. But neither can you ignore the first two presidents of our country… Although I’m sure you would like to ignore them.

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]


I don't have to quote any of the founding fathers at you--I just have to read the consitution itself. It does NOT make us a Christian nation in any way, shape, form or fashion. Being founded by some men who are Christian no more makes this nation a Christian one than being born in a barn makes a man into a horse.

Hmm. I think the slogan proves nothing, because its irrelevant. At the time of Adam and Eve, there were no other human beings around. And even the most ardent homosexual supporter won't suggest that they can somehow procreate.

However, that doesn't imply the Scriptures are cool with gay. They refer to it as abomination in Leviticus, at least the male on male variety. (I'm not kidding, there is nothing written about women on women)

My belief? Homosexuality is a sin. So're half the actions I take before leaving the house. Once I manage no sin, I'll start casting stones. Until then, gays and straights are all the same to me...human first, orientation second. (Actually, orientation is a lot farther down the list of "things I give a damn about" but you get the picture.)

As far as the US being founded on freedom, it wasn't. It was founded on Christianity. However, it has evolved into Freedom for All, making it wrong for laws to attempt to illegalize homosexuality.

How exactly was this country founded on Christian doctrine...only two of the 10 ten comandments are laws:

Don't steal or murder..and that makes perfect sense. Audultry no law against that, using the lord's name in vain no law against that, honor your father and mother no law against that, and so on. But, we can argue that forever..

But yes your right we are humans first. I believe its natural, but you do have something everyone should agree on is that we are all humans.

snip

Just so you know, I'm not ignoring you. Your post requires a lot of reading and a thoughful response, which I cannot give right now. I'm using debate here as a sort of mental break every so often from studying for the ***STEP 1*** that I have to take Friday, so you'll have to forgive me if I lag in responding to things that I'm not as well versed in.

I don't have to quote any of the founding fathers at you--I just have to read the consitution itself. It does NOT make us a Christian nation in any way, shape, form or fashion. Being founded by some men who are Christian no more makes this nation a Christian one than being born in a barn makes a man into a horse.

You should read some history books, about the times the constitution was written in. You will see that the primary reason they avoided the topic is because each state had a different church which it contributed funds to and they were all jealous that a different denomination would become more prominant.

To put it all into perspective, you have to understand the times they lived in, which you do not or you ignore, if you proclaim that they did not constitute in mass as a Christian nation.

Just so you know, I'm not ignoring you. Your post requires a lot of reading and a thoughful response, which I cannot give right now. I'm using debate here as a sort of mental break every so often from studying for the ***STEP 1*** that I have to take Friday, so you'll have to forgive me if I lag in responding to things that I'm not as well versed in. Not a problem, none at all. I understand.

Ok... I feel I should say something here.

I, myself, am fairly str8 acting. Given their first impression of me, I am a usual heterosexual male... and I can't tell you how many times girls have hit on me cause of it.

I am gay... openly since 7th grade. I have read about all sorts of religions... My father has a Jewish family, and my mom's is Covservative Christian. I use to celebrate Channukah and Christmas for God sakes. I had a unique childhood.

I completely agree with some portions of The Bible, and yes, I own one (ignorant family members gave me it... I put use to it). I have been to church and temple before.

I have been thru loads of experiences where friends, family and acquitences have tried to turn me heterosexual based on things from a woman's physical beauty to having children, and all things in between those arguments. It's not my thing, I don't care. Other people can do whatever they want... But I live my life the way I want and feel I should live it.

Mattathias

You should read some history books, about the times the constitution was written in. You will see that the primary reason they avoided the topic is because each state had a different church which it contributed funds to and they were all jealous that a different denomination would become more prominant.

To put it all into perspective, you have to understand the times they lived in, which you do not or you ignore, if you proclaim that they did not constitute in mass as a Christian nation.
Treaty of Tripoly anyone?

From saints to secularists, the American Founding Fathers had complex and thought-provoking ideas (even compared to our own day) about the role of religion in society, politics, and government. But to deny that they were Christians in the foundation of America is to close one eye and keep the other unfocused.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that you can quote Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin at me, of which I know to disagree. But neither can you ignore the first two presidents of our country… Although I’m sure you would like to ignore them.

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

John Adams:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

Here are some more quotes from the founding fathers.

George Washington

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
-George Washington

John Adams

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

Thomas Jefferson

Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”

James Madison

Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Weee. There have been pages and pages of responses to this topic since I last visited NS. Oh well...

