Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
609

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
In a sense, you’re right. It’s nothing more than the fact that anal sex tends to be quite violent and much better conduit than normal sex. In fact, protected anal sex is as dangerous as unprotected normal sex when it comes to AIDS and other STDs. Something for you guys who like to do it with your girlfriends and hookups to think about (I’ve personally never been a fan).
[/quote]

Oh, it’s a little more than it is just more violent. It’s the same in terms of the actual mechanism of the sex act. The difference is that the female vagina is designed for it and the male/female rectum is not. Regardless whether you believe in ID or evolution, the end of the GI tracked was not designed or has not developed/evolved into an organ for sexual activity or procreation.

In addition, there is E coli and other non-pathogenic bacteria in the colon that are very beneficial in that location, but will and do cause disease when introduced into others parts of the body like penis and mouth. That’s a fact, Jack!

So the actual biological fact is that anal sex is high risk for AIDS because it is contrary to the function of the rectum. The ONLY reason and documented cases of Hetero’s getting AIDS is from blood transfusions from a gay person with AIDS, or a Gay male having sex with a hertero woman.

Look it up on the CDC website.

So there would be NO, zero, nada AIDS in the hetero population if the Gays didn’t give blood and didn’t have sex with woman occasionally. So the ONLY reason heteros have even one case of AIDS is because the gays gave it to them.

That sounds a little off my friend. I’m going to have to see a source for those “facts”.

Nothing is unclear about the biological function of the penis and rectum and how introducing one into the other will and does cause disease.

610

Harris447, good original post–very tongue in cheek, very satirical, which is my kind of humour.

It’s sad to see that people took the opportunity to take it seriously. Well, I guess it won’t hurt for me to throw my two cents in then, either…

The first person who cast the stone in this forum IMHO was the person who brought up Judgement Day. Kind of ironic, non? Sort of hypocritical too. I’m thinking that they should remove the plank from their own eye before they try and remove the slivers from others… But hey, I’m not THAT familiar with scripture, not enough to defend against the many contradictory clauses which have been undoubtedly mistranslated/misinterpreted/misappropriated throughout the milennia, so don’t go and presume I’m a know-it-all.

Hell, I’m an agnostic (y’know, sitting on the fence until the last second) and my godfather is gay–he did the interior decorating for several US embassies in Europe–so I’m screwed anyways.

Anyhoo… funny stuff. It’ll be a good day when human rights are equal across the board. Of course, the problem is in who gets to decide what’s right and what’s equal.

IMHO, people should try and see the trees as being a forest in the case of marriage, and not focus so much on the different species of trees comprising that forest.

Besides, with the way religions have continually redefined the rules of marriage over the centuries, let alone the interpretations of the scriptures themselves, I don’t think they necessarily understand what the “sanctity” of marriage really is anymore. And there is such a thing as non-religious marriage… so, why does Religion get a say in this anyways?

No, as a concept, marriage and its associated benefits are society’s way of introducing and rewarding stability and longevity for the creation of future generations. Marriage is valuable in that it promotes security for families to flourish in. Two men or two women are just as capable of providing for a child’s needs as one woman and one man. Ergo, there is no need to make a distinction.

And considering that there are millions of children without parents in this world right now, not mention technological advances in conception, it kind of makes sense that society would “create” or at least provide support for the foundations of new family units so that the burden placed on society can be better distributed amongst it’s own citizens.

Religions can police themselves for all I care, but for a government to deny benefits to gay couples is backwards thinking at best, downright abusive and abhorrent at worst.

Although I am not a homosexual, I can honestly say that it relieves me to be able to say that I live in Canada where gay marriages have been made legal (so far)–although I still worry about the mindset in some of our prairie provinces at times. I don’t see why some feel so threatened by gay marriage when it’s really the farcical rate of divorce that makes a mockery out of the sanctity of marriage.

But hey, it’s all about different strokes for different folks, right?

611

I have read, and boy are my eyes tired now the ongoing debate mainly between WMD and ZEB on this point. A couple of things stick out. One of them very ironic. WMD pointed out in one or her posts that Christ is all about acceptance, but SEEMS to argue vehemently against religion. ZEB argues the point of Christianity from a point of nonacceptance. I know that summarizes it very simply. I think that is the thing that neither group can get past with the other.

ZEB, WMD is calling you out on the basis of your faith. She is right. Christ is all about love and acceptance. He is the judge of each man/woman at the end. I doubt it matters much to him what we ultimately decide on this issue. I think He is sad that we are missing the point. To love one another. My 2 cents.

612

[quote]WMD wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We have seen that there is no reason to sanction gay marraige in this country. We began the debate on the Bible and it went from there into other areas, namely tradition, science, politics etc.

I now see that the debate is veering back to the Bible. The same old falsehoods which were thrown out early in the thread and refuted are being dusted off and thrown back in the mix.

You want to get back to the Bible…okay if you wish.

WMD wrote:

Think on this: When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 by the
Romans, it made many of the holiness and observation rules in Leviticus moot. Thus people are not condemned for not going to the Temple to make sacrifice and atonement, because there is no Temple. Also it would seem that other aspects of the holiness code are no longer applicable, like eating shellfish, wearing cloth of two different materials, shaving the hair around the temples, touching menstruating women, etc. Why is it then that homosexuals continue to be condemned by Christians? Where is the verse that says “Choose 1 from column A and 2 from column B and thou shalt be holy”? When did it become okay for all you moral absolutists to pick and choose which aspects of Biblical law to follow?

