[Shady Grady]

We disagree. Comparing two committed gay people to drug addicts? In fact, drug addicts are entitled to equal protection under the law.

I was referring to giving them money to keep up their habits.

[cheerdad]

Sorry for the long post, but covering a lot of "comments" here.

Shamingly, I have just read the entire Constitution of the United States, for the first time, yea, I know the Preamble, but had never read the Constitution. I think that this is something that everyone in here should read, because, after reading this, I am convinced without a doubt that the whole homosexuality issue is soley based upon religious beliefs.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different denominations in the United States? The Baptist do not believe as the Methodist, the Methodist do not believe and the Church of Christ, and this goes on and on. To those of you that have stated your agreement or disagreement against homosexuals, do you believe that your denomination/belief will be the only people in Heaven? or **** as far as that goes. I do believe that it is John where it says, paraphrasing here, but "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved". I think that includes EVERYBODY!!!

To defend their assertion that God condemns homosexuals, people always use small passages from the Bible to prove their point. Using the Bible in this manner is destructive. Instead of "exegesis" which involves examining the history of scripture to find out what it means and how it applies to us, "eisegesis" approaches scripture with a preconceived idea of what you will find there. It is abuse of scripture.
In eisegesis you search the Book until you find a passage you think applies and use it as your "proof" that God backs you up. You isolate that phrase or passage, take it out of context and improperly use it to back up your argument. It's like a friend taking a sentence or phrase out of a letter you wrote and using it to represent what you believe as a whole. It's easy to be taken out of context. You wouldn't want your views represented that way, but that's how the ideas and beliefs of the Bible's authors are presented everyday!

Thankfully, there are states and cities and companies who have deemed it policy to allow same sex couples to have insurance covereage as a heterosexual married couple. My hat is off to those entities. So, does that mean that those of you who feel the homosexuals do not have the right to have this type of insurance going to boycott these companies, move out of your state and or city??? As strongly as you have made your point in here about how you feel about homosexuals, I would make that ULTIMATE STAND and really think about it. You know, you have that right. And isn't it amazing that YOU have that right???

And in conclusion, God tells all people who have felt alienated because of the pain of prejudice and hatred, "in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near... You are no longer strangers, foreigners or aliens, but fellow citizens with all God's people." (Ephesians 2:11-22)
Finally, God reminds us that no matter what our orientation is, or what our beliefs are on homosexuality, we need to remember that "God is love". (I John 4). We need to follow the law of love: "LOVE GOD, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, LOVE ONE ANOTHER!" (Lev. 19:18, Matt 19:19, Mark 12:31, 33, Luke 10:27, John 15:12, 17, Romans 12:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)

[Basketballer]

I can tell you this much I am gay.. Its not a diesease its not something that you can go to the Dr and get treated for...Some of you are just acting pure stupid on this subject. They way that I see it , if you dont like me because of who I choose to sleep with thats your problem not mine, I am happy with my life...I dont need a ring or anything to show my love.. Im very content with just telling them and showing them.. I pay my taxes just like everyone else, I work my *** everyday...Just like alot of straight people. What I do in my home is my choice, I dont show PDA not because I am ashamed but because its disrespectful, I dont appreciate seeing straights show it...Some of you need to grow up...Hate me or not I love me and thats all that matters!

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

Sorry for the long post, but covering a lot of "comments" here.

Shamingly, I have just read the entire Constitution of the United States, for the first time, yea, I know the Preamble, but had never read the Constitution. I think that this is something that everyone in here should read, because, after reading this, I am convinced without a doubt that the whole homosexuality issue is soley based upon religious beliefs.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different denominations in the United States? The Baptist do not believe as the Methodist, the Methodist do not believe and the Church of Christ, and this goes on and on. To those of you that have stated your agreement or disagreement against homosexuals, do you believe that your denomination/belief will be the only people in Heaven? or **** as far as that goes. I do believe that it is John where it says, paraphrasing here, but "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved". I think that includes EVERYBODY!!!

