Gay Marrige

[TheFallenX]

Sorry for being late to post this, I've had a lot going on lately. This is my last post on this topic because I have too many other things to do, and I don't see this topic ever ending otherwise. However I will check your reply Jonne because you do make valid arguments even though I disagree with most of them.

It's simple, in order to give up something, you need to have it first. A gay man doesnt have a heterosexual relationship with a woman, so he can't give it up. It's pretty simple.

The point is the gay man is giving up the natural order of things. I know you will argue that there isn't a natural order, but if you believe in the Bible (which is where the verse comes from after all), then the natural order is a man and woman joining together. So the verse does apply.

Marriage is reserved for procreation? So if a woman (or the man) is sterile, she/he can't get married? Or you can only get married if you plan to have a child?
Nope, I don't think that's what marriage is for...

The idea was that it is a non-biblical way around the topic, but I see what you are saying. Really all the law has to say is that marriage is for a man and woman, it doesn't have to base it on religion.

As for the Jefferson quote, that isn't the whole quote. The whole quote is:



He's talking about protecting a citizens right to believe in whatever God he believes in, without having to worry about the goverment enforce any religion on him in any form. Which would include passing any anti-homosexual law on the bases of what it says in the Bible.

However, whatever Jefferson meant with that, isn't as relevant as is the Supreme Court ruling that I posted, where it clearly says that any religion can't be favored above another.
It's the law, simple as that. It might get changed at some point, but for now it is the law.

Yes, both are saying that one religion can't be favored above another, but again, who says that the decision has to be a religious one? Who's to say it's not a law that defines the moral majority of the nation? With your argument murder could be legal since it was a religious law long before it was American law.

[QUOTE=Jonne;1612378]Yes there's disagreement in the meaning of the Biblical text.
There's disagreement, or I guess a more accurate word would be difference of opinion, about the Pope's position, the amount of Sacraments, I'm pretty sure there's some debate over the concept of the Original Sin and many other things. It wasn't just because Martin Luther didn't like to pay taxes to the Church.


post on this topic because I have too many other things to do, and I don't see this topic ever ending otherwise. However I will check your reply Jonne because you do make valid arguments even though I disagree with most of them.

It's simple, in order to give up something, you need to have it first. A gay man doesnt have a heterosexual relationship with a woman, so he can't give it up. It's pretty simple.

The point is the gay man is giving up the natural order of things. I know you will argue that there isn't a natural order, but if you believe in the Bible (which is where the verse comes from after all), then the natural order is a man and woman joining together. So the verse does apply.

Marriage is reserved for procreation? So if a woman (or the man) is sterile, she/he can't get married? Or you can only get married if you plan to have a child?
Nope, I don't think that's what marriage is for...

The idea was that it is a non-biblical way around the topic, but I see what you are saying. Really all the law has to say is that marriage is for a man and woman, it doesn't have to base it on religion.

As for the Jefferson quote, that isn't the whole quote. The whole quote is:
He's talking about protecting a citizens right to believe in whatever God he believes in, without having to worry about the goverment enforce any religion on him in any form. Which would include passing any anti-homosexual law on the bases of what it says in the Bible.

However, whatever Jefferson meant with that, isn't as relevant as is the Supreme Court ruling that I posted, where it clearly says that any religion can't be favored above another.
It's the law, simple as that. It might get changed at some point, but for now it is the law.

Yes, both are saying that one religion can't be favored above another, but again, who says that the decision has to be a religious one? Who's to say it's not a law that defines the moral majority of the nation? With your argument murder could be legal since it was a religious law long before it was American law.

Yes there's disagreement in the meaning of the Biblical text.
There's disagreement, or I guess a more accurate word would be difference of opinion, about the Pope's position, the amount of Sacraments, I'm pretty sure there's some debate over the concept of the Original Sin and many other things. It wasn't just because Martin Luther didn't like to pay taxes to the Church.

Again, most of those things that were agrued aren't Biblical. Now I'm sure somethings are, but the majority are agruments over how the church is to be run.

