Support NeoGAF

[impirius]

This is on the ballot for the November 2nd election.

Alright. I was glancing through Ohio's Constitution, and from what I can tell, that doesn't happen until 3/5 of both houses approve the proposal. Is that right? Did that mess really get past a 3/5 vote in the Legislature? Yeesh.

 

[AfroLuffy]

I hate to burst your bubble, but most of the nation's founders were men with profound and devout spiritual beliefs.

You have burst no bubble. Benjamin franklin was a deist, who said something to the extent of you should go to church because without the church we have no moral system on which to stand, fearing anarchy and liscentiousness probably. But he was a product of his times. As for a few others: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Madison and others who plainly and unequivocally state that they were NOT Christians, did NOT believe Jesus was the son of god, did NOT want the laws of the United States to be based on ANY religion (and several hold contempt specifically for Christianity), and believed that, in a democracy, religious feeling would eventually subside and disappear.

The difference was they were able to reconcile their rational, empirical beliefs with their own spirituality - something most modern Christians in America are pathetically incapable of doing.

I agree, this would be nice to see.

 

[teiresias]

I hate to burst your bubble, but most of the nation's founders were men with profound and devout spiritual beliefs.

Most of them were deists and I think most of the right-wing conservatives of the country would think they were all going to hell.

 

[DJ Demon J]

impirius as far ask I know, this ludacris bill

No, not the rapper--ludicrous. Jeez, how old are you? You took wedding vows, work, pay taxes, use the internet, drive a car and can't spell ludicrous? And yet you consider yourself intellectually capable of putting down homosexuality because it's against a storybook on morality created to control the weakminded? Wow....just....wow.

 

[RevenantKioku]

The difference is in the significance. A word which you seem to have completely ignored in my post.

Nope. I remember reading it, and remember typing it in my post, I don't now where it went! Must have been lost in the editing.
Still, to say it significantly affects only the two involved? So very untrue.

 

[jecclr2003]

Dj Demon, a simple mispelling... I guess you're above such trivial things aren't you?

Thanks for the tip Webster.

Nice ego, needs to be about 3 sizes smaller.

And now religion is meant as a tool of the weak-minded, wow. Nice.

Religion is fine if it used as a good suggestion to set up the principles of your life. It's a pretty good road map to live a quality life. It's the fanatics that make it look like a bad thing.

But once again, you're above all that, right?

And now the Bible and the Quran are now story books? I figured a scholar such as yourself would know enough to know both books are based upon real people and events, but expounded upon for generations and numerous translations. And both based on the teachings of Mohammed, a real life person. SHOCK!

But once again, you're above all that, right?

 

[Goreomedy]

Nope. I remember reading it, and remember typing it in my post, I don't now where it went! Must have been lost in the editing.
Still, to say it significantly affects only the two involved? So very untrue.

Okay, I'll bite. Who do you suppose is significantly affected, positively and negatively, by my relationship?

And if you can also explain to me how "no, I won't tell you which one of us is the 'top' " is at all comparable to, "I don't have to justify it, go away and never ask for marriage rights again", I'd appreciate it.

 

[demon]

impirius as far ask I know, this ludacris bill

?

 

[Mercury Fred]

Dj Demon, a simple mispelling... I guess you're above such trivial things aren't you?

Nice ego, needs to be about 3 sizes smaller.

Actually, he was kind enough to site just that one. Your posts in this thread are littered with spelling, grammar and syntax errors, just fyi.

And in reference to my earlier "ban?", I asked because you've been illogically flailing throught this thread while failing to address critiques of your "argument." That sort of trolling has been a bannable offense here before.

 

[Triumph]

The whole situation is so idiotic. All of these states will pass these stupid amendments, and in 5-10 years, they will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Rightly so. It's just political grandstanding being used to motivate a reactionary and poorly informed part of the electorate into making it out to the polls on election day.

It's disconcerting to look at this issue and the Civil Rights issues of the '60's, and the landmark court cases and legislation that eventually righted such grievous, idiotic wrongs. Was the majority white population all gung ho for integrating schools and ending the whole "seperate but equal" horseshit back in those days? No. But decent people in power stood up and made the proper decisions. That's what it's going to take again, I'm afraid.

Of course, in today's political climate, Brown vs. Board of Education would no doubt be criticized as "activist judges legislating from the bench" and the Civil Rights act of '64 would be called "giving special rights" out. I am a white, heterosexual male, but I can tell right from wrong. Religion had nothing to do with my upbringing, and publicly shaming a segment of the population that just wants to be able to enjoy the same legal rights that I am able to is morally wrong. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you dumb Christian bastards.