To defend their assertion that God condemns homosexuals, people always use small passages from the Bible to prove their point. Using the Bible in this manner is destructive. Instead of "exegesis" which involves examining the history of scripture to find out what it means and how it applies to us, "eisegesis" approaches scripture with a preconceived idea of what you will find there. It is abuse of scripture.
In eisegesis you search the Book until you find a passage you think applies and use it as your "proof" that God backs you up. You isolate that phrase or passage, take it out of context and improperly use it to back up your argument. It's like a friend taking a sentence or phrase out of a letter you wrote and using it to represent what you believe as a whole. It's easy to be taken out of context. You wouldn't want your views represented that way, but that's how the ideas and beliefs of the Bible's authors are presented everyday!

Thankfully, there are states and cities and companies who have deemed it policy to allow same sex couples to have insurance covereage as a heterosexual married couple. My hat is off to those entities. So, does that mean that those of you who feel the homosexuals do not have the right to have this type of insurance going to boycott these companies, move out of your state and or city??? As strongly as you have made your point in here about how you feel about homosexuals, I would make that ULTIMATE STAND and really think about it. You know, you have that right. And isn't it amazing that YOU have that right???

And in conclusion, God tells all people who have felt alienated because of the pain of prejudice and hatred, "in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near... You are no longer strangers, foreigners or aliens, but fellow citizens with all God's people." (Ephesians 2:11-22)
Finally, God reminds us that no matter what our orientation is, or what our beliefs are on homosexuality, we need to remember that "God is love". (I John 4). We need to follow the law of love: "LOVE GOD, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, LOVE ONE ANOTHER!" (Lev. 19:18, Matt 19:19, Mark 12:31, 33, Luke 10:27, John 15:12, 17, Romans 12:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)

GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!:Thumbs:

[Basketballer]

GREAT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!:Thumbs:

I agree great post!

[BlueSky]

Of course he is about love... How could anyone show more.. But he is also about obedience. Better study some on this issue in Romans 1...

[cheerdad]

Of course he is about love... How could anyone show more.. But he is also about obedience. Better study some on this issue in Romans 1...

Trust me, I know all about obedience and you can't have one without the other. When YOU study, it may help to study the Greek and Hebrew...modern translations even KJV are good translations, but they are also opinions of the translators, the way they "believe" it should be.

[tampabaybucs]

Sorry for the long post, but covering a lot of "comments" here.

Shamingly, I have just read the entire Constitution of the United States, for the first time, yea, I know the Preamble, but had never read the Constitution. I think that this is something that everyone in here should read, because, after reading this, I am convinced without a doubt that the whole homosexuality issue is soley based upon religious beliefs.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different denominations in the United States? The Baptist do not believe as the Methodist, the Methodist do not believe and the Church of Christ, and this goes on and on. To those of you that have stated your agreement or disagreement against homosexuals, do you believe that your denomination/belief will be the only people in Heaven? or **** as far as that goes. I do believe that it is John where it says, paraphrasing here, but "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved". I think that includes EVERYBODY!!!

To defend their assertion that God condemns homosexuals, people always use small passages from the Bible to prove their point. Using the Bible in this manner is destructive. Instead of "exegesis" which involves examining the history of scripture to find out what it means and how it applies to us, "eisegesis" approaches scripture with a preconceived idea of what you will find there. It is abuse of scripture.
In eisegesis you search the Book until you find a passage you think applies and use it as your "proof" that God backs you up. You isolate that phrase or passage, take it out of context and improperly use it to back up your argument. It's like a friend taking a sentence or phrase out of a letter you wrote and using it to represent what you believe as a whole. It's easy to be taken out of context. You wouldn't want your views represented that way, but that's how the ideas and beliefs of the Bible's authors are presented everyday!

Thankfully, there are states and cities and companies who have deemed it policy to allow same sex couples to have insurance covereage as a heterosexual married couple. My hat is off to those entities. So, does that mean that those of you who feel the homosexuals do not have the right to have this type of insurance going to boycott these companies, move out of your state and or city??? As strongly as you have made your point in here about how you feel about homosexuals, I would make that ULTIMATE STAND and really think about it. You know, you have that right. And isn't it amazing that YOU have that right???

