| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Brent Norman" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 09:39:54 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Case Against Homosexual Activity |
Tate Gerard <tate23@bellsouth.com> wrote in message news:<c4enfh$ls6$0@pita.alt.net>...
Brent Norman wrote:
Why do you homos always insinuate that anyone who doesn't like homos is
really a homo himself?
I've been married for over 15 years to a lovely woman and I am quite
happy, I don't much care for homos, I think they are sickos and I know
for a fact that I don't want to be like them and I wont let my children
anywhere near them.
When you say you know that you "don't want to be like them", does that
mean that you *could* be like them, but you *choose* not to?
Anyone can be a queer if they really had a mentally ill need to be a
deviate.
After all, you were not born a homo, it was a choice you made sometime
in your life.
Look up Evelyn Hooker, she was on your side and believed homosexuals
to be mentally ill, and conducted a study to show this.. She conducted
tests on both homosexuals and heterosexuals, and then had independent
psychiatrists evaluate the results, without telling them which ones
were gay and which ones were straight. There was no noticeable
difference in the results between the homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
That's the strange loop I tend to find among the anti-homo crowd.
They seem to believe that it is possible to "choose" their sexual
orientation(and some even profess that they did choose their sexual
orientation) and as a result, they believe that EVERYONE ELSE has the
similar ability. With that belief in mind, they believe that any
acceptance of homosexuality will make more people decide to *choose*
it, as if it was an option. This is unrealistic, since the only
people who can "choose" which gender they favour are bisexuals.
Well certainly nobody was ever born a homosexual unless they were also
born mentally ill.
The evidence to prove that is sorely lacking. I do not consider
myself mentally ill, and no one has ever suggested such based on
anything I've done. If I tried to check myself into a mental hospital
tomorrow, they would send me home, or maybe commit me just because it
would be a sign of mental illness to want to be checked in, in the
first place. Pass.
I suppose if I didn't like pedophiles that would make me a pedophile also.
I don't like pedophiles, because they do harm to others by definition.
Their actions tend to be coercive, deceptive and devoid of any type
of reasonable consent. That's why I don't like them. I don't like
murderers because they do harm to others, by definition. Their
actions are selfish, deceptive and definitely devoid of any type of
consent. If a murderer was going to hurt me or someone I love, I would
have no problem mustering up the balls to take him out of commission.
If a pedophile was going to hurt one of my kids, I would have no
problem mustering up the balls to take him out of commission. That is
my only motivation for not liking pedophiles; what they do to people
who are powerless to resist their attacks.
Homosexuals on the other hand, aren't attacking you; they aren't doing
something with another person without the other person's consent; in
short, they are not going after you. Why the burning angry attitude
towards them when they have done nothing to you?
Does the thought of a homosexual in love with another homosexual make
you want to hurt him/her? If so, you've got a problem, probably some
type of mental illness.
No, it is based on a study done that took people who were extremely
anti-homosexual, to the point of having a violent, polarized reaction
to it. Upon showing them homoerotic stimuli, they were found to be
sexually aroused, using a test similar to Dr. Gene Abel's technology.
This led to a conclusion that people who have a vehement burning
hatred of any homosexual may actually harbour their own homosexual
inclinations, and a real, known homosexual represents these hidden
desires that they hate, and seek to quash and causes them distress.
I note that whatever source of misinformation you are using didn't dare
do a study on people who hate pedophiles, perhaps they were afraid of
what the results would be?
Gene Abel is frequently cited by Shelly in defense of his outlandish
views, I'm just using his very technologies.
I don't know what the results of such a test would be, but most people
who kill/beat pedophiles usually do it as retribution for the anguish
and pain that the pedophile had inflicted on his/her victims, not out
of internalized hatred.
Would you agree to a study done on people who hate pedophiles by the
same group who allegedly conducted a study on gay haters?
I don't see what that would accomplish. People who hate active
pedophiles have good reason to, just like people who hate murderers or
rapists; people who hate homosexuals don't have anything near that
level of justification.
Lets bring them out in the open, write to whomever it is that done this
study, tell them to do a study on pedophile haters, if it is done in the
U.S. I would be a willing participant in this study and I want you to be
there as well, as long as we had enough time to make preparations for
this I would gladly go.
If you don't have the money for travel then I would be willing to work
something out and help pay your travel expenses to a predetermined
extent that you and I agreed on in advance.
Sounds interesting, although perhaps this has already been done
somewhere.
I will also invite some of the pedo bashers that beat up on the pedos in
the alt.support.boy-lover group, I bet Riske would be up for this and
probably Tom Shelly too if we asked them.
I'm sure they would, and I would hope that they would pass the test
with flying colours. I don't think they are pedos though.. although I
would never waste time dealing with pedos, physically or in
discussion, they just have to be put away if they attempt to offend,
that's the only real way to identify them. Educate the children so
that they can recognize when someone is trying to blackmail and/or
take advantage of them, that's the best defence against pedos.
