March 29, 2024, 12:06:55 AM

Author Topic: Gays Thread.  (Read 243340 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1080 on: May 24, 2012, 07:50:52 AM »
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not.  But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. Thjey cant have it both ways

These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.

Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1081 on: May 24, 2012, 10:25:11 AM »
These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.

Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.

The Bible prescribes homosexuality?  How come Dan Savage eh find dah one yet?  I also didn't see anybody (here at least) looking for biblical passages that sanctify gay marriage.  You sure yuh understanding what yuh reading?  Or yuh 'reading' for reasons of convenience?

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1082 on: May 24, 2012, 10:57:57 AM »
1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not.  But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. They cant have it both ways

These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.

Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.

I hear what you saying  but the Bible is far from clear on homosexuality (this word was never used in the bible) ... nevertheless, my issue is with the use of the bible to condemn homosexuality while other 'truths' are conveniently ignored.  Even if I accept the oft quoted verse from Leviticus as the overarching "law" on homosexuality, there is still too much ambiguity in other parts of the bible on this and other moral issues to insist on using the Bible to argue my position.  i.e. if one wants to argue against same sex union, one should NOT use the Bible as the authoritative source of natural law. The Bible is but a guide and is Faith based.

I found an interesting paper on the Bible and Homosexuality written by the Ontario Centre for religious tolerance.  Here are the conclusions:

Conclusions
There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned.

Homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is generally condemned.

Sexual abuse of boys by adult males is condemned

St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to:
        temple prostitution,
        people who are not innately gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who engaged in homosexual acts,
        to child sexual abuse, or
        group sexual orgies.

Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consentual, committed homosexual relationships. He probably did not know of any.

One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) or wearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did not condemn the institution of slavery. Many Christians feel that his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.

Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behavior. However He never mentioned homosexuality.

It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Paul’s prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
        for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
        for all people, forever.

One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul’s criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against women’s behavior.


Source
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline Preacher

  • We doh smoke or drink or pop pills. When we light the mic is strickly jess skills
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1083 on: May 24, 2012, 11:08:26 AM »
Nah I ain't trying to broad brush nuttin.  :) There are influences in scripture which obviously have had human interpretation to it. 

Preach between this and your earlier admission that some scripture is the result of men wanting to make rules it sounds like yuh  admitting that a lot of the Bible is up to interpretation.

However, the ones I've found doesn't change the big idea of the story. 

If you admit that a lot of it is subject to interpretation you have to undertsand that not everybody is going to find the same truth in the Bible.

You could also understand why people would look at a literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible and a complete ignorance of other parts as cherry-picking to suit a moral agenda.

The Bible is being presented as an unshaking foundation for societal morality on issues like homosexuality when it is flexible to the will of the person reading it. It is fine to use it as personal guide I don’t see how you apply parts of it verbatim to the lives of others.

Yes I see what you're saying.  And you are right that some/many people read the bible and interpret it how they see it.  But remember there is interpretation and translation.  My points were to translation.  That means that there is no wriggling out of what was really written in the Greek and Hebrew about homosexuality in the bible.  The translation is solid.  So regarding that, there is no room for interpretation.   The big idea is corroborated by various writers over time.   

As it relates to the bible and society, it's a fair question.  I don't have any push back on that.  However, I would say that based on Daft's post, as I assumed, many Holy books which have become foundations of societal codes such as ethics and laws seem to have the same view of homosexuality.  And J, to me that says a lot.  I mean, that fact baits an argument for traditional marriage outside the boundaries of religions, almost as a universal law.  And that's my thing.  If two men want to be together cool but you can't call it marriage.  Call it civil union or something else.  No one has the right to force a redefinition of such a global institution. 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 11:11:00 AM by Preacher »
In Everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you.

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1084 on: May 24, 2012, 11:12:21 AM »
13 Things The Bible Forbids Other Than Homosexuality (That You're Probably Guilty Of Doing)

I waiting to find the Protests Groups that are forming to object to these 13 sins.


1) Tattoos: thinking of getting the Superman insignia on your bicep?

Leviticus 19:28 states: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

2) Rounded Haircuts: off to the barber?
Leviticus 19:27 states: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

3) Men With Injured Or Cut Off Private Parts Entering Houses Of God: It's bad enough if you're a man who has had his private parts injured -- or heaven forbid cut off -- but to add insult to injury, Deuteronomy 23:1 states: He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

4) Consulting Psychics: Have you ever had your palm read? Or maybe you've consulted your horoscope for a little guidance?

Leviticus 19:31 reads: Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

5) Gossiping: Heard some juicy news about Harold in the accounting department?

Can't wait to tell your BFF that you just read that Snooki is pregnant?

Leviticus 19:16 states: Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

6) Wives Helping Out Their Husbands In A Fight:
Gentlemen -- if you ever get in a fight and you get the feeling your lady might jump in and lend you a hand by squeezing your opponent's... ahem... "secrets," you'd better stop her.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 states: When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets, Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

7) Eating A Ham Sandwich: Lunch time?

Leviticus 11:7-8 reads: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

8 ) Children Cursing Their Parents: Kids these days -- you never know what's going to come out of their mouths!

But hopefully your child doesn't curse you because Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

9) Getting Remarried After Getting Divorce: When it comes to the Bible, this is a big no-no:

Mark 10:11-12 states: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

10) Working On The Sabbath: In our fast-paced society, does anyone really work Monday to Friday from 9-5?

Exodus 31:14-15 states: "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

11) Women Speaking In Houses Of God: Headed to church, ladies?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

12) Eating Shrimp, Lobster, And Other Assorted Seafood: Craving a big bowl of popcorn shrimp?

Leviticus 10-11 states: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

13) Losing Your Virginity Before You Get Married: Today it might be harder to find a bride who is a virgin rather than the other way around.

But Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you



Source: I forget where I find this.


Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1085 on: May 24, 2012, 11:31:29 AM »
1) On your first point, just because people are selective in their censure of certain acts does not invalidate the intent of what was originally written.

2) Assuming all things are equal, healthy heterosexual couples (i.e. ones in which the men are virile and the women are fertile) are able to procreate and healthy homosexual couples (again ones in which both men are virile) or healthy lesbian couples (both women are fertile) are unable to procreate. Thus, outside of physiological issues, the male and female DNA is designed for procreation when a man and woman have sexual intercourse. Homosexual couples cannot procreate under any circumstances. In terms of whether the love bewteen one type of couple is on the same scale as another is actually not within the realms of my argument. My argument is strictly down to biology.

3) The world population is indeed seven billion, and yes, procreation is not as much as a biological imperative as it was in ancient times. However, the reason that the population became seven billion in the first place was down to heterosexual unions, whether natural or artifical. Basically, the population is seven billion because many humans literally became "fruitful and multiplied." (Quoted material taken from Genesis 1:28).