And in conclusion, God tells all people who have felt alienated because of the pain of prejudice and hatred, "in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near... You are no longer strangers, foreigners or aliens, but fellow citizens with all God's people." (Ephesians 2:11-22)
Finally, God reminds us that no matter what our orientation is, or what our beliefs are on homosexuality, we need to remember that "God is love". (I John 4). We need to follow the law of love: "LOVE GOD, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, LOVE ONE ANOTHER!" (Lev. 19:18, Matt 19:19, Mark 12:31, 33, Luke 10:27, John 15:12, 17, Romans 12:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)

very good post...thank you!!!

[Shady Grady]

Sorry for the long post, but covering a lot of "comments" here.

Shamingly, I have just read the entire Constitution of the United States, for the first time, yea, I know the Preamble, but had never read the Constitution. I think that this is something that everyone in here should read, because, after reading this, I am convinced without a doubt that the whole homosexuality issue is soley based upon religious beliefs.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different denominations in the United States? The Baptist do not believe as the Methodist, the Methodist do not believe and the Church of Christ, and this goes on and on. To those of you that have stated your agreement or disagreement against homosexuals, do you believe that your denomination/belief will be the only people in Heaven? or **** as far as that goes. I do believe that it is John where it says, paraphrasing here, but "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved". I think that includes EVERYBODY!!!

To defend their assertion that God condemns homosexuals, people always use small passages from the Bible to prove their point. Using the Bible in this manner is destructive. Instead of "exegesis" which involves examining the history of scripture to find out what it means and how it applies to us, "eisegesis" approaches scripture with a preconceived idea of what you will find there. It is abuse of scripture.
In eisegesis you search the Book until you find a passage you think applies and use it as your "proof" that God backs you up. You isolate that phrase or passage, take it out of context and improperly use it to back up your argument. It's like a friend taking a sentence or phrase out of a letter you wrote and using it to represent what you believe as a whole. It's easy to be taken out of context. You wouldn't want your views represented that way, but that's how the ideas and beliefs of the Bible's authors are presented everyday!

Thankfully, there are states and cities and companies who have deemed it policy to allow same sex couples to have insurance covereage as a heterosexual married couple. My hat is off to those entities. So, does that mean that those of you who feel the homosexuals do not have the right to have this type of insurance going to boycott these companies, move out of your state and or city??? As strongly as you have made your point in here about how you feel about homosexuals, I would make that ULTIMATE STAND and really think about it. You know, you have that right. And isn't it amazing that YOU have that right???

And in conclusion, God tells all people who have felt alienated because of the pain of prejudice and hatred, "in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near... You are no longer strangers, foreigners or aliens, but fellow citizens with all God's people." (Ephesians 2:11-22)
Finally, God reminds us that no matter what our orientation is, or what our beliefs are on homosexuality, we need to remember that "God is love". (I John 4). We need to follow the law of love: "LOVE GOD, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, LOVE ONE ANOTHER!" (Lev. 19:18, Matt 19:19, Mark 12:31, 33, Luke 10:27, John 15:12, 17, Romans 12:9-10, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8)

Yeah, it is funny now people pick out one verse, like the one, "Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Matt. 7:14 says, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." If it were that easy, there would be more than a few. And one more: 1 Cor. 6:9, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Again, BE NOT DECEIVED.

[cheerdad]

Yeah, it is funny now people pick out one verse, like the one, "Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Matt. 7:14 says, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." If it were that easy, there would be more than a few. And one more: 1 Cor. 6:9, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Again, BE NOT DECEIVED.

Why did you capatlize that particular word?

[cheerdad]

Yeah, it is funny now people pick out one verse, like the one, "Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". Matt. 7:14 says, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." If it were that easy, there would be more than a few. And one more: 1 Cor. 6:9, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Again, BE NOT DECEIVED.