I look forward to your response.

WMD

You have gotten caught before trying to pit the Old Testament against the New Testament. It was pointed out quite clearly exactly where homosexuality has been forbidden in the New Testament.

You don’t like the answer but it’s very clear. Allow me to post them again for you:

Rom 1:26
Rom 1:31
1 Cor 6:9
Col 3:5
1 Tim 1:10
2 Tim 3:3

The above are six direct scriptual passages which speak against homosexuality! I know you don’t like them you want to twist and turn their meaning, and will try no doubt. However, that never works.

Now let me ask you a question:

where in the New Testament does the Bible promote homosexuality? If it was an accepted practice then you would think that it would be found somewhere.

Marriage is mentioned in over 60 Bible verses in the New Testament. Not one time do any of theme ever refer to a someone marrying another of the same gender. However there are many that refer to one man one woman! That in addition to the “anti-homosexual” passages listed above makes a pretty clear case aginst homosexual marriage, based upon the Bible.

All you have to do is be logical. Christ spoke of repenting from your sin. Sex outside of marriage was considered sin. Do you think that he or any of the Apostles would have promted sex between two people of the same gender? Especially in light of the fact that there was no “gay marriage?”

Your arguments for gay marriage are weak to begin with. When you bring the Bible into the argument you lose even more points.

Now, could we get back to debating homosexal marriage aside from the Bible?

This is almost the standard line for all those who really really want the Bible to be pro homosexuality. However, it holds no weight!

Why didn’t Jesus speak of pedophiles?

Why didn’t Jesus speak of date rape?

Why didn’t Jesus speak of bestiality?

Why didn’t Jesus speak of a hundred things that were considered sins?
I think it probably had something to do with not spending time on the obvious!

However we do have many scriptural references which denounce homosexuality. I’ll post them again for you since you seemed to ignore them last time around:

Rom 1:26
Rom 1:31
1 Cor 6:9
Col 3:5
1 Tim 1:10
2 Tim 3:3

Again, (as I stated in my last post) why would Jesus promote an activity which was obviously outside of marriage when in fact it was sin to even have sex with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage.

Think girl think!

No, actually your desire to want gay marriage to be a long standing accepted practice has made you blind to the reality of the scriptures, or you are playing a game.

Mark 10:6,7,8,9:

“But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together let no man separate.”

The above seems pretty darn clear to me. There are other verses just as powerful, do you want them?

Now show me where Jesus speaks about a “man leaving his father and mother and being joined with another man.” No, I guess you can’t show me that verse because it does not exist. And nothing even close to that exists!

Where are all those “pro-homosexual” verses you were going to come up with?

If you are alleging that there are specific examples of the Bible (specifically the New Testament, after Christs arrival-as that is the subject) touting homosexual relationships I think you need to post the exact scripture which states that specifically.

Just as I have posted the specific anti-homosexual language in the New Testament. And then pointed out how Jesus Christ talks about marriage between one man and one woman.

Again, and maybe for the 4th time, please post some scripture which states that homosexuality was well accepted.

Firstly, you failed (miserably I might add) to point out even one inconsistencey in what I have posted regarding the Bible. The fact that you want there to be an acceptance of a practice that was simply not accepted is a very large blind spot for you! And for that I’m sorry.

I can read some Greek and some Hebrew. However, the good part is I don’t have to! I can rely on the thousands of qualified Biblical interpreters who have dedicated their lives to the interpretation of ancient scriptures.

Very well intended men and women have looked closely at the ancient texts. Are they all narrow minded? Everyone one of them? Or are you wrong? Hmm…I know which way I’m leaning :slight_smile:

I will remind you once again that every single credible interpretation of the Bible agrees that those six verses posted above are “anti-homosexual behavior.” Do you want me to post the many, many Bible interpretations, or do you want to check back with a former post that I have written which mentions many of them.

You are the one out in the cold with your pro homosexual biased interpretations. It’s okay to be politically correct in the modern world. You can make all sorts of organizations become “pro gay” through the twisting and turning of “what’s fair” in a modern society. But you just can’t do that with the Bible. I know that bothers you and those who want to twist the scripture. However, everytime they try they will fail, just as you have done on this thread!

Well time to face facts: No one knows why people are gay! Maybe we need to find that out first huh?

(clears throat) for the last time, I am not the one who needs “evidence.” You are the one who needs to make a compelling argument as to why gay marriage should be allowed. The fact that over 70% of the populace (77% in a Texas vote recently) are against gay marriage is because your side has not given any compelling reasons why this practice should be sanctioned.

They have failed, just as you have on this thread to give quality reasons why gay marriage needs to be sanctioned.

I do know that changing a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population without good reasons given is a bad idea. And since you have given no compelling evidence to the contrary the status quo should not change.

Thank you for being consistent! The Queen of mean takes the debate to a personal level once again (old but still funny).

If you can’t win the debate on facts (and you have none), then attack personally. Are you alone much of the time?

