[quote]WMD wrote:
ZEB, dear, you are a complete fraud. You have now proven it. I am indeed an expert on the subject because I am a researcher in Biblical studies and archeology at the University of Texas. You don’t have any credentials. You don’t even know what the LSJ is, do you? …etc. …etc. …etc.[/quote]
KERRR-OUCH!!! (three exclamation points)
I see that the WMD moniker is come by honestly… every once in a while, you are the hydrogen bomb of ownage.
What the hell does someone say after that?
“Umm… oh YEAH? uh…”
I hope ZEB can still have babies… I’d be a little shrivelled after that one. ARE YOU OKAY, MAN? DO YOU WANT ME TO THROW YOU A ROPE OR SOMETHING?
We lose this debate as soon as we let people bring the Bible into it.
The bible has absolutely nothing to do with the law.
Imagine that I had a book called the Badgernomicon. This is a story about a Badger who lives in my toilet, and has rid the heathen Chinese of the scourge of Pandas by strangling the Evil Pandas’ will to fuck each other. The mystical badger tells me that oral sex is bad. Would this be allowed as evidence against oral sex?
Maybe if I wrote it down and someone believed it, in 2000 years it would work.
The people who aren’t Christians who are arguing against homosexuality are getting “gross” mixed up with “unethical”. Do I think it’s morally wrong to pick my nose and eat it? Nah, but I do think it’s kind of gross.
Do I think it’s morally wrong for two Gay guys to enjoy some anal sex? No, but I think it’s kind of gross.
Who cares? It doesn’t hurt me. I support people’s right to fuck other adults, or shit on their chests, or whatever floats their boat. Because the more people that are getting off, the happier everyone is. Otherwise we have some very angry closet homos. And as a gay friend of mine once said: “I may be gay, but I’m still a man.” (This was immediately after leveling someone who was calling him a faggot.)
Anyone read that book “Snow Crash” by Neal Stephenson? I always think about the girl in that book whenever Christianity gets mentioned.
Dan “Wanted to delete this post, but is going to post it anyway” McVicker
Dan, agreed on all points. The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.
But how can this knowledge be reconciled in the minds of the homophobic (homorepugnant, whatever) when they are brainwashed to think that being gay is horrible and against God? You don’t wanna piss God off by acknowledging these gays as normal people, do ya? And it’s for the homos own good anyway, right? They need to know that they are WRONG.
The anti folks NEED that bible when it comes to this, because it’s the only thing that lets them feel justified and comfortable while they indulge in their fear and disgust of the homosexual. If you take the bibles away, there’s no more real argument, and they will sooner or later have to admit that they were wrong. I would imagine that it sucks to wake up in the morning and realize you’ve been full of shit and lied to for your entire life, so don’t worry – the religious side of this issue will come back into play… over and over again. It’s tough to let go of that rock, man.
I find it interesting though, that we have a bible researcher in this very thread who doesn’t agree with the message that the various anti-gay Christianities having been spouting since day one.
[quote]WMD wrote:
And just for the record, I never once said I don’t believe in God.
I don’t believe in oppression based on perverted interpretations of the biblical texts. To all Christians who actually try to live a Christ-like life and who practice non-judgement and live and let live, I apologize for lumping you in with people like ZEB. You certainly don’t deserve THAT.[/quote]
and you are absolutely sure that you don?t try to make the bible fit your beliefs?
I find it hard to believe that you really have convinced yourself that the bible is not against homosexualtity.
Sorry ZEB. I will publicly apologize to you right here and now. You aren’t ready to accept the emptiness of the fate that awaits us all, and that’s okay. My attempts to jokingly jostle you from your self-built jail cell have done nothing but hurt your feelings, and I am sincerely, truly sorry.
My bad.[/quote]
Apology accepted. Hold on, “emptiness?” (eye roll).
You are quite welcome. I’m very glad that I have had at least some sort of positive impact on you. Does this mean that we are buds again?
I wonder how you can be so sure that there is no God? You are basically telling me that you know without any doubt in your mind that God does not exist.
Do you realize how many facts there are in the known universe? Out of all of those facts how many do you know? Do you completely understand every topic that has ever been discussed? Do you also understand all of the things that have not yet been discovered or understood by the finest minds on the planet? Are you actually that intelligent? Yet, you can sit there and post that there is no God. I think that’s simply a foolish stance given the vast universe full of facts that you (and I) don’t understand.