In I Corinthians 6:9 Paul lists a many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One has been variously translated as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute (as in the verses from the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament described above). The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation. More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.

The truth is that the word some translators "transform" into "sodomite/homosexual/pervert" in I Corinthians 6:9-10 is actually TWO words. Some translators combine them because they "think" they go together but they DO NOT KNOW. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that other translators keep the words separate and translate them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind".

The two words in the original Greek are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". Malakoi is a very common Greek word. It literally means "soft". It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25 in reference to soft clothing. Scholars have to look at material outside of the Bible in order to try and figure out just what this means. The early church Fathers used the word to mean someone who was "weak" or "soft" in their morals and from the time of the reformation to the 20th century it was usually interpreted as masturbation. In Greek this word never is applied to gay people or homosexual acts in general. No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians.

The Greek contained no word which compares to the English noun "homosexual" meaning someone of homosexual orientation. In fact the word "homosexual" (meaning someone of homosexual orientation) was not even coined until the late 1800'S by a German psychologists, and introduced into English only at the beginning of the 1900's.
However, during scriptural times there were a number of Greek words to describe homosexual sex acts and the two words "malakois" and "arsenokoitai" do not appear among them.

[cheerdad]

I can tell you this much I am gay.. Its not a diesease its not something that you can go to the Dr and get treated for...Some of you are just acting pure stupid on this subject. They way that I see it , if you dont like me because of who I choose to sleep with thats your problem not mine, I am happy with my life...I dont need a ring or anything to show my love.. Im very content with just telling them and showing them.. I pay my taxes just like everyone else, I work my *** everyday...Just like alot of straight people. What I do in my home is my choice, I dont show PDA not because I am ashamed but because its disrespectful, I dont appreciate seeing straights show it...Some of you need to grow up...Hate me or not I love me and thats all that matters!

Basketballer,

You did not have to do that!! It's no concern of anyone as to what you orientation is. But, with that said, I admire you for doing so!! :-) It's really hard for some people to realize that gay people are the same as they are. The gay community continually takes the harsh words of others and being categorized as second-class citizens every day. It seems that most people think to be gay, it's just about sex. They cannot phathom the idea of two people of the same sex having a loving, caring monogamous relationship. Which brings me to the divorce rate among heterosexual couples, which is above 50%. One thing I try to remember is that as much as some people despise people that are gay, their anger is nothing compared to what they delivered upon people of color. And what really amazes me, it is always the people who consider themselves "Christians" who are in the forefront of these slanderings.
A word to you, my friend...you be who God made you to be. You are no less of a person for who you are. It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for something you are not! I wish I could find who said that, but it is sooo true. And also know, that no matter what you've read in here, God does love you and accepts you as His creation. Their lies the problem with organized religion; if you do not believe or understand their interpretation of God's word as they do, then you are a non-believer and when you have a different interpretation or different belief, you are considered a deceiver. For me, my relationship with God is between me and Him and no one elses.

If other people believe that I am wrong, then so be it, they can believe that. That is why I haved tried VERY hard not to get argumentative in this discussion, but to use my knowledge as a resource for other people, hoping it gives them the iniatitive to study more and maybe realize that there may be that slight possibility that the way they grew up and the way they were taught by others actually is not the right way.

[thecavemaster]

As I understand it, it is not by pulling out isolated verses that one comes to u understand the bible. As "jesus" did with the tempter, one must compare verse upon verse to get at the true meaning. In the nt, if to be believed, "jesus" told some folks that they thought they knew the Scriptures but they didn't know the "spirit" of those Scriptures. They know the words, but they don't know the tune.