As for the translations, I got a simple example for you.
If I'm not mistaken, one of the Ten Commandments in English is "Do not murder". Now in Finnish, the same commandement is "Älä tapa" which translates to "Do not kill".
Now this is pretty much the most basic example of how a different translation can mean two different things.
Murder means a premetitaded act. You decide to kill someone, and then you do it. To kill a man, it doesn't require premediation. A guy attacks you on the street, you kill him in selfdefence. Now according to one translation, you've just broken one of the 10 commandments. According to another, you haven't.

This was a simple example, the sentence could just as well be translated to mean "Do not murder" in finnish, since we have a word that seperates killing from murdering. However, this isn't always the case. I know many words in finnish that can't be translated directly to english. I know couple english words that can't be translated direcly to finnish either.

And this whole thing gets even worse when we're talking about a 2000 year old text. Some words might've changed meaning, some words might've lost their meaning.

In English it is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as well. Usually when things are translated some of the words may be slighly different, but the translator will make sure the meaning remains the same. Just like your example, in Finnish you have a word for murder separate from the word for kill, the translator would use the correct word in that situation. And yes, if you take one verse out of context you can argue that it may have been translated wrong, but in context the translation fits.

Yeah Homosexuality was illegal. And slavery was legal. It's a little thing called "progress", where we realize that somethings are wrong and somethings are right.

My point was, what changed that makes homosexuality accepted, when other abnormal sexual practices aren't? I use abnormal in the meaning that it goes against the majority. By the way, equating slavery and homosexuality is a massive slight against the hardships black people faced.

The difference between a dildo and a human corpse is that the human corpse was once a living, sentient being who has legal rights that extend to his remains even after his death. A dildo doesn't have any of these rights.

Who says that those legal rights extend after death? I don't see any mention of it in the Constitution. Even if they do have rights, who's to say they wouldn't consent? It is strictly a moral, and even religious, belief that a corpse should not be defiled sexually or otherwise.

Kinda funny, the way this thing with animals got drawn into this conversation was cause I said that another proof of homosexuality being natural is that it happens in other species aswell. You argued about it being an invalid comparasion cause for example some species eat their young.
Now we've made a full circle and we're back to humans being just as violent as animals.

This makes no sense. Humans are just as violent as animals, but the difference is we can chose to be different than animals. We have morals, animals don't. We could eat our young, but we don't define that as being morally acceptable. So, just because animals do it, doesn't mean that it is right for humans to do it.

[Jonne]

The point is the gay man is giving up the natural order of things. I know you will argue that there isn't a natural order, but if you believe in the Bible (which is where the verse comes from after all), then the natural order is a man and woman joining together. So the verse does apply.


Well, I like to believe in a individuality over a group, but well, I guess it comes down to faith.


The idea was that it is a non-biblical way around the topic, but I see what you are saying. Really all the law has to say is that marriage is for a man and woman, it doesn't have to base it on religion.


And why should the law say that? What harm will it cause if gay people are allowed to get married?






Yes, both are saying that one religion can't be favored above another, but again, who says that the decision has to be a religious one? Who's to say it's not a law that defines the moral majority of the nation? With your argument murder could be legal since it was a religious law long before it was American law.


I never said that the arguement should be a religious one. Infact I said that anyone who tries to justify a ban on gay marriages with the arguement that it says so in the Bible, shouldn't be allowed to vote on the bases of being stupid.

However, the thing is the most common arguements against gay marriages are religious, simply because there is no logical reason to ban gay marriages.



In English it is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as well. Usually when things are translated some of the words may be slighly different, but the translator will make sure the meaning remains the same. Just like your example, in Finnish you have a word for murder separate from the word for kill, the translator would use the correct word in that situation. And yes, if you take one verse out of context you can argue that it may have been translated wrong, but in context the translation fits.


You sure about that? Cause actually I've seen it written with both versions, "Thou Shall not Kill" and "Thou Shall not Murder".

Anyways, what happens when there is no seperate word? Here's a good example, straight from the Bible (reversed however).

The Bible, in the english translation refers to John as "the diciple whom Jesus loved". Now, here's the funny part. In english, the word love does not seperate platonic love and romantic, sexual love. So if I say that I love my father, or my brother, you understand that I'm not gay. It's natural, everyone loves his own family. I can say that I love my mother and my sister, and you'll understand that I'm talking again about a family love, not a romantic love.
However, if I say: "I love this guy I met a week ago at a bar.", chances are that you get the impression that I'm gay.