I know I’m married
No seriously, we are all controlled, or at least influenced by something. In my case I have been influenced by Jesus Christ. In your case you have been influenced by the world. However, you do believe something don’t you? What is it I wonder? What is in your heart? What is your moral code? God built us to believe. If you don’t believe in God then it is replaced with something else. What?
Gay people are indeed “normal.” If anyone (I know you know me) is looking for that bigoted anti-Gay guy I’m not it! I have employd openly Gay people. I have rented to openly Gay people. Furthermore, I don’t care, as a business man, neighbor etc. They are people just like you and I who deserve love and understanding.
Segway to my spiritual beliefs and there is not much difference. No where does the Bible allow us to hate sinners! (John 8:4) Did Jesus say to the crowd “give me a stone I want to hit the whore.” No, he told the crowd gathered with stones in hand: “he without sin cast the first stone.” However, my more liberal friends forget the rest of the verse: “go an sin no more.” In other words, we have no right to attack those who are blatantly sinning. But it is Christs desire that we “sin no more!”
Is the guy who cheats on his wife “normal?” Yea, he sure is! But, he needs to stop sinning according to the Bible. Do I have a right to hate him and belittle him? Never!
I think you are being rather harsh there my friend. I have never felt better than when I am fully active in my faith. That means for me at least, active in my Church activities, reading the Bible daily, praying and contributing to society (outside of church) both financially and through volunteer work. How does any of that separate or alienate me? In fact, it’s engaging! Just the opposite of your suggestion.
I know I might be missing out on some things that the world finds attractive: Extramarital affairs, drug use, alcoholism, cheating, stealing etc. I guess the list is endless. Hey, that’s not to say that I’m not tempted in various directions and don’t occasionally “fall.” Human beings do that and when I do I know that I have a God that, through my faith in Jesus Christ, forgives me. That may sound absurd to you right now, but someday it won’t.
Personally, I think we need more leaders with good moral principals. No one can prove to me that we as a country are better off today, morally, than we were say 35 years ago (in most ways that is).
I voted for Bush (you did too right?) But my first choice was Steve Forbes.
I will be very honest with you. If your “friends” really need help I will be glad to help them. I mean that sincerely! I will do whatever I can to help them out. All you have to do is PM me and we can discuss that. They are imperfect people, just like me.
If you think for one second that two lesbians “married” would then be accepted you are sadly mistaken. Some people will never give the love and understanding to anyone who is different than they are. It’s a sad fact of humanity.
But they are hurting “somebody.” They are hurting themselves. I know that’s all pie in the sky to you.
No I decided that myself when I became a Christian. I do in fact “love” the sinner. However, I am allowed to “hate” the sin. Hence, how can I be part of sanctioning sin, especially with in the holy bounds of matrimony?
Oh I know what it’s like from many points of view. I was not a Christian all of my life. I participated in some nutty things when I was younger. I can also tell you that I have never been witness to a sin which seemingly is harmless or apparently fun, that did not have a longer term negative consequence, right here in this lifetime!
If you want examples just let me know. But, I think this post is long enough.
True, however I would cast a vote against gay marriage knowing the sort of harm that it could do!
You are a very compassionate individual no doubt. I can feel the power of your words slapping me in the face from my computer screen. Your compassion is not misdirected either. You think you are helping your friends live a better life. That is noble on your part. Many people could not care less about others, at least not to that degree.
Let me just tell you one last time how I feel. I think gays should have every right (excluding marriage) that heterosexuals have. It is very upsetting to me when I hear of a gay person being turned down for a job simply because they are gay. That is appalling!
However, my feelings on marriage run rather deep. When you change the definition of marriage you change part of the fabric of society. And I am not for that. If I knew for a fact that the change would end with gay marriage I would still be against it. There are some things much larger and more important than your small circle of friends. One is society as a whole.
I wonder where gay marriage would lead us? How many people currently have “friends” who are involved with two different partners? Is it much of a stretch for them to simply want to fit in and be allowed to marry…all three of them? Please don’t tell me about the polygamy laws. They are already under attack by some liberal justices in certain states. Where does this end? Please tell me one thing that has occurred on a societal level that has not led to something else?
Where does this one “little” change lead? I have given one example, there are others. Another could be lowering the age of consent. Some groups are currently working on that very issue, Did you know that? I don’t want to go down that road. The institution of marriage should not be devalued by changing it in any way.