To sum up, people are free to live as they please. Please do not misunderstand me on this point. I am not a religious zealot. I will be the first to say that the spiritual life is not for everybody and everyone has to deal with the world in the way in which they feel most comfortable. However, there are always consequences for the choices that we make in life. Technically, I am free to eat whatever I want. I can eat hamburgers and steak everyday. However, there is a natural consequence for that. I will become fat, develop serious health problems (high blood pressure, clogged arteries, etc), and have a very low quality of life down the road.

If homosexuality was to become the norm, rather than the exception in the world, then yes, I stand by what I originally asserted: humans will become extinct. 

I am not condemning homosexuals just for the sake of condemning them. Many of them are simply born with these tendencies. However, at the basic level, homosexuality and lesbianism is at odds with nature in that if allowed into the mainstream of sexual relationships, will eventually threaten the propogation of the human species.

1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not.  But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. Thjey cant have it both ways

2) Biology - OK, biologically, we need a male and a female to procreate. But just as there are infertile males and females, a small % of the population is homosexual.  But what does biology have to do with marriage? So do we deny them the right to marry because they are homosexual? We do not deny infertile couples the right to marry.

3) "If homosexuality was to become the norm" that is a supposition that has no foundation either biologically or otherwise.  Homosexuality will not become the norm. Hetero couples give birth to homosexuals and children raised by homosexual parent do not necessarily become homosexual


Anyways to quote Karl Barth: "I take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally."

Implicit in your claim is the assumption that heterosexuality will always be more common than homosexuality. If I may play devil's advocate, why is that so? Perhaps because, heterosexuality is the more dominant and natural genetic traits displayed by humans? Thus making homosexuality a genetic aberration?

Again, please do not misconstrue my argument, because you still seem to missing the point. I am not about to condemn people for their lifestyles, but homosexuality, in terms of nature does not fulfill the basic imperative for human existence, i.e. propagation of the human species. Like it or not, that is the basic function of sex. Women's bodies go through the process of preparing themselves for insemination and conception every month and every time a male releases his seed, the purpose of this seed is to locate an egg to fertilize. If the sperm cannot find an egg, it dies.

From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.

Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.

Just my two cents.

Offline warmonga

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3041
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1086 on: May 24, 2012, 01:00:22 PM »
allyuh fellas out there who supporting the fagoots dem why dont allyuh be real .. go tell yu sons dem its ok to tek dick  in he  ass.. gwan nuh .. lemme see allyuh do dat .... allyuh jes talking one set a shit..  anyway .. Obama using michelle as a front yuh nuh see how this faggot does siddung wid his legs cross.. Obama is a big f**king faggot!!!!!!!!!!!! to all di people who voted for Obama to prove allyuh was not racist allyuh prove allyuh point now get f**kin Real and get this faggot out..  I use to have a picture wid this faggot in mi bar , since his confession to di world bout he is gay I remove it and now has a picture of Nicky aka Ricky Martin dick in obama mouth with Michelle under Clinton round table top .....How could terrorist them tek America serious when we president fraid di faggots dem ..

war
Black Lives Matter..

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1087 on: May 24, 2012, 01:51:53 PM »
allyuh fellas out there who supporting the fagoots dem why dont allyuh be real .. go tell yu sons dem its ok to tek dick  in he  ass.. gwan nuh .. lemme see allyuh do dat .... allyuh jes talking one set a shit..  anyway .. Obama using michelle as a front yuh nuh see how this faggot does siddung wid his legs cross.. Obama is a big f**king faggot!!!!!!!!!!!! to all di people who voted for Obama to prove allyuh was not racist allyuh prove allyuh point now get f**kin Real and get this faggot out..  I use to have a picture wid this faggot in mi bar , since his confession to di world bout he is gay I remove it and now has a picture of Nicky aka Ricky Martin dick in obama mouth with Michelle under Clinton round table top .....How could terrorist them tek America serious when we president fraid di faggots dem ..

war

Although I do not agree with homosexuality or lesbianism, I cannot endorse your rant. It is filled with very abusive language and will only serve to alienate homosexuals and lesbians.

As has been commented on this thread, many homosexuals and lesbians are simply born that way. They do not "choose" to be attracted to people of their own sex. In fact, it would be crazy for anyone to choose the gay lifestyle because of the stigma that is still attached to it in many societies.

With all that said, the lifestyle is still unnatural as it does not produce life and that, as I have commented ad nauseum, is the basic function of sex.

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1088 on: May 24, 2012, 03:15:33 PM »
Which of course ties me to my second rebuttal. If I am to understand your argument, because the bible was written by men, then it is debatable what the Eternal Creator really meant. To get a clue of the true feelings of the Almighty on the matter, let us look at the natural consequences of homosexual unions. Can a healthy man and a man or woman and a woman procreate without artificial means (i.e. in vitro fertilization)? Can a healthy man and a woman procreate without artificial means (Assuming that the man is not sterile and the woman is not infertile)? We both know the answer to these questions.

Outside of the bible, which can be misinterpreted, is a natural law. The laws of biology provide for procreation between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. A homosexual couple who is looking to have a child would have to either adopt, or one of the partners would have to go the in vitro route (which involves a male sperm fertilizing a female egg).

The laws of science are indisputable on this point. Even allowing for in vitro fertilization, there still has to be some form of male-female sexual interaction (i.e. male sperm and female egg at the minimum) in order for life to be created.

Now if you want to counter that sex is not always for procreation, then that is another matter altogether. However, bear in mind, if that were the case and everyone decided to stop having sex to procreate, then humanity will eventually become extinct.

Without a doubt personal biases crept into the writings of men like the Apostle Paul.  As critical as I am of him (and his unbridled misogyny and prudery, I still acknowledge him as the greatest and most influential Christian writer... we all have our failings.  The bible thumpers want to act like God himself set pen to paper in writing the bible.  It's the Catholic church who at the Council of Trent, decided to vote on which books made it into the canon, and which books were excluded.  For all we know, there are books out there that contain words attributed to Christ that are not so critical of homosexuality.  But we don't know b/c the good Catholic Bishops voted them out.

Proverbs 3:5 says "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"... this is what we are supposed to do in order to decipher divine intent, turn to God for guidance as we read and interpret the Word.  but nah, some want to interpret what they read literally and often in a manner that suits their agenda.  I take the bible as a guide, nothing else.  A great deal of what I read I take with a grain of salt... not that I disregard it as false, but rather I read it critically.  For many Christians that is blasphemy... which is nonsense.
 

I agree with you. The bible is a guide. In fact, it is based on very ancient Hebrew scriptures of which there is widespread disagreement amongst even Jewish leaders themselves. That is precisely why I purposely stayed away from the bible in my debate with Pecan. The scripture that I quoted (i.e. Leviticus 18:22), was simply to show evidence of God's condemnation. I understand that you are of the opinion that the bible is written by men and is thus coloured by bias. Hence, you can take that scripture with a massive dose of salt if you like.