Matthew Chapters 6 & 7 do not address homosexuality in any way shape or form. But then you know that (I hope). The inference that we should not judge others is not lost. However, pointing out where the scripture states that homosexuality is wrong, is not a judgement on anyone. It is a Biblical reference made in a debate regarding sinful actions (according to the Bible). You want badly to attach the buzz words of the social left regarding this topic. “Hate” “judgemental” “narrow minded.” But alis none qualify here, at least not to those who have actually read my many posts on the topic.

(By the way that should tell those who are on the fence regarding this topic something. If the social liberals cannot use attack words their argument falls short, as they have no facts!)

The Bible never states that you should hate anyone for committing homosexual acts. Nor does it state you should hate anyone for being a sinner. In fact, the message is contrary to this: love the sinner!

However, Christ does say to turn away from sin-That means repent. Um…don’t do it anymore…Get it yet?

I know you don’t want to debate me on this issue. Seeing the stance that you have taken, I don’t blame you. But, if you post something as erroneous as you have, it simply calls out for a good strong denunciation. That I have done and I’m happy :slight_smile:

The fact that you assume an “obsession” that does not exist based upon our debate on this thread is odd. But then you have to somehow attempt to degrade. After all that is what social liberals do best…when they are losing the argument! Hopefully you are kidding…which by the way missed the mark anyway…

613

[quote]fatsensei wrote:
Ahhh liberals. This is probably a poor attitude but I really hope that on judgement day when you are trying to explain to God why being a homosexual is ok that I can be there. It’ll be a hoot.

FatSensei[/quote]

I’m with you FatSensi. I can’t help but pity all these guys out here that think this behavior is normal.

I’m just glad I don’t work out at the same gym. I’d have to start showering at home.

614

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
In a sense, you’re right. It’s nothing more than the fact that anal sex tends to be quite violent and much better conduit than normal sex. In fact, protected anal sex is as dangerous as unprotected normal sex when it comes to AIDS and other STDs. Something for you guys who like to do it with your girlfriends and hookups to think about (I’ve personally never been a fan).

Oh, it’s a little more than it is just more violent. It’s the same in terms of the actual mechanism of the sex act. The difference is that the female vagina is designed for it and the male/female rectum is not. Regardless whether you believe in ID or evolution, the end of the GI tracked was not designed or has not developed/evolved into an organ for sexual activity or procreation.

In addition, there is E coli and other non-pathogenic bacteria in the colon that are very beneficial in that location, but will and do cause disease when introduced into others parts of the body like penis and mouth. That’s a fact, Jack!

So the actual biological fact is that anal sex is high risk for AIDS because it is contrary to the function of the rectum. The ONLY reason and documented cases of Hetero’s getting AIDS is from blood transfusions from a gay person with AIDS, or a Gay male having sex with a hertero woman.

Look it up on the CDC website.

So there would be NO, zero, nada AIDS in the hetero population if the Gays didn’t give blood and didn’t have sex with woman occasionally. So the ONLY reason heteros have even one case of AIDS is because the gays gave it to them.

In fact, it’s one of the reasons why abstinence is a notoriously poor method of protection. (besides the fact that most who initially pledge abstinence will end up having sex before marriage). Studies show that those who profess abstinence are MORE likely to have unprotected anal and oral sex than those engaging in protected genital sex.

That sounds a little off my friend. I’m going to have to see a source for those “facts”.

As far as origins go, diseases spring up all the time, and it’s unclear how they first began. Unless you’re stupid enough to believe that God punished the gay population with AIDS. In which case, why did he extend it to heterosexuals? So, in that sense you are wrong. Anal sex helped spread HIV. There is nothing about anal sex that can CAUSE it.

Nothing is unclear about the biological function of the penis and rectum and how introducing one into the other will and does cause disease. [/quote]

The fact of the matter is, we don’t even need the statistics to show gay behavior is wrong. We don’t need to prove that homosexuals have 20x higher incidences of domestic violence, or that anal sex is more conducive to spreading diseases than normal sex.

If we just look at the behavoir for what it is, any normal person can tell you that the act itself looks sick and disgusting. There is no beauty in the act of a man and a man, and there is no love or closeness that comes from the positions they may put themselves in (no matter how bizarre or twisted the positions may become).

And, most importantly, you can not educate those who do not want to be educated. It doesn’t mean we don’t try, but just expect a change in heart to come from something more profound that the words that glide from our fingertips.

615

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The Bible came back into the argument because of another poster and I responded to him. You simply cannot resist interacting with me. I find your obsession with me scary and unhealthy.

I know you don’t want to debate me on this issue. Seeing the stance that you have taken, I don’t blame you. But, if you post something as erroneous as you have, it simply calls out for a good strong denunciation. That I have done and I’m happy :slight_smile:

The fact that you assume an “obsession” that does not exist based upon our debate on this thread is odd. But then you have to somehow attempt to degrade. After all that is what social liberals do best…when they are losing the argument! Hopefully you are kidding…which by the way missed the mark anyway…
[/quote]

Right on with the verses. Don’t forget. Moses called homosexuality an abomination in Leviticus 18:22.

Something everyone should know - Old Testament and New Testament never contradict one another - they complement one another.

616

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
The fact of the matter is, we don’t even need the statistics to show gay behavior is wrong. We don’t need to prove that homosexuals have 20x higher incidences of domestic violence, or that anal sex is more conducive to spreading diseases than normal sex.