The Bible refers to John as the diciple whom Jesus loved. This of course has caused some crazy ideas about Jesus being homosexual, but this can be shot down with a simple arguement. The greek language seperates different types of love. Actually they got 4 different words for love. Eros, Agape, Philia and Storge. And these words have changed meaning over the years. Pretty much flipped meanings in some part, what in anchient texts was Agape is now Storge (for family) & Philia (for the rest), what used to be Eros is now Agape (although Eros still works like before).

All of them mean a different type of love, however all of them can be translated to the english word "love".

So, think this in reverse. You're translating an english Bible into greek. You know the vocalubary of english, you know the syntax but you do not know the message of the text. You know that John and Jesus aren't related, but you don't know what goes on in their bedrooms (which the Bible doesn't tell as far as I know). Now translate the sentence "John was the disciple whom Jesus loved".

This is one the reasons why translations are never accurate, especially when the source text is an old text without any of the writers still alive to explain what they really meant.




My point was, what changed that makes homosexuality accepted, when other abnormal sexual practices aren't? I use abnormal in the meaning that it goes against the majority. By the way, equating slavery and homosexuality is a massive slight against the hardships black people faced.


The fact that in a homosexual relationship both sides agree to have sex. That's not the case with rapists, necrophiliacs or ppl who have sex with animals.
And homosexuals aren't taking advantage of under aged people (well atleast not any more than heterosexuals are), which counts out childmolasters.

That's pretty much all the "abnormal sexual practices" I could come up with quickly.


And I'd say that equating homosexuality and necrophilia is a way worse insult to the gay community than equating racial discrimination and discrimination based on whether a person is gay or straight is to the black community.


Who says that those legal rights extend after death? I don't see any mention of it in the Constitution. Even if they do have rights, who's to say they wouldn't consent? It is strictly a moral, and even religious, belief that a corpse should not be defiled sexually or otherwise.


Well, I'm not sure about the US law, but atleast here the person's rights to his body remain after his death, thus making it illegal to have sex with a dead corpse. Actually, I don't know what would happen if the person would have a written concent from the dead person.


This makes no sense. Humans are just as violent as animals, but the difference is we can chose to be different than animals. We have morals, animals don't. We could eat our young, but we don't define that as being morally acceptable. So, just because animals do it, doesn't mean that it is right for humans to do it.


True, but still there is no reason why we should say that gay marriages aren't allowed. I mean there is not a single logical reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

[TheFallenX]

I know that I said the post before this was going to be my last, but I just needed to address something.

I never said that the arguement should be a religious one. Infact I said that anyone who tries to justify a ban on gay marriages with the arguement that it says so in the Bible, shouldn't be allowed to vote on the bases of being stupid.

One of the was people learn morals is through religion as well as parents and schools. People vote based on their morals, it's not a matter of being stupid.



You sure about that? Cause actually I've seen it written with both versions, "Thou Shall not Kill" and "Thou Shall not Murder".

Anyways, what happens when there is no seperate word? Here's a good example, straight from the Bible (reversed however).

The Bible, in the english translation refers to John as "the diciple whom Jesus loved". Now, here's the funny part. In english, the word love does not seperate platonic love and romantic, sexual love. So if I say that I love my father, or my brother, you understand that I'm not gay. It's natural, everyone loves his own family. I can say that I love my mother and my sister, and you'll understand that I'm talking again about a family love, not a romantic love.
However, if I say: "I love this guy I met a week ago at a bar.", chances are that you get the impression that I'm gay.

The Bible refers to John as the diciple whom Jesus loved. This of course has caused some crazy ideas about Jesus being homosexual, but this can be shot down with a simple arguement. The greek language seperates different types of love. Actually they got 4 different words for love. Eros, Agape, Philia and Storge. And these words have changed meaning over the years. Pretty much flipped meanings in some part, what in anchient texts was Agape is now Storge (for family) & Philia (for the rest), what used to be Eros is now Agape (although Eros still works like before).