However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring. The whole design of the male and female body and the biological processes point towards this. This is why some couples use contraceptive measures when they become involved sexually. Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.

As I have said, the basis of my belief is on the miraculous nature of the world and the human body and the processes which sustain life. For me, this is not simply about homosexuality. There are many things that are unnatural and which lead to death (i.e. smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods, etc.) However, to keep this on the issue of homosexuality and not veer off track, I will limit my thoughts to the original thread topic.

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1089 on: May 24, 2012, 03:38:16 PM »
However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring.

The original purpose yuh say dey? How you come up with this? 

(especially if yuh "setting the biblical imperative aside").

Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.

hmmm not really....
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1090 on: May 24, 2012, 04:01:39 PM »
However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring.

The original purpose yuh say dey? How you come up with this? 

(especially if yuh "setting the biblical imperative aside").

Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.

hmmm not really....


Answers to 1 and 2. If one is to engage in sexual intercourse without contraceptives, then barring age and infertility issues, pregnancy will most likely result.

I understand that I did not explain myself properly in my first statement, but the fact that pregnancy is the natural outcome of sexual activity (all things being equal) that is undertaken without protective barriers is just a law of biology.

So in that sense, that is the biological purpose of the sex act and what happens when a woman of child-bearing age engages in such an act with a virile man.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

As I have said, all human bodily functions have a purpose, even the most mundane thing like excreting waste matter in the toilet.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 04:05:18 PM by kaliman2006 »

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1091 on: May 24, 2012, 04:16:55 PM »
Well first of all even without contraception, and with two healthy fertile individuals there is only a narrow window of time during which a woman can get pregnant in each monthly cycle - I stress can because during this window, all things being equal, it is still not always a given that it will happen....so to say that sex without contraception will MOST LIKELY lead to pregnancy is just wrong.

And to deduce that procreation is the ORIGINAL purpose of sex on the basis that procreation is a natural result of sexual activity is completely illogical...that's just two independent statements..... If you say that procreation is more important than pleasure in sustaining the human race (and even that statement isn't as straightforward as it might seem on the surface), therefore procreation is a more important natural purpose of sexual activity than pleasure is, then ok -yuh could argue that and I eh go vex with yuh...but intimacy is a powerful powerful thing fella - goes way beyond the purely biological text book teachings...even taking procreation out of the picture, we can't begin to imagine life without it...to say that sex was intended orginally for procreation sounds like you're making up your own rules for everybody else.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 04:22:33 PM by kicker »
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1092 on: May 24, 2012, 04:36:27 PM »
Well first of all even without contraception, and with two healthy fertile individuals there is only a narrow window of time during which a woman can get pregnant in each monthly cycle - I stress can because during this window, all things being equal, it is still not always a given that it will happen....so to say that sex without contraception will MOST LIKELY lead to pregnancy is just wrong.

And to deduce that procreation is the ORIGINAL purpose of sex on the basis that procreation is a natural result of sexual activity is completely illogical...that's just two independent statements..... If you say that procreation is more important than pleasure in sustaining the human race (and even that statement isn't as straightforward as it might seem on the surface), therefore procreation is a more important natural purpose of sexual activity than pleasure is, then ok -yuh could argue that and I eh go vex with yuh...but to say that sex was intended orginally for procreation jusso jusso....that just sounds like you're making up your own rules for everybody else. 



Fine, I concede your point on the "most likely" part, but that still does not invalidate the fact that human bodies were designed for human conception. The main purpose of the sperm is to fertilize an egg. Failing that, it dies, because it did not fulfill its original purpose. We can at least agree on that point. So my claim is not as baseless as you are claiming that is. The human body is designed for human conception. Women's bodies produce eggs to be fertilized by a spermatozoon and the spermatozoon's purpose is to fertilize a female egg.

That is the purpose based on the biological makeup of the human anatomy. On the issue of pleasure, the issue is not that far apart from procreation as you are making it out to be. In order for humans to be motivated to engage in coitus continually and thus propagate the species, our bodies are designed to respond to the activity, i.e. sexual arousal.

If I did not view the sex act as something pleasurable to me, I would most likely engage in it less and less. It is basic human psychology.

Summary, procreation and sexual enjoyment are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I understand that my argument is radical and thus difficult to accept because so many have relied on the biblical argument.

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1093 on: May 24, 2012, 05:29:56 PM »
ahhh ok - the purpose of sperm is to fertilize an egg - I can agree with that (as would most I imagine).  That's different from your first position - very different. 

As for your point about pleasure and procreation not being mutually exclusive - that is in part along the same lines that I was thinking..which is why I dunno how you come up with what is the "original" purpose of sexual activity...remember is "original" you say eh - I not saying yuh wrong (because frankly I don't know)- I just dunno how you decide that for everybody.

Your point eh that radical...I hear what you're saying but these issues real complex - more complex than alotta people realize on a casual day to day...I not sure we could sum up what you trying to sum up in one swoop which is why I engaged you in this back and forth  :beermug:
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 05:33:19 PM by kicker »
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1094 on: May 24, 2012, 09:30:51 PM »
I agree with you. The bible is a guide. In fact, it is based on very ancient Hebrew scriptures of which there is widespread disagreement amongst even Jewish leaders themselves. That is precisely why I purposely stayed away from the bible in my debate with Pecan. The scripture that I quoted (i.e. Leviticus 18:22), was simply to show evidence of God's condemnation. I understand that you are of the opinion that the bible is written by men and is thus coloured by bias. Hence, you can take that scripture with a massive dose of salt if you like.

However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring. The whole design of the male and female body and the biological processes point towards this. This is why some couples use contraceptive measures when they become involved sexually. Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.

As I have said, the basis of my belief is on the miraculous nature of the world and the human body and the processes which sustain life. For me, this is not simply about homosexuality. There are many things that are unnatural and which lead to death (i.e. smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods, etc.) However, to keep this on the issue of homosexuality and not veer off track, I will limit my thoughts to the original thread topic.

I really not sure what (or who) yuh arguing against then... the gist of the debate is religiously-sanctioned homosexual marriage.  To re-cap, it was just about gay marriage, but the bible thumpers conflating "marriage" to mean the involvement of the church (particularly the Christian church), so they start arguing the propriety of church-sanctioned homosexual marriage.  Mind you, for purposes of the larger debate, the "gay marriage" talk does not by necessity implicate the church, but that's another matter.

Your position lies outside of this debate, and is more to the core of whether homosexuality is "right", "acceptable", "natural","[_____]" etc.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1095 on: May 24, 2012, 10:33:57 PM »
What about de reference to gays with Sodom and Gomorrah? These were two cities which had it good but their citizens turn to bullerman ways. God single them out for punishment specifically for this.

I claiming that the orthodox christian stance is unequivocally NOT in support of gay marriage. But the way religion is today, is by choice. There will always be some church or reverend that ready to try a ting and introduce a heterodoxy. E.g. Rev. Wright - obuma's inconvenient pastor.

