Reply With Quote
Wow- I guess they forgot to tell me this in church.According to religious folk, being gay is punishable by death!
Uhm... how? If you acknowledge that marriage has nothing to do with sex, and your problem is with the 'deviancy' that sexual sex is, then why do you care if they get married?Another confused humanoid. You literally disagreed and agreed with me in the same quote.
Wow- I guess they forgot to tell me this in church.According to religious folk, being gay is punishable by death!
you find yourself a fine representation of the old chivalrous tradition do you? saving the world from the moral damnation of sexual intercourse?
Didn't god also say anyone who works on Saturday should be put to death?
This has not been a good thread for you, so I have to ask, are you being sarcastic here?
Do I need to point out the irony in this post?
What I'm asking is are you claiming the fact that 40 countries punish sexuality by death is evidence that heterosexual marriage is the cornerstone of sane societies?
Holy I just realized lakaluva is doing a bit. This whole time. Well done.
Didn't god also say one should be put to death for eating blood sausage?
Yeah, including all those sane societies who execute gays.No, I was replying to ploto who claims to be a religious person but doesnt know that his God condemns sexuality. You dont need religion to understand that marriage is the cornerstone of any sane society... thats between man and woman slick.
Good take.
Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanc y of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Everyone should read this.
I made point number 3 about 10 times in this thread and the only response I ever got was the ol' "slippery slope"
Great points BTW
The woman's complaint is that the children shouldn't be taught adult issues while they are still young children. That has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is just spun that way. If she doesn't want children dealing with adult issues, then they shouldn't be reading stories about heterosexual marriage either, for example. The issue should be taken with the level of maturity needed to understand the subject matter, not with trying to fight sexuality. They wouldn't want a story about heterosexual sex read to a 2nd grade class. And that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, instead it has to do with at what age should children begin learning about such things.
I understood her reasoning at the end of the video entirely, then almost laughed at the words on the screen at the end. It was such a huge jump. What does protecting childhood innocence have to do with stopping gay people from getting married?
phobes are using this situation as an excuse to get rid of all the sexuality that they can. Which is stupid.
You can call me childish, lakaluva. But at least I'm not a moronic bigot.
When did I say I liked everything? You assume that after 1 post in this thread?
Since when does wanting all people to be treated as equals in this country mean that I like them all? Do I like all white people? Do I like all black people? Mexican people? No, but I don't deserve to be treated any worse or better than them.
A woman's vagina is made to be pounded? Of course, you mean only after marriage and strictly for procreational reasons, right?
Being gay isn't defined by the kind of sex you have. It's defined by the gender you look for in a partner. Because marriage is about more than just sex, right lakaluva?
Or does the sanc y of marriage mean that only a vagina is allowed to be "pounded"?
Besides, vaginas can have problems related to sex, too. Have you heard of a urinary tract infection?
Guess some people can't understand sarcasm.
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not.
So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Being gay isn't immoral.
Just saw that National Geographical clip about there being five recognized genders in an area of Indonesia. What impressed me was how laid back everyone was about it. That's what I want for us here in the good ol' USA.
You didn't expound so your point is left to interpretation.
We can gather from the "words" of Christ that; sexual immorality is sin, and that we are to refrain from such sin (all sin).
That's a nice little story, but I don't believe I've read a version of the Bible that doesn't issue a caveat at the end of this particular story, To wit: It's not an original manuscript, it was not part of the Gospel of John.
My Favorite Passage that’s Not in the Bible
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.
One hundred and forty years ago, conservative biblical scholar and Dean of Canterbury, Henry Alford, advocated a new translation to replace the King James Bible. One of his reasons was the inferior textual basis of the KJV. Alford argued that “a translator of Holy Scripture must be…ready to sacrifice the choicest text, and the plainest proof of doctrine, if the words are not those of what he is constrained in his conscience to receive as God’s testimony.” He was speaking about the Trinitarian formula found in the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7–8. Twenty years later, two Cambridge scholars came to the firm conclusion that John 7:53–8:11 also was not part of the original text of scripture. But Westcott and Hort’s view has not had nearly the impact that Alford’s did.
For a long time, biblical scholars have recognized the poor textual credentials of the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11). The evidence against its authenticity is overwhelming: The earliest manuscripts with substantial portions of John’s Gospel (P66 and P75) lack these verses. They skip from John 7:52 to 8:12. The oldest large codices of the Bible also lack these verses: codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both from the fourth century, are normally considered to be the most important biblical manuscripts of the NT extant today. Neither of them has these verses. Codex Alexandrinus, from the fifth century, lacks several leaves in the middle of John. But because of the consistency of the letter size, width of lines, and lines per page, the evidence is conclusive that this manuscript also lacked the pericope adulterae. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, also from the fifth century, apparently lacked these verses as well (it is similar to Alexandrinus in that some leaves are missing). The earliest extant manuscript to have these verses is codex Bezae, an eccentric text once in the possession of Theodore Beza. He gave this manuscript to the University of Cambridge in 1581 as a gift, telling the school that he was confident that the scholars there would be able to figure out its significance. He washed his hands of the do ent. Bezae is indeed the most eccentric NT manuscript extant today, yet it is the chief representative of the Western text-type (the text-form that became dominant in Rome and the Latin West).