 

[Drensch]

Alright. I was glancing through Ohio's Constitution, and from what I can tell, that doesn't happen until 3/5 of both houses approve the proposal. Is that right? Did that mess really get past a 3/5 vote in the Legislature? Yeesh.

It must have because it is on the ballot. I do expect judicial challenges though.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Okay, I'll bite. Who do you suppose is significantly affected, positively and negatively, by my relationship?

And if you can also explain to me how "no, I won't tell you which one of us is the 'top' " is at all comparable to, "I don't have to justify it, go away and never ask for marriage rights again", I'd appreciate it.

It all depends. Significance is a frigid bitch.
Your family members might be overjoyed that you found someone you love and can spend your time with, and that happiness can benefit their lives too, makes them more upbeat. That's pretty significant.
A person who may try to kill either one of you for your way of life is quite significantly affected, he might have never done it if he didn't know your way. Is it right? Fuck no, but its pretty damn significant.

I don't see how those your last two statements are comparable at all, the first one is very private, and the second one is just terrible.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

The whole situation is so idiotic. All of these states will pass these stupid amendments, and in 5-10 years, they will be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Rightly so.

Not if Bush and Co. get to elect some new supreme court justices.

 

[DJ Demon J]

Dj Demon, a simple mispelling... I guess you're above such trivial things aren't you?

Nice ego, needs to be about 3 sizes smaller.

I would say it would be a simple mispelling if it weren't a rapper's specific name. Like, maybe if you spelled it "ludacrous," OK, I can see that as being a "simple mispelling."

The point my remark is that you take your moral compass from a book, i.e. you can't think for yourself. See how easy it was to make you lose your grammatical skills and substitute an entertainer's name for an easily spelled word? I'm guessing it wasn't much harder to drill hatred and disgust of homosexuals and anyone else who doesn't follow the Christian dogma into your head either.

 

[Triumph]

Not if Bush and Co. get to elect some new supreme court justices.

Bush is going to be the first sitting President impeached, tried and thrown in jail to be showered with the affection of Bubba the ass rapist. You heard it here first!

 

[explodet]

We can't have nice things, can we?

 

[Dice]

The religious beliefs of the founding fathers of this country or lack thereof has nothing to do with this. What, if the country were founded on Christianity people wouldn't complain? Yeah right. People want to do what they want, and our country having some sort of religious affinity wouldn't change that. Case in point--Our country may not be based on religion but it IS based on democracy and yet people are still shocked and complain about the decisions made.

I really wonder if people realize the nature of our government. The way it works is the people decide who they want to represent them and those people make decisions, and sometimes we vote to decide. Either way, the laws will be reflective of the desires of the majority. If you think religion shouldn't be an influence, too bad if the majority does. If you don't like what is going on there then stay away from Ohio and move to some state that gives more rights to homosexuals, that's the beauty of the United States.

If you can find a country that has something better going on then feel free to move there, but please give up on this dream of a country lets anyone do anything they want. Countries are either biased by the leadership directly or biased by the mass opinion; there will never be a country that makes everyone happy all the time, but if you know what you want from life you are free to move to some place that will give you what you want. The US has these sorts of opportunities more than anywhere else so I'm not going to complain.

I really don't see what is so shocking about people who disagree. There has always been differing views on everything and there always will be, that is WHY we live in a democracy. They aren't stealing your country from you--It is their country too! If you think they shouldn't even have a voice in political decisions because they disagree with you on what moral base our laws should be built on, who is the fascist then? You are just as free to rally and plead your case if it is so important to you, and I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one state that will be in your favor if you do.

 

[Goreomedy]

RevenantKioku, we're not in disagreement then.

Realize, I was speaking about human rights, when talking of the effect our beliefs and relationships have on society.

So, either we're on the same page, or you've lost me.

 

[FoneBone]

Hmm, still no conservatives coming in whining about alleged liberal "intolerance." What's wrong with this forum?

(Though I'd say some of you are going a little too far with the "ban all religion" comments...)

 

[jecclr2003]

Congratualtions, I am not the grammatical master you are DJ Demon, now you are just trolling because you have nothing to contribute.

You felt a need to post just due to an error in my spelling, feel better now?

And now the those who choose to follow religion as a moral road map for themselves are weak-minded? That sir, I consider hate-mongering.