Speaking for myself, the evidence in the Bible seem clear enough for me. Everyone have their own standard.

But I get the feeling, with obuma pushing this unimportant issue to the fore in an attempt to find a wedge issue, that gays are looking to (a) the state and (b) the religious to support this experiment. Some people not willing to do this and rightly so. I doh know why Obuma care so much about this trivial :bs: unimportant issue - is he going to marry some gays or come out as a gay himself? Is he speaking on behalf of his religion, now that he done break with Rev. Wright? Steups.

Anyway, gays can always find some minister to dignify their marriage and they can hire lobbyists like everyone else. That's as much as they should expect. Do not expect endorsement from a lot of christians.

Obuma should send a gay diplomat to saudi arabia and see how that go over.

1) OK - all I saying if that point is valid, then perhaps we should question why the other points are not.  But if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Bible thumpers better observe all tenets of the Bible and not pick and chose to define their moral compass. They cant have it both ways

These are actually two separate issues: compliance with ALL tenets of the Bible and adhering to the Bible's words on homosexuals. Your statement is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. There is no necessary connection.

Of the many ideas prescribed by the Bible, the text on homosexuality is relatively clear. Yet, people going through all kinds of contortions to find a passage where the Bible sanctifies gay marriage for reasons of convenience.

I hear what you saying  but the Bible is far from clear on homosexuality (this word was never used in the bible) ... nevertheless, my issue is with the use of the bible to condemn homosexuality while other 'truths' are conveniently ignored.  Even if I accept the oft quoted verse from Leviticus as the overarching "law" on homosexuality, there is still too much ambiguity in other parts of the bible on this and other moral issues to insist on using the Bible to argue my position.  i.e. if one wants to argue against same sex union, one should NOT use the Bible as the authoritative source of natural law. The Bible is but a guide and is Faith based.

I found an interesting paper on the Bible and Homosexuality written by the Ontario Centre for religious tolerance.  Here are the conclusions:

Conclusions
There may be as many as three references in the Bible to committed homosexual relationships, none of which was condemned.

Homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

Prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual is generally condemned.

Sexual abuse of boys by adult males is condemned

St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to:
        temple prostitution,
        people who are not innately gay, lesbian or bisexual, but who engaged in homosexual acts,
        to child sexual abuse, or
        group sexual orgies.

Paul was certainly aware of sexual orgies in Pagan temples, including both heterosexual and homosexual encounters. He would have been aware of the practice of male adults keeping a boy for sexual purposes. These may have been the only forms of same gender sex that he knew of. He did not appear to make any references in his writings to consentual, committed homosexual relationships. He probably did not know of any.

One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) or wearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did not condemn the institution of slavery. Many Christians feel that his writings reflect his own prejudices are not a particularly useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.

Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behavior. However He never mentioned homosexuality.

It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Paul’s prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
        for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
        for all people, forever.

One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was persecuted by the Roman government and by the Jewish religious leaders. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul’s criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against women’s behavior.


Source
« Last Edit: May 24, 2012, 10:37:10 PM by ribbit »

Offline JDB

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Red, White and Black till death
    • View Profile
    • We Reach
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1096 on: May 25, 2012, 06:14:10 AM »
Yes I see what you're saying.  And you are right that some/many people read the bible and interpret it how they see it.  But remember there is interpretation and translation.  My points were to translation.  That means that there is no wriggling out of what was really written in the Greek and Hebrew about homosexuality in the bible.  The translation is solid.  So regarding that, there is no room for interpretation.   The big idea is corroborated by various writers over time.   

As it relates to the bible and society, it's a fair question.  I don't have any push back on that.  However, I would say that based on Daft's post, as I assumed, many Holy books which have become foundations of societal codes such as ethics and laws seem to have the same view of homosexuality.  And J, to me that says a lot.  I mean, that fact baits an argument for traditional marriage outside the boundaries of religions, almost as a universal law.  And that's my thing.  If two men want to be together cool but you can't call it marriage.  Call it civil union or something else.  No one has the right to force a redefinition of such a global institution.

I don’t know that commonality with other religious text and rules is really significant. Likewise Omar’s question about the Koran and Muslim. There are many “Koran-inspired” laws in these countries that you would find abhorrent. These societies use the Koran to codify honour killings and the general subjugation of women. The definition of cherry-picking would be to say that they are right about how they view gays but they wrong about how they view women. Also, as I said before, those societies should be the best example of why religioous doctrine cannot be the pre-text for civil law in a country that preaches the separation of church and state.

The question of gays in society has to be considered in the context of the society and how the society in question has evolved. As much as I would like it to be the same everywhere I not suggesting same-sex marriage recognition in the Middle-East or even in Trinidad. In those societies people don’t even pay lip-service to gays being equal, as they do in the States. Same-sex marriage recognition would be a step to far.

Likewise this was not a debate to be held in the US 100 years ago and it will not even be an issue of contention in 200 years time. I don’t expect this to be the time in US history when all attitudes change. Slavery was ended in the mid-nineteenth century but Jim Crow wasn’t ended for a hundred years and even now we still dealing with the stigma of racism in society.

We have a society that has come a a long way on homosexuality. From being a criminal act that was prosecuted, to a dirty little secret, to a taboo act, to something that we grudgingly accept, to something that we now claim is an accepted way of life not subject to discrimination.

I honestly think that a lot of the talk about “having no problem with gays” or “fine with it as long as it is not in my face/backyard/family” is an indication that huge sections of the population still do not view gays as equals. I understand that but even that is progress. The fact that people feel the need to be politically correct and socially sensitive about the way they describe gays is progress to equality. Recognition of same-sex marriage is a big step.

The good and bad thing about the US is the geographic and demographic diversity. Over time this will change because technology and travel will make the country more homogeneous. Currently there are only sections of the country that have adopted same-sex marriage laws within the last 20 years. We have gay co-workers, gay teachers, families with gay parents and kids, whether by adoption or surrogate, that are full contributing members of society sharing the backyards, living-rooms and classrooms with heterosexual adults and kids (the horror). Time will be enough to show that the effects of accepting people as equals in these states and the old ideas will continue to go away.
THE WARRIORS WILL NOT BE DENIED.

Offline dinho

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8591
  • Yesterday is Yesterday and Today is Today!
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1097 on: May 25, 2012, 07:24:52 AM »
Yes I see what you're saying.  And you are right that some/many people read the bible and interpret it how they see it.  But remember there is interpretation and translation.  My points were to translation.  That means that there is no wriggling out of what was really written in the Greek and Hebrew about homosexuality in the bible.  The translation is solid.  So regarding that, there is no room for interpretation.   The big idea is corroborated by various writers over time.   