Do you think that straights aren't equally promiscous? They are, and
gays can be just as faithful.
False, unbridled promiscuity is the norm for filthy faggots.
How about me? gay, virgin and 22. Explain that impossible phenomenon.
Matt
Well it is a known fact that homos will say just about anything on
usenet, right or wrong it doesn't seem to matter to them.
From my experience on usenet in regards to the homos all I have seen
were lies and half-truths, I doubt you are a virgin but then again who
really knows if what you say is true or not, the homos have lost big in
the credibility dept.
What anyone says could be lacking in credibility. Matt has been very
consistent with regards to his personal history. For all we know, you
could be a lonely, flaming, self-loathing queen rather than
15-years-married-to-a-woman man. There's no real way to verify what
anyone *claims* they may be. In any case, everyone knows who they
are, I hope.
This is true to a certain extent, I have seen the claims of the
so-called homophobes and have found no errors in any of them, the homos
however, that is a different story.
I've seen claims on both sides that have been erroneous or
misinformed, very fwe comes out smelling like a rose. The most vile
language I've seen tends to come from the so-called homophobes, with
some of the anti-homophobes sinking to their level on occasion. What
kind of LEGITIMATE research uses the word "*****" in a clinical
discussion? That loses credibility right there.
They are trying to fight for equal rights for a choice they made to be
queer, that is just plain dumb, nobody told you to be a queer
that's right, and nobody told you to be hetero either, with that
reasoning, being hetero is a choice, which means that everyone has
sexual attractions to the same sex but most *choose* to *have* sexual
attractions to the opposite sex. That is very hard to believe.
If Adam was born as a queer then mankind would have never been.
If the children he had with Eve were born queer then mankind would have
stopped right there, everyone that is not born with a mental illness is
born straight, not queer.
You forget that Adam was all there was at one point in the creation
story, and that the woman was crucial to his "fall". Sex didn't
exist, it was only created because of this "fall", and the whole pains
of childbirth and all the chaos and faults of man that followed was a
result of that act.
and you
certainly were not born that way.
How do you know? Do you know if you were born the way you are? How
can you *presume* to know intimately someone's life so easily? You
have NO idea of how anyone can turn out to be gay or straight, I'd
love for you to have walked in my shoes from birth, so you can *TRULY*
understand, then you would not be so cursory and nonchalant in your
perceptions.
Let me guess, you were molested or your parents beat you half to death
all the time while you were little? mental cruelty?
I would be willing to bet that your childhood had some similarities to
what I just said.
As a matter of fact, no to all the above. I also have a brother who
was brought up in the same household as me, with both of our parents,
in a great neighbourhoos. We were loved equally, and treated the
same, attended the same schools, even had the same friends, yet one of
is is straight. My first real relationship was in college, and I had
come out to my parents when I was 16, although I knew much earlier
than that, and took a while to come to terms with it, a very private
turmoil which you would probably never understand.
Why can't you people just be content with hiding in the closets anymore?
at least the credibility of your group would have had a better chance,
Hiding is not acceptable, it destroys any credibility. One of the
early ways used to discriminate against gays in the military and
secret service was that they could be blackmailed with threats of
"outing" them. If you have nothing to hide, no one can threaten you
with "outing". In the film and television industry, it was not
uncommon for gay actors/actresses to be in the closet, their managers
would even arrange "for-appearances" marriage to keep the illusion of
their heterosexuality alive. People in the closet are forcing
themselves to live lies, and that doesn't gain you credibility.
And neither does lying about your chosen lifestyle on usenet, that says
a lot about homo credibility right there.
The only chosen lifestyle I have is defined by
exercise
diet
occupation
sports
hobbies
entertaining friends at home
music, theatre, art, film, entertainment
The gender of my same-sex partner plays little role in my "lifstyle",
except perhaps to people who do make a big issue of it; I certainly
don't, and none of my friends do either.
It also is damaging psychologically on the person's supposed
opposite-sex partner, who gets taken along for the ride.
Perhaps the "partner" was already "damaged" to begin with.
So as a gay man, I get married to a woman and SHE is "damaged" to
begin with?
There really is no other excuse for a male to want to stick his penis in
another mans rectum.
If you are concerned about penises and rectums, then don't go near
them.
Men stick their penises in women's rectums a whole lot more than they
do in men's, and lesbians don't do anything like that!
not that it would have mattered, people will always look down on you
anyways because you are all sickos.
Sickos are people who pretend they are something they are not.
Sickos are people who make it their business to cause others grief and
pain.
And that spells out what a homo really is, you are fighting for
acceptance, people don't want to accept deviates as being "just normal
people who happen to like sticking their penis into another mans mouth
or *****"
No, you are definine homosexuals by a sexual act, and that is wrong.