[Beetle01]

Once again I will ask what rights are being violated? Teh tax breaks and insurance coverages are a privelage the govt allows us to have. Just like driving. Driving is not a right. Noone is stopping any gays from being with one another. They just are not going to get the privelages that have been set up for heterosexual couples. While there are hetero couples who do not have kids, no gay couple is capable of reproducing and filling the ranks of our nation with the young. They are capable of adopting, but their kids will be covered by their benefits, so that is a non issue. Its obvious that any type of gay marriage law is going to be overly abused and extorted. There is nothing they gain from being married, except tax breaks and insurance coverage. Since it is shown that the gay lifestyle is more hazardous to your health, it is unfair to ask insurance companies to start covering these people.

[cheerdad]

Once again I will ask what rights are being violated? Teh tax breaks and insurance coverages are a privelage the govt allows us to have. Just like driving. Driving is not a right. Noone is stopping any gays from being with one another. They just are not going to get the privelages that have been set up for heterosexual couples. While there are hetero couples who do not have kids, no gay couple is capable of reproducing and filling the ranks of our nation with the young. They are capable of adopting, but their kids will be covered by their benefits, so that is a non issue. Its obvious that any type of gay marriage law is going to be overly abused and extorted. There is nothing they gain from being married, except tax breaks and insurance coverage. Since it is shown that the gay lifestyle is more hazardous to your health, it is unfair to ask insurance companies to start covering these people.

Too late bub....this has been happening for several years now!!! Below you will find an exert of a previous post. Also, in Vermont, Massachusettes and Conneticut, these states allow gay couples the tax benefits on the state level for tax benefits.


Exert from a previous post:
Thankfully, there are states and cities and companies who have deemed it policy to allow same sex couples to have insurance covereage as a heterosexual married couple. My hat is off to those entities. So, does that mean that those of you who feel the homosexuals do not have the right to have this type of insurance going to boycott these companies, move out of your state and or city??? As strongly as you have made your point in here about how you feel about homosexuals, I would make that ULTIMATE STAND and really think about it. You know, you have that right. And isn't it amazing that YOU have that right???

[WheelsNdaSky]

The definition of marriage is not threatened by the recognition of same sex couples, granting them "equal protection under the law." If a certain denomination recognizes these relationships, they can call it "marriage." A civil magistrate could marry them ("civil union"). Other groups could call it an "abomination" and cry out for hail and brimstone. If there is a "god" would he punish 90% of people who are not gay for the 10% who are? If so, I'll keep looking for a "god" who is at least more fair than I am.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:24-32:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God hates the sin of homosexuality. It is an abomination to Him. It is clearly said so in His Word. Clearly marriage (as described in the Bible) is a union between one man and one woman. There are passages that talk about Solomon having many concubines and such, but God clearly shows us that marriage is a union between man and woman. He also clearly shows us that homosexuality is completely and utterly wrong. There is no gray. It is not groups that call it something; it is God. It is God who says that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God (Heaven). No sin will enter into God's presence. Unless homosexuals repent, and any sinner for that matter, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Those are the words of Jesus.

Your "god" of love is wonderful and loving, but that fair "god" does not exist except in your mind. The God of the Bible is a just and good God. Love is one of His qualities, but He would cease to be God if He did not punish evil. He declared that homosexuality is wrong; therefore same-sex marriage is wrong.

[Beetle01]

[/B]


Too late bub....this has been happening for several years now!!! Below you will find an exert of a previous post. Also, in Vermont, Massachusettes and Conneticut, these states allow gay couples the tax benefits on the state level for tax benefits.


Exert from a previous post:
Thankfully, there are states and cities and companies who have deemed it policy to allow same sex couples to have insurance covereage as a heterosexual married couple. My hat is off to those entities. So, does that mean that those of you who feel the homosexuals do not have the right to have this type of insurance going to boycott these companies, move out of your state and or city??? As strongly as you have made your point in here about how you feel about homosexuals, I would make that ULTIMATE STAND and really think about it. You know, you have that right. And isn't it amazing that YOU have that right???

That's those states right to do so. They did that, I respect that. No I would not ever live in any 3 of those states, not just because of gay marriage, but because of multiple reasons, mostly that the weather sucks, and I can't stand the way those people talk. I'm sure they'd say the same about me.