I have no "digust or hatred" ,as you put it, for homosexuals. I just don't approve of the lifestyle, as it isn't for me. I don't wish thse who participate in said lifestyle any harm or ill will. I'm sorry your narrow-minded stubborness won't allow you to see that.

And like I said numerous times before, I really don't care what they do. As long as the are happy, so be it. The language needs changed to the definition of marriage, as it pertains to the Constitution, is of a religious nature. Therefore, violating our our amendment of separation of church and state. By changing one simple word, it changes the definition of the whole amendment. 99.5% of this county and its political structure is about controlling the language. When that language changes, you have massive change.

While I may not agree with said lifestyle, I still feel if they choose to agree into a civil union they should be allowed the same right as a married couple. The same requirments are still the same, a monoagmous relationship. And like a previous member hers said, his homosexual relationship is just as stressful and hard to maintain as my heterosexual relationship.

I really don't see a reason he should be denied the benefits that I get as a married man just because the language that our laws are based on is of a religous nature and needs updated.

I'm sure a few others would agree with me on that much at least.

EDIT: Mercury I wouldn't care if he pointed it out if it weren't for the rude manner of how he pointed it out. Demon on the other hand I did get a chuckle out of. Nice literal translation of my faux paus.

 

[RevenantKioku]

RevenantKioku, we're not in disagreement then.

Realize, I was speaking about human rights, when talking of the effect our beliefs and relationships have on society.

So, either we're on the same page, or you've lost me.

We're probably on the same page ideology wise, I just tend to babble and make no sense.
My only argument is, people can't except big changes to come and people will just deal with it. I just don't think "Deal with it." is a valid fight homosexuals should be putting out. I realize they're dealing with thickheaded people, and its sympathize, I hate dealing with these people too. And its not everyone, I've just heard that "Deal with it" argument a few times, and it irks me.

 

[Incognito]

um, the only reason this amendment was passed through the legislation in ohio and placed on the november 2nd ballot is because karl rove and company KNEW such a wedge issue would drive voters into the booth, and in turn, while voting for the amendmennt, vote for bush.

it's simply ridiculous.

 

[xsarien]

Hmm, still no conservatives coming in whining about liberal "intolerance." What's wrong with this forum?

Well, Cooter was banned yesterday...

 

[demon]

Why was cooter banned? Not that he wasn't an obnoxious conservative prick, but what did he do that was ban-worthy?

 

[levious]

Hmm, still no conservatives coming in whining about liberal "intolerance." What's wrong with this forum?

Yeah, "this amendment is not Anti-Gay, it's PRO LIFE!"

 

[WordofGod]

Male prositutes and their Johns hardly represent homosexual couples.

Please share with us when the word Homosexual was inserted into that scripture. Thanks in advance for the reply, Word.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (a)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers…

In verse 18, Paul will tell the Corinthian believers to flee fornication. Here, he gives them the first reason they should do so: Fornication jeopardizes one’s eternal state.
Does this mean anyone who’s fallen into fornication or committed adultery is not going to make it into heaven?

No, for the tense used in the original language would have made it clear to anyone reading this letter that Paul was speaking not of those who struggled with, or even failed in these areas, but of those who flagrantly and blatantly continued in them. On the basis of 1 John, some suggest that it’s not that those who continue in these sins lose their salvation, but that they were never truly born again in the first place.

All I know is this: Whether a person loses his salvation or was never really saved, either way, he ends up in the same place. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes when he stands before the Lord—for no matter how often he came to church, or how big the Bible he carried, I can’t guarantee he will enter into heaven. The Bible makes it painfully clear that those who continue in these sins will not inherit the kingdom.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (b)
…nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

The Greek word translated “effeminate” speaks of a passive role in homosexual behavior. The term “abusers of themselves with mankind” speaks of an active role. Either role places one’s eternal state in jeopardy.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1098215540-3257.html

Greek for 3120: malakos {mal-ak-os'} or effeminate:

1) soft, soft to the touch

2) metaph. in a bad sense

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite

2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

4) of a male prostitute

1 Corinthians 6:10, 11
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Again, the tense in the original language indicates that Paul is saying that those who habitually practice these behaviors either were never saved or have greatly jeopardized their salvation.

 

[Goreomedy]

My only argument is, people can't except big changes to come and people will just deal with it. I just don't think "Deal with it." is a valid fight homosexuals should be putting out. I realize they're dealing with thickheaded people, and its sympathize, I hate dealing with these people too. And its not everyone, I've just heard that "Deal with it" argument a few times, and it irks me.