Actually the original idea didn't work so now we have Eve.

No, we don't have Eve 'now', because if she ever existed, she, like Adam, is long dead. The point was, God created a hermaphrodite first. This would seem to suggest that his idea of human sexual relations was not as black and white as the stupid phrase this thread is about suggests.

if God exists, then upon my arrival before his seat of judgement I shall tell that being to judge me upon the effects and intentions of my actions during life. How else is a person judged?

And if that being declares me guilty of what it views as 'sin' then so be it I shall bid my defiance and raise up my own banner in Heaven, and it shall be wracked with the fury of those wronged by such arbitrary and despicable rules, created by a despotic tyrant and enforced by bigotted fools.

From a biological POV, couplings of males and females are the norm - same sex copulation is an aberration (and before you get your PC knickers in a knot, look up the dictionary meaning of aberration)...

And before you cite examples of the animal kingdom, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a rarity. "Exclusively homosexual" animals are so rare as to be almost nonexistant - the vast majority of sexually aberrant behaviour in the animal kingdom is "bisexual" i.e. animals "do it" with either sex because it feels good.

This has nothing to do with my personal views of homosexuality - I have no problem with gay people or their lifestyles. I am speaking purely from a biological point of view.

The comment has been made before that homosexuality isn't "normal." Technically, I have to agree, since homosexual couples can't produce offspring with each other.
However...
Handicapped people aren't "normal," yet you see wheelchair ramps almost everywhere, and there are special ed. classes in public schools.
To me (as an American), the question isn't about what your holy book tells you about the issue; it's not about personal preference or opinions. Like it or not, homosexuals are humans too, and therefore are granted all the rights of other American citizens. If you can tell me where in the Constitution it says that the government is allowed to discriminate against people because they're different, then please don't hesitate.

My reply is simple: Point out where, in the Bible, Adam had a choice. If Eve and Steve were both there and Adam chose Eve primarily, then maybe they've have a point.

If God had intended for us to do it with the same gender then it would have been adam and steve but god ordained it to be man and woman. God wanted it his way and he will get it.
:confused: :fluffle: :sniper:

My reply is simple: Point out where, in the Bible, Adam had a choice. If Eve and Steve were both there and Adam chose Eve primarily, then maybe they've have a point.
Exactly what I was going to say.

If God had intended for us to do it with the same gender then it would have been adam and steve but god ordained it to be man and woman. God wanted it his way and he will get it.
:confused: :fluffle: :sniper:
intolerance is the main cause of human suffering, in my opinion

It's been done to death, like many other witty things. It stops being funny around the four billionth time you hear it.
As oppposed to all those liberal "witty statements" that are new and refreshing no matter how many times you hear them.

intolerance is the main cause of human suffering, in my opinion
I agree.

George Washington
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."
-George Washington

That's right, I already said that. They didn't want one church fighting with the other churches. Free from the influence of clergy and denominations. It changes nothing, and if you imply that it meant more than that, you are mistaken.

John Adams
From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’” He is speaking of denominational squabbling, and how the Christian churches fight the other Christian churches and neither of them end up being right. He did not endorse the idea that there was no God and that you didn’t receive salvation via Jesus Christ. John Adams was a “church going animal” by his own admition.


Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
Quote the entire article, it is ensuring the Muslim leader of Tripoli that America is not on "crusade" against them, to only partially quote it is to misconstrue it’s reason for saying what it is saying, i.e., "we are not Europeans out to back-stab you."

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


Thomas Jefferson
*snip*
With this one I will not argue. To the best of my knowledge, Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian, although a great founding father and he has my respect.


James Madison

Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"
He is talking about denominational doctrine, one over the other.



James Madison
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, Section 7, 1785:
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Fine, to suggest that James Madison was not a Christian though goes to far. He specifically believed that the denominations HAD to be freed from the bonds of government inference so that they would be free to grow even more influential:

It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov. [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

You should read some history books, about the times the constitution was written in. You will see that the primary reason they avoided the topic is because each state had a different church which it contributed funds to and they were all jealous that a different denomination would become more prominant.

To put it all into perspective, you have to understand the times they lived in, which you do not or you ignore, if you proclaim that they did not constitute in mass as a Christian nation.


There is a difference in being a nation of Christians and being a Christian nation. If what you say is true and they had the intent of this being a Christian nation with freedom of the different denominations under that, they would've mentioned Christianity somehwere in the Consitution. Instead, they made NO mention of God/Jesus at all and enshrined no Christian law into the Constitution. Further, as you so conveniently (for me) mentioned before, there were atheists and deists amongst the founders who certainly would have never agreed to this being founded as a Christian nation.