If we just look at the behavoir for what it is, any normal person can tell you that the act itself looks sick and disgusting. There is no beauty in the act of a man and a man, and there is no love or closeness that comes from the positions they may put themselves in (no matter how bizarre or twisted the positions may become).

And, most importantly, you can not educate those who do not want to be educated. It doesn’t mean we don’t try, but just expect a change in heart to come from something more profound that the words that glide from our fingertips.[/quote]

I agree, but you are basing that opinion on faith, which many don’t share. So to spread the truth you need to work within the system and mindset that non-believers understand. That is where science comes in to confirm things we already know. But since many believe in science (as their “higher power” or belief system) using that medium is the only thing that can reach them.

617

[quote]btm62 wrote:
I have read, and boy are my eyes tired now the ongoing debate mainly between WMD and ZEB on this point. A couple of things stick out. One of them very ironic. WMD pointed out in one or her posts that Christ is all about acceptance, but SEEMS to argue vehemently against religion. ZEB argues the point of Christianity from a point of nonacceptance. I know that summarizes it very simply. I think that is the thing that neither group can get past with the other.

ZEB, WMD is calling you out on the basis of your faith. She is right. Christ is all about love and acceptance. He is the judge of each man/woman at the end. I doubt it matters much to him what we ultimately decide on this issue. I think He is sad that we are missing the point. To love one another. My 2 cents.[/quote]

And I think He just might be sad because YOU missed His point!

I understand that love is most important. It was Jesus who stated that the two most important commandments were: Love God and also love your neighbor as yourself.

However, let us not forget that there are still teachings that are in this book which cannot be ignored. This is what upsets every well intended social liberal. They hate those pesky little rules that tell them certain things are off limits. In this day and age we want to do what we want to do and will rationalize anything to get our way. It’s flat out unpopular to say “no” to anyone (or group) for any thing.

Yet, that is exactly what Christ did time and again!

He said “no” to the prostitute after protecting her from those who would stone her: “Go and sin no more” he said. He did not tell her that it was perfectly alright to continue to live the life of a whore.

For example in 1Corinthians 6: 9 & 10 it clearly states:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

(Who are the “wicked?”)

“Do not be deceived:”

(seems that Paul knew that some would try to deceive on these points)

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders(ancient word for homosexual was arsenokoitai-Remember that one) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

You can have the above passage in any number of translations and it comes out the same way!

There is a decent sized list of those who will not get into Heaven. Keep in mind t’s not my opinion. I wish everyone except maybe killers, rapists and what I consider really really bad people would make it into Heaven.

This is what the Bible says. If you don’t like it take it up with God.

To deny plainly written scripture directly from the ancient texts is simply wrong minded. And it is done in the name of “love” by those who refuse to see that “accepting” sin is not part of the Bible’s plan for mankind. Nor is it considered “love” to accept sin on any level at any time.

With that said we are all sinners. But who among us brags about sin if we are trying to be good people (according to the Bible)? Sin cannot be justified in the name of “love.”

You can “love” your secretary. But is it appropriate to have sex with her if you are married?

“But I really really love her!” Um…I don’t think that can be justified with the Bible. Those who say that as long as there is “love” you can sin are not being guided by the Bible.

It’s America, do what you want to do-But don’t pick up the Bible and try to make it all okay…IT’S NOT!

I know it’s popular to pick and choose (cafeteria style) those things which we want to follow in the Bible and simply explain away those that we find more difficult to accept. However, if it is all Gods inspired word then we (as believers) are bound to accept it all!

Even the parts that do not meet today’s politically correct world!

I would be perfectly willing to debate gay marriage on any number of other levels (other than the Bible). However, those who continue to attempt to rationalize homosexuality with the Bible are simply headed in the wrong direction. And they continue to make themselves and their argument look bad by invoking the Bible to attempt to suit their needs.

Love (as in loving the person not the sin) is important and nothing prevails over it. But you can never justify sin by invoking the word “love.” However, if we are going to debate the Bible relative to gay marriage then we must include ALL of the Bible. Not just the Hollywood quotes most popular with social liberals.

618

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
In a sense, you’re right. It’s nothing more than the fact that anal sex tends to be quite violent and much better conduit than normal sex. In fact, protected anal sex is as dangerous as unprotected normal sex when it comes to AIDS and other STDs. Something for you guys who like to do it with your girlfriends and hookups to think about (I’ve personally never been a fan).

Oh, it’s a little more than it is just more violent. It’s the same in terms of the actual mechanism of the sex act. The difference is that the female vagina is designed for it and the male/female rectum is not. Regardless whether you believe in ID or evolution, the end of the GI tracked was not designed or has not developed/evolved into an organ for sexual activity or procreation.

In addition, there is E coli and other non-pathogenic bacteria in the colon that are very beneficial in that location, but will and do cause disease when introduced into others parts of the body like penis and mouth. That’s a fact, Jack!

So the actual biological fact is that anal sex is high risk for AIDS because it is contrary to the function of the rectum. The ONLY reason and documented cases of Hetero’s getting AIDS is from blood transfusions from a gay person with AIDS, or a Gay male having sex with a hertero woman.

Look it up on the CDC website.

So there would be NO, zero, nada AIDS in the hetero population if the Gays didn’t give blood and didn’t have sex with woman occasionally. So the ONLY reason heteros have even one case of AIDS is because the gays gave it to them.