As it relates to the bible and society, it's a fair question.  I don't have any push back on that.  However, I would say that based on Daft's post, as I assumed, many Holy books which have become foundations of societal codes such as ethics and laws seem to have the same view of homosexuality.  And J, to me that says a lot.  I mean, that fact baits an argument for traditional marriage outside the boundaries of religions, almost as a universal law.  And that's my thing.  If two men want to be together cool but you can't call it marriage.  Call it civil union or something else.  No one has the right to force a redefinition of such a global institution.

I don’t know that commonality with other religious text and rules is really significant. Likewise Omar’s question about the Koran and Muslim. There are many “Koran-inspired” laws in these countries that you would find abhorrent. These societies use the Koran to codify honour killings and the general subjugation of women. The definition of cherry-picking would be to say that they are right about how they view gays but they wrong about how they view women. Also, as I said before, those societies should be the best example of why religioous doctrine cannot be the pre-text for civil law in a country that preaches the separation of church and state.

The question of gays in society has to be considered in the context of the society and how the society in question has evolved. As much as I would like it to be the same everywhere I not suggesting same-sex marriage recognition in the Middle-East or even in Trinidad. In those societies people don’t even pay lip-service to gays being equal, as they do in the States. Same-sex marriage recognition would be a step to far.

Likewise this was not a debate to be held in the US 100 years ago and it will not even be an issue of contention in 200 years time. I don’t expect this to be the time in US history when all attitudes change. Slavery was ended in the mid-nineteenth century but Jim Crow wasn’t ended for a hundred years and even now we still dealing with the stigma of racism in society.

We have a society that has come a a long way on homosexuality. From being a criminal act that was prosecuted, to a dirty little secret, to a taboo act, to something that we grudgingly accept, to something that we now claim is an accepted way of life not subject to discrimination.

I honestly think that a lot of the talk about “having no problem with gays” or “fine with it as long as it is not in my face/backyard/family” is an indication that huge sections of the population still do not view gays as equals. I understand that but even that is progress. The fact that people feel the need to be politically correct and socially sensitive about the way they describe gays is progress to equality. Recognition of same-sex marriage is a big step.

The good and bad thing about the US is the geographic and demographic diversity. Over time this will change because technology and travel will make the country more homogeneous. Currently there are only sections of the country that have adopted same-sex marriage laws within the last 20 years. We have gay co-workers, gay teachers, families with gay parents and kids, whether by adoption or surrogate, that are full contributing members of society sharing the backyards, living-rooms and classrooms with heterosexual adults and kids (the horror). Time will be enough to show that the effects of accepting people as equals in these states and the old ideas will continue to go away.


good post. :thumbsup:
         

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1098 on: May 25, 2012, 07:41:01 AM »
What about de reference to gays with Sodom and Gomorrah? These were two cities which had it good but their citizens turn to bullerman ways. God single them out for punishment specifically for this.

I claiming that the orthodox christian stance is unequivocally NOT in support of gay marriage. But the way religion is today, is by choice. There will always be some church or reverend that ready to try a ting and introduce a heterodoxy. E.g. Rev. Wright - obuma's inconvenient pastor.

Speaking for myself, the evidence in the Bible seem clear enough for me. Everyone have their own standard.

But I get the feeling, with obuma pushing this unimportant issue to the fore in an attempt to find a wedge issue, that gays are looking to (a) the state and (b) the religious to support this experiment. Some people not willing to do this and rightly so. I doh know why Obuma care so much about this trivial :bs: unimportant issue - is he going to marry some gays or come out as a gay himself? Is he speaking on behalf of his religion, now that he done break with Rev. Wright? Steups.

Anyway, gays can always find some minister to dignify their marriage and they can hire lobbyists like everyone else. That's as much as they should expect. Do not expect endorsement from a lot of christians.

Obuma should send a gay diplomat to saudi arabia and see how that go over.


Again, Sodom is another one of those stores that is so often used to support the stance against homosexuality.

It begins in Genesis 18:1 and concludes 19:38. Go read it again.  It involves a Lot (pun intended) more about 'homosexuality' per se. It is about a weak God who allows himself to negotiated down from destroying Sodom to finding 10 righteous people. This God even has to send his emissaries to check things out. This is not the type of all knowing God that I believe in. Anyways, the travelers back in these times, if not afforded hospitality by the locals, became the victims of ribald play  - they were forced to play the role of a woman in a sexually abusive act.  That is NOT homosexuality - that is just plain sexual abuse and rape and control.  The story goes on and Lot rescues a couple of travelers from this abuse but cannot appease the crowd. So he offers the crown his virgin daughters to do as they please. Again consistent with the time - women are property.

Sodom was ultimately destroy, not because of homosexuality, but because of non-righteous people.  People who had no respect for each other or strangers.

Many scholars support this notion.  Here is the problem

"Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today’s society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term."


Because of inexact translations, the Bible can be used to argue for or against a myriad of moral behaviours.  It all depends on what argument supports your personal moral beliefs.

To conclude: that is why I do not accept bible-based arguments to support a position. Rather, I accept the Bible as a guide to better understand my quest for spirituality.
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline pecan

  • Steups ...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 6855
  • Billy Goats Gruff
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1099 on: May 25, 2012, 07:56:42 AM »


Again, please do not misconstrue my argument, because you still seem to missing the point.

.
.

From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.

Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.

Just my two cents.

You and I will have to agree to disagree.

I don't think I am missing your point. Here is what I think you are saying

1) Your primary argument against same-sex unions is based on 'natural laws' and the role of sex in human procreation. Yet your opening salvo in this recent debate was an authoritative statement on God's law regarding homosexuality,  here is what you said which much authority and if this is not a Bible-based argument against homosexuality, I don't know what is ...

Well, just so that there is no confusion on the Eternal Creator's stance on homosexual unions:

Leviticus 18 (excerpt)
.
.
.

Yahwah (The Hebrew name for God) is fairly unequivocal on this point. I will never condemn a homosexual as it is not an easy lifestyle and I cannot imagine anyone deciding to practice this lifestyle by choice. However, if one were to believe the Bible, it is clear on this point.



But you claim this was just a quote to illustrate God's position (in your response to Bakes). So for the sake of argument, I will accept that and go back to the 'reproductive' based argument.

I agree that sex is the basic mechanism for procreation. What I disagree with is your conclusion that because same-sex unions cannot beget offspring (my words), they are unnatural.  I simply disagree with this conclusion.  There are many hetero-based unions that cannot produce off-spring. So by extension, your argument about procreation should exclude the validity of the relationships and I just cannot buy that.

You have not convinced me nor I, you. So we go leave it at that ...  :beermug:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Offline kaliman2006

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1100 on: May 25, 2012, 12:02:04 PM »


Again, please do not misconstrue my argument, because you still seem to missing the point.

.
.