If you actually read the Consitution, you will understand that this country allows free expression of religious beliefs by allow and prevents the government from regulating religion or using religion to regulate the people.

In short, this is a nation of different religions--yes predominantely Christians--were the government is secular but does not interefere in the private matters of the religions of the governed.

Ok... I feel I should say something here.

I, myself, am fairly str8 acting. Given their first impression of me, I am a usual heterosexual male... and I can't tell you how many times girls have hit on me cause of it.

I am gay... openly since 7th grade. I have read about all sorts of religions... My father has a Jewish family, and my mom's is Covservative Christian. I use to celebrate Channukah and Christmas for God sakes. I had a unique childhood.

I completely agree with some portions of The Bible, and yes, I own one (ignorant family members gave me it... I put use to it). I have been to church and temple before.

I have been thru loads of experiences where friends, family and acquitences have tried to turn me heterosexual based on things from a woman's physical beauty to having children, and all things in between those arguments. It's not my thing, I don't care. Other people can do whatever they want... But I live my life the way I want and feel I should live it.

Mattathias

Good for you. I'm gay, but haven't been open about it. Only a few close friends know. I wish people weren't so ignorant and realized we are who we are. This is the way we live our lives. There was a great movie about this..But, I'm a Cheerleader. Esentially its about a teenage girl sent to a homosexual camp that tries to change homosexual teenagers male and female a like to heterosexual. It really satirizes the attempt of it.

Good for you. I'm gay, but haven't been open about it. Only a few close friends know. I wish people weren't so ignorant and realized we are who we are. This is the way we live our lives. There was a great movie about this..But, I'm a Cheerleader. Esentially its about a teenage girl sent to a homosexual camp that tries to change homosexual teenagers male and female a like to heterosexual. It really satirizes the attempt of it.


And it makes me laugh. . .a damned good movie.

Ha..I thought I was the only one to see this movie..

As oppposed to all those liberal "witty statements" that are new and refreshing no matter how many times you hear them.

I think any saying to get a point across is stupid. But, you just avoided the question. Why not elaborate?

If God had intended for us to do it with the same gender then it would have been adam and steve but god ordained it to be man and woman. God wanted it his way and he will get it.
:confused: :fluffle: :sniper:
:rolleyes:

On a side note, by that logic celibacy is also wrong.

So, by everyone's twisted logic, what should I be? (I am infertile and currently biologically incapable of intercourse, although the latter could probably be fixed through surgery). Does this mean God intended me to be gay, since he made me incapable of intercourse with an opposite sex partner?

Note: the above question does not represent my beliefs, I just feel like being antagonistic and pointing out that male+female->procreation doesn't always work. :p

My reply is simple: Point out where, in the Bible, Adam had a choice. If Eve and Steve were both there and Adam chose Eve primarily, then maybe they've have a point.
Any sex > no sex

I think Adam would have gotten jiggy with it with Steve if there was no Eve.....Oh wait. That's just a story. There's no Adam or Eve or Steve either way.

Here's something to chew on for those who wish to really evangelise over something that's really worth evangelising over: Jesus spent time with possibly the most sinful kind of people--prostitutes, lepers (who were believed to have committed some sort of sin, and was punished by God with a skin disease), and even the tax collectors ;). He never condemned their actions, and only told Mary Magdelene (prostitute) to "Go and sin no more" after she accepted his help. In fact, Jesus never preached to those who didn't want to hear his messages. The crowds followed him to specific spots to hear his sermons, and the Pharisees asked him questions, expecting answers. Never once did he walk up to a prostitute (or homosexual for that manner) and point, saying "Believe in me, ye sinful heathen! You will burn if you don't! I'll see to it personally! ".

Which makes me wonder if I would really serve a Lord who would do such things... *ponders*. Thankfully though, I serve a Lord who loves all, even if they're in the wrong (and who isn't, if you think about His standards?). :)


Beautiful! Now, I'm not up-to-date with my Bible but I distinctly remember a passage where a woman is asking for Christ to cure her sick daughter but, to begin with, he refuses because she is of a different people. However, once he sees the way she begs for him to help her daughter he agrees. Even Christ (if he existed) was a man and like all men he didn't have all the right answers to begin with :)

im no christian hell im not a jew but gay relationships exept for lezbians are totaly uniseptable

im no christian hell im not a jew but gay relationships exept for lezbians are totaly uniseptable

I'm sorry, you're failing to take account of biseptable people. Uniseptables aside, please account for biseptables before you start making those sorts of judgements.