I don't accept my hetero male friends as being "normal people who
happen to like sticking their penis into a woman's mouth or *****", I
just accept them for who they are, the sides of them that I am
familiar with, I have no idea, (nor would I want to know) what they do
in private with their wives or girlfriends, and I certainly don't
define them by their alleged activities.
And they certainly don't define me by what they *think* I may or may
not do in private.
The only people it is relevant to are the ones that are either forced
to observe these private activities, or are forced to participate in
them.. I don't invite anyone into my bedroom, no thanks.
Sickos are people who obsess over what other people may or may not be
doing when it is none of their business.
Well for starters it is in fact my business, you want to be treated
equally with heteros in society, do you not?
Sure.
That means if you win your fight for acceptance that by law I "must"
tolerate you whether I want to or not, to me (as well as countless
others)
Please give examples of the "countless others", then I'll let you know
if your logic here is sensible.
that is completely unacceptable.
Tolerance is an interesting word, a word that I don't really like.
Tolerance means that someone is grudgingly accepting you, it doesn't
change their internal feelings. I would hate to hang around a friend
who simply "tolerated" me. I would hate to go to a restaurant where I
was simply "tolerated", because the sincerity is phony as Lee Press-On
nails.
Like a forced apology, "tolerance" means nothing in the end.
Acceptance can only come from the hearts of people who are able to put
aside their prejudices and truly want to understand each other.
I would never want to be "the gay guy", that does not accurately
define me. Most of my friends knew me before I came out to them, and
they always loved me, but always thought I would never let them get
close to me.. Once I came out to them, our relationships improved as
we were much more open about everything that goes on in our lives,
they got to know the real me, which was not that much different from
the closetted me, except I could now relate comfortably relate to them
various events in my life, and the hidden person that played such a
big role in it that they never knew.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case Against Homosexual Activity |
02 Apr 2004 05:55:56 AM |
|
|
<snip awesome reply to Tate Gerard, the όber bigot>
that is completely unacceptable.
Tolerance is an interesting word, a word that I don't really like.
Tolerance means that someone is grudgingly accepting you, it doesn't
change their internal feelings. I would hate to hang around a friend
who simply "tolerated" me. I would hate to go to a restaurant where I
was simply "tolerated", because the sincerity is phony as Lee Press-On
nails.
Like a forced apology, "tolerance" means nothing in the end.
Acceptance can only come from the hearts of people who are able to put
aside their prejudices and truly want to understand each other.
I would never want to be "the gay guy", that does not accurately
define me. Most of my friends knew me before I came out to them, and
they always loved me, but always thought I would never let them get
close to me.. Once I came out to them, our relationships improved as
we were much more open about everything that goes on in our lives,
they got to know the real me, which was not that much different from
the closetted me, except I could now relate comfortably relate to them
various events in my life, and the hidden person that played such a
big role in it that they never knew.
I can relate to almost everything you've said. Too bad many of the
bigots here have no empathy or otherwise they wouldn't be bad mouthing
people on this forum.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation"
"Mays Gilliam didn't attend the 'Rally to Fight Cancer'
last year. Does this mean Mays Gilliam is for Cancer?
A vote for Mays Gilliam is a vote for Cancer." - Head of State
"Baldrick, you are as thick as some extra-clotted clotted
cream that has been left out in the rain by some clot, so
much that you couldn't unclot it with an electric
declotter." - Edmund Blackadder
"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and
call it a weasel!" - Edmund Blackadder
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Straight John Bull" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
01 Apr 2004 12:37:54 PM |
|
|
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "myob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
01 Apr 2004 12:53:32 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I don't give a ***** if I was born gay or not. If I had chosen to be
gay it would have been a perfectly good choice to make. And I give
even less of a ***** about what the bible says about homosexuality or
anything else. The bible is anti-women, anti-gay, anti-freedom,
pro-genocide, pro-slavery, pro-thocracy. The bible advocates
stoning children to death and raping women. Hitler never did
anything that the egomaniacal son of ***** of a bilblical god didn't
do first. Was I born gay? Did I choose to be gay? What the *****
difference does it make? And trying to use the bible to argue about
these matters is positively idiotic.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 19:37:54 +0100, "Straight John Bull"
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a
choice to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus
the sin. If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQGxlDoyN3XczK18FEQI9EwCaA2BETCUs2jl3pVoHCjSl/R+VhbAAoJZE
tLe3MpsAJx+MZJDhqbu4fTnn
=5sYS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snag my public key at http://www.i-will-not.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
18 Apr 2004 06:01:51 AM |
|
|
Good point here...