From my perspective (which is that of a believer), our bodies have been created by an Infinite Intelligence, a.k.a Yahwah, God, Allah, etc. Thus, all of our bodily functions and process are as a result of this Divine function. For me, sex is a beautiful gift bestowed on humanity by this Creator for the primary purpose of reproduction. You are right that one should not take the bible literally, which is why I have not drawn heavily on biblical references in my debate. The Eternal Creator is bigger than any book or temple.

Sex's function has never changed because the Eternal Creator changes not; it is we (i.e. humanity) who have changed.

Just my two cents.

You and I will have to agree to disagree.

I don't think I am missing your point. Here is what I think you are saying

1) Your primary argument against same-sex unions is based on 'natural laws' and the role of sex in human procreation. Yet your opening salvo in this recent debate was an authoritative statement on God's law regarding homosexuality,  here is what you said which much authority and if this is not a Bible-based argument against homosexuality, I don't know what is ...

Well, just so that there is no confusion on the Eternal Creator's stance on homosexual unions:

Leviticus 18 (excerpt)
.
.
.

Yahwah (The Hebrew name for God) is fairly unequivocal on this point. I will never condemn a homosexual as it is not an easy lifestyle and I cannot imagine anyone deciding to practice this lifestyle by choice. However, if one were to believe the Bible, it is clear on this point.



But you claim this was just a quote to illustrate God's position (in your response to Bakes). So for the sake of argument, I will accept that and go back to the 'reproductive' based argument.

I agree that sex is the basic mechanism for procreation. What I disagree with is your conclusion that because same-sex unions cannot beget offspring (my words), they are unnatural.  I simply disagree with this conclusion.  There are many hetero-based unions that cannot produce off-spring. So by extension, your argument about procreation should exclude the validity of the relationships and I just cannot buy that.

You have not convinced me nor I, you. So we go leave it at that ...  :beermug:



You still are missing the point, because most people reduce the Eternal Creator to a book, which goes against logic. The Bible or Torah is mainly a record of various ancient cultures and their experience of the Almighty. The Almighty is bigger than any book or physical structure (i.e. Church). When humanity was created, there was no bible, yet there were always natural laws and physical laws. That is what I have been trying to impress upon you during our exchange. Trying to typecast me into some religious role illustrates that you still fail to see where I coming from.

As for my quotation of scripture, it was originally to provide evidence of references in the Bible to homosexuality, because that was the original point made. That was what my opening "salvo" was about. Also, you failed to to highlight the part of my post where I said "if one were to believe the Bible it is clear on this point" Thus, I did not cite the bible as the ultimate authority; rather I was providing a cultural perspective (i.e. Christian, which I grew up as, but am not)

As for the hetero unions that do not produce offspring, then in essence either something is wrong (the man or the woman is infertile) or the couple is aged. In the first case, there is an unnatural element because disease is present (i.e. infertility). In the second, the couple may have aged beyond the optimal age for childbearing.

 The natural human condition is to be healthy. I will even extend my argument further and say that being overweight is also not natural because it upsets the body's natural equilibrium and brings with it the risk of disease. But, that is tangential to the main argument. My point is any activity that does not fulfill its original function as I have repeated ad nauseum, is unnatural, homosexuality included.

If you disagree with my conclusion, then I respect that, but please do not misrepresent where I am coming from.   :beermug:

« Last Edit: Today at 12:00:44 PM by kaliman2006 »

Offline Touches

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
  • Trow wine on she...
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1101 on: May 25, 2012, 12:08:46 PM »
Hear d real scene...

Let the gays Marry legally...go into the district office/court house/vegas wherever and get the paperwork done. Allow them same rights legally and let them be happy.

But if they want to go to a church/mosque or other religious institution it is up to the priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/pundit etc...to do it and give his blessing.

If the "Holy Authority" don't do it and you can't have your ceremony ...say ok and press and go to a "denomination" that will welcome you with open arms and accept your same sex union as marriage.

That is the simplest and easiest way for everybody to be happy.

But what go happen is...the rejected gay couple go turn around "pun intended" and sue the damn church for discrimination.

There is no winner here...somebody have to dig a horrors and feel the hurt...but it ent sunshine and rainbow time just yet. Even though they looking at the forecast and the weatherman saying good weather on the horizon.

 

« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 12:10:36 PM by Touches »


A for apple, B for Bat, C for yuhself!

Offline kicker

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1102 on: May 25, 2012, 02:54:24 PM »
Hear d real scene...

Let the gays Marry legally...go into the district office/court house/vegas wherever and get the paperwork done. Allow them same rights legally and let them be happy.

But if they want to go to a church/mosque or other religious institution it is up to the priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/pundit etc...to do it and give his blessing.

If the "Holy Authority" don't do it and you can't have your ceremony ...say ok and press and go to a "denomination" that will welcome you with open arms and accept your same sex union as marriage.

That is the simplest and easiest way for everybody to be happy.

But what go happen is...the rejected gay couple go turn around "pun intended" and sue the damn church for discrimination.

There is no winner here...somebody have to dig a horrors and feel the hurt...but it ent sunshine and rainbow time just yet. Even though they looking at the forecast and the weatherman saying good weather on the horizon.

Nah Damian - I think that's a misconception.  Gays seeking marriage and marital rights are not fighting for acceptance by any church and are not trying to force any particular religious institution to bless their marriage (at least not that I'm aware of) ...
Live life 90 minutes at a time....Football is life.......

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1103 on: May 25, 2012, 03:30:16 PM »
Hear d real scene...

Let the gays Marry legally...go into the district office/court house/vegas wherever and get the paperwork done. Allow them same rights legally and let them be happy.

But if they want to go to a church/mosque or other religious institution it is up to the priest/rabbi/pastor/imam/pundit etc...to do it and give his blessing.

If the "Holy Authority" don't do it and you can't have your ceremony ...say ok and press and go to a "denomination" that will welcome you with open arms and accept your same sex union as marriage.

That is the simplest and easiest way for everybody to be happy.

But what go happen is...the rejected gay couple go turn around "pun intended" and sue the damn church for discrimination.

There is no winner here...somebody have to dig a horrors and feel the hurt...but it ent sunshine and rainbow time just yet. Even though they looking at the forecast and the weatherman saying good weather on the horizon.

 



Doh get carried away with de speculation... Churches are allowed to discriminate in how they interpret and apply their religious tenets.  This is the gist behind "separation of church and state"... the state can't tell people how to worship, or IF to worship at all. 

Everything else you saying is precisely what the 'gay marriage' talk (here in the US) is about.  Nobody is saying "force the church and them to marry them"... but rather "let them go before the JP, or down to City Hall and get married, with the same rights and protections, just as heterosexual couples."

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18631
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1104 on: May 25, 2012, 03:38:57 PM »
It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term."

Correct me if I am wrong. Is it true that at those time Greek was the world language, as is English in the 20th and 21st century.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1105 on: May 26, 2012, 11:24:38 AM »
What about de reference to gays with Sodom and Gomorrah? These were two cities which had it good but their citizens turn to bullerman ways. God single them out for punishment specifically for this.