All of them mean a different type of love, however all of them can be translated to the english word "love".

So, think this in reverse. You're translating an english Bible into greek. You know the vocalubary of english, you know the syntax but you do not know the message of the text. You know that John and Jesus aren't related, but you don't know what goes on in their bedrooms (which the Bible doesn't tell as far as I know). Now translate the sentence "John was the disciple whom Jesus loved".

This is one the reasons why translations are never accurate, especially when the source text is an old text without any of the writers still alive to explain what they really meant.

Yes, I'm sure the English translation is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I see it every time I go visit my mom.

As for the example of the beloved deciple, again, this proves my point about translation being related to context. Simply taking term "the the disciple whom Jesus loved" out of context could result in a misunderstanding. The thing is you have to read the whole thing to get the true meaning. Same as the Jefferson quote. When you just focus on the term "Seperation of Church and State" you get a different impression than you would get if you read the rest of his letters to the the congregation.

The fact that in a homosexual relationship both sides agree to have sex. That's not the case with rapists, necrophiliacs or ppl who have sex with animals.
And homosexuals aren't taking advantage of under aged people (well atleast not any more than heterosexuals are), which counts out childmolasters.

That's pretty much all the "abnormal sexual practices" I could come up with quickly.


And I'd say that equating homosexuality and necrophilia is a way worse insult to the gay community than equating racial discrimination and discrimination based on whether a person is gay or straight is to the black community.

Again, you have to be able to say that a corpse or animal does not consent, and that's hard to say. If an animal were to get sexually aroused by a human, is that not consent?

And equating homosexuality to necrophilia is a closer relation than relating homosexuality to slavery. To my knowledge no gay person has been forced to work for no wages, whipped, or had parts of their family sold. Both homosexuality and necrophilia are sexual practices outside the "norm", both have prejudices against their practice, and both under your defination could be considered something someone is born with.



Well, I'm not sure about the US law, but atleast here the person's rights to his body remain after his death, thus making it illegal to have sex with a dead corpse. Actually, I don't know what would happen if the person would have a written concent from the dead person.

Well, we are talking about US law here, and to my knowledge rights, expecially sexual rights, don't really extend past death. The law banning necrophilia is based again on morals.


True, but still there is no reason why we should say that gay marriages aren't allowed. I mean there is not a single logical reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

Again, you could say that about any abberant sexual practice. Should bigomy be legal? I don't see any reason why a man should not be allowed to have as many wives as he wishes as long as he can support them. Should we go back to Greek/Roman times where it was acceptable for men and young boys to have sexual relations? The thing about people is if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. If you open up marriage to a wider defination, then it opens the door for other practices to slip through.

[Jonne]

One of the was people learn morals is through religion as well as parents and schools. People vote based on their morals, it's not a matter of being stupid.



Voting based on morals is a totally different thing from voting based on the Bible.

Anyways, still haven't seen a single good arguement for why gay marriages should not be allowed.




Yes, I'm sure the English translation is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I see it every time I go visit my mom.


I did a quick Google search:
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/stores/art/roe/ten-commandments-large.gif
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/free/Pics/10_Comm.gif
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/content/img/f27241/10%20Commandments.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Lutheran_and_Roman_Catholic_Chris tianity
http://www.topmarks.co.uk/judaism/commandments/tencomms.htm
http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/10commandments-texts.htm

And there's a pretty good article on the subject:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

So yeah, I think we can safely say that both versions are used.



As for the example of the beloved deciple, again, this proves my point about translation being related to context. Simply taking term "the the disciple whom Jesus loved" out of context could result in a misunderstanding. The thing is you have to read the whole thing to get the true meaning. Same as the Jefferson quote. When you just focus on the term "Seperation of Church and State" you get a different impression than you would get if you read the rest of his letters to the the congregation.


Isn't that what you're doing when you're using that one quote from the Romans to say that the New Testament is against homosexuals? I mean picking a single sentence while ignoring the whole.
Generally Jesus talks about mutual understanding, about love, about tolerance towards others, tolerance towards those who arent like all the others and that all men make can make mistakes.
Then you take one line by Paul, not Jesus, and use it to say that the New Testament is against homosexuals.