This country was founded on the concept of religious freedom.. So how
can it be acceptable to legislate based on one's religious beliefs?
myob wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I don't give a ***** if I was born gay or not. If I had chosen to be
gay it would have been a perfectly good choice to make. And I give
even less of a ***** about what the bible says about homosexuality or
anything else. The bible is anti-women, anti-gay, anti-freedom,
pro-genocide, pro-slavery, pro-thocracy. The bible advocates
stoning children to death and raping women. Hitler never did
anything that the egomaniacal son of ***** of a bilblical god didn't
do first. Was I born gay? Did I choose to be gay? What the *****
difference does it make? And trying to use the bible to argue about
these matters is positively idiotic.
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 19:37:54 +0100, "Straight John Bull"
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a
choice to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus
the sin. If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQGxlDoyN3XczK18FEQI9EwCaA2BETCUs2jl3pVoHCjSl/R+VhbAAoJZE
tLe3MpsAJx+MZJDhqbu4fTnn
=5sYS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snag my public key at http://www.i-will-not.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
01 Apr 2004 12:50:29 PM |
|
|
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
04 Apr 2004 04:30:55 PM |
|
|
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is the sin. Temptation is NOT a sin.
Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "dkat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
04 Apr 2004 06:44:47 PM |
|
|
I sure in hell hope all those "good" Christians aren't mixing materials in
their fabrics. It is an Abomination! By the by, the Bible says nothing
about woman laying with woman as with a man. Seems there is no "biblical"
argument against allowing a woman to marry a woman except for the fact that
she is either "owned" by her father or by her husband. Damn, ain't that a
*****..... It seems all the debt accrued by any woman isn't really hers. It
is actually her husband's or her father's. Hey Ladies! Let's go party
hardy and let the men pick up the bill!!.....
You morons really need to get a life and butt out of other people's personal
affairs.
DKat
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com...
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the
sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is the sin. Temptation is NOT a sin.
Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
Christian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
04 Apr 2004 04:48:59 PM |
|
|
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is the sin. Temptation is NOT a sin.
Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.
Then why is lusting in your heart adultery? Why is raising your voice
killing?
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
08 Apr 2004 04:41:41 PM |
|
|
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is the sin. Temptation is NOT a sin.
Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.
Then why is lusting in your heart adultery? Why is raising your voice
killing?
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
Because there IS no "civil marriage." You must redefine "marriage" to
divide it into "civil" and "religious." And in trying to do so, you
offend those of us who are actually married.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
I guess you don't.
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 03:08:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:41:41 -0600, wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
< > wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip
Because there IS no "civil marriage." You must redefine "marriage" to
divide it into "civil" and "religious." And in trying to do so, you
offend those of us who are actually married.
There is no redefinition required. There has been such a thing as
civil marriage for thousands of years. In a secular state, with no
established religion,all legal marriage is civil.. By claiming that
people who were married in a purely civil ceremony are not married,
you are being very offensive, and you are completely wrong.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
I guess you don't.
And you don't understand that your religious opinions and beliefs do
not define the law.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 09:40:51 AM |
|
|
Hello Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:41:41 -0600, wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
< > wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip
Because there IS no "civil marriage." You must redefine "marriage" to
divide it into "civil" and "religious." And in trying to do so, you
offend those of us who are actually married.
There is no redefinition required. There has been such a thing as
civil marriage for thousands of years. In a secular state, with no
established religion,all legal marriage is civil.. By claiming that
people who were married in a purely civil ceremony are not married,
you are being very offensive, and you are completely wrong.
Civil marriage has always (for those thousands of years) been between
male and female, not between same sex partners. To try to force the
definition to include same sex partners IS to redefine it.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
I guess you don't.
And you don't understand that your religious opinions and beliefs do
not define the law.
And neither do yours. And atheism and secular humanism ARE religious
position and opinions.
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 01:25:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hello Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:41:41 -0600, wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
< > wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip
Because there IS no "civil marriage." You must redefine "marriage" to
divide it into "civil" and "religious." And in trying to do so, you
offend those of us who are actually married.
There is no redefinition required. There has been such a thing as
civil marriage for thousands of years. In a secular state, with no
established religion,all legal marriage is civil.. By claiming that
people who were married in a purely civil ceremony are not married,
you are being very offensive, and you are completely wrong.
Civil marriage has always (for those thousands of years) been between
male and female, not between same sex partners. To try to force the
definition to include same sex partners IS to redefine it.
Not really, the word marry just means to join.
IOW, one may say that two companies are married, or one may marry
the church, or you could marry a selection of spices and liquids to marinade
something. The list could go on and on, as I'm sure you could see.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
I guess you don't.
And you don't understand that your religious opinions and beliefs do
not define the law.
And neither do yours. And atheism and secular humanism ARE religious
position and opinions.
I would have said anti religious opinions.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion = tyranny.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 01:57:04 PM |
|
|
Civil marriage has always (for those thousands of years) been between
male and female, not between same sex partners. To try to force the
definition to include same sex partners IS to redefine it.