I claiming that the orthodox christian stance is unequivocally NOT in support of gay marriage. But the way religion is today, is by choice. There will always be some church or reverend that ready to try a ting and introduce a heterodoxy. E.g. Rev. Wright - obuma's inconvenient pastor.

Speaking for myself, the evidence in the Bible seem clear enough for me. Everyone have their own standard.

But I get the feeling, with obuma pushing this unimportant issue to the fore in an attempt to find a wedge issue, that gays are looking to (a) the state and (b) the religious to support this experiment. Some people not willing to do this and rightly so. I doh know why Obuma care so much about this trivial :bs: unimportant issue - is he going to marry some gays or come out as a gay himself? Is he speaking on behalf of his religion, now that he done break with Rev. Wright? Steups.

Anyway, gays can always find some minister to dignify their marriage and they can hire lobbyists like everyone else. That's as much as they should expect. Do not expect endorsement from a lot of christians.

Obuma should send a gay diplomat to saudi arabia and see how that go over.


Again, Sodom is another one of those stores that is so often used to support the stance against homosexuality.

It begins in Genesis 18:1 and concludes 19:38. Go read it again.  It involves a Lot (pun intended) more about 'homosexuality' per se. It is about a weak God who allows himself to negotiated down from destroying Sodom to finding 10 righteous people. This God even has to send his emissaries to check things out. This is not the type of all knowing God that I believe in. Anyways, the travelers back in these times, if not afforded hospitality by the locals, became the victims of ribald play  - they were forced to play the role of a woman in a sexually abusive act.  That is NOT homosexuality - that is just plain sexual abuse and rape and control.  The story goes on and Lot rescues a couple of travelers from this abuse but cannot appease the crowd. So he offers the crown his virgin daughters to do as they please. Again consistent with the time - women are property.

Sodom was ultimately destroy, not because of homosexuality, but because of non-righteous people.  People who had no respect for each other or strangers.

Many scholars support this notion.  Here is the problem

"Each Bible translation reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today’s society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that closely matches a Hebrew or Greek term."


Because of inexact translations, the Bible can be used to argue for or against a myriad of moral behaviours.  It all depends on what argument supports your personal moral beliefs.

To conclude: that is why I do not accept bible-based arguments to support a position. Rather, I accept the Bible as a guide to better understand my quest for spirituality.

pecan, ah feel this is word games yuh playing. ah mean, even today convicts playing the same game; how on the inside they on the "down low" but dey playing this ent de same as "homosexual". is de same kind of sophistry. if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. (aside: the meaning of sodomite - derived from sodom - come to mean precisely the kind of homosexuality yuh denying it mean.)

my point is, the tale of sodom and gomorrah can reasonably be interpreted as punishment for homosexuality. yes, the interpretation you offer may sway some but yuh cyah deny the interpretation i'm offering is not unreasonable.

your conclusion seem to leave you with the task of finding evidence of things that are mystical and spiritual outside of the Bible. if you looking to History, Science, Mother Nature, etc. , that seem at odds with the essential truth of the Revealed Word. that is fine, but then your interpretation is not really christian or biblical but rather a secular one isn't it.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1106 on: May 26, 2012, 01:32:20 PM »
my point is, the tale of sodom and gomorrah can reasonably be interpreted as punishment for homosexuality. yes, the interpretation you offer may sway some but yuh cyah deny the interpretation i'm offering is not unreasonable.

The Bible specifically says that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because Lot couldn't find 10 righteous people.  I think God is sufficiently clear what he prohibits and what he punishes etc. elsewhere to conclude that homosexuality was hardly the reason for the destruction of the cities.  If that is why they were destroyed that would have been made much clearer... not this nebulous "10 righteous people" talk.  The position that the cities were destroyed due to homosexuality has gained strength largely due to the fact that we have now come to associate "sodomy" with homosexuality (i.e. with "buggery").

Offline Preacher

  • We doh smoke or drink or pop pills. When we light the mic is strickly jess skills
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1107 on: May 26, 2012, 08:32:00 PM »
my point is, the tale of sodom and gomorrah can reasonably be interpreted as punishment for homosexuality. yes, the interpretation you offer may sway some but yuh cyah deny the interpretation i'm offering is not unreasonable.

The Bible specifically says that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because Lot couldn't find 10 righteous people.  I think God is sufficiently clear what he prohibits and what he punishes etc. elsewhere to conclude that homosexuality was hardly the reason for the destruction of the cities.  If that is why they were destroyed that would have been made much clearer... not this nebulous "10 righteous people" talk.  The position that the cities were destroyed due to homosexuality has gained strength largely due to the fact that we have now come to associate "sodomy" with homosexuality (i.e. with "buggery").

No. 

Here is summery of the story. 
God tells Abraham he's going to destroy the city.  Because the cities in God's view was overly wicked.  Abraham ask God to chill if 50 righteous people were found.  He couldn't find 50.  Abraham break God down to 10 righteous people.  He couldn't find 10.  So God said the city is gonna bun.  I'll send 2 messengers (Angels) to warn your cousin Lot so they could get out.

God says the city is going to be destroyed because it's wicked and then the story proceeds to point out what really pissed God off to the point of destroying the city.  What brought God's wrath. 

The messengers reached Lot's home and told him what God was planning to do and that he should leave immediately.  Some men notice that new comers were staying at Lot's house.  So they asked Lot to bring the men outside so they could rape them.   After a while it became a mob.   Lot, trying to calm them down and even offered his daughters, which i believed were virgins.  Nah, they want Lot's guests.  An altercation happen at the door and the Angels intervened and blinded the mob.  THEY STILL DID NOT STOP.  They crawled around trying to find the door knob.  Even if they had a unique supernatural experience they still pressed forward in blindness hoping to find two new bamsee to rape.  I don't want to imagine what them lil children had to endure.  That's why those cities were punished. 

Bakes you need to just read the text bro.  Absolutely nothing about that story is nebulous. 
 
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 09:52:21 PM by Preacher »
In Everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1108 on: May 26, 2012, 10:30:32 PM »
No. 

Here is summery of the story. 
God tells Abraham he's going to destroy the city.  Because the cities in God's view was overly wicked.  Abraham ask God to chill if 50 righteous people were found.  He couldn't find 50.  Abraham break God down to 10 righteous people.  He couldn't find 10.  So God said the city is gonna bun.  I'll send 2 messengers (Angels) to warn your cousin Lot so they could get out.

God says the city is going to be destroyed because it's wicked and then the story proceeds to point out what really pissed God off to the point of destroying the city.  What brought God's wrath. 