And yes it is devalued by allowing it to include more than just one man and one woman. It’s amazing, some of you get upset over a person doing curls in the squat rack (I want to read about that more YIKES). Yet, when it comes to a 5000 year old sacred institution some are ready to allow just about anything. And do you know why? Because it’s not cool to stand up and say “this might be wrong.” It’s never cool to “deny” anyone anything is it?
Hold on, I take that back. It’s still cool (at least around here) to make fun of fat people, skinny guys who don’t eat enough but still try to gain muscle, and of course those who do curls in the squat rack. The relativists made it so uncool to say no to just about everyone else. Afterall, which values do you follow? Oh my, we can’t hurt anyones feelings. Especially the feelings of a tiny minority group (gays who want to marry are far less than 1% of the total population). Should we forget the interests of the 99+% of the majority and thousands of years of societal values in order to please this tiny segment? If we do then why not please another segment that makes up say a whopping 2% of the population…and on and on…
I am aware that many heterosexual marriages are far from perfect, however, I don’t blame that on the institution. I blame it on several segments of society which make it more difficult for either person with in a marriage to stay faithful to the other. This is unrelated to gay marriage, and obviously another topic. However, marriage does not need yet another slap in the face.
Sorry lothario you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But I do appreciate your conciliatory nature, at least on this post.
(Apologies for any spelling or typo errors, not a lot of time this morning. Lately one person in particular feels a need to point out such things…shame really.)
Fraud? I never stated that I was a Bible scholar. In fact, I told eveyone I was not!
If that’s the case my dear, you are over paid!
Actually I do know what the LSJ is. But, please continue. This is the part where you try to use your (alleged) credentials to intimidate. Hey that’s never been done before on an Internet message board.
You have me there oh foul mouthed one! Hey, you know what? I don’t know heart surgury either but I trust those who have spent a lifetime dedicated to this practice. I’m not a lawyer either but I hire a very good one who has dedicated his life to the practice of law to help me when I need it.
Point being that if you are trying to match credentials against the tens of thousands of people who have dedicated their lif to the interpretation of Biblical scriptures you come up very very short! I have seen ego out of control before on this very forum, but never quite so bad as I see it in you.
[quote]If you were to learn the languages, you would see that word usage varied from author to author and time period to time period. Heck, I took my definitions for the words malakoi and arsenokoitai straight from the Lidell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, not from any website.Arsenokoitai is listed as one word. It is found only in the New Testament and only in the Pauline Epistles, therefore there is no way to compare various usages.
[/quote]
And the thousands of Bible scholars who have determined that the word “arsenkoita” equates to “homosexual” took the word directly from the ancient texts! You really need to stop making an ass of yourself.
One is Greek the other Hebrew. No one ever claimed that they “go with each other.” By the way according to your very own LSJ “arsenokoitai” means “Men lying with men.” But being the wild eyed liberal that you are you take that to mean anything but sex right? (I’m laughing).
Arsenokoitai according to the LSJ is in fact masculine plural nominative! Is this a deliberate attempt to mislead? Maybe you just don’t understand it yourself, which is it?
You ramble on and spout off about being superior yet have not intelligently refuted one single fact from my previous post!
You know you might be right! Let me think a minute. Are the following Biblical interpretations wrong:
New Life Bible, King James, New King James, Standard Version, New Revised Standard, Douay Rheims Bible,
God’s Word Translation, Strong Version
The Darby Translation, Hebrew Names Version, The Webster Bible,
Youngs Literal Translation, The Geneva Bible, Wesley’s New Testament,
World English Bible, The Webster Bible
World Literal Translation, Latin Vulgate Bible, The Emphasized Bible and hundreds of other interpretations.
Okay, I thought about it and I’m going with every single credible version of the Bible that has ever been written Which defines the word “arsenokoitai” as essentially “homosexual.” And the word “malakoi” as a slang for “homosexual.”
Again, I know that does not fit the homosexual agenda but facts are facts. Yes, I’m going with the Biblical scholars who have interpreted the Bible for almost 2000 years over a foul mouthed ill tempered Internet bully with an obvious agenda. Sorry I’m funny that way.
Tell me, does one definition of a word negate other definitions?
What about the city in PA called “Intercourse?” Does that now mean that the word “intercourse” does not mean “to have sex with someone” simply because it is the name of a City? Oh my…
[quote]Bottom line: you are a fraud. A mean-spirited, lazy, dishonorable fraud. People like you pervert and distort the teachings of the Christ and the Bible to suit your prejudices. You make me sick. You are benath my dignity. Fucktard.
WMD[/quote]
I honestly have no idea how someone can be so hostile toward another human being that they have never even met. I am truly sorry for you.