Anyways, when it comes to translations, there's more stuff about that in the article I posted above.


Again, you have to be able to say that a corpse or animal does not consent, and that's hard to say. If an animal were to get sexually aroused by a human, is that not consent?


No you would have to able to say that the corpse or animal does consent, which is kinda hard to achieve.
Anyways, if a woman gets sexually aroused while getting raped (which isn't totally out of the realm of possibility), would that be a consent?



And equating homosexuality to necrophilia is a closer relation than relating homosexuality to slavery. To my knowledge no gay person has been forced to work for no wages, whipped, or had parts of their family sold. Both homosexuality and necrophilia are sexual practices outside the "norm", both have prejudices against their practice, and both under your defination could be considered something someone is born with.


Not actual slavery, but racial discrimination and discrimination of homosexuals, I'd say those two are pretty close to eachother.




Well, we are talking about US law here, and to my knowledge rights, expecially sexual rights, don't really extend past death. The law banning necrophilia is based again on morals.


Could be, but from my moral stance, homosexuality and necrophilia are way way way apart from eachother




Again, you could say that about any abberant sexual practice. Should bigomy be legal? I don't see any reason why a man should not be allowed to have as many wives as he wishes as long as he can support them. Should we go back to Greek/Roman times where it was acceptable for men and young boys to have sexual relations? The thing about people is if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. If you open up marriage to a wider defination, then it opens the door for other practices to slip through.

Actually I got nothing against polygamy being legal.
As for men and young boys, I think the line should be drawn there at the same point where it's drawn between men and young girls.
As for your last comment, I'm pretty sure that's what was argued also before it was allowed for white people to marry black people. I'm pretty sure that there were laws against it atleast in some states if not all.

[Vishka]

One of the ways people learn morals is through religion as well as parents and schools. People vote based on their morals, it's not a matter of being stupid.. funny i learned mine from TV and literature... there are a thousand places people can learn thier morals... why should religeon be more important than the way i learned mine? simply because more people do it? Its not hard to fool a mob... look at what hitler did...





Yes, I'm sure the English translation is "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I see it every time I go visit my mom.. the point is there is only one word in english to describe love... in many other languages there are many...

As for the example of the beloved deciple, again, this proves my point about translation being related to context. Simply taking term "the the disciple whom Jesus loved" out of context could result in a misunderstanding. The thing is you have to read the whole thing to get the true meaning. Same as the Jefferson quote. When you just focus on the term "Seperation of Church and State" you get a different impression than you would get if you read the rest of his letters to the the congregation. . this doesnt really disprove his statement it only shows each thing must be examined individually...



Again, you have to be able to say that a corpse or animal does not consent, and that's hard to say. If an animal were to get sexually aroused by a human, is that not consent?. absolutely not... men can be raped by women... you may not want to have sex with this woman but you still become aroused when she plays with your dong... thats not concent that is your body going "SPREAD THE SEED!"

And equating homosexuality to necrophilia is a closer relation than relating homosexuality to slavery. To my knowledge no gay person has been forced to work for no wages, whipped, or had parts of their family sold. Both homosexuality and necrophilia are sexual practices outside the "norm", both have prejudices against their practice, and both under your defination could be considered something someone is born with..first off you do realize slavery is not simply black people right? and gay people have been putting up with shit for 200 years here... slavery has been over in the US for quite some time so it seems a decent comparison... and Gay people have been beaten so much so it rivals the KKK's beatigns and hanging's... but you dont hear alot about it cause most people think eh its a fag who cares...





Well, we are talking about US law here, and to my knowledge rights, expecially sexual rights, don't really extend past death. The law banning necrophilia is based again on morals. .you are wrong again here... rights do extend past the grave which is why you have to get consent from a relative or a subpeona to exume a body.... and the law banning necrophelia is actually based on health related issues that came up from people fucking dead body's not the moral issues your thinking...




