Ban Gay Marriage? Why Not Ban Divorce Too?

[He who knows more than Nation]

Never said they were infallible, that's a strong choice of words. What's to misinterpret? It's pretty basic, in the Bible, the word of the Lord is spoken through the book. It says it's an abomination for a male to lay with a male like a female. How open is that to misinterpretation? Not much if any.I think you are arguing not that queering is a sin, but how socially acceptable it is. I'm arguing against the original thought that he stated in the bible that it has been misinterpreted that being gay is a sin. And what do priests molesting boys have to do with anything? They are sinning and they will rot in hell too, that's a moot point. There will always be rotten fucks in any type of group. Bin Laden hasn't led to the complete annihilation of the muslims, Hitler's abuse of his powers haven't detoured his German successors. There's always sin and not even the church is immune to that. But who better to interpret in the bible, a Franciscan monk who follows what the church has believed in since it's inception or "reliable news sources"? In judging whether or not the bible and God believe homosexuality to be a sin, the media has little to no word or valid opinion in the matter. If it is socially acceptable and the validity of gay marriage, yes. If homosexuality is a choice, yes. But those are points I wasn't arguing after my initial post. I was arguing, in jest, that it is indeed read in the bible that queering is a sin. And I can't see how it can be misinterpreted otherwise and I fail to see what "reliable news sources" matter or how rotten queer priests that sin change the validity of what the Church preaches and believes and how the bible has been interpreted for 2,000 years.

But, indeed, we are both steadfast in our personal beliefs and views on homosexuality and that debate does truly stop there. Neither of us are willing to budge and that's perfectly fair. But please don't gas my thoughts up and make me out to believe that I'm perfect and that everyone else is wrong. If I acted as that, I wouldn't have bothered defending myself or debating the issue. I'm far from perfect and hopefully I don't project that sort of aura. But I don't think I'm wrong in the fact that homosexuality is a sin when something so frank as

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them

is directly in the bible. That sounds fairly easy to interpret and not very agate to misinterpretation. I mean, what do you yourself take away from that? How is that debatable? And I feel slightly insulted that you call it a flawed interpretation at that. Doing that is calling the Church flawed in their interpretations and stating they've been flawed for over 2,000 years and no one short of the Pope himself is able to justly make that assumption with any sort of correctness.

Once again, I'm not arguing any of the merits of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, that's a dead horse. We will both stand by our beliefs and that is that. I'm just arguing that it is a sin and is so stated in the bible and I fail to understand how my interpretations of blunt language are flawed, especially if its what the church has taught since it's inception. Articles about gay animals and sinful queer priests that will rot in hell besides the other queers have no merit in this matter whatsoever. That's all I'm trying to say, Friends? K, loveya.

 

[shadow_man]

Who left the back door open for Dstebbins?

=)

 

[shadow_man]

It is spoken about in the bible in Romans, Genesis and in Jude, God destroys Sodom for "love of the strange flesh". I'm not apt enough in Biblical studies, but I know what I've been taught, by actual Fathers and actual biblical text and not "brainwashing" misinterpretations of the bible for convenience.



A bunch of gay animal stories? I fail to understand how animals that lack the dignity that humans have proves your assertions correct. The bible says what it says, I've heard it preached and it gets as simple as this:

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13

So umm, that basically refutes all your claims that queering isn't a sin. You can come back how ever you want, I really don't care. I'm also convinced you're Dstebbins, looking for some more validation that your sexuality is acceptable. Hey man, I really don't care. You have your views, and I have mine. You believe what you believe and I believe what has been preached and taught to me. Whatever makes you feel better about your lifestyle, fine. But only in your mind have you "proven me wrong", it's there in the bible and no matter how many gay animal articles you link to, you're wrong. It's a sin in the Lord's words.

Lol, your only refute is "gay animal stories" which was clearly addressing a different point. Also i clearly proven why Leviticus also does not condemn homosexuality, and it is evident that you could not refute a single one of my arguments for it =) Of course, you have proven me right, since all you have is pulling those two lines out of context ^_^

Also, this also shows that you are likely to be trolling, but i will show you why trolling fails on this subject.

For those of you that don't know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.

The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can't incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It's a win/win situation for us.

