| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Ras Feqade" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2004 04:49:32 PM |
| Object: |
Purpose of Marriage |
Greetings,
The primary reason society has even instituted such a thing called
"marriage", is for purposes of PROCREATION. That right there is a concept that
the
sodomites are simply unable to grasp. The concupiscence of Sodomites CAN NOT
be
redefined as "marriage", and I have a feeling that "We, the People" are
bound to set them straight on this matter, if presented the opportunity in the
form of an Amendment.
Regards, Ras Feqade I
.
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
11 Feb 2004 07:35:46 PM |
|
|
(Ras Feqade) wrote:
The primary reason society has even instituted such a thing called
"marriage", is for purposes of PROCREATION.
No, the primary reason (as with most, if not all human activities) is
GREED. Marriage can facilitate both SURVIVAL and PROFIT which are
much greater motives than mere procreation.
The concupiscence of Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Since, as you point out, society instituted marriage, society can
define marriage however it pleases.
I have a feeling that "We, the People" are
bound to set them straight on this matter,
Bound by whom or what? God? Which god?
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ras Feqade" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
11 Feb 2004 10:56:07 PM |
|
|
Chris wrote:
abaselama@aol.com.really (Ras Feqade) wrote:
The primary reason society has even instituted such a thing called
"marriage", is for purposes of PROCREATION.
No, the primary reason (as with most, if not all human activities) is
GREED.
Once again, proving my point that some people are unable to grasp the concept
of procreation.
Marriage can facilitate both SURVIVAL and PROFIT which are
much greater motives than mere procreation.
The concupiscence of Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Since, as you point out, society instituted marriage, society can
define marriage however it pleases.
And society has done. A tiny minority of twisted sexual perverts cannot
redefine it for the rest of us, either.
I have a feeling that "We, the People" are
bound to set them straight on this matter,
Bound by whom or what? God? Which god?
I meant 'bound' as an expression, meaning it won't remain without happening.
But since you are writing in "alt.bible", perhaps you have been acquainted with
the notion that there is only but one God, Who created man and woman,
commanding them to increase and multiply???
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
12 Feb 2004 11:25:29 AM |
|
|
(Ras Feqade) wrote:
Chris wrote:
(Ras Feqade) wrote:
The primary reason society has even instituted such a thing called
"marriage", is for purposes of PROCREATION.
No, the primary reason (as with most, if not all human activities) is
GREED.
Once again, proving my point that some people are unable to grasp the concept
of procreation.
Okay, enlighten me...
Marriage can facilitate both SURVIVAL and PROFIT which are
much greater motives than mere procreation.
The concupiscence of Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Since, as you point out, society instituted marriage, society can
define marriage however it pleases.
And society has done. A tiny minority of twisted sexual perverts cannot
redefine it for the rest of us, either.
Society is dynamic, changing all the time, and so are its institutions
and their definitions. I think you'll find that your "tiny minority"
is not tiny and may well not be a minority any longer..
I have a feeling that "We, the People" are
bound to set them straight on this matter,
Bound by whom or what? God? Which god?
I meant 'bound' as an expression, meaning it won't remain without happening.
But since you are writing in "alt.bible", perhaps you have been acquainted with
the notion that there is only but one God,
Umm, no. The Bible clearly states in dozens of places that there is
more than one god.
Who created man and woman,
You'll find the first mention of multiple gods right in the creation
story you reference. The Hebrew word that has been translated as
'god' in Genesis 1 is 'elohim' which is a plural and should have been
translated as 'gods'.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ras Feqade" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
12 Feb 2004 11:49:29 AM |
|
|
chris wrote:
abaselama@aol.com.really (Ras Feqade) wrote:
And society has done. A tiny minority of twisted sexual perverts cannot
redefine it for the rest of us, either.
Society is dynamic, changing all the time, and so are its institutions
and their definitions. I think you'll find that your "tiny minority"
is not tiny and may well not be a minority any longer..
ROFLOL!!!
I have never heard of a homosexual who wasn't OBSESSED with being in the
majority, or at least conveying that appearance. Face it, homosexuals are a
tiny minority, like I said.
I have a feeling that "We, the People" are
bound to set them straight on this matter,
Bound by whom or what? God? Which god?
I meant 'bound' as an expression, meaning it won't remain without happening.
But since you are writing in "alt.bible", perhaps you have been acquainted
with
the notion that there is only but one God,
Umm, no. The Bible clearly states in dozens of places that there is
more than one god.
Who created man and woman,
You'll find the first mention of multiple gods right in the creation
story you reference. The Hebrew word that has been translated as
'god' in Genesis 1 is 'elohim' which is a plural and should have been
translated as 'gods'.
Chris
'Elohim' may resemble a plural form, but it is not and should not be translated
as a plural. It cannot take the singular verb if it is plural. Some knowledge
of Hebrew is needed for you to appreciate this point, however. And even if the
etymology of 'Elohim' should go back to some plural form in Palaeo-Hebrew or
Canaanite, it obviously does not mean there is more than one God, nor that the
Scriptures teach this.