Just like it was redefined in 1967 when the prohibition on interracial marriage
was lifted?
As much as you wish it otherwise, US law is based on the Constitution. The
government has no authority under the Constitution to regulate consensual
marriage.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 05:05:46 PM |
|
|
In article <hn1g70htljobdcufgidj7b0staed4euel9@4ax.com>,
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote:
And you don't understand that your religious opinions and beliefs do
not define the law.
And neither do yours. And atheism and secular humanism ARE religious
position and opinions.
But agnostic is not. And secular humanism is agnostic, not atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
11 Apr 2004 01:14:26 AM |
|
|
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <hn1g70htljobdcufgidj7b0staed4euel9@4ax.com>,
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote:
And you don't understand that your religious opinions and beliefs do
not define the law.
And neither do yours. And atheism and secular humanism ARE religious
position and opinions.
But agnostic is not. And secular humanism is agnostic, not atheist.
The agnostics I have met hold their agnostic positions VERY
religiously.
Christian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "uncleward" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
11 Apr 2004 04:36:05 AM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2004 22:05:46 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com> wrote:
In article <hn1g70htljobdcufgidj7b0staed4euel9@4ax.com>,
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote:
And you don't understand that your religious opinions and beliefs do
not define the law.
And neither do yours. And atheism and secular humanism ARE religious
position and opinions.
But agnostic is not. And secular humanism is agnostic, not atheist.
And while we are at it -- it must be mentioned that athiesm is a
religion in the same way that baldness is a hairstyle.
ward
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legal case in Baehr v Lewin, here in Hawaii did NOT propose any change
whatsoever in the law. The Hawaiian marriage statutes specified the
circumstances under which two PERSONS might marry with NO specification
as to gender assortment.
The State office (Lewin) refused to issue the
liscense to three same-gender couples, refused to
obey THE LAW AS WRITTEN.
This is the issue that went to court and the issue on which the state
lost its case, big time. The legislature made an end run around the
supreme court and called a vote on a proposed amendment to the constitution
-- THEY wish to change the law -- NOT the petitioners.
Ward
---------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
11 Apr 2004 09:51:32 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:40:51 -0600, a stranger
called by some came forth and told this tale
in alt.atheism
Civil marriage has always (for those thousands of years) been between
male and female, not between same sex partners. To try to force the
definition to include same sex partners IS to redefine it.
For the first 191 years in the United State, civil marriage was
defined as marriage between members of the same race. Did Loving v.
Virginia redefine marriage?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 07:25:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:40:51 -0600, wrote:
Civil marriage has always (for those thousands of years) been between
male and female, not between same sex partners. To try to force the
definition to include same sex partners IS to redefine it.
So what? A different race marriage was to redefine it as well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 01:58:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:40:51 -0600, wrote:
Hello Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
snip
Because there IS no "civil marriage." You must redefine "marriage" to
divide it into "civil" and "religious." And in trying to do so, you
offend those of us who are actually married.
There is no redefinition required. There has been such a thing as
civil marriage for thousands of years. In a secular state, with no
established religion,all legal marriage is civil.. By claiming that
people who were married in a purely civil ceremony are not married,
you are being very offensive, and you are completely wrong.
Civil marriage has always (for those thousands of years) been between
male and female, not between same sex partners. To try to force the
definition to include same sex partners IS to redefine it.
You have changed your claim. In any event making it more inclusive
does not change what it is.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
I guess you don't.
And you don't understand that your religious opinions and beliefs do
not define the law.
And neither do yours. And atheism and secular humanism ARE religious
position and opinions.
No they are not. Even if they were, however, it would not affect in
any way what I said. Civil marriage is marriage; that is a fact no
matter what your opinion or my opinion is. The only kind of legal
marriage in the US is civil marriage; that is a fact no matter what
your opinion or my opinion is. Making civil marriage more inclusive
would not take away any legal right from people married before the
change; that is a fact no matter what your opinion or my opinion is.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
11 Apr 2004 01:12:46 AM |
|
|
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is the sin. Temptation is NOT a sin.
Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.
Then why is lusting in your heart adultery? Why is raising your voice
killing?
Because "lusting in your heart" is not the same as being tempted. It
is what you do AFTER you are tempted. The Bible clearly says that
Jesus was tempted. It also clearly says that Jesus did not sin.
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
Because straight people don't like the idea of having to change what
they consider to be "holy" even if they are atheists.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
Why do people who want to invent a new legal connection get so wrapped
up in the idea of calling it "marriage?"
Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
19 Apr 2004 12:55:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
Because straight people don't like the idea of having to change what
they consider to be "holy" even if they are atheists.
============================
I actually do no think the real issue here is the redefinition of marriage. And I do not think that's really what the conservatives have in mind, tho that may be the "buzzword" for this.