I know what you're saying. I try to always keep my emotions in check, but I'm only human. I myself will get militant and throw out a "Change has to be forced upon people who refuse to be won over by rationale. And that can be arranged, bitches."

Those kinds of threats can be momentarily cathartic, but I realize it also emboldens the opposition and hurts in the long run.

Let there be no question, though. My sympathies are with homosexuals.

 

[DJ Demon J]

And now the those who choose to follow religion as a moral road map for themselves are weak-minded? That sir, I consider hate-mongering.

I'll refrain from posting anything further specifically targeting religion in general as this thread is about gay marriage and the religious dogma that is against it. Even though I think commentary on the creation of religion would help to point out the thinking behind the dogma that drives the crusade against gay marriage, I'll let that work itself out through the rest of the debate in the thread.

I have no "digust or hatred" ,as you put it, for homosexuals. I just don't approve of the lifestyle, as it isn't for me. I don't wish thse who participate in said lifestyle any harm or ill will. I'm sorry your narrow-minded stubborness won't allow you to see that.

And here's where you put your foot in your mouth and directly lie, at least as far as the disgust part (although I'd be willing to bet privately, outside of this forum you'd be likely to have hatred for homosexual men):

But I will give you the short of it, I can not understand the appeal of being with another man, I find the thought repulsive.

I really don't see a reason he should be denied the benefits that I get as a married man just because the language that our laws are based on is of a religous nature and needs updated.

I'm sure a few others would agree with me on that much at least.

Jesus Christ (pun not intended) you flip-flop more than Kerry supposedly does! How many times in this thread are you going to change your opinion (below)?

Gore, that is my opinion. I've always thought that a marriage was/is between a man and a woman. Not 2 guys or 2 girls (although thats HOT! I kid, I kid.)

Marriage itself is a religous thing, the binding of 2 souls and defined as a holy union of man and woman. Eventually resulting in offspring. Even though I may be agnostic/semi-atheistic, the bible still states that the deviants were struck down for their lifestyle choices. Sodom & Gammorah anyone?

If 2 men or women want to be in a civil union or what ever non-religous term may be, fine. Go for it, live a long happy life together. But don't come bitching up a storm because you can't have something you want. But sorry marriage IS religous, whether you like it or not. Show me a religion practiced today that will condone a marriage between 2 like sexes.

And also, you're an atheist or agnostic yet you believe that marriage is religious and shouldn't be tampered with and that homosexuals are "deviants" deserving of death ("struck down") for their lifestyle choices? I just want to make sure I'm not misquoting you here.

 

[AfroLuffy]

Somethign to chew on..

"Among sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passsages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolance; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I seperate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus."--Thomas Jefferson

 

[Goreomedy]

Again, the tense in the original language indicates that Paul is saying that those who habitually practice these behaviors either were never saved or have greatly jeopardized their salvation.

The term is widely accepted by biblical scholars to mean "male prostitutes and those who bed them".

Again, how is that representative of a committed homosexual relationship?

 

[Dice]

Jecc, you should read the bible IN CONTEXT. Then, perhaps, you'd see that homosexuality is never condemned by scripture.

Where did you get this?

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Believe what you will about homosexuality, but if you adhere to the Christian bible it is clearly marked out as a perversity and is to be fought against just as any other sin and/or temptation. If this passage isn't sufficient there are more.

Though if you ask me, I think people need consistency in their political agendas. If you rally to make homosexuality illegal due to a bibical moral base, then you should also be pushing for the laws to follow the scriptural teaching on divorce and remarriage (see 1 Corinthians 7)

 

[WordofGod]

The term is widely accepted by biblical scholars to mean "male prostitutes and those who bed them".

Again, how is that representative of a committed homosexual relationship?

In Biblical usage, “fornication” can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21).

"The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. 11The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. "If a man takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness. He shall bear his guilt. If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people. "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister nor of your father's sister, for that would uncover his near of kin. They shall bear their guilt. 20If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness. They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless. " Leviticus 20:10-21 NKJV

Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28).

 

[Minotauro]

I really wonder if people realize the nature of our government. The way it works is the people decide who they want to represent them and those people make decisions, and sometimes we vote to decide. Either way, the laws will be reflective of the desires of the majority. If you think religion shouldn't be an influence, too bad if the majority does. If you don't like what is going on there then stay away from Ohio and move to some state that gives more rights to homosexuals, that's the beauty of the United States.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.

.

 

[Goreomedy]

Where did you get this?