Remember, trolls can't win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

=)

 

[shadow_man]

Meh, I have no problem with gay people. I have problem with people who have their entire identity encompassed in their sexual orientation, and who have to constantly make the world and those around them aware of this sexual orientation, typically in an outlandish, flamboyant manner.

Most gay men i'm friends with lack the flamboyancy. In fact, if they didn't tell you, you would never have guessed they were gay.

 

[shadow_man]

Never said they were infallible, that's a strong choice of words. What's to misinterpret? It's pretty basic, in the Bible, the word of the Lord is spoken through the book. It says it's an abomination for a male to lay with a male like a female. How open is that to misinterpretation? Not much if any.I think you are arguing not that queering is a sin, but how socially acceptable it is. I'm arguing against the original thought that he stated in the bible that it has been misinterpreted that being gay is a sin. And what do priests molesting boys have to do with anything? They are sinning and they will rot in hell too, that's a moot point. There will always be rotten fucks in any type of group. Bin Laden hasn't led to the complete annihilation of the muslims, Hitler's abuse of his powers haven't detoured his German successors. There's always sin and not even the church is immune to that. But who better to interpret in the bible, a Franciscan monk who follows what the church has believed in since it's inception or "reliable news sources"? In judging whether or not the bible and God believe homosexuality to be a sin, the media has little to no word or valid opinion in the matter. If it is socially acceptable and the validity of gay marriage, yes. If homosexuality is a choice, yes. But those are points I wasn't arguing after my initial post. I was arguing, in jest, that it is indeed read in the bible that queering is a sin. And I can't see how it can be misinterpreted otherwise and I fail to see what "reliable news sources" matter or how rotten queer priests that sin change the validity of what the Church preaches and believes and how the bible has been interpreted for 2,000 years.

It is very open to misinterpretation when you ignore the fact that whenever abomination comes up in the Old Testament, it is affiliated with idolatry =) And you proved my point in your post right before this. You took two lines from Leviticus, and ignored the rest of it, which, my friend, is known as taking a passage out of context. Now the priests are sinning, you are correct, but not because they are homosexual, but because they are into pedophilia. Lol, and bringing up Hitler is just icing on the cake. When you can't refute my points, you bring up comparisons that aren't similar. You might as well start talking about Tiger Woods cheating on his wife, or why a 200 year old Ric Flair shouldn't be wrestling anymore. Lol, and as for the media comment, i didn't cite MTV as my source, or 4chan, i cited actual biblical scholars and historians who have done extensive studies regarding homosexuality and the Bible, and have provided a huge amount of evidence which you can't refute, other than bringing up Bin Laden and Hitler. I mean if they really are just "rotten" queer priests, i'm sure you can easily prove them wrong, hmm?

 

[shadow_man]

But I don't think I'm wrong in the fact that homosexuality is a sin when something so frank as is directly in the bible. That sounds fairly easy to interpret and not very agate to misinterpretation. I mean, what do you yourself take away from that? How is that debatable? And I feel slightly insulted that you call it a flawed interpretation at that. Doing that is calling the Church flawed in their interpretations and stating they've been flawed for over 2,000 years and no one short of the Pope himself is able to justly make that assumption with any sort of correctness.

Once again, I'm not arguing any of the merits of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, that's a dead horse. We will both stand by our beliefs and that is that. I'm just arguing that it is a sin and is so stated in the bible and I fail to understand how my interpretations of blunt language are flawed, especially if its what the church has taught since it's inception. Articles about gay animals and sinful queer priests that will rot in hell besides the other queers have no merit in this matter whatsoever. That's all I'm trying to say, Friends? K, loveya.

It's easily debatable because you are pulling one line of text and ignoring the rest of it. When you examine the rest of Leviticus, it is pretty clear that homosexuality is not a sin. The sites i provided and interpretation i posted above clearly proves that. To further show you are wrong, let's take the following example:

You read this in a book:

"That black guy is wrong"

Then you ignore the rest of the book. So by looking at this line, you think the person is wrong for being black. However, if you read the rest of the book, you find a completely different story:

"He murdered his wife"

Now you realize he was wrong not because he was black, but because he was a murderer.

That is exactly what is happening with that line you pulled out of context =)

Also, i wouldn't take the Popes words to heart. The guy does preach against condoms and the protection against AIDS in Africa, where even his own supporters looked at him family guy style with a wtf look on their face.