What is actually at stake is the recognition of our unions and our partners. You chose to ignore us, pretend and wish we did not exist. we do. You do the same regarding our unions. Well, they exist as well and you will recognize them.
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
< > wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is the sin. Temptation is NOT a sin.
Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.
Then why is lusting in your heart adultery? Why is raising your voice
killing?
Because "lusting in your heart" is not the same as being tempted. It
is what you do AFTER you are tempted. The Bible clearly says that
Jesus was tempted. It also clearly says that Jesus did not sin.
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
Because straight people don't like the idea of having to change what
they consider to be "holy" even if they are atheists.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
Why do people who want to invent a new legal connection get so wrapped
up in the idea of calling it "marriage?"
Christian.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
11 Apr 2004 08:35:54 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:12:46 -0600, wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
snip
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
Because straight people don't like the idea of having to change what
they consider to be "holy" even if they are atheists.
You speak for all "straight people"? You are wrong. Many
heterosexuals support same-sex marriage. It is too bad that you do
not like the idea, but you need a little more than your personal
dislike to justify depriving people of their civil rights.
One more thing, I do not consider marriage to be holy; and I find it
hard to imagine that many other atheists would.
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
Why do people who want to invent a new legal connection get so wrapped
up in the idea of calling it "marriage?"
It is not a new legal connection. It is marriage.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
11 Apr 2004 03:38:10 PM |
|
|
In article <3ehi70t0jabkfmpeq1um3dpsmddu04bni9@4ax.com>,
tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk says...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:12:46 -0600, wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
snip
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
Because straight people don't like the idea of having to change what
they consider to be "holy" even if they are atheists.
You speak for all "straight people"? You are wrong. Many
heterosexuals support same-sex marriage. It is too bad that you do
not like the idea, but you need a little more than your personal
dislike to justify depriving people of their civil rights.
Doesn't speak for me, a straight person. As for "holy" marriage, no
social contract is "holy" as there is no God to sanction it. Marriage,
like murder and shoplifting, property rights and driving on the right
side of the road are all human constructed social rules. And as such,
*ALL* vary with time and place.
--
Enkidu
AA# 2165
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we
go to church we're just making him madder and madder."
--Homer Simpson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Bohlman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
11 Apr 2004 09:21:41 AM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:3ehi70t0jabkfmpeq1um3dpsmddu04bni9@4ax.com:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:12:46 -0600, wrote:
Why do people who want to invent a new legal connection get so wrapped
up in the idea of calling it "marriage?"
It is not a new legal connection. It is marriage.
This is really the key to the whole issue. When same-sex couples are
allowed to marry, their legal relationship will be defined by centuries of
well-understood common law and statute law. All the legal precedents that
apply to opposite-sex couples will apply to them. The result is stability
and predictability.
"Civil unions," OTOH, really *do* represent a "new legal connection." They
represent a completely novel form of family relationship that has no
precedent. Legislatures can make the *statute* laws that apply to marriage
apply to civil union as well, but they *cannot*, due to separation of
powers, make the common law, case law, and judicial precedents associated
with marriage apply to civil unions.
As it turns out, most of marriage law really is common law and judicial
precedent rather than statute law. And that means that nearly every aspect
of a civil union is going to be legally up in the air until it's been tried
in court *and* appealed. There's absolutely no guarantee that the outcomes
of such lengthy and expensive litigation will match the outcomes of the
centuries of litigation that defined marriage law. There is simply no way,
short of radically changing the entire legal system, to guarantee that the
legal rights and responsibilities associated with a civil union will be
exactly those associated with a marriage.
In fact, extending marriage to same-sex couples is the *conservative*
solution to the problem of how to legally recognize them; creating civil
unions is the *radical* approach, trying to create a whole new body of law
from scratch.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dkat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
04 Apr 2004 06:46:36 PM |
|
|
Yep, and anyone that objects to a religious group sanctifying a marriage
between those of the same sex are interfering with religious freedom. Just
because "YOUR" religion opposes it doesn't mean everyone's does.
DKat
"RobertVB" <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:c4pvsb$aik$0@216.39.173.68...
In article <lev0709b9hna5g7bo88a353j84gm3va5pb@4ax.com>,
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote:
Hello RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a
choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the
sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds. Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing. Lust in your heart, you are comitting adultery. As
such it would seem that *IF* homosexuality is a sin then the homosexual
is a sinner whether they do anything about or not.
Actually, homosexual BEHAVIOR is the sin. Temptation is NOT a sin.
Jesus was tempted, but He did not sin.
Then why is lusting in your heart adultery? Why is raising your voice
killing?
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
Perhaps they should call it a "civil union," and pass laws that make
such "civil unions" legally equal to marriage without trying to force
a change in the meaning of an institution that is considered "holy" by
most of the people living in the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or
other religion.