Again, you could say that about any abberant sexual practice. Should bigomy be legal? I don't see any reason why a man should not be allowed to have as many wives as he wishes as long as he can support them. Should we go back to Greek/Roman times where it was acceptable for men and young boys to have sexual relations? The thing about people is if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. If you open up marriage to a wider defination, then it opens the door for other practices to slip through. first off the definition of marriage was open to all lovers up until id say about 300 years ago or so... there are actually documented ceremonies in greece from some time ago of same sex partners... its really about where your from... once again not a single excuse givin here has displayed a decent reason as to why same sex marriage should be illegal... you were tought gay is bad and thats fine your parents and friends and teachers were fools who thought everyone should think like them... thats ok... everyone should be used to that... you dont have to be like them though... you can think for yourself... you can break the chain of foolishness right now by simply thinking about what it is your saying... Think about the fact that you are speaking of gay people as if they should be hiding from nazi type fuckers right now... the fact is very simple... your defence of a word is rediculous as it is unfounded and your reasons cited are not only mistaken but some are just flat out bullshit >< the fact that you dnt see it is baffling to me...

[TheFallenX]

Again, I feel the need to reply, you make some good arguments Jonne

Voting based on morals is a totally different thing from voting based on the Bible.

Anyways, still haven't seen a single good arguement for why gay marriages should not be allowed.

How about the fact that the majority of Americans disagree with it?

I did a quick Google search:
http://www.christcenteredmall.com/stores/art/roe/ten-commandments-large.gif
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/free/Pics/10_Comm.gif
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/content/img/f27241/10%20Commandments.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Lutheran_and_Roman_Catholic_Chris tianity
http://www.topmarks.co.uk/judaism/commandments/tencomms.htm
http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/10commandments-texts.htm

And there's a pretty good article on the subject:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html

So yeah, I think we can safely say that both versions are used.

Yes, I guess both can be used, but within the context of the rest of the Bible, you can tell what that author ment.


Isn't that what you're doing when you're using that one quote from the Romans to say that the New Testament is against homosexuals? I mean picking a single sentence while ignoring the whole.
Generally Jesus talks about mutual understanding, about love, about tolerance towards others, tolerance towards those who arent like all the others and that all men make can make mistakes.
Then you take one line by Paul, not Jesus, and use it to say that the New Testament is against homosexuals.


Not really, there has been numerous examples in other parts of the Bible that refer to God being against homosexuality, so it is still in context with the rest of the Bible. And yes, Jesus does talk about love and tolerance, he also preached that Christians should love the sinner but hate the sin, not be tolerant of it.

No you would have to able to say that the corpse or animal does consent, which is kinda hard to achieve.
Anyways, if a woman gets sexually aroused while getting raped (which isn't totally out of the realm of possibility), would that be a consent?

Why would they have to say that they consent? Consent is simply the absence of protest.

Not actual slavery, but racial discrimination and discrimination of homosexuals, I'd say those two are pretty close to eachother.

Yes, but you said that slavery was also legal at one time.

Could be, but from my moral stance, homosexuality and necrophilia are way way way apart from eachother.

Good, I feel the same way, but others might not, so you can't just discount their morals. That's why in a democracy, it should be put to a vote.

Actually I got nothing against polygamy being legal.
As for men and young boys, I think the line should be drawn there at the same point where it's drawn between men and young girls.
As for your last comment, I'm pretty sure that's what was argued also before it was allowed for white people to marry black people. I'm pretty sure that there were laws against it atleast in some states if not all.

Again, there is a difference between being born black and a homosexual lifestyle. Again, there is no evidence to support the fact that homosexuality is determined from birth.

As for your line being drawn at the same point it's drawn for men and young girls, well where exactly is that point? How do you determine that if not for social morals?

[LostGrace]

Again, there is a difference between being born black and a homosexual lifestyle. Again, there is no evidence to support the fact that homosexuality is determined from birth.


As was said. They have found distinct difference in homosexuals and streights.

[TheFallenX]

As was said. They have found distinct difference in homosexuals and streights.

Um where has there been a distinct difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals? There is no proof that homosexuals are genetically different than anyone else. No scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation. Hard empirical data is lacking from the many tests scientists have used to try and prove that homosexuality is inbirth.

[Sekhmet]

I wonder how many of the people replying to this with "LOLZ BANNOR GAEY MARRIGE IT ARE UNNAYTRUAL" would be all for gay marriage if the only gay people in the world consisted of lesbians.