From a biological POV, couplings of males and females are the norm - same sex copulation is an aberration (and before you get your PC knickers in a knot, look up the dictionary meaning of aberration)...

Ooh, someone gets a cookie for being accurate about it. Yup, the behaviour is biologically aberrant - what my father describes as a "disorder of instinct" - but this is not and never has been cause to condemn something, unless it leads to harmful, anti-social behaviour or the like. Now, of course, this is the area of contention: irrespective of how natural or not it might be, and how morally acceptable or unacceptable that naturality is, if one takes the behaviour to be morally wrong then what causes it is more or less irrelevant.

If God had intended for us to do it with the same gender then it would have been adam and steve but god ordained it to be man and woman. God wanted it his way and he will get it.
:confused: :fluffle: :sniper:

I'm not going to offer any arguments against this, I'm just going to ask for any indication whatsoever - anything, anywhere in Genesis - where God says "You will boink only Eve." Even "Go forth and multiply" doesn't work - it doesn't leave out "Go forth and boink for the fun of it while you're at it." And if it did leave that out the vast majority of heterosexual couples would be in a world of sin too, married or not.

Yeah but Leviticus also bans eating of shell fish and wearing clothing made of more then 1 fabric (Im not kidding either)

If you uphold the correctness Leviticus in the case of homosexuals do you also think that people that wear t-shirts (cotton polly blend often) or eat lobster are also going to hell for it?

Look up the concept of "Moral vs. Ceremonial Laws". It's a wonderful piece of interpretation which helps Christians determine which of the OT's Thou Shalts and Thou Shalt Nots to keep and which to throw away. Considering that it was an arbitrary decision, and a vote, at that, amongst the early Christians that one did not have to be circumcised when converting to Christianity, the validity of the basis of these decisions is cast into a degree of suspicion.

There, that's my work done for the time being.

My name isn't Adam, Eve OR Steve! Is there no sex is God's world for me?

There is a difference in being a nation of Christians and being a Christian nation. If what you say is true and they had the intent of this being a Christian nation with freedom of the different denominations under that, they would've mentioned Christianity somehwere in the Consitution. Instead, they made NO mention of God/Jesus at all and enshrined no Christian law into the Constitution. Further, as you so conveniently (for me) mentioned before, there were atheists and deists amongst the founders who certainly would have never agreed to this being founded as a Christian nation.

If you actually read the Consitution, you will understand that this country allows free expression of religious beliefs by allow and prevents the government from regulating religion or using religion to regulate the people.

In short, this is a nation of different religions--yes predominantely Christians--were the government is secular but does not interefere in the private matters of the religions of the governed.

In essence, what you say is right. It is however popular in this day and age to act like the founding fathers were secularist in heart, and outside of a few, this is not true. And because so many people today run around screaming at the top of their lungs that they were given "freedom From Religion," not freedom of religion, I feel it necessary to correct the misconception...


John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

im no christian hell im not a jew but gay relationships exept for lezbians are totaly uniseptable
While that may seem to be a valid and comprehensible argument for you, it isnt. You indeed further the impression that a homophobic viewpoint and less than average education go hand in hand. Glad you embarass the other side, keep up the good work.

In essence, what you say is right. It is however popular in this day and age to act like the founding fathers were secularist in heart, and outside of a few, this is not true. And because so many people today run around screaming at the top of their lungs that they were given "freedom From Religion," not freedom of religion, I feel it necessary to correct the misconception...


John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

Again, I just reiterate that I am not the one who brought the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers into this. I just pointed out that they did NOT found this nation as a religious one, but a secular one in which freedom of religious practice and freedom from domination by any one religion/religious group was enshrined in the Constitution. Again, it goes back to what I said earlier, just because a man was born in a barn, it doesn't make him a horse. Just because the US was founded by a predominance of Christians, doesn't make it a theocracy.

Pracus, exactly!

I mean if the was a christian country there would be no first admendment.

If God had intended for us to do it with the same gender then it would have been adam and steve but god ordained it to be man and woman. God wanted it his way and he will get it.
:confused: :fluffle: :sniper:
*thinks back to the actual topic of this thread*

i guess it never really does get old.

I wasn't aware it was an actual valid arguement rather an idiotic statement.

there have definitely been many attempts to use it as such... :headbang:

Pracus, exactly!