[DevilsWin]

That's those states right to do so. They did that, I respect that. No I would not ever live in any 3 of those states, not just because of gay marriage, but because of multiple reasons, mostly that the weather sucks, and I can't stand the way those people talk. I'm sure they'd say the same about me.

I wouldn't live there either Beetle.

If I left Kentucky it would only be for North Carolina or Tennessee.

[Beetle01]

I wouldn't live there either Beetle.

If I left Kentucky it would only be for North Carolina or Tennessee.

I don't know about NC, but Tennessee is nice. I really never want to leave the state though.

Does the New Englander speech impediment as I call it not drive any of you insane? I can't stand it. I'm sure they hate the way I talk also, and I understand that. Maybe its just because we are on like opposite sides of the spectrum as far as our speech goes. I honestly want to tape anyone from Boston's mouth shut when they are around me. I have a friend from there, who lives here now, and he has adopted our speech mostly, However, his mom is terrible, and I refuse to go into his house if she is there so I don't have to listen to her talk.

[Beetle01]

btw I think I have either mastered the use of the , or I use it way to much.

[thecavemaster]

Once again I will ask what rights are being violated? Teh tax breaks and insurance coverages are a privelage the govt allows us to have. Just like driving. Driving is not a right. Noone is stopping any gays from being with one another. They just are not going to get the privelages that have been set up for heterosexual couples. While there are hetero couples who do not have kids, no gay couple is capable of reproducing and filling the ranks of our nation with the young. They are capable of adopting, but their kids will be covered by their benefits, so that is a non issue. Its obvious that any type of gay marriage law is going to be overly abused and extorted. There is nothing they gain from being married, except tax breaks and insurance coverage. Since it is shown that the gay lifestyle is more hazardous to your health, it is unfair to ask insurance companies to start covering these people.

Someone stopped African Americans from attending certain "white" schools, until the Supreme Court found cvil rights violations. The same could be said for privately owned cafes and the like. This is the great weakness of your argument. Heterosexual marriage laws are abused and exploited. Heterosexual couples have high rates of STD's, per rates of marital unfaithfulness. I don't see that anything you've said here has much to do with "equal protection under the law," which I would enourage you to read the 14th Amendment anew.

[Beetle01]

Someone stopped African Americans from attending certain "white" schools, until the Supreme Court found cvil rights violations. The same could be said for privately owned cafes and the like. This is the great weakness of your argument. Heterosexual marriage laws are abused and exploited. Heterosexual couples have high rates of STD's, per rates of marital unfaithfulness. I don't see that anything you've said here has much to do with "equal protection under the law," which I would enourage you to read the 14th Amendment anew.

what protection are they needing? What right is being violated when homosexuals are not allowed to marry. There is no right being violated.

[DevilsWin]

The right to Life, Liberty and the Puruit of Happiness Beetle. Come on man!

[thecavemaster]

what protection are they needing? What right is being violated when homosexuals are not allowed to marry. There is no right being violated.

The right to equal protection under the law: the very point we are debating. You are saying that gay couples have no right, no protection under the law. I am saying they do. The same "big tent" grace that allows Hitler's roses to grow the same as Billy Graham's. That's the Constitutional prinicple of civil freedoms and rights. We may not approve of Hitler; in fact, we may abhor what he stood for, yet his roses grew. He had equal protection under the big tent of general grace.

[Shady Grady]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:24-32:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God hates the sin of homosexuality. It is an abomination to Him. It is clearly said so in His Word. Clearly marriage (as described in the Bible) is a union between one man and one woman. There are passages that talk about Solomon having many concubines and such, but God clearly shows us that marriage is a union between man and woman. He also clearly shows us that homosexuality is completely and utterly wrong. There is no gray. It is not groups that call it something; it is God. It is God who says that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God (Heaven). No sin will enter into God's presence. Unless homosexuals repent, and any sinner for that matter, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Those are the words of Jesus.