[astinus]

How about the fact that the majority of Americans disagree with it?


Again, there is a difference between being born black and a homosexual lifestyle. Again, there is no evidence to support the fact that homosexuality is determined from birth.

If you were to take a poll a couple hundred years ago you would find that the majority of Americans at that time would be against freeing the blacks. And I'm sure there were many that simply believed being born black was "unnatural" too.

I agree that marriage rights and slavery are not on even footing for comparison, but think of it this way, denying a gay man marriage under the law is the same as if we started denying black men the same right.

[Jonne]

How about the fact that the majority of Americans disagree with it?



That might pass as a political reason. However, it's not a moral, ethical or a legal reason.


Yes, I guess both can be used, but within the context of the rest of the Bible, you can tell what that author ment.


From the arcticle that I posted:

For me, one of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.
Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.


I think that pretty much makes the difference, the original word refers to criminal acts of killing people, the wording that is used currently can refers to all types of killing.

And yeah, if you read the entire Bible, and study it, you might see the difference. However, I'm pretty sure that half of all the Christians in the world have not read the entire Bible. And of those half, I'm sure that 80% just read it, they didn't study it closely to see the real meaning of the words.



Not really, there has been numerous examples in other parts of the Bible that refer to God being against homosexuality, so it is still in context with the rest of the Bible. And yes, Jesus does talk about love and tolerance, he also preached that Christians should love the sinner but hate the sin, not be tolerant of it.


And you said that the rules of the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians anymore because of Jesus.




Why would they have to say that they consent? Consent is simply the absence of protest.


No it's not. Ask any legal judge or a lawyer, well almost any judge or lawyer, and I'm pretty sure that they'll tell you that absense of protest is not consent.
A mute guy can't protest (atleast not in a way that everyone would understand it) if I take his car. Does that mean that I got his concent to take his car?

A passed out woman can't protest if I start to have sex with her, does that mean that I got her concent?

A rape is a rape, whether the woman is shouting "NO!" at the top of her lungs or not.

And these are just the extreme examples. I can come up with some examples from every day life if needed.

Oh yeah, another thing: Jesus never says a clear word in protest of homosexuality. Does that mean that homosexuals have his concent?



Yes, but you said that slavery was also legal at one time.


It was an example of things that used to be legal but now aren't. An example of progress in the mankind



Good, I feel the same way, but others might not, so you can't just discount their morals. That's why in a democracy, it should be put to a vote.


It was a direct democracy, then yeah sure. However, it's not a direct democracy. People don't make the decision. People pick those people who make the decisions. They pick a certain amount of people, who then get more educated on the issues, to make the decisions.



Again, there is a difference between being born black and a homosexual lifestyle. Again, there is no evidence to support the fact that homosexuality is determined from birth.


Yes there is evidence. There's plenty of evidence of that. Including statements from homosexuals and biological evidence. However, at the moment all the biological evidence is small bits and pieces, there's is no conclusive whole to make it a scientific fact.


As for your line being drawn at the same point it's drawn for men and young girls, well where exactly is that point? How do you determine that if not for social morals?

Actually there is a point of referance to this in biology. You can determine a point when a young humans body is, from a biological point of view, mature. You stop growing in height, your reproductive system is fully matured, etc etc. Usually this is around 16-18 years of age, which also happens to be the "legal limit" in most western countries.

[notcircus]

Even if you're not religious, you can't deny that the human body is not meant for a male and male or female and female to be together sexually. You can not dispute this, no matter how much you try. Yeah yeah, all us "piggish" males have the fantasy about lesbians etc...but the facts remain nature did not intend it. So leaving my own religion out of the discussion, it cannot be considered normal.

I have a question for you supporters of gay marriage "special" rights. Do you also support multiple partner marriages, because if not, you are a hypocrit. Who is to tell these people they can't marry 3 or 4 different people if they "love" them.

[notcircus]

If you were to take a poll a couple hundred years ago you would find that the majority of Americans at that time would be against freeing the blacks. And I'm sure there were many that simply believed being born black was "unnatural" too.