Why not just realize there are two things of the same name - civil
marriage and relgioius marriage - and do the same thing without the
name change? Why not not just change the name of the civil marriage to
'civil union' so that the only marriage there is is the 'holy' one?
It makes more sense than trying to define such a "religiously held"
term and offending everyone else. IF the problem is "unequal
protection and rights under the law," that would take care of it.
I guess I don't understand people's difficulty in getting their mind
rapped around the idea that there are two things called marriage - the
purely secular legal contract and the religious rite.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Straight John Bull" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
03 Apr 2004 12:38:36 PM |
|
|
"RobertVB" <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:c4ho9l$e2$1@216.39.173.68...
In article <akZac.2160$4N3.338@newsfe1-win>, Straight John Bull
<StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote:
"Brent Norman" <nelliganemile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I never made a "choice" to be homosexual, anymore than I made a choice
to be born.
Being a Homo'Sodomite, you made the choice to not fornicate, thus the
sin.
If heterosexuals chose to fornicate, they sin too.
Odd Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that intent is where
sin lies, not the actual deeds.
To be 'tempted' is not a sin, to do the deed is the actual sin.
Looking at a women with unlawful desire, is 'adultery in the heart', but it
is not actual adultery, otherwise all temptations would be sin, and we know
that is not true, as even Jesus was tempted in ALL WAYS just as we are.
If we "resist temptation" and seek forgiveness we are forgiven even our
unrighteous thoughts.
Raise your voice in anger, its the
same as killing.
No! even Jesus got angry.
And since many gay couples are married (they have been able to get
religiously married for years) then I guess those couples are ok,
right?
No! completely wrong...
God only accepts man and woman in a marriage.
The joining of two of the same sex is an "Abomination" to Him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Breifs Bandit" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
03 Apr 2004 01:25:19 PM |
|
|
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
news:GwDbc.738$6u1.562@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
No! completely wrong...
God only accepts man and woman in a marriage.
The joining of two of the same sex is an "Abomination" to Him.
Just like eating pork is an abomination. If you knew ancient Hebrew, you'd
understand their word for abomination doesn't have the connotation right
wing religionists insist on giving it. If you're going to insist that
everyone obey the Bible, look to your self first. As is written in the new
testament: do not be concerned for the mote in your brother's eye when there
is a log in yours. Also, judge not, lest you be judged. Finally, from
Paul: in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, slave nor free,
neither Jew nor Greek for we are all one in Christ Jesus.
James, former Lutheran, son of a pastor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Etobian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
03 Apr 2004 02:36:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:25:19 GMT, "Breifs Bandit"
<jwa1968@earthlink.net> wrote:
Just like eating pork is an abomination. If you knew ancient Hebrew, you'd
understand their word for abomination doesn't have the connotation right
wing religionists insist on giving it. If you're going to insist that
everyone obey the Bible, look to your self first. As is written in the new
testament: do not be concerned for the mote in your brother's eye when there
is a log in yours. Also, judge not, lest you be judged. Finally, from
Paul: in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, slave nor free,
neither Jew nor Greek for we are all one in Christ Jesus.
James, former Lutheran, son of a pastor.
What does "judge not, lest you be judged" have to do with whether a
particular action is a sin? If I state that "lying is a sin" but I
have not accused anyone of lying, have I now judged everyone on this
planet who has ever lied?
As for Paul, did he state that "in Christ Jesus there is neither male
nor female, slave nor free, neither Jew nor Greek for we are all one
in Christ Jesus, so therefore it is acceptable to the Lord that we
sin?"
And before you bring up the casting stones argument, remember Jesus
had the last word to the accused adultress: "Go, and sin no more."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Smol" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
10 Apr 2004 04:44:10 PM |
|
|
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message news:<GwDbc.738$6u1.562@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net>...
God only accepts man and woman in a marriage.
The joining of two of the same sex is an "Abomination" to Him.
Who the ***** cares what your imaginary friend is supposed to think?
RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ninure Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: The Scripture Case Against Homosexual Activity |
04 Apr 2004 11:11:47 AM |
|
|
FINISHING THE JOURNEY: Questions and Answers from United Methodists of
Conviction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter Four
Rev. Dr. John C. Holbert
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
John C. Holbert is a United Methodist minister with a doctorate in Old
Testament studies; for 21 years, he has served on the faculty of Perkins
School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
Currently the Lois Craddock Perkins professor of homiletics, he has
written several books, including his most recent, Preaching Job, published
in 1999.
In fact, the Bible says nothing at all about homosexuality, at least in
the way we in the 21st century think of it. The concept in terms of
sexual orientation was unknown until the advent of modern sociological
and psychological analyses in the 19th century. While various ancient
texts and several biblical texts have served as resources for modern
discussions about sexual orientation, what these texts meant by same-sex
relations and what we mean by them are very different.