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Believe what you will about homosexuality, but if you adhere to the Christian bible it is clearly marked out as a perversity and is to be fought against just as any other sin and/or temptation. If this passage isn't sufficient there are more.

Though if you ask me, I think people need consistency in their political agendas. If you rally to make homosexuality illegal due to a bibical moral base, then you should also be pushing for the laws to follow the scriptural teaching on divorce and remarriage (see 1 Corinthians 7)

I haven't castrated myself recently out of worship of a hermaphrodite Goddess. So, please, tell me how this condemns my committed relationship or at all represents homosexuals?

 

[FoneBone]

The Bible says that blah blah blah

You know, it would be nice to see some evidence that when it comes to religion, you're actually capable of independent thought. I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[TheDuce22]

I dont know about you guys but EVERYONE I have ever known from Ohio has had serious issues. Maybe its something in the water.

 

[Triumph]

1 Corinthians 6:9 (a)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers…

In verse 18, Paul will tell the Corinthian believers to flee fornication. Here, he gives them the first reason they should do so: Fornication jeopardizes one’s eternal state.
Does this mean anyone who’s fallen into fornication or committed adultery is not going to make it into heaven?

No, for the tense used in the original language would have made it clear to anyone reading this letter that Paul was speaking not of those who struggled with, or even failed in these areas, but of those who flagrantly and blatantly continued in them. On the basis of 1 John, some suggest that it’s not that those who continue in these sins lose their salvation, but that they were never truly born again in the first place.

All I know is this: Whether a person loses his salvation or was never really saved, either way, he ends up in the same place. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes when he stands before the Lord—for no matter how often he came to church, or how big the Bible he carried, I can’t guarantee he will enter into heaven. The Bible makes it painfully clear that those who continue in these sins will not inherit the kingdom.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (b)
…nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

The Greek word translated “effeminate” speaks of a passive role in homosexual behavior. The term “abusers of themselves with mankind” speaks of an active role. Either role places one’s eternal state in jeopardy.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1098215540-3257.html

Greek for 3120: malakos {mal-ak-os'} or effeminate:

1) soft, soft to the touch

2) metaph. in a bad sense

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite

2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

4) of a male prostitute

1 Corinthians 6:10, 11
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Again, the tense in the original language indicates that Paul is saying that those who habitually practice these behaviors either were never saved or have greatly jeopardized their salvation.

Thanks for your lovely historical fiction quotes.

 

[WordofGod]

I haven't castrated myself recently out of worship of a hermaphrodite Goddess. So, please, tell me how this condemns my committed relationship or at all reprents homosexuals?

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine 1 Timothy 1:9-10 KJV

defile themselves with mankind. In contrast to the modern rush to make homosexuality an approved life style, it is noteworthy that the apostle Paul classifies homosexuals right along with murderers and pimps.

Another translation:

"We know these laws are good when they are used as God intended. 9But they were not made for people who do what is right. They are for people who are disobedient and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who murder their father or mother or other people. These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching" 1 Timothy 1:9-10 NLT

 

[Nerevar]

defile themselves with mankind. In contrast to the modern rush to make homosexuality an approved life style, it is noteworthy that the apostle Paul classifies homosexuals right along with murderers and pimps.

There are also a large number of people who doubt the veracity of all things attributed to Paul, but theological statements like that can be decided at another time. I'm inclined to agree with Jefferson - I highly doubt a man who's portrayed as lovingly and tolerant as Jesus would ever choose a judgemental and damning man as Paul to be his "rock"

 

[Goreomedy]

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them

I thought surely, you guys wouldn't bring up Moses Law.

The greek word poorly translated into "abomination" here, means rituallistically unclean. In other words, to be "like a gentile".

The selective use of this verse to condemn homosexuality today is the true abomination.

 

[WordofGod]

There are also a large number of people who doubt the veracity of all things attributed to Paul, but theological statements like that can be decided at another time. I'm inclined to agree with Jefferson - I highly doubt a man who's portrayed as lovingly and tolerant as Jesus would ever choose a judgemental and damning man as Paul to be his "rock"

First of all everything that Paul was by the inspiration of GOD:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Second of all you dont know Jesus that well. Jesus will destory all sinners in the last battle of Armagedon. Jesus did not come to bring peace but to divide people:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and "a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. " Matthew 10:34-39 NKJV

 

[Triumph]

Fuck yeah! The FIGHTIN' JESUS!