Ras Feqade
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
12 Feb 2004 05:46:20 PM |
|
|
(Ras Feqade) wrote:
chris wrote:
(Ras Feqade) wrote:
And society has done. A tiny minority of twisted sexual perverts cannot
redefine it for the rest of us, either.
Society is dynamic, changing all the time, and so are its institutions
and their definitions. I think you'll find that your "tiny minority"
is not tiny and may well not be a minority any longer..
I have never heard of a homosexual who wasn't OBSESSED with being in the
majority, or at least conveying that appearance. Face it, homosexuals are a
tiny minority,
That you have not heard of it, does not make it so. I know several
such individuals. Have you never heard of a 'closet homosexual'? I'm
not surprised that they don't want people like you to know.
Ten percent of the population is homosexual; that's hardly tiny. But
you were not discussing homosexuals, you were discussing people who
would like to redefine marriage. Those groups are not identical.
Some homosexuals do not wish to redefine marriage. Many
heterosexuals, however, do wish to make it more inclusive.
Thusfar you don't strike me as one who investigates his position, so
I've taken the liberty of looking up some statistics. Of course the
polls vary widely, but none I've found (not even the fundie polls)
give a figure of less than 32% in favor of gay marriage. Most seem to
point to about 45% in favor, but given a 3-6% margin of error, the
true number may well be over 50% (and thus no longer a minority, as I
said previously).
I have a feeling that "We, the People" are
bound to set them straight on this matter,
Bound by whom or what? God? Which god?
I meant 'bound' as an expression, meaning it won't remain without happening.
But since you are writing in "alt.bible", perhaps you have been acquainted
with the notion that there is only but one God,
Umm, no. The Bible clearly states in dozens of places that there is
more than one god.
Who created man and woman,
You'll find the first mention of multiple gods right in the creation
story you reference. The Hebrew word that has been translated as
'god' in Genesis 1 is 'elohim' which is a plural and should have been
translated as 'gods'.
'Elohim' may resemble a plural form, but it is not and should not be translated
as a plural. It cannot take the singular verb if it is plural. Some knowledge
of Hebrew is needed for you to appreciate this point, however. And even if the
etymology of 'Elohim' should go back to some plural form in Palaeo-Hebrew or
Canaanite, it obviously does not mean there is more than one God, nor that the
Scriptures teach this.
The use of elohim is not the only reference to multiple gods. As I
said, there are dozens of references. So just who are these other
gods? The Bible gives us the names of some of them: Baal (1 Kings
16:31), Chemosh (Jer 48:7), Ashtaroth (Judges 10:6), Dagon (Jud
16:23), Diana (Acts 19:35), Milcom (1 Kings 11:33), Remphan (Acts
7:43), and Molech (2 Kings 23:10). Then there are also the gods of
the Amorites, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the
gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of
the Philistines, and the gods of Damascus and so on.
Even the Big Guy Himself weighs in on the issue, but he doesn't
claim there are no other gods. He merely demands in Exodus 20:3 "Thou
shalt have no other gods before me." Remember, yours is a jealous
god; so jealous, in fact, that his very NAME is Jealous (Exodus
34:14).
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
11 Feb 2004 05:39:58 PM |
|
|
Ras Feqade wrote:
Greetings,
The primary reason society has even instituted such a thing
called "marriage", is for purposes of PROCREATION.
The purpose can be whatever people want it to be.
That right
there is a concept that the
sodomites are simply unable to grasp. The concupiscence of
Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Of course it can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ras Feqade" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
11 Feb 2004 10:25:06 PM |
|
|
icarus wrote:
Greetings,
The primary reason society has even instituted such a thing
called "marriage", is for purposes of PROCREATION.
The purpose can be whatever people want it to be.
See, I told you some people are unable to grasp the notion of procreation...!
That right
there is a concept that the
sodomites are simply unable to grasp. The concupiscence of
Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Of course it can.
It isn't by society... well, maybe in your country (snicker)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
12 Feb 2004 03:05:51 AM |
|
|
Ras Feqade wrote:
The primary reason society has even instituted such a thing
called "marriage", is for purposes of PROCREATION.
The purpose can be whatever people want it to be.
See, I told you some people are unable to grasp the notion of
procreation...!
Mmm... maybe, but with 3 kids, I'm certainly not one of them :-)
That right
there is a concept that the
sodomites are simply unable to grasp. The concupiscence of
Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Of course it can.
It isn't by society... well, maybe in your country (snicker)
But it's getting that way... which just illustrates what I said
in the first place; The purpose of marriage can be whatever
people want it to be. If they want it to be simply a commitment
between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, then that's
what it will be.
What are you afraid of?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ras Feqade" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
12 Feb 2004 09:20:12 AM |
|
|
Icarus wrote:
Ras Feqade wrote:
See, I told you some people are unable to grasp the notion of
procreation...!
Mmm... maybe, but with 3 kids, I'm certainly not one of them :-)
That right
there is a concept that the
sodomites are simply unable to grasp. The concupiscence of
Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Of course it can.