In fact, it’s one of the reasons why abstinence is a notoriously poor method of protection. (besides the fact that most who initially pledge abstinence will end up having sex before marriage). Studies show that those who profess abstinence are MORE likely to have unprotected anal and oral sex than those engaging in protected genital sex.

That sounds a little off my friend. I’m going to have to see a source for those “facts”.

As far as origins go, diseases spring up all the time, and it’s unclear how they first began. Unless you’re stupid enough to believe that God punished the gay population with AIDS. In which case, why did he extend it to heterosexuals? So, in that sense you are wrong. Anal sex helped spread HIV. There is nothing about anal sex that can CAUSE it.

Nothing is unclear about the biological function of the penis and rectum and how introducing one into the other will and does cause disease.

The fact of the matter is, we don’t even need the statistics to show gay behavior is wrong. We don’t need to prove that homosexuals have 20x higher incidences of domestic violence, or that anal sex is more conducive to spreading diseases than normal sex.

If we just look at the behavoir for what it is, any normal person can tell you that the act itself looks sick and disgusting. There is no beauty in the act of a man and a man, and there is no love or closeness that comes from the positions they may put themselves in (no matter how bizarre or twisted the positions may become).

And, most importantly, you can not educate those who do not want to be educated. It doesn’t mean we don’t try, but just expect a change in heart to come from something more profound that the words that glide from our fingertips.[/quote]

The ugliness of this post is almost beyond words.

619

[quote]ZEB wrote:
btm62 wrote:
I have read, and boy are my eyes tired now the ongoing debate mainly between WMD and ZEB on this point. A couple of things stick out. One of them very ironic. WMD pointed out in one or her posts that Christ is all about acceptance, but SEEMS to argue vehemently against religion. ZEB argues the point of Christianity from a point of nonacceptance. I know that summarizes it very simply. I think that is the thing that neither group can get past with the other.

ZEB, WMD is calling you out on the basis of your faith. She is right. Christ is all about love and acceptance. He is the judge of each man/woman at the end. I doubt it matters much to him what we ultimately decide on this issue. I think He is sad that we are missing the point. To love one another. My 2 cents.

And I think He just might be sad because YOU missed His point!

I understand that love is most important. It was Jesus who stated that the two most important commandments were: Love God and also love your neighbor as yourself.

However, let us not forget that there are still teachings that are in this book which cannot be ignored. This is what upsets every well intended social liberal. They hate those pesky little rules that tell them certain things are off limits. In this day and age we want to do what we want to do and will rationalize anything to get our way. It’s flat out unpopular to say “no” to anyone (or group) for any thing.

Yet, that is exactly what Christ did time and again!

He said “no” to the prostitute after protecting her from those who would stone her: “Go and sin no more” he said. He did not tell her that it was perfectly alright to continue to live the life of a whore.

For example in 1Corinthians 6: 9 & 10 it clearly states:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

(Who are the “wicked?”)

“Do not be deceived:”

(seems that Paul knew that some would try to deceive on these points)

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders(ancient word for homosexual was arsenokoitai-Remember that one) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

You can have the above passage in any number of translations and it comes out the same way!

There is a decent sized list of those who will not get into Heaven. Keep in mind it’s not my opinion. I wish everyone except maybe killers, rapists and what I consider really really bad people would make it into Heaven.

This is what the Bible says. If you don’t like it take it up with God.

To deny plainly written scripture directly from the ancient texts is simply wrong minded. And it is done in the name of “love” by those who refuse to see that “accepting” sin is not part of the Bible’s plan for mankind. Nor is it considered “love” to accept sin on any level at any time.

With that said we are all sinners. But who among us brags about sin if we are trying to be good people (according to the Bible)? Sin cannot be justified in the name of “love.”

You can “love” your secretary. But is it appropriate to have sex with her if you are married?

“But I really really love her!” Um…I don’t think that can be justified with the Bible. Those who say that as long as there is “love” you can sin are not being guided by the Bible.

It’s America, do what you want to do-But don’t pick up the Bible and try to make it all okay…IT’S NOT!

I know it’s popular to pick and choose (cafeteria style) those things which we want to follow in the Bible and simply explain away those that we find more difficult to accept. However, if it is all Gods inspired word then we (as believers) are bound to accept it all!

Even the parts that do not meet today’s politically correct world!

I would be perfectly willing to debate gay marriage on any number of other levels (other than the Bible). However, those who continue to attempt to rationalize homosexuality with the Bible are simply headed in the wrong direction. And they continue to make themselves and their argument look bad by invoking the Bible to attempt to suit their needs.

Love (as in loving the person not the sin) is important and nothing prevails over it. But you can never justify sin by invoking the word “love.” However, if we are going to debate the Bible relative to gay marriage then we must include ALL of the Bible. Not just the Hollywood quotes most popular with social liberals.

[/quote]

So its tough up there on the mountain? I for one don’t approve of gay marriage. I don’t approve of stealing. I don’t approve of adultery. I don’t approve of murder. You know what? I’m guilty of all them. So are you my friend. Christ still loves me and you and the gay person. It will be Christ who judges us all. Not me, not you, not our government. Say its wrong, but say it with love. Your turning people off. Nobody wants to hear how terrible a sinner they are. Wouldn’t you rather hear, “Yea, ya screwed up, by I love you anyway?”