The messengers reached Lot's home and told him what God was planning to do and that he should leave immediately.  Some men notice that knew comers were staying at Lot's house.  So they asked Lot to bring the men outside so they could rape them.   After a while it became a mob.   Lot, trying to calm them down and even offered his daughters, which i believed were virgin.  Nah, they want Lot's guests.  And altercation happen at the door and the Angels intervened and blinded the mob.  THEY STILL DID NOT STOP.  The crawled around trying to find the door knob.  Even if they had a unique supernatural experience they still pressed forward in blindness hoping to find two new bamsee to rape.  I don't want to imagine what them lil children had to endure.  That's why those cities were punished. 

Bakes you need to just read the text bro.  Absolutely nothing about that story is nebulous. 
 

Thanks eh... but that is YOUR interpretation of "what really pissed God off."  I dunno if because yuh name is "Preacher" yuh feel your understanding of the Bible is better than mine so that you feel yuh correcting me by telling me "No." lol.

Quote
Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous

My take: The report God was getting from SnG was so egregious that he sent his emissaries to check on it.

Gen 18:21   that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."


Gen 18:22   The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [fn]


Gen 18:23   Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?


Gen 18:24   What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [fn] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?

The whole point was to try and spare the city for the sake of the righteous who lived there.

Gen 18:25   Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [fn] of all the earth do right?"


Gen 18:26   The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."


Gen 18:27   Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes,


Gen 18:28   what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."


Gen 18:29   Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."


Gen 18:30   Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."


Gen 18:31   Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."


Gen 18:32   Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."


Gen 18:33   When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Again, it really didn't matter the number, the point was finding righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah.  We never hear the details of "the outcry", but obviously it was troubling enough that God had already set his mind to destroying the cities.

Now chapter 19, the incident which according to you "really pissed God off". 

Quote
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.


Gen 19:2   "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."


Gen 19:3   But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.


Gen 19:4   Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.


Gen 19:5   They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them
."


Gen 19:6   Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him


Gen 19:7   and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.


Gen 19:8   Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."


Gen 19:9   "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.


Gen 19:10   But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.


Gen 19:11   Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.


Gen 19:12   The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,


Gen 19:13   because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

They came to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah even before this "rape" incident you claiming as the real cause for its destruction.

Gen 19:14   So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [fn] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.


Gen 19:15   With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."


Gen 19:16   When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them.


Gen 19:17   As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"


Gen 19:18   But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, [fn] please!


Gen 19:19   Your [fn] servant has found favor in your [fn] eyes, and you [fn] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die.


Gen 19:20   Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it--it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."


Gen 19:21   He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of.


Gen 19:22   But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. [fn])


Gen 19:23   By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land.


Gen 19:24   Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.

Gen 19:25   Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.

Your interpretation is that God was already angry, but not as angry as after this incident.  There is nothing in the account that says he became "really pissed off" after this... or that he became any angrier.  Again, God ent schupid... God knew even before all the talk of 50 and 45 and 30 and 10 righteous people that it didn't have enough righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah to spare the city.  The only righteous ones were Lot and his children and even them wasn't that "righteous" (more on that in a bit).

Destruction of the cities was preordained before the two angels set foot in front of Lot house.  It was the "wickedness" of the people, the "outcry" that reached God's ears that sealed their destruction.  The bible isn't clear on what these misdeeds are but there are clues elsewhere.  Funny enough as I was typing this I decided to do a Google search to find the biblical passages alluding to the "sins"... and came upon this:

Quote
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God's judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis 18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing ("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already been going up to God for some time.[5]

Here's the link... interesting read, which again I discovered after posting what I just typed above... clearly the author and I are on the same page where this "rapacious attempt" is concerned.  Now the author/s go on to make a very logical and well thought out argument that the ultimate sin was the homosexuality of the men of the cities (not just this one rape attempt, but an on-going pattern of homosexual activity).  They cite Ezekiel:

Quote
Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.[8] Therefore I removed them when I saw it."

According to the author/s these "other" sins were minor compared to the rampant homosexuality, I don't know.  There are counter-arguments cited in the discussion (from the link I provide above) that I find persuasive as well, which suggests it had little, if anything to do with homosexuality.  Even though I don't fully agree with what Stand to Reason has to say on this... I find the discussion fair and balanced, unlike so much talk here on SW.net and elsewhere.  As they said in the STR link "People find what they want in the Bible."

My "nebulous" comment relates to the designation of "righteous" from the discussion in Genesis 18 and 19, it isn't clear what it means => "nebulous". Ezekiel adds some context, but that context only cloudies the picture more, as it makes clear it's not all about homosexuality.

EDIT:

Ah nearly forget to come back to Lot and his children and they "righteousness"...  after the cities bun and they mother turn to salt, the older daughter conspire to badden Lot head and rape him.  Next morning she wasn't satisfied with that so she tell she younger sister to do the same.  Next thing yuh know both ah dem  get pregnant fuh dey father and make chirren (Moab being born to the older daughter) with him.

Nowhere does the Bible mention punishment for this nastiness... so interpreting the Bible literally then (as allyuh insist nah), it must be okay tuh have incestuous relations between father and daughter.... say nothing of it happening without consent, aka rape.  Rape and incest okay, but homosexuality not  ::)

My point isn't to argue for one or against the other... my point is that the 'truth' is a lot more nuanced than you Bible thumpers want to believe.  It is certainly more nuance than even I can comprehend... God hasn't revealed everything that's in his mind to us, so we shouldn't presume to stand in his place on moral issues.  Ultimate judgment is his and his alone.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 10:39:38 PM by Bakes »

Offline Preacher

  • We doh smoke or drink or pop pills. When we light the mic is strickly jess skills
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3389
    • View Profile
Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« Reply #1109 on: May 27, 2012, 02:10:05 PM »
The text is clear Bakes.  God had made up his mind that he was gonna destroy the city because it was wicked, as you read on in the story it shows the extent of their wickedness in God's mind.  Since He was the one that made the proclamation.   No one could imply that the text isn't referencing itself.  The text speaks for itself. 

As it relates to Lot the only reason for him being spared is one.  Abraham prayed for him and two.  He obviously feared God to some degree.  This is shown by how he 1. Honored the servants of God 2. Offered his daughters in their place 3. Was thankful for God's grace and mercy.

Righteousness does not mean that you are perfect.  It means a belief in God that submits your life to His decrees.  Scriptures says Abraham believed God and it was account to him as righteousness. 

Is God going to destroy a city unless He's pissed of?   I could say, unless you've uncured His wrath but the idea is the same.  How about this? The cities made God angry enough to destroy them and here is the account.  Your response pulling stuff from all over the place.  Again you don't seem to think that the scriptures are clear as it relates to God's mind on this issue.  So when "people like me" quote it, somehow we are making up our own interpretation.   Was God angry with the cities?  Did God destroy the cities?  What is the written account?   I'm not the one inventing excuses for the scriptures to not mean what it means. 

« Last Edit: May 27, 2012, 02:12:18 PM by Preacher »
In Everything give thanks for this is the will of God concerning you.

 

1]; } ?>