| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2005 09:31:03 AM · #301 |
| Mucky, I am still laughing my ass off! This thread needed some serious humor and you delivered a truckload. Hats off to you! Bravo! |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 09:35:24 AM · #302 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i'd take a bow, but there are just too many queers in this thread and you just can't trust 'em. |
LOL thats gold. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 09:43:11 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
WAIT! STOP!
I'VE FIGURED IT ALL OUT!
and there wouldn't be a bottle of Veuve left for 3 counties around. *snap* |
Veuve! $35 Napkin Rings! Vera Wang! Totally Fabulous!
As a catering Chef....I think I smell a buck, too.
"It's Raining Men...Hallelujah!"
....ooooh and let's not forget those crazy Lesbians. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:16:18 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
gay people wouldn't undo straight marriage. we'd outdo it. |
Thats the problem with gays. They "think" they do everything better and in reality who cares. Each to his own.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:59:33 AM · #305 |
Wow!! The thread is still going stong, I see. I also have noticed that the members of the Flat Earth Society have picked up their Bibles and gone home.
To add insult to injury, I just heard on NPR this morning that Texas had the highest voter turn out due to this amendment!! Isn't that sad? This is what motivated people to get off their butts and vote? The fact that two men or two women should not have a right to marry, that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman???? Come on! I just want to PUKE!
I saw it mentioned earlier that the name of this thread should be changed - Absolutely not. I am a resident of the state of Texas. I believe the state of Texas has FAILED a large portion of its residents. Therefore, I am ashamed to be a resident of this state! It is an opinion. I never said, "If you are Texan, you should be ashamed". Go to town with your Texas Pride - you are free to do as you wish. Doesn't change the fact that - I AM ASHAMED TO BE TEXAN!!!!!! |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:00:20 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
First Ron, is this the only scripture that refers to homosexuality?
Secondly, from the passage you quoted above, it appears that god used "unnatural relations" as punishment. Is the Bible saying that all people who have homosexual relations are being punished for some wrong done to god? Are there not good homosexual Christians, or is that an oxymoron? |
Those are excellent questions. I'll try my best to respond.
Another scripture ( new testament ) comes to mind.
Jude 1:7 refers back to Sodom and Gomorrah thusly:
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
The reference here to "strange flesh" is in all likelihood referring to homosexual activities. |
Open to interpretation, like you said below, but it doesn't sound like there is a lot of reference specifically to homosexual behavior or its prohibition in the Bible. |
It only takes ONE reference if the context makes it clear.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
God doesn't "use" unnatural relations as punishment. Just as an earthly father, when his child steadfastly refuses to heed his warnings, says "Fine, do what you want - and suffer the consequences", so scripture says that, when they refused to listen, God "gave them over" to their OWN lusts, - and the punishment was a consequence of their OWN doing. |
So they weren't being punished for homosexual behavior, but rather for: "...they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him..."
So far no specific reference that homosexuality is prohibited from the Bible. |
I never said that it was prohibited. Only that it was not reflective of Judeo/Christian values as defined in scripture. But then again, there are a LOT of sinful actions that are not expressly "prohibited" by scripture, but ARE defined as sinful - and hence not reflective of Judeo/Christian values as defined in scripture.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Are homosexuals being punished for some wrongdoing? No more so than those who dishonor their parents, gossip, or any of the other sins listed. Do they perhaps suffer graver consequences? Perhaps, but if they do it is because their lifestyle puts them at higher risk. |
Higher risk for what? |
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
The very term "good Christian" is an oxymoron. Even Christ asked one of his followers "Why callest thou me "good". There is NONE good, save God." Though in the modern vernacular, a homosexual Christian is no better nor any worse than a heterosexual Christian. However, scripture says that the believers should shun ANY Christian who wilfully continues sinning openly after having been confronted with his/her sin. NOTE: believers are NOT told to shun NON-believers who live openly in sin - only to shun believers who remain unrepentant.