Consider -
"I had no time to hate
because the grave would hinder me
and life was not so ample
I could finish enmity.

Nor had I time to love,
but since some industry must be
The little toil of love I thought
was great enough for me."

-Emily Dickinson

Good stuff.

620

[quote]ZEB wrote:
btm62 wrote:
I have read, and boy are my eyes tired now the ongoing debate mainly between WMD and ZEB on this point. A couple of things stick out. One of them very ironic. WMD pointed out in one or her posts that Christ is all about acceptance, but SEEMS to argue vehemently against religion. ZEB argues the point of Christianity from a point of nonacceptance. I know that summarizes it very simply. I think that is the thing that neither group can get past with the other.

ZEB, WMD is calling you out on the basis of your faith. She is right. Christ is all about love and acceptance. He is the judge of each man/woman at the end. I doubt it matters much to him what we ultimately decide on this issue. I think He is sad that we are missing the point. To love one another. My 2 cents.

And I think He just might be sad because YOU missed His point!

I understand that love is most important. It was Jesus who stated that the two most important commandments were: Love God and also love your neighbor as yourself.

However, let us not forget that there are still teachings that are in this book which cannot be ignored. This is what upsets every well intended social liberal. They hate those pesky little rules that tell them certain things are off limits. In this day and age we want to do what we want to do and will rationalize anything to get our way. It’s flat out unpopular to say “no” to anyone (or group) for any thing.

Yet, that is exactly what Christ did time and again!

He said “no” to the prostitute after protecting her from those who would stone her: “Go and sin no more” he said. He did not tell her that it was perfectly alright to continue to live the life of a whore.

For example in 1Corinthians 6: 9 & 10 it clearly states:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

(Who are the “wicked?”)

“Do not be deceived:”

(seems that Paul knew that some would try to deceive on these points)

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders(ancient word for homosexual was arsenokoitai-Remember that one) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

You can have the above passage in any number of translations and it comes out the same way!

There is a decent sized list of those who will not get into Heaven. Keep in mind t’s not my opinion. I wish everyone except maybe killers, rapists and what I consider really really bad people would make it into Heaven.

This is what the Bible says. If you don’t like it take it up with God.

To deny plainly written scripture directly from the ancient texts is simply wrong minded. And it is done in the name of “love” by those who refuse to see that “accepting” sin is not part of the Bible’s plan for mankind. Nor is it considered “love” to accept sin on any level at any time.

With that said we are all sinners. But who among us brags about sin if we are trying to be good people (according to the Bible)? Sin cannot be justified in the name of “love.”

You can “love” your secretary. But is it appropriate to have sex with her if you are married?

“But I really really love her!” Um…I don’t think that can be justified with the Bible. Those who say that as long as there is “love” you can sin are not being guided by the Bible.

It’s America, do what you want to do-But don’t pick up the Bible and try to make it all okay…IT’S NOT!

I know it’s popular to pick and choose (cafeteria style) those things which we want to follow in the Bible and simply explain away those that we find more difficult to accept. However, if it is all Gods inspired word then we (as believers) are bound to accept it all!

Even the parts that do not meet today’s politically correct world!

I would be perfectly willing to debate gay marriage on any number of other levels (other than the Bible). However, those who continue to attempt to rationalize homosexuality with the Bible are simply headed in the wrong direction. And they continue to make themselves and their argument look bad by invoking the Bible to attempt to suit their needs.

Love (as in loving the person not the sin) is important and nothing prevails over it. But you can never justify sin by invoking the word “love.” However, if we are going to debate the Bible relative to gay marriage then we must include ALL of the Bible. Not just the Hollywood quotes most popular with social liberals.

[/quote]

So its tough up there on the mountain? I for one don’t approve of gay marriage. I don’t approve of stealing. I don’t approve of adultery. I don’t approve of murder. You know what? I’m guilty of all them. So are you my friend. Christ still loves me and you and the gay person. It will be Christ who judges us all. Not me, not you, not our government. Say its wrong, but say it with love. Your turning people off. Nobody wants to hear how terrible a sinner they are. Wouldn’t you rather hear, “Yea, ya screwed up, by I love you anyway?”

Consider -
"I had no time to hate
because the grave would hinder me
and life was not so ample
I could finish enmity.

Nor had I time to love,
but since some industry must be
The little toil of love I thought
was great enough for me."

-Emily Dickinson

Good stuff.

621

Seriously gang, we talk about love, but nobody really thinks what love is about. It is not about doing what is easy…it’s about doing what is right.

Example: You have a good friend who is a serious heroin addict. You know it is bad for him, and you try to get him to stop - even if it means the risk of losing your friendship.

Homosexuality is no different. When you know a behavior is distructive to someone, and you don’t speak up about it, then you are guilty of not showing Christ-like love.

Doing the right thing is not always easy…but it is right. You can take comfort in that.

622

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Seriously gang, we talk about love, but nobody really thinks what love is about. It is not about doing what is easy…it’s about doing what is right.

Example: You have a good friend who is a serious heroin addict. You know it is bad for him, and you try to get him to stop - even if it means the risk of losing your friendship.

Homosexuality is no different. When you know a behavior is distructive to someone, and you don’t speak up about it, then you are guilty of not showing Christ-like love.