Your "god" of love is wonderful and loving, but that fair "god" does not exist except in your mind. The God of the Bible is a just and good God. Love is one of His qualities, but He would cease to be God if He did not punish evil. He declared that homosexuality is wrong; therefore same-sex marriage is wrong.

AMEN, AMEN, AND AMEN AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shady Grady]

It is funny, to me, that, as a culture, we speak of the "integrity of the democratic process," and express strong belief in the "ability of the American people to make informed decisions." Then, our candidate loses an election:
"It's all rigged; the voters are stupid; blah, blah, blah."


Thats exactly how I feel about those protesting in California. They need to accept the wil of the people and move on.

[thecavemaster]

[quote=Shady Grady]It is funny, to me, that, as a culture, we speak of the "integrity of the democratic process," and express strong belief in the "ability of the American people to make informed decisions." Then, our candidate loses an election:
"It's all rigged; the voters are stupid; blah, blah, blah."


Thats exactly how I feel about those protesting in California. They need to accept the wil of the people and move on.

Are you equating the right to assemble and protest to calling people stupid and talking about invalid elections and birth certificates? Frankly, I don't see it.

[cheerdad]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:24-32:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God hates the sin of homosexuality. It is an abomination to Him. It is clearly said so in His Word. Clearly marriage (as described in the Bible) is a union between one man and one woman. There are passages that talk about Solomon having many concubines and such, but God clearly shows us that marriage is a union between man and woman. He also clearly shows us that homosexuality is completely and utterly wrong. There is no gray. It is not groups that call it something; it is God. It is God who says that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God (Heaven). No sin will enter into God's presence. Unless homosexuals repent, and any sinner for that matter, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Those are the words of Jesus.

Your "god" of love is wonderful and loving, but that fair "god" does not exist except in your mind. The God of the Bible is a just and good God. Love is one of His qualities, but He would cease to be God if He did not punish evil. He declared that homosexuality is wrong; therefore same-sex marriage is wrong.

Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes.

Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

• permits polygamy
  
• prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
  
• bans tattoos
  
• prohibits eating rare meat
  
• bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
  
• prohibits cross-breeding livestock
  
• bans sowing a field with mixed seed
  
• prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
  
• requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.

It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:

• Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.
  
• Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
  
• Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN.
  
  If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. There is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.

In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as a binding rule for today.
Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is now considered immoral.
19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.
19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.
19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.
11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, yet people unashamedly have a side of bacon with their eggs!
11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit.
11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red Lobster picketed!
23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream.
It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice.

[cheerdad]

Romans 1:26 and 27, at first glance, appears to condemn gay and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.

This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF ROMANS CHAPTER ONE YOU MUST READ ROMANS CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH THREE. The outline is as follows:
I. The Gospel is for EVERYONE, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)
II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).
II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.
III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)
IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)
While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant

Let's look at some of the verses in this section:
Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?

28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:

• Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind.
  
• Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following:
  
• "Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29.
  
• 29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.
  
• 26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity DOES go on in the animal world.

It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. AND NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT... NO ONE KNOWS THE BACKGROUND... We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.
As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over gays and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.

[thecavemaster]

Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes.

Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

• permits polygamy
  
• prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
  
• bans tattoos
  
• prohibits eating rare meat
  
• bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
  
• prohibits cross-breeding livestock
  
• bans sowing a field with mixed seed
  
• prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
  
• requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.

It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:

• Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.
  
• Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
  
• Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN.
  
  If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. There is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.

In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as a binding rule for today.
Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is now considered immoral.
19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.
19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.
19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.
11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, yet people unashamedly have a side of bacon with their eggs!
11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit.
11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red Lobster picketed!
23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream.
It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice.

Interesting... In the gospel of john, I think it says that the law came via Moses, but grace and truth in jesus. I would take that to mean that much of the "don't use a razor used on a sheep" type law is a thing for a specific time, a specific people, not now. Also, apparently, impurity does not come from that which is outside of human beings, but flows from a faulty spring within. I take it that gossip and maliciousness toward human beings offend "god" in equal proportion to the "chosen sins."