Note: the preceeding, if not directly quoted from scripture, are my opinions, and/or my interpretations of scripture. |
But it doesn't seem to me so far that homosexuality has been deemed a sin in the Bible. |
Did you not note the scripture I quoted originally? It contained the words "sinful desires", "shameful lusts", "unnatural", "indecent acts", and "perversion". What more can I do to convince you that the word "sinful" means that it is a "sin"?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Is it an interpretation by the leaders of Christianity that it is so? |
No, scripture is very clear, in all translations.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
If a Christian homosexual is no better or worse than a Christian heterosexual, then why is it that homosexual behavior is so shunned and made such a big issue over by the Christian right? |
For the same reason that immoral heterosexual behaviour is shunned and made such a big issue over by the Christian right. Remember Jimmy Swaggart? He was made into a big issue by the Christian right. The reason it was a big issue was not that he sinned, but the fact that when his sinfulness was exposed, he refused to repent and accept the discipline imposed by the church. Likewise, the vast majority of homosexuals refuse to renounce their sinful behaviour, insisting instead that the world, including the church, accept them with open arms while they continue living in open, defiant sinfulness. How would you rationally expect the church to do that? If they shunned Jimmy Swaggart for unrepentent immoral heterosexual behaviour, why should they not shun those practicing unrepentent immoral homosexual behaviour?
Note: The use of the adjective "immoral" in the above is NOT as defined by "society", but as defined by scripture. We've beaten the moral/immoral issue to death in other threads, and I've no desire to revisit it here. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:07:31 AM · #307 |
Two points for muckpond!!
As for topic of the thread, I for one think that every tax paying couple should have the same rights as everyone else. It shouldn't matter what sexual preference they have, as long as the two individuals are consenting adults.
My partner and I had the GREAT experience of exchanging vows with each other in San Francisco while they allowed same-sex marriages. Though they annulled all of the marriages that took place that week, they will never take away the memories of feeling equal and accepted while we were out there to commit ourselves to each other.
And I really could care less what they decide to call it...marriage, union, or whatever. We just want the rights that every citizen should be entitled to...that's not asking much.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:08:18 AM · #308 |
[quote=RonB]
No, scripture is very clear, in all translations.
OOOppps we still have at least one member of the Flat Earth Society in attendance!!
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 11:10:10. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:12:19 AM · #309 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population?
|
I hate to tell you this Bud...but there is a larger percentage of heterosexuals that have AIDS...Get your facts straight before you start throwing them around willynilly
//www.aids.com/facts.htm
I'm going to now put this thread on ignore.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:14:49 AM · #310 |
Originally posted by persimon:
OOOppps we still have at least one member of the Flat Earth Society in attendance!! |
Make that two!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:19:37 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by di53:
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population?
|
I hate to tell you this Bud...but there is a larger percentage of heterosexuals that have AIDS...Get your facts straight before you start throwing them around willynilly
//www.aids.com/facts.htm
I'm going to now put this thread on ignore. |
I didn't see on that site where it discuss homosexual vs. heterosexual HIV or AID's statistics? I might have missed it can you post where its at I am interested in those statistics.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:24:11 AM · #312 |
Last attempt to bring back the original topic:
1) this is not about whether bible condemns homosexuality or not.
2) this is not about texans being narrow-minded or conservative or religious. Texans are just fine.
This is about government using people's feelings to instill their agenda into laws. I could care less if my neighbors/friends couples are same or opposite gender. It is their private thing. I am not insulted by it, nor afraid of it.
However, someone thought that this should be governed, and used people's religious feelings to pass that into the law (and constitution for that matter). Sounds familiar? What was the platform that won the 2004 presidential elections? Was it the social programs? Was it economy? Was it terrorism? No, polls proved different. It is happening again, and these are only little litmus tests that the few are running. Next thing is federal constitutional amendments on who knows what, you make a guess. And it won't help the economy, it sure won't improve derailing morale, and it will widen the gap between left and right.
I must admit that the government has some really smart people. Karl Rove and Richard Cheney are the two that I admire the most. Sometimes I think that this country could become the greatest for all if they just choose to use their enormous brain power for good causes for all.
Intermission over, go continue quoting bible.
Oh, by the way, are you still running Windows 3.1? Did you upgrade to NT, 2000 or XP? Then, why do you consider bible to be ultimate book? If old testament is win3.1, and new testament is win95, then you should consider Qur'an as Win2000 or XP - it has been released after these. And it has improved user interface, but is backwards compatible with older versions so your existing apps will still run. However, some badly written apps may not run correctly, and you will need to contact the manufacturer to give you the upgrade.