Doing the right thing is not always easy…but it is right. You can take comfort in that.[/quote]

Being gay is like being a heroin addict?
How, exactly?

623

[quote]btm62 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
btm62 wrote:
I have read, and boy are my eyes tired now the ongoing debate mainly between WMD and ZEB on this point. A couple of things stick out. One of them very ironic. WMD pointed out in one or her posts that Christ is all about acceptance, but SEEMS to argue vehemently against religion. ZEB argues the point of Christianity from a point of nonacceptance. I know that summarizes it very simply. I think that is the thing that neither group can get past with the other.

ZEB, WMD is calling you out on the basis of your faith. She is right. Christ is all about love and acceptance. He is the judge of each man/woman at the end. I doubt it matters much to him what we ultimately decide on this issue. I think He is sad that we are missing the point. To love one another. My 2 cents.

And I think He just might be sad because YOU missed His point!

I understand that love is most important. It was Jesus who stated that the two most important commandments were: Love God and also love your neighbor as yourself.

However, let us not forget that there are still teachings that are in this book which cannot be ignored. This is what upsets every well intended social liberal. They hate those pesky little rules that tell them certain things are off limits. In this day and age we want to do what we want to do and will rationalize anything to get our way. It’s flat out unpopular to say “no” to anyone (or group) for any thing.

Yet, that is exactly what Christ did time and again!

He said “no” to the prostitute after protecting her from those who would stone her: “Go and sin no more” he said. He did not tell her that it was perfectly alright to continue to live the life of a whore.

For example in 1Corinthians 6: 9 & 10 it clearly states:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

(Who are the “wicked?”)

“Do not be deceived:”

(seems that Paul knew that some would try to deceive on these points)

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders(ancient word for homosexual was arsenokoitai-Remember that one) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanders nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

You can have the above passage in any number of translations and it comes out the same way!

There is a decent sized list of those who will not get into Heaven. Keep in mind it’s not my opinion. I wish everyone except maybe killers, rapists and what I consider really really bad people would make it into Heaven.

This is what the Bible says. If you don’t like it take it up with God.

To deny plainly written scripture directly from the ancient texts is simply wrong minded. And it is done in the name of “love” by those who refuse to see that “accepting” sin is not part of the Bible’s plan for mankind. Nor is it considered “love” to accept sin on any level at any time.

With that said we are all sinners. But who among us brags about sin if we are trying to be good people (according to the Bible)? Sin cannot be justified in the name of “love.”

You can “love” your secretary. But is it appropriate to have sex with her if you are married?

“But I really really love her!” Um…I don’t think that can be justified with the Bible. Those who say that as long as there is “love” you can sin are not being guided by the Bible.

It’s America, do what you want to do-But don’t pick up the Bible and try to make it all okay…IT’S NOT!

I know it’s popular to pick and choose (cafeteria style) those things which we want to follow in the Bible and simply explain away those that we find more difficult to accept. However, if it is all Gods inspired word then we (as believers) are bound to accept it all!

Even the parts that do not meet today’s politically correct world!

I would be perfectly willing to debate gay marriage on any number of other levels (other than the Bible). However, those who continue to attempt to rationalize homosexuality with the Bible are simply headed in the wrong direction. And they continue to make themselves and their argument look bad by invoking the Bible to attempt to suit their needs.

Love (as in loving the person not the sin) is important and nothing prevails over it. But you can never justify sin by invoking the word “love.” However, if we are going to debate the Bible relative to gay marriage then we must include ALL of the Bible. Not just the Hollywood quotes most popular with social liberals.

So its tough up there on the mountain? I for one don’t approve of gay marriage. I don’t approve of stealing. I don’t approve of adultery. I don’t approve of murder. You know what? I’m guilty of all them. So are you my friend. Christ still loves me and you and the gay person. [/quote]

I totally agree! And I have never stated anything to the contrary.

No not really. If I was driving off of a cliff I would want someone to shout really really loud: YOU ARE DRIVING OFF A CLIFF STOP!

[quote]Consider -
"I had no time to hate
because the grave would hinder me
and life was not so ample
I could finish enmity.

Nor had I time to love,
but since some industry must be
The little toil of love I thought
was great enough for me."

-Emily Dickinson

Good stuff.

[/quote]

It’s very good stuff.

Keep in mind I “hate” no one. the fact that someone cannot hold a position that is contrary to the social liberals agenda on gay marriage without someone (like you) assuming that I do hate someone speaks volumes to me.

It says that no matter how you try to say that something is wrong, based upon the Bible, or any other criteria, you will be attacked, and it will be personal.

So much for your understanding and kindness for another view on this topic.

624

Lorisco, I’m talking about the ORIGIN of aids in the first place. There’s no evidence that we know of by which the actual act of anal sex is what caused the disease in the first place. And anyone with any medical background would see that there’s no mechanisim we currently understand by which this could happen. I hope some of the doctors on this board will chime in and explain better than I ever could.

AIDS originated in Africa. HIV is a lentivirus, and like all viruses of this type, it attacks the immune system. Lentiviruses are in turn part of a larger group of viruses known as retroviruses. The name ‘lentivirus’ literally means ‘slow virus’ because they take such a long time to produce any adverse effects in the body. They have been found in a number of different animals, including cats, sheep, horses and cattle. However, the most interesting lentivirus in terms of the investigation into the origins of HIV is the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) that affects monkeys.