I agree that marriage rights and slavery are not on even footing for comparison, but think of it this way, denying a gay man marriage under the law is the same as if we started denying black men the same right.

Don't cheapen the civil rights movement by comparing it to a lifestyle choice. If I were a black American I would slap you upside the head.

[Jonne]

Even if you're not religious, you can't deny that the human body is not meant for a male and male or female and female to be together sexually. You can not dispute this, no matter how much you try. Yeah yeah, all us "piggish" males have the fantasy about lesbians etc...but the facts remain nature did not intend it. So leaving my own religion out of the discussion, it cannot be considered normal.

I have a question for you supporters of gay marriage "special" rights. Do you also support multiple partner marriages, because if not, you are a hypocrit. Who is to tell these people they can't marry 3 or 4 different people if they "love" them.

Well there's always oral sex. And, in the words of my old clanmate Dunken:
"I know that the Bible is all antihomosexual and such, but why the fuck did God put a G-spot into a man's ass?"


As for multiple partner marriages, I got nothing against that concept. Of course some rules on how it would work would need to be set, but all and all I got nothing against the idea.

[heKtic]

Um where has there been a distinct difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals? There is no proof that homosexuals are genetically different than anyone else. No scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation. Hard empirical data is lacking from the many tests scientists have used to try and prove that homosexuality is inbirth.

When in your life did you make the choice to be heterosexual? Think about it, were you like hey I'm going to like the opposite sex instead of the same sex at any point in time during your life?

[notcircus]

Maybe this is what's behind the feminization of our culture. Eat to much McDonalds you might find some balls in your mouth.....Probably the reason so many tofu eating libs are like whiny bitches on tha rag...could answer your question too hektic



Soy is making kids 'gay'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.

Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?

Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.

Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!

There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.

In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.

P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.

[LostGrace]

Maybe this is what's behind the feminization of our culture. Eat to much McDonalds you might find some balls in your mouth.....Probably the reason so many tofu eating libs are like whiny bitches on tha rag...could answer your question too hektic



Soy is making kids 'gay'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern




There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.

Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?

Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.

Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!

There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.

In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.

P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
That article was paid for by the dairy council btw.

lol

[small]

Notcircus there are lots of plants with hormones in them and we have been eating them for 100's of years.

the big reason Soy wont catch on in the west is the large number of food allergies Soy is responsible for. in children 1/5 food allergy attacks is tied to soy consumption. and 1/8 for adults. interesting Asia has similar numbers with lactose intolerance.

[Vishka]

Ever seen a cat bat around a mouse till the mouse dies without eating it? Ever seen killer whales bat around a seal for fun before they eat it? They might not have the means for mass destructions that humans have, but that doesn't mean they aren't as violent. i am not going to reply to anything but this just to show you how little youknow about that which you speak... a cat and a whale bat mice and seals around not for fun... its not a game... they are trying to break bones and weaken the skeletal structure to make them easier to devour... have you ever eaten a whole chicken without pulling the meat off he bones? Fuckin hurts doesnt it lol... oh well... just a point :P

[small]

i am not going to reply to anything but this just to show you how little youknow about that which you speak... a cat and a whale bat mice and seals around not for fun... its not a game... they are trying to break bones and weaken the skeletal structure to make them easier to devour... have you ever eaten a whole chicken without pulling the meat off he bones? Fuckin hurts doesnt it lol... oh well... just a point :P
the cat isn't about breaking bones.
cats are belived play with their food to see if the prey is diseased.
if the mouse dies before the cat has played with it enough then it doesn't want to chance eating it. Bears actually do the same thing to which is why playing dead often works.

the thing is cruelty has a purpose. even when the human race does it to themselves.

[Vishka]

the cat isn't about breaking bones.
cats are belived play with their food to see if the prey is diseased.
if the mouse dies before the cat has played with it enough then it doesn't want to chance eating it. Bears actually do the same thing to which is why playing dead often works.

the thing is cruelty has a purpose. even when the human race does it to themselves. you understood my point all the same...

[small]

you understood my point all the same...
lol i know i am a jack ass.

[Vishka]

lol i know i am a jack ass. at least an entertaining one :)