This shows you exactly why, my friend, your arguments fail as much as Carrie Prejeans tits. You try to take the Bible literally, selectively, and out of context, and can't refute any of my previous posts.

 

[shadow_man]

Even if Shadow Man is that smurf Dstebbins

Ohh, he thinks i'm some sort of previous poster. I just left a smiley face because i had no idea what he was talking about. No Enzo, i don't need a separate name to own you =)

 

[Quintastic One]

And I can't see how it can be misinterpreted otherwise and I fail to see what "reliable news sources" matter or how rotten queer priests that sin change the validity of what the Church preaches and believes and how the bible has been interpreted for 2,000 years.

But, indeed, we are both steadfast in our personal beliefs and views on homosexuality and that debate does truly stop there. Neither of us are willing to budge and that's perfectly fair. But please don't gas my thoughts up and make me out to believe that I'm perfect and that everyone else is wrong. If I acted as that, I wouldn't have bothered defending myself or debating the issue. I'm far from perfect and hopefully I don't project that sort of aura. But I don't think I'm wrong in the fact that homosexuality is a sin when something so frank as is directly in the bible. That sounds fairly easy to interpret and not very agate to misinterpretation. I mean, what do you yourself take away from that? How is that debatable?

As an example of my first post, lets look at Leviticus, which is commonly taken out of context.

Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.

That's what I mean by the misinterpretation of the text you refer to.

But yes, you'll always be the Don King to my Mike Tyson. Still waiting on those fight checks, yo. lol.

 

[monkeystyle]

What animals are these? Never heard of queer animals.

Now you have. And one thing that this illuminates is that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural. Look at it this way, God is responsible for the natural world right? And unless you're going to tell me that the Devil (please don't) is responsible for these animals actions then clearly it can only be part of what God intended, right? I mean, it's not like these animals have the intelligence to be able to decide this for themselves.

This will be the last thing I have to say about queering. About a month ago I attended a mission held by a Franciscan Monk covering the Last Four Things; death, judgment, heaven and hell. And no one here is going to tell me differently, this Father spent 20 plus years in Franciscan monasteries and so many years in Rome, so there isn't a single one of us that can even debate what he preached.

Yes I can, I can possibly win too. Why? Because my mind is open, if someone can prove to me that I am wrong I will turn around and say that I am wrong and will adopt the new information. If this guy is completely closed minded then he has already lost. When you lose your willingness to learn and open yourself up to new ideas you lump yourself in with the rest of the great unwashed masses.

First thing he said is that queering is a mortal sin, worse than murder.

Oh yes, that's entirely reasonable. Two guys buttfucking each other really compares to somebody brutally murdering another. Come on now, you're intelligent enough, turn your brain on and start using it.

Second, it's in the bible, the true bible, not the nonsensical King James version that has 13 books missing. Third, you do rot in hell for queering. And you should scorn the queers, just as you would the pagans, devil worshipers and non believers. And you should pray for them, but not have sympathy.

Pray for them... What a simperingly pathetic way of saying I hate you and everything you stand for.

I'm not saying this for the convenience of an argument, this is actual Church followed protocol and practiced since the Church was formed. So people shouldn't be bringing the biblical stuff into play because it's stated in the bible that it's a sin, that you will rot in hell and that marriage is between a man and a woman. I hate to be so closed minded to it, but after hearing it basically from the horses mouth, there really isn't any going back for me.

Did you ever play the game telephone when you were a kid? You know a bunch of kids sit in a circle and one comes up with a sentance and whispers it to the person beside him all the way around in a circle until it reaches the originator. Typically once it gets back to the originator the message is different than from what he started with.

I would suggest that you view your holy books in the same way. They've been passed down and translated so many times that it is impossible for there to have been no significant changes to the text. So it cannot be the "true" bible because if there was a true bible it would be the very first one written down.

 

[monkeystyle]

Can't help but feel that this thread needs this beat poem as well.

[YT]V0W7Jbc_Vhw[/YT]

 

[He who knows more than Nation]

I'm glad Pat, I have that effect on alot of people. I'm one fine piece of ass.