So did HIV come from an SIV?

It is now thought that HIV came from a similar virus found in chimpanzees.
It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus because certain strains of SIVs bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV.

HIV-2 for example corresponds to SIVsm, a strain of the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in the sooty mangabey (also known as the green monkey), which is indigenous to western Africa.

The more virulent strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until recently more difficult to place. Until 1999, the closest counterpart that had been identified was SIVcpz, the SIV found in chimpanzees. However, this virus still had certain significant differences from HIV.

No one how exactly it got into the gay population here. As far as transferring to the heterosexual population, you are probably right that it was the result of blood transfusions and bisexual men. But what of it?

You write: “Nothing is unclear about the biological function of the penis and rectum and how introducing one into the other will and does cause disease.” Pure fabrication unless you can give me some source. Your understanding of CAUSATION seems to be off. How did the the monkeys all get their viruses? Were they ass-humping too? And the organic nature of anal sex someone caused a chain of conditions inside the monkey body that resulted in a virus that attacked its immune system? Not likely.

625

Zeb,

Thank you for a thoughtful, well presented post. What I would like to discuss is the translation that you presented of arsenokoitai as homosexual.

Before I begin I would like to point out that I don’t have a biblical studies or linguistics background. My research on the topic has been limited to online resources (very few of which are without an agenda, as you can imagine).

From what I was able to discover the two words in corinthians and timothy that are contentious are malakoi and arsenokoitai.

Malakoi appears elsewhere in the bible, but is used in reference to soft clothing; Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25.

Arsenokoitai appears only once, in corinthians and I have seen it translated as you have it; homosexual, as well as pervert, child molester and abusers of themselves with mankind.

I have read that the word, which may have been coined by Paul, may have referred to the male temple prostitutes that were part of the fertility rituals of several of the pagan cults/religions of the day.

In this way the reference in corinthians may not be in reference to the homosexual relation itself but is instead meant todissuade people from partaking in the rituals of another religion.

Zeb, I’m not attempting to change your mind on this issue, but I felt that I should present this counter arguement so that others are aware of it and can make up their own minds.

I respect your position and can see that it has come as a result of a great deal of contemplation on the subject.

The following is a bit of an aside. I was wondering what your view was on enforcing or legislating the laws of the bible in our society?

While it is clear that you believe that god will be our final judge, do you believe that it is your duty as an individual to see that god’s word and teachings are carried out here on earth? Or is it enough to live your own life as an example to others in accordance with his wishes?

On an issue like abortion I can understand the moral or religious opinion that life begins at conception and that your intervention is the saving of a life, therefore I can understand the religious movements attempts to overturn roe v. wade.

But on matters that involve only the “spiritual” being, acts that only effect the spirit in the afterlife, do you feel that it is right and justified to enact legislation prohibiting those acts within our judicial system?

ie. should we be outlawing activities that threaten a spirits ascendance into the kingdom of heaven?

Cheers,

Soup

626

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Seriously gang, we talk about love, but nobody really thinks what love is about. It is not about doing what is easy…it’s about doing what is right.

Example: You have a good friend who is a serious heroin addict. You know it is bad for him, and you try to get him to stop - even if it means the risk of losing your friendship.

Homosexuality is no different. When you know a behavior is distructive to someone, and you don’t speak up about it, then you are guilty of not showing Christ-like love.

Doing the right thing is not always easy…but it is right. You can take comfort in that.[/quote]

That’s really not the issue that’s being debated though. Some people are too ignorant to realize that gays deserve respect. And there are some irrelevant tangents like AIDS that need to be responded to (it would be remis not to). But the real issue that began this thread was whether or not gays should be denied legal benefits that all straight partners have. And (tangentially in my view) whether any religious significance should be attached to this and it should be called marriage.

627

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Seriously gang, we talk about love, but nobody really thinks what love is about. It is not about doing what is easy…it’s about doing what is right.

Example: You have a good friend who is a serious heroin addict. You know it is bad for him, and you try to get him to stop - even if it means the risk of losing your friendship.

Homosexuality is no different. When you know a behavior is distructive to someone, and you don’t speak up about it, then you are guilty of not showing Christ-like love.

Doing the right thing is not always easy…but it is right. You can take comfort in that.[/quote]

My point exactly!

It is easy to just sit back and say anyone can do anything they want. But once we say that we care about someone, their behavior then becomes our concern as we only want the best for them. So if we care we are obligated to speak the truth in love because it is the caring thing to do.

The crazy thing is that most who call me or others that don’t agree with the gay lifestyle “haters”, while they sit back and let people die one after the other because of their own behavior/lifestyle and say nothing. They even condone it. So the real haters are those who don’t at least try and dissuade people from self-destructive behavior.

628

The Bible was in favor of slavery. Women were subjugated in Biblical time and plenty of facets of both Old and New testament reflect theres. There are plenty of other things there that we view as MORALLY WRONG today. I fail to see how someone can say something is morally right/wrong and dispositive simply because it’s in the Bible. Or how anyone can be presumptuous enough to say they have God all figured out.

Men wrote the Bible. They got many basic moral tenants right. But the Bible today is not the literal word of God. Nor is everything in the Bible in correspondance with current view of morality and equality