When P66, P75, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus agree, their combined testimony is overwhelmingly strong that a particular reading is not authentic. But it is not only the early Greek manuscripts that lack this text. The great majority of Greek manuscripts through the first eight centuries lack this pericope. And except for Bezae (or codex D), virtually all of the most important Greek witnesses through the first eight centuries do not have the verses. Of the three most important early versions of the New Testament (Coptic, Latin, Syriac), two of them lack the story in their earliest and best witnesses. The Latin alone has the story in its best early witnesses.
Even patristic writers seemed to overlook this text. Bruce Metzger, arguably the greatest textual critic of the twentieth century, argued that “No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it” (Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., loc. cit.).
It is an important point to note that although the story of the woman caught in adultery is found in most of our printed Bibles today, the evidence suggests that the majority of Bibles during the first eight centuries of the Christian faith did not contain the story. Externally, most scholars would say that the evidence for it not being an authentic part of John’s Gospel is rock solid.
(There's much more at the original link for those that may be interested)
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5987
We gone over this many times, but here's an over simplification of Gods view on sexuality, adultery, theft, murder, etc...
We are born sinners.
Sin separates us from God.
God sent Jesus Christ into the World to separate man from sin.
If you accept the Christ as your Saviour, that is, acknowledge that he died for the sin of man, that separation is then bridged, and eternity with God is achieved.
It's simple, and I'm not sure why more Christians don't come out and call it what it is, it seems as if many believe it to be "in vogue" to have one foot in the secular world and one foot in Christ's Kingdom, this lukewarmness equates to being of the secular World.
There are good friendships with those who are or are not Christians, but there is no spiritual affinity between the two.
That gap is bridged, and affinity realized only when Christ is pronounced as Saviour and Lord.
It's really quite a good deal.
Have to cut my thoughts short, as once again, work calls.
What, exactly, does religion have to do with Prop 8, again?
Oh...thats right, NOTHING.
Rock solid evidence isn't exactly the bible's strong suit.
The point is simple-- everyone sins. Period. And I know I have asked this a thousand times, but why the obsession with this particular one? I continue to believe that far more damage has been done by heterosexual adultery than by sexuality. Apparently, Christians can cheat and that is forgiven but not this- huh?
To be clear, this is a free country.
You want to vote with the Bible in your back pocket? Thats cool, fine.
You want to vote "yes" on Prop 8 because youre the bigot the Bible tells you to be about sexuality...thats cool too.
Moreover, even if youre not religious and the Bible means nothing to you, but youre just a phobe that hates things that arent like himself, welcome to America! Here is your vote!
Even further down the irony trail, you could feign the importance of the Bible in your life but just have a strange fascination with male anuses. You have a weird fetish wherein you post pictures of broken anal tracts as evidence against sexuality, although no one else ever thought to go to such lengths to argue their side because broken ass has nothing to do with this argument. But you, in your higher moral judgement, thought it best to introduce family values and possible sex education consequences for the youth of America as reason to vote "Yes" on Prop 8, then go about posting male anuses for anyone to see, yes there are 15 year olds on this board (few, but they are there).
So congratulations! You have a vote too!
But here is the rule....
When your opinion is crushed under the sheer weight of those who think youre an ignorant, hateful, small-minded ing phobe who must have serious daddy-issues to be posting broken male ass all over the internet in some weird attempt at changing the opinions of others, wherein the leap of logic required to understand how in your twisted view of things, a convincing argument starts and ends with the constant repi ion of the "Bible" and pics of broken male ass.
Not only are you weird and under su ion from this day forth to have those sort of things in your favorites list just waiting to bust out your fetishes at the very moment someone writes "Prop 8", but youre also a seriously disturbed and self-deluded person who couldnt define the word "irony" any better than he/she has in this thread.
Here is a tip for you, lakaluva...
Dont bring up the Bible as a source of criticism for sexuality. Yes it condemns it.
But more importantly its preaches tolerance and love. Especially for sinners.
Youre fall very short of your self-induced Christian goals. So keep on hating, keep on posting broken male ass and shut your ing mouth when Prop 8 is struck down by a VAST majority of the people in your state.
You had your vote, your say.....you lost, STFU from now on, k? Take your kids out of school if youre worried about what theyll learn in sex education, you coward. You should be teaching your kids about the world, not being worried about what bull theyll hear at school from some moronic teacher. Beyond that point, you just want more moral legislation to fit what your worldview tells you it should be, its just in this case it suits your Biblical side.
Always picking, always choosing. ing hypocrite, ing bigot....I hope you spend the rest of your life hating, its a fitting punishment that you waste this much time in your life trying to control things you were never meant to. Please, keep trying.....the gay sites are loving your subscription fees.
And if you choose to be that supporter of sexuality under the guise that you are progressive and cutting edge then here is your vote too.. and everything that comes along with that support -- funny how you like to call everyone a bigot when the biggest bigot you will ever meet is looking back at you in the mirror every morning. You are a bigot.
You must be stupid to think it doesn't matter that some teacher is telling my kids about sex - between a man and a woman and then with gay rights - about man and man - woman and woman and who knows where it will end... see the recent study about the increase in teen sexual activity and its link to the internet - sex and the city - TV shows with sexual natures ...
Idiot and a bigot
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