I had a really, really long response but eh, I said screw it. All I want to add is that shadowman continues to "own me" by claiming that I'm taking something out of context for convenience. Well the entire 18th chapter of Leviticus is God condemning all of these sexually immoral acts and telling Moses to tell the Israelites. Everything is covered from incest, beastiality and yes, homosexuality. So what's being taken out of context in a chapter that is nothing but the condemnation of everything listed? Is one debatable loose translation void the inclusion of homosexuality?

KJV: (King James Version, 1611): Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.

LB: (Living Bible, 1971): Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (Notice the clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians; lesbian behavior is entirely absent from the whole of Hebrew scriptures.)

NIV: (New International Version, 1973): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

MSG (The Message, 1993): Don’t have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.

NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (Again, a clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians.)

NET (New English Translation, 2005): You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

So many different revisions of the bible have translated it in basically the same words from so many various branches of the Church, is everyone wrong? It's overly likely that in a chapter where God rants about immoral sexual acts and their condemnation that homosexuality was there, loose translations to be taken into consideration. So how again am I taking something out of context when that's the entire subject of the chapter that I'm quoting? How is God himself condemning these acts not make it a sin and how do all of those various translations from various views from various branches of the Christian church not allude to it as homosexuality?

But yes, you'll always be the Don King to my Mike Tyson. Still waiting on those fight checks, yo. lol.

The meganess of your last fight caused incrediling expenses, the likes which have never been seen by human eyes. I promise, if you stick with me we will conquer the fight world with a machismoing that will be astoundable to even the Queen of England and Bill Gates. Only in America!

 

[shadow_man]

I'm glad Pat, I have that effect on alot of people. I'm one fine piece of ass.

I had a really, really long response but eh, I said screw it. All I want to add is that shadowman continues to "own me" by claiming that I'm taking something out of context for convenience. Well the entire 18th chapter of Leviticus is God condemning all of these sexually immoral acts and telling Moses to tell the Israelites. Everything is covered from incest, beastiality and yes, homosexuality. So what's being taken out of context in a chapter that is nothing but the condemnation of everything listed? Is one debatable loose translation void the inclusion of homosexuality?





So many different revisions of the bible have translated it in basically the same words from so many various branches of the Church, is everyone wrong? It's overly likely that in a chapter where God rants about immoral sexual acts and their condemnation that homosexuality was there, loose translations to be taken into consideration. So how again am I taking something out of context when that's the entire subject of the chapter that I'm quoting? How is God himself condemning these acts not make it a sin and how do all of those various translations from various views from various branches of the Christian church not allude to it as homosexuality?




The meganess of your last fight caused incrediling expenses, the likes which have never been seen by human eyes. I promise, if you stick with me we will conquer the fight world with a machismoing that will be astoundable to even the Queen of England and Bill Gates. Only in America!

When the effect you have on people is that they are laughing at you, rather than being riled up and angry, you are doing it (trolling) completely wrong =) You can rant on about Leviticus, but anyone who reads my interpretations i posted backed up by links with actual biblical scholars and historians can easily see that homosexuality was not being condemned, but it was the widespread idolatry during that time period. And the second part of your post is very easy to debunk. Even though there are many versions, all of them still point to the fact with the same evidence that idolatry was being condemned, not homosexuality. But the links i provided also take into account the historical times, during which it was well-known that people used idols to worship other Gods, which further confirms my point.

"The meganess of your last fight caused incrediling expenses, the likes which have never been seen by human eyes. I promise, if you stick with me we will conquer the fight world with a machismoing that will be astoundable to even the Queen of England and Bill Gates. Only in America!["

=) Thats 4chan trolling 101 right there, deliberate use of spelling errors. And why is it very weak? Because it's too obvious. When people know you are fishing for anger, you will get the opposite response, especially if your trolling is that bad ^_^

 

[shadow_man]

Well there's your problem sweetcheeks, you read the Bible!! Hellooooooo!

Lol, i hate to take shots at the Bible, but check this out:

Numbers 22:28-30: "28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" 29 And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!" 30 So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?" And he said, "No."

God's word, or a bad bootlegged copy of Shrek?

 

[shadow_man]

On a side note, the proposition to ban marriage will prove one thing. If all those people who passed prop 8 really care about the institution of marriage and what their Bible says, or if they passed it out of bigotry.

 

[Quintastic One]

Alright alright alright. To preserve the integrity of Serious Discussion I think it's time to get rid of the offensive and spamming posts in this thread. Sorry guys, you had a good run at least.