:-) |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:25:30 AM · #313 |
I am just so totally confused. What does the bible have to do with US law? Why do lawmakers care what the bible says?
From my own point of view, I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus though I do not call myself a christian. They are very different, yes?
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."
"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
I find many christians in the US to be extremely hypocritical - completely against the teaching of Jesus. "Let he who cast the first stone..."
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:26:05 AM · #314 |
Originally posted by di53:
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population?
|
I hate to tell you this Bud...but there is a larger percentage of heterosexuals that have AIDS...Get your facts straight before you start throwing them around willynilly
//www.aids.com/facts.htm
I'm going to now put this thread on ignore. |
I'd put it on ignore if I were you, too. Especially since the link you provided does not even support your contention. NOWHERE on that site does it provide homosexual vs. heterosexual statistics for AIDS. The CDC site however DOES show that the incidence of aids is higher ( or at least WAS higher thru 2003 ) in the male homosexual population.
The major reason that heterosexual incidences are increasing so quickly is due to heterosexual activity in which one of the participants is bi-sexual. The charts do not show a breakdown on the source of the infection - only the pattern of transmission. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:28:48 AM · #315 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
just keep praying, no one is listening to you, not until you learn a little love and tolerance. |
I'm praying for you. :) |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:31:49 AM · #316 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population? |
Certainly, in the "western world" gays are at higher risk for AIDS than the general population. Not in Africa, though... As for depression and suicide, it's at least arguable that if, in fact, gays have higher rates of either or both, it's less an inherent consequence of sexual orientation and more a reflection of the kind of pressures people like you place on them.
Scripture says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" or words to that effect. You're a skilled debater, Ron, but the bottom line here is that you are "judging"...
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:31:56 AM · #317 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'd put it on ignore if I were you, too. Especially since the link you provided does not even support your contention. NOWHERE on that site does it provide homosexual vs. heterosexual statistics for AIDS. The CDC site however DOES show that the incidence of aids is higher ( or at least WAS higher thru 2003 ) in the male homosexual population.
The major reason that heterosexual incidences are increasing so quickly is due to heterosexual activity in which one of the participants is bi-sexual. The charts do not show a breakdown on the source of the infection - only the pattern of transmission. |
You have got to be kidding me - Do you honestly believe that AIDS is a predominantly "Gay" disease? |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:34:39 AM · #318 |
Originally posted by ibkc:
Scott, just wanted to let you know, that while not actively participating in the discussion, there are people reading this that agree with you 100%. Everything here has pretty much been said, said again, and run into the ground a few more times. You either support gay marriage or you don't. I don't. I agree with all Scott has said, as do others I've shared this thread with, and if we both weren't so against gay marriage I'd probably ask him to marry me. |
My wife might have to beat you up if you tried. :) |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:40:29 AM · #319 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Last attempt to bring back the original topic:
1) this is not about whether bible condemns homosexuality or not.
2) this is not about texans being narrow-minded or conservative or religious. Texans are just fine.
This is about government using people's feelings to instill their agenda into laws. I could care less if my neighbors/friends couples are same or opposite gender. It is their private thing. I am not insulted by it, nor afraid of it.
However, someone thought that this should be governed, and used people's religious feelings to pass that into the law (and constitution for that matter). Sounds familiar? What was the platform that won the 2004 presidential elections? Was it the social programs? Was it economy? Was it terrorism? No, polls proved different. It is happening again, and these are only little litmus tests that the few are running. Next thing is federal constitutional amendments on who knows what, you make a guess. And it won't help the economy, it sure won't improve derailing morale, and it will widen the gap between left and right.
I must admit that the government has some really smart people. Karl Rove and Richard Cheney are the two that I admire the most. Sometimes I think that this country could become the greatest for all if they just choose to use their enormous brain power for good causes for all.
Intermission over, go continue quoting bible.
Oh, by the way, are you still running Windows 3.1? Did you upgrade to NT, 2000 or XP? Then, why do you consider bible to be ultimate book? If old testament is win3.1, and new testament is win95, then you should consider Qur'an as Win2000 or XP - it has been released after these. And it has improved user interface, but is backwards compatible with older versions so your existing apps will still run. However, some badly written apps may not run correctly, and you will need to contact the manufacturer to give you the upgrade.