 

[Zaptruder]

It's sad that christianity can be such a hodge podge of close minded people and general ignorance. But then, those that are devoutly, and truly christian... they're nice people; they don't judge others and neither do they impinge on the freedoms of others. But they're too nice; willing to accept into the fold of christianity people that tend to be ignorant, biased, self serving, etc.

The mentality, if you're not with us, you're against us... it might be part of human nature... but then so is violence and the urge to dominate and constant sexual gratification and what not. Bear in mind, that when you reach to your brother to remove the splinter from his eye, that you've removed the plank from yours first.

 

[WordofGod]

The greek word poorly translated into "abomination" here, means rituallistically unclean. In other words, to be "like a gentile".

The selective use of this verse to condemn homosexuality today is the true abomination.

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;" Isaiah 5:20 NKJV

And you are wrong the original writing for the word abomination was in Hebrew not greek. The first 5 books of Moses were all written in Hebrew not greek. Here is the Hebrew translation:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/8/1098219114-4729.html

Lexicon Results for tow`ebah (Strong's 08441) Hebrew for 08441

Abomination or tow`ebah {to-ay-baw'} or to`ebah {to-ay-baw'}:

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)

b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

 

[demon]

Good grief.

 

[jecclr2003]

DJ Demon, just how much of a moron are you?
While it may be hard for you to wrap your mind around it....

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE.
I DO FIND IT REPULSIVE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON OF I CAN'T FATHOM EVER THINKING OF ANOTHER MAN THAT WAY! BUT I DON'T HARBOR ANY ILL WILL TOWARD THEM IF THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE THEIR LIVES THAT WAY, IT'S THEIR CHOICE!

But, I don't deny them the ability to pursue a civil union if they so choose to. It's THIER life. It's not my place, nor the governments, to decide who you should be with. Nor do I find any type of "disdain or hatred" towards them because of them pursuing the lifestyle they choose to. Once again trying to formulate something that truly isn't there.

And yes, I did say that the deviants were struck down for their deviant lifestyles. Thats they way it is, you may not be religious either, but that's what's written. As it is written homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle. Just stating a point, now does that mean I wish ANYONE to be struck down? No, becuase your reading outside the lines and formatting it for your own purposes, whatever they may be.

And YES, I find that current day marriage is of a religious nature, if you actually read any of the previous posts you would have known that. While I myself am not of a religious nature, I do hold true to the sanctity of marriage.

Just change the language and make it vague enough for everyone to use. While I don't support gay MARRIAGE, I'm more than willing to compromise and settle for eveyone to be into a civil union. It changes the language enough to make it MUCH less specific. In the current state, a marriage is widely regarded a religious ceremony. Andby honoring said religious ceremony we violate ut our amendment of separation of church and state. Change the wording and eliminate the contradiction.

IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

 

[Goreomedy]

Hebrew, yes. Forgive that horrible mistake.

Any translation of scripture which includes "homosexual" is a bastardization.

How about a straight answer to my intial questions?

What do these passages, most of which concern themselves with pedarism and male prostitution, have to do with homosexuals?

It's akin to me going to Mardi Gras, and using the behavior on the streets to condem all heterosexuals.

 

[DJ Demon J]

Fuck yeah! The FIGHTIN' JESUS!

<announcersvoice>
WordofGod, putting the FEAR back in GOD-FEARING!</announcersvoice>

 

[Triumph]

Hey, WordofGod. We get it. You live your life in complete and total accordance with the Bible. I won't even get into why that may or may not be for everyone. You don't have to try and convert me, I'm a fucking buddhist(and not doing a very good job of it right now, as I'm kind of pissed at intolerance and what I see as idiocy).

Here's the thing. This is a question of civics, not religion. The United States Constitution guarantees that our government won't be a theocracy. So your views aren't really applicable here, sorry. If I can't advocate buddhism into legislation, please stop trying to force Christianity into a country were not everyone is a Christian.

 

[Zaptruder]

And YES, I find that current day marriage is of a religious nature, if you actually read any of the previous posts you would have known that. While I myself am not of a religious nature, I do hold true to the sanctity of marriage.

If you're not into denying them civil liberties, then how about recognizing the fact that they're alot of legal attachments to the idea of marriage? Would be unfair to make a distinction for the sake of those people; a LEGAL marriage, and a RELIGIOUS marriage, which encompasses the legal marriage but is only applicable to the union of man and woman.

But the amendment or legislation or whatever; it denies them their civil liberties, that should be granted to any legally bound couple. Is that what you want to deny them? Or just the title of 'marriage'?