[quote]WMD wrote:
And just for the record, I never once said I don’t believe in God.
I don’t believe in oppression based on perverted interpretations of the biblical texts. To all Christians who actually try to live a Christ-like life and who practice non-judgement and live and let live, I apologize for lumping you in with people like ZEB. You certainly don’t deserve THAT.[/quote]
Yes, people who actually attend church, pray, read the Bible and research points of interest are bad.
Whereas, people who shoot from the hip, are mean spirited, hateful and twist the facts to suit an agenda are good.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
WMD wrote:
ZEB, dear, you are a complete fraud. You have now proven it. I am indeed an expert on the subject because I am a researcher in Biblical studies and archeology at the University of Texas. You don’t have any credentials. You don’t even know what the LSJ is, do you? …etc. …etc. …etc.
KERRR-OUCH!!! (three exclamation points)
I see that the WMD moniker is come by honestly… every once in a while, you are the hydrogen bomb of ownage.
What the hell does someone say after that?
“Umm… oh YEAH? uh…”
I hope ZEB can still have babies… I’d be a little shrivelled after that one. ARE YOU OKAY, MAN? DO YOU WANT ME TO THROW YOU A ROPE OR SOMETHING?
Poor guy.[/quote]
I’m doing great lothario! Thanks for asking.
You see a long time ago I learned a few things:
If you are going to stand up for what you believe in you are going to be attacked. Especially if it’s Christianity!
The Internet brings out the worst in those who enjoy degrading others for their own personal gratification.
When someone resorts to mean spirited attacks they have run out of facts and have already lost the debate (they are also very frustrated).
What about the city in PA called “Intercourse?” Does that now mean that the word “intercourse” does not mean “to have sex with someone” simply because it is the name of a City? Oh my…
I find it interesting though, that we have a bible researcher in this very thread who doesn’t agree with the message that the various anti-gay Christianities having been spouting since day one.[/quote]
lothario,
There are plenty of “researchers” (see gay sites) who disagree with every single credible version of the Bible that has ever been written. There are also people who think that we never landed on the moon and that Elvis is still alive…
[quote] lothario1132 wrote:
The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.[/quote]
So, what exactly are the societal benefits of gay (or straight) marriage? I can see the benefit for gay couples, they get to feel good about themselves, but for society as a whole?
Also, your lenses must be fogged if you don?t see a downside. To just say ‘there?s no downside’ seems pretty shortsighted to me. There were obviously lots of people who really didn?t see a downside to prohibition either.
How is this for a downside? The idea that a minority, distinguished from the majority solely by urges and/or acts (which are, or should be, private), is able to affect state and federal legislation for something that is, at its least, a name and at its most, a privilege. Let alone a minority that is equally, if not less, morally upright than the rest of the population. I don?t mean to say that being gay is morally inferior, just that if being gay carried some inherent societal benefit, then some need for ‘societal privilege’ might be justified.
BTW- I agree with you, it is stupid to bring the Bible into this argument. If you were going to use religion as an argument against being gay you should be more inclusive and use Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Taoism, Buddhism, etc., etc., etc. as arguments against being gay.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Dan, agreed on all points. The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.
[/quote]
Please explain what benefits will be provided to society for allowing Gay marriage?
Do this knowing the following facts:
As compared to heterosexuals gays have
More sexually transmitted disease
Less monogamous relationships
Shorter lifespan (Males)
More use of the healthcare system
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Dan, agreed on all points. The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.
Please explain what benefits will be provided to society for allowing Gay marriage?
Do this knowing the following facts:
As compared to heterosexuals gays have
More sexually transmitted disease
Less monogamous relationships
Shorter lifespan (Males)
More use of the healthcare system
[/quote]
Sources, please. Or, once again, are you just making shit up?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Dan, agreed on all points. The real debate here is the social cost, if any, of changing our laws to accommodate gay marriage vs. the social benefits.
But the anti- folks can’t have it that way, because then we have the lenses unfogged, and reason settles in to quite poignantly illustrate that there is no real downside to this small thing.
Please explain what benefits will be provided to society for allowing Gay marriage?
Do this knowing the following facts:
As compared to heterosexuals gays have
More sexually transmitted disease
Less monogamous relationships
Shorter lifespan (Males)
More use of the healthcare system
Sources, please. Or, once again, are you just making shit up?
[/quote]
Even if he did make it up, wouldn’t allowing them to get “bonded” help contain the first two items on the list?