The writers of long ago regularly assumed that all same-sex relationships
involved one person's exploitation of another. They could not conceive
that such relationships might be nurturing, stable, and covenantal, but
could only be lustful, exploitative, and cruel.
It is against that background that the Bible's writings about same-sex
relationships should be seen. Following are the texts traditionally
examined in connection with the question of homosexuality:
Genesis 1-2: It's a familiar catchphrase among certain readers of the
Bible that Genesis speaks of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," but
nowhere in these famous chapters are we told that heterosexuality is the
exclusive form of sexuality. Those who wrote the chapters were announcing
quite rightly that the perpetuation of the race assumes the pairing of a
man and a woman. But careful analysis of the evidence shows that Genesis
1-2 was not intended as a paradigm of marriage. These chapters describe in
poetry and story the beginnings of human society the establishment by
God of a world in which God's creatures might find shalom, wholeness, and
unity. As the subsequent history of humanity has abundantly demonstrated,
a great diversity was built on this foundation story.
Genesis 19: Two things should be noted about the infamous story of Sodom
and Gomorrah. First, the notion that the story concerns homosexual rape is
called into question by a careful reading of verse 4: "Before they [the
angels and Lot] lay down, the people of the city, the people of Sodom,
both young and old, all the people surrounded the house." In its original
Hebrew, two different nouns are used to refer to the people of the city,
and neither is gender-specific. Hence the scene is perhaps not one of
homosexual rape, but rather of depraved violence by the entire town men,
women, and children against strangers who have come for refuge. Second,
nowhere in the Bible is Sodom's sin identified as homosexuality (see
Ezekiel 16:48-49 for a typical example). The evil of Sodom, then, ought
not to be seen as homosexuality or homosexual rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: These formulations against same-gender sex
should be seen only in their ancient nation-building context. Emerging
nations are always concerned with establishing their identities in
contrast with their neighbors, and they are concerned with growing and
prospering. Sacred prostitution, both male and female, was practiced by
Israel's neighbors as a way to ensure the fertility of the fields, and
Israel wanted no part of it. And, of course, same-sex relationships could
not bring about numerical growth in the struggling nation. Hence, the
words "abomination" and "ritually impure" are employed to describe such
relationships. But these same disapproving words also appear in other
parts of the Holiness Code, such as the prohibition of eating certain
kinds of birds (Leviticus 11). In short, the basis for the code
disappeared centuries ago, and to quote a verse or two as a way of
bolstering modern behavior is to engage in the most egregious sort of
proof-texting.
Romans 1:26-27: These famous lines list examples of Paul's understanding
of the consequences of the fallen state of humanity. He wrote here, as
some of his contemporaries wrote, of out-of-control passions that had
become ends in themselves. The men and women whom Paul described in these
lines were, in fact, heterosexuals performing homosexual acts. As was the
case with his contemporaries, Paul knew nothing of homosexual orientation;
he assumed all people were by nature heterosexual, and if they were
engaging in homosexual acts, they could be nothing but terrible examples
of human sinfulness. Paul's imperfect knowledge of this issue was fully
reflective of the imperfect knowledge of his culture. We ought not ascribe
to Paul the last word on the question of same-sex relationships any more
than we should assume that his comments concerning the length of men's and
women's hair (I Corinthians 11:2-16) are definitive for all time.
I Corinthians 6:9-10: Here again in this list of vices examples of
wickedness symptomatic of sin Paul wrote of same-sex relationships as
necessarily willful, lustful, exploitative, self-deceiving, and finally
idolatrous. Again, nothing in his world informed him of relationships
conceived in any other fashion.
In summary, the writers of the Bible could not conceive of innate
homosexual orientation; in fact, it was always their assumption that all
human behavior was freely chosen. Hence, if same-sex relations seemed to
fly in the face of some ascribed norm, it was believed this behavior could
be changed by a force of rational will. However, if homosexual orientation
is as much given as chosen, as many researchers have now concluded, it
would be just as wrong to demand homosexuals change their orientation as
it would be wrong to demand left-handed people use their right hands.
The writers of the Bible could know nothing of a homosexuality that is
loving, faithful, and monogamous. Indeed, the Bible's concern to promote
love and justice among all of God's people would certainly question any
homosexual relationship that did not manifest those characteristics, just
as surely as it would question a similarly flawed heterosexual
relationship.
In the final analysis, the Bible says very little about same-sex
relationships. But it has much to say about God's love and justice for
all, and God's desire for God's creatures to practice the same.
Copyright © 2000, Northaven United Methodist Church
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
http://Rainbow-Christian.tk
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My latest Poll
Was Jesus Serious?
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Votelet/34317
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
My Online Diary
http://www.ninure.deardiary.net
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