:-) |
Just for the record this thread did not start off clearly making the distinction that this was going to be a debate on the "civil union" of homosexual couples. It said marriage and from there spurred many different opinions. We had to understand why homosexuals could not be married, which required a history lesson. Hince the Bible discussion and from there spurred many opinions that I believe we have been debating back and forth over. If there is a question why not answer it?
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 11:41:26.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:47:58 AM · #320 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population? |
Certainly, in the "western world" gays are at higher risk for AIDS than the general population. Not in Africa, though... As for depression and suicide, it's at least arguable that if, in fact, gays have higher rates of either or both, it's less an inherent consequence of sexual orientation and more a reflection of the kind of pressures people like you place on them.
Scripture says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" or words to that effect. You're a skilled debater, Ron, but the bottom line here is that you are "judging"...
Robt. |
Amen! er I mean.. ummmm Well... Good on you Bear. ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:52:12 AM · #321 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Just for the record this thread did not start off clearly making the distinction that this was going to be a debate on the "civil union" of homosexual couples. It said marriage and from there spurred many different opinions. We had to understand why homosexuals could not be married, which required a history lesson. Hence the Bible discussion and from there spurred many opinions that I believe we have been debating back and forth over. If there is a question why not answer it? |
The original post:
Originally posted by persimon:
Well, it happened. The people have spoken. The people of this state approved an amendment 3 to 1 that will ban homosexuals from getting married. It will now be written in the constitution that marriage will be defined as a union between a man and a woman. I can't believe something like this has ended up in the constitution. Very scary and sad. |
The way I read it, it does not argue whether marriage/union is defined in the bible or not. It does not even mention it. It talks about constitution and supreme law of the land. Why involve bible at all? This is about future rights of us all. Just because you like it now, it does not mean that you will like it tomorrow when the Smart Ones play with our other feelings and push something in the law that you won't like so much. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:03:06 PM · #322 |
N/M - should have read to the bottom of the post...
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 12:03:51. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:07:42 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by persimon:
Wow!! The thread is still going stong, I see. I also have noticed that the members of the Flat Earth Society have picked up their Bibles and gone home. |
Just to bed.
Originally posted by persimon:
I AM ASHAMED TO BE TEXAN!!!!!! |
I'm sure Texas feels likewise. :) |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:17:31 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Just for the record this thread did not start off clearly making the distinction that this was going to be a debate on the "civil union" of homosexual couples. It said marriage and from there spurred many different opinions. We had to understand why homosexuals could not be married, which required a history lesson. Hence the Bible discussion and from there spurred many opinions that I believe we have been debating back and forth over. If there is a question why not answer it? |
The original post:
Originally posted by persimon:
Well, it happened. The people have spoken. The people of this state approved an amendment 3 to 1 that will ban homosexuals from getting married. It will now be written in the constitution that marriage will be defined as a union between a man and a woman. I can't believe something like this has ended up in the constitution. Very scary and sad. |
The way I read it, it does not argue whether marriage/union is defined in the bible or not. It does not even mention it. It talks about constitution and supreme law of the land. Why involve bible at all? This is about future rights of us all. Just because you like it now, it does not mean that you will like it tomorrow when the Smart Ones play with our other feelings and push something in the law that you won't like so much. |
I don't feel there would be marriage without the Bible. If the post had read "The people of this state approved an amendment 3 to 1 that will ban homosexuals from engaging in a civil union." I would have been more inclined to leave the historical elements of marriage out of it. At that point marriage is no longer the topic, but rather a civil union.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:25:53 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by "KaDI":
His partner (my uncle) needed to get him to a country where he could get health care. This was complicated by the fact that my uncle was "only" a friend. Not a US issue exclusively, but still illustrative of the fact that despite their 20+ year commitment to each other, their legal relationship stood in the way of getting life-saving medical treatment. And in the US it is an issue for the gay community as well...If my husband is sick and can not sign for treatment himself I can and that is because the government recognizes our marriage. |
Actually, it wouldn't have mattered if you were married and your spouse never applied for U.S. citizenship they'd still not be able to enter the U.S. (Now, I will grant you that it is easier to apply for U.S. citizenship when married to a U.S. citizen. And my statements regarding a seperation of civil from religious issues would resolve that issue.) The problem of not being able to sign is addressed by a "living will". In truth though, the concept of a living will is only now become more common. Than again...few even have "wills" written.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
An atheist can formulate and conduct scientific experiments to test scientific hypothesis just as can a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, etc., etc., etc. Religious beliefs do not affect the validity of a theory or a controlled experiment.
|
Please oh great Milo...show me your proof of absolute knowledge. Show me that you have explored, conducted and observed every valid test. Does intelligent extra-terrestial or extra-dimensional life exist great and wise Milo? YES OR NO?