I mean if the was a christian country there would be no first admendment.

Or perhaps a statement to the effect that the power of the government comes from God rather than from the consent of the governed.

Or perhaps a statement to the effect that the power of the government comes from God rather than from the consent of the governed.

Kinda like a monarchy... huh?

Kinda like a monarchy... huh?

Not necessarily. You could be a republic who thought that hte will of God was acted out in elections or a theocracy or an oligarchy. The US just isn't any of those--nor are most western nations (though certainly not all by any means).

Kinda like a monarchy... huh?

Paraphrased Python:

Peasant: Christians ? Who are they then ?
God: You all are. And I am Your Lord.
Peasant: Well I didn't vote for you.

*grin*

It is an arguement. Believe me. I was forced to go to an anti-gay rally by my parents once. They actually used the arguement.

Anti-gay rally, where, I wanna go to one.

Anti-gay rally, where, I wanna go to one.

Look at the Bible Belt states. I think they call it Male Pride Celibrations. ;)

Look at the Bible Belt states. I think they call it Male Pride Celibrations. ;)

Do they have them in England?

Look at the Bible Belt states. I think they call it Male Pride Celibrations. ;)

I'm from the Bible Belt, and here we call them something to the extent of "Pro-Family Rallies" because the bigots in charge somehow think that gay people don't have families. Of course, it also has the added touch of humor (to me) since gay people are often called "Friends of the Family" or just " family."

So really, Falwell seems to stand for gay rights . . . he just doens't know it yet :)

Do they have them in England?

Anti-gay rallies? Christ no. You live here, Blu-tac! Nah, we're far too reserved for such things. Besides, with religion out of the way of politics* Britain has finally come to accept there are no genuine reasons beyond "Ewwwww!" to restrict homosexuality.

It's really more a NIMBY issue, but to be honest, gay or straight, nobody wants a couple shagging in their backyard anyway.

*America has a government the Constitution of which forbids it from being based in religious principles, yet more religious influence in policiy-making than any other Western nation. Britain has a monarch who is appointed by God and who has to stamp every law the government proposes, yet there is no involvement of religion in parliament whatsoever here. It astounds me sometimes.

I thought we already moved beyond OT literalism; if not, you're in for a shit load of comments exposing the sexism, racism, intolerance, and insensitivity that pervade that hodgepodge work that is [for the past century or so admitted to be] a collection of advice by various Jewish scholars and scribes.

Homosexual desire (or love) is prevalent only in 10% of males. Homosexual activity is prevalent in over 50%. The difference lies in the genetics, and the defining term is the element of "love" or "desire" (if you will), not the will, want, or enjoyment of the sexual act itself.

The behavior is only condemned because it seems anithetical to reproduction, something people saw as important and to be fierecely upheld, supported, and protected in their continuing struggle toward conquest and wiping out those with differing views. In light of the population, and the instability it's created, there's hardly anything wrong with promoting it, or enjoying it.

And logically, as well as theologically, the claim by man or deity that homosexuality is wrong is entirely flawed. To give desire but forbid the act is that modus operandi of a sadist.

To love the sinner but hate the sin is antithetical, and extremely hypocritical, in light of all the threats that are directed toward the sinner.

Nietzsche went insane because he couldn't stand the hypocrisy of his time; the pain and anguish indoctrination causes; the realization of ultimate nothingness; and his own personal childhood trauma and problems.

Well put!

I could not have said it better myself.

Most of what the Bible says against Homosexuality isn't really even acutally against it.
Never once does good say, "I hate Fags!"
People just imply that because he doesn't say he loves them, he hates them.

Read what Paul says in his letter to the thessalonians about "homosexual offenders" and then try and make your statement again.

last time I checked Paul = human...

god/Jesus = alledgedly little bit bigger then that...

so paul had his own issues and forced his agenda... its called politics

First tim e i heard "god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?" Iwanted to punch the guy in the face -_-

First tim e i heard "god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?" Iwanted to punch the guy in the face -_-

Ya its really annoying and offensive.

last time I checked Paul = human...

god/Jesus = alledgedly little bit bigger then that...

so paul had his own issues and forced his agenda... its called politics
the way i see it, the teachings of the Christian churches and the teachings of Jesus have very little in common.

the way i see it, the teachings of the Christian churches and the teachings of Jesus have very little in common.
True that

That was the whole refromation thing..but it isn't just the Catholic Church in the 1400's-1500's, but

It is all over the place now days...