It isn't by society... well, maybe in your country (snicker)
But it's getting that way...
Like an ostrich, you have your head in the sand and don't see what's really
about to happen here.
which just illustrates what I said
in the first place; The purpose of marriage can be whatever
people want it to be. If they want it to be simply a commitment
between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, then that's
what it will be.
The purpose of marriage canNOT be "whatever people want it to be." You are
simply making false laws now.
What are you afraid of?
I'm glad you asked that, because you obviously need to have it explained in
very basic terms why this is a threat. Homosexual acts are demonstrably
detrimental to the physical and mental health of the participants; not to
mention they are immoral and a twisting of the procreative instinct, and so
they ought to be regarded as criminal and predatory acts perpetrated on the
victim. We will resist BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY all of your attempts to teach
our children that it is "healthy and normal" when it is clearly not. If YOU
are teaching YOUR children that homosexual acts are "healthy and normal", I
suppose there is little we can do to stop you. But by God, you're not going to
teach OUR children that.
All of this whining and moaning about "rights" is only a cover - the only
"right" that is precious and sacred to sodomites, is the "right" to infiltrate
and control the courts, legislatures, media, "scientists" and above all,
schools with their agents, so they can try to teach this lie to our kids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Purpose of Marriage |
12 Feb 2004 05:32:43 PM |
|
|
Ras Feqade wrote:
The concupiscence of
Sodomites CAN NOT be
redefined as "marriage",
Of course it can.
It isn't by society... well, maybe in your country (snicker)
But it's getting that way...
Like an ostrich, you have your head in the sand and don't see
what's really about to happen here.
I'm sure you'll enlighten me :-)
which just illustrates what I said
in the first place; The purpose of marriage can be whatever
people want it to be. If they want it to be simply a
commitment between two consenting adults, regardless of
gender, then that's what it will be.
The purpose of marriage canNOT be "whatever people want it to
be." You are simply making false laws now.
Not me. The point is simply that if enough people agree that marriage
can include same-sex relationships, then it's likely that sooner or
later marriage *will* be defined that way, whether you like it or not.
What are you afraid of?
I'm glad you asked that, because you obviously need to have
it explained in very basic terms why this is a threat.
Homosexual acts are demonstrably detrimental to the physical
and mental health of the participants;
OK, so go ahead and demonstrate it.
not to mention they are
immoral...
(in your personal opinion)
...and a twisting of the procreative instinct...
Agreed that same-sex couples can't produce children as such... but I
don't see that as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to
marry... do you?
...and so they ought to be regarded as criminal and
predatory acts perpetrated on the victim.
That's a bit silly though, isn't it? No-one's suggesting that
non-consensual or abusive relationships are a good thing. Are you
trying to characterise all homosexual relationships in that way? If
so, I think anyone can see that is absurd. Homosexuals clearly can
and do have loving, consensual adult relationships just as
heterosexuals do, so there is no 'victim' or predatory behaviour in
this context.
We will resist BY ANY MEANS
NECESSARY all of your attempts to teach our children that it
is "healthy and normal" when it is clearly not.
<shiver>... ok OK! :-) You're entitled to your opinion. Maybe your
children will make up their own minds as they grow up. They may
decide that your rather extreme reaction to this issue is as outdated
and backward as those who hated the idea of racial or sexual equality.
They may grow up thinking that other people's consensual adult
relationships are really none of their business, and if some
relationships happens to be between two people of the same sex, it's
really No Big Deal. Hey maybe you might even come to think that one
day too! :-) We can hope...
If YOU are
teaching YOUR children that homosexual acts are "healthy and
normal", I suppose there is little we can do to stop you. But
by God, you're not going to teach OUR children that.
I don't want to teach your children anything... but at least if they
hear a balance of opinions, they can make up their own minds. That's
only fair and reasonable. You wouldn't want to deny them the freedom
to make up their own minds, would you?
All of this whining and moaning about "rights" is only a
cover - the only "right" that is precious and sacred to
sodomites, is the "right" to infiltrate and control the
courts, legislatures, media, "scientists" and above all,
schools with their agents, so they can try to teach this lie
to our kids.
Blimey... are you a Conspiracy Theorist? :-) As it happens though,
in a sense you're right - Homosexuals do (obviously) want it to be
generally held that homosexuality is OK, and they want homosexual
relationships to enjoy the same rights and benefits as heterosexual
relationships. I don't think they want anything more than that, and
as a heterosexual I'm entirely happy for them to have that kind of
equality. Why should it bother me? I wouldn't consider it any of my
business to tell *you* who you can and cannot have an adult consensual
relationship with, and I'm sure you would feel the same about me, so
it really makes no sense for you to get all steamed up about who Fred
down the road has an adult consensual relationship with just because
he happens to like men rather than women. It's not the end of the
world you know... society will not collapse just because Fred shares
his life with John rather than Jenny. It's not going to cause
economic disaster, or a plague of locusts, and it's not going to make
your heterosexual children suddenly turn homosexual. In other
words... to use an Americanism... Chill Out Man :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