Can you say with absoluteness as scientific law. Oh guess what, currently we have no observable evidence to support it but likewise we have no scientific proof that it does not exist. Hmmm...maybe we should apply your own non-scientific rules and all those books we had in school discussing possibility of intelligent life outside of earth should be eliminated. In fact, let's kill SETI. It is really a religious venture and not a scientific one.
Milo...your ignorance and lack of knowledge is not grounds to set aside the principles of scientific method. So yes, any scientist who claims to be an atheist is not a true scientist. They're a member of a dogmatic faith.
An agnostic, (which can swing to both sides a fair degree, believing there might be a god or doubting there is a god but not closing the book one way or another until evidence is gained)...now that is a scientific approach.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
Doesn’t the fact that gods are supposedly supernatural beings place them outside the realm of scientific discovery? Science can’t say anything about the existence of gods unless someone can come up with a repeatable, empirical test for them. |
No it does not. For example, most of our technology is in fact magic to those who lack understanding. Furthermore, there is the potential that said being may be extra-dimensional with respect to us. The fact that something cannot be observed does not disprove it's existance as you put forth. That is your failing not science's. For example: the atom was not able to be observed until recently. To say that lack of ability to observe what once was considered unobservable but now is observable - one would have to say that during the time of the greeks, and even more recently in pre-modern times... no one could say anything about "atoms" as they could not be observed. The agnostic philosophy, puts the burden on the individual and their own fallibity stating. "I don't have the knowledge to make a decision." The atheist, assumes his or her own credibility with absoluteness... "I know there is no God!". Based on having no empirical evidence. Now, if a greek philosopher & scientist stated 2000 yrs ago there are no atoms. I do not believe in atoms. I have never observed an atom. And said to his compatriots, you have no way to show me this atom you speak of...therefore, "there is no atom". His belief would not affect the fact that there are indeed "atoms".
Originally posted by "milo655321":
ID is not a theory. It explains nothing, isn’t testable, and makes no predictions.
|
Au contraire. Intelligent Design is derived from the fact that the universe tends toward chaos & entropy, not order. And that the tendency is toward the simpler and more stable as opposed to the more complex. Likewise, that there appears great complexity in the genetic code. And similarities in varying special branches. That what seemed mere chemical chains are in fact a programming code that specify action and routines. This is very much akin to the "programming languages" used by us. These are designed. And there seems many similarities between the two. Which led a number of scientists to theorized that DNA may be programming software, and as such written by a programmer.
Originally posted by "milo655321":
“Laws” are descriptions of universal behavior such as Newton’s Laws of Gravity which describe motion. The Newton's Theory of Gravity did not graduate to become the Laws of Gravity. |
Actually, it probably stems much more so from the fact that scientists now have come to realize that things are not always so universal. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. But now we see much more complexities and we leave it a theory. Even now there are numerous questions regarding gravity.
In fact, one might argue that Newton's law is not a law at all. And was simply called such because no variance had been observed at the time
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Problems_with_Newton.27s_theory
In fact, there is more of a tendency, as we've realized so many variances, to move away from Law's and to utilize theories. Which are more flexible and dynamic and handle unexpected observations that are discovered as observance becomes more detailed.
Originally posted by "notonline":
Do you really need a big wedding and a expensive ring to say you two are married??? Personally I would never get married in a church. I would rather get married in an open field in the middle of nowhere under gods natural roof
|
Me too, so I am doing fairly close. Right on the beach by a lighthouse. It will be in a coney-island styled 1940's wood pavillion with large window panes. (With a carousel inside.) It's a fair compromise cause i wanted to be outside, by the water....but this way if it rains we are nice and dry.
:)
May 13th, 2006 for me... w()()t
Originally posted by "di53":
but there is a larger percentage of heterosexuals that have AIDS |
Not quite exactly right, the ordering goes as follows:
Highest at risk are homosexual males. Followed by heterosexuals. The least at risk are homosexual females. |
|
