February 7, 200719 yr Author By your standards, I don't think anyone here is really qualified to argue and discuss this. You don't know what I, or anyone else's knowledge on this subject is. Just because you decide to showcase your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't mean everyone else isn't very knowledgeable. But in a sense you're right. Everyone is qualified to debate about whether or not they think it's wrong and why, but not many people are qualified to debate around the biological condition of homosexuality, because not many people here have very much knowledge on it. It's a battle of quoting other people without necessarily understanding very in depth what we're saying.
February 7, 200719 yr I know it says somthing against being homosexual. Im not a die hard christian so i dont really know where...get reading satenza. So you're basing your opinion on the fact "it says something in a book about it". You don't even know what it says, where it says anything just probably that your church deems in unacceptable because they have interpreted the bible in one way. Don't beleive every interpretation your church gives you and hold that to be your opinion too. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr Locke, I think his point is that just because the Bible says so, does not mean it is set in stone. Things can be changed. Maybe the verse about homosexuality is out of date now? Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!
February 7, 200719 yr Author Locke, I think his point is that just because the Bible says so, does not mean it is set in stone. Things can be changed. Maybe the verse about homosexuality is out of date now? I understand completely what his point is, and your post proves my point even further. You can speculate that the verse about homosexuality is out of date, and you can refer to other verses that are obviously not held by the Christian church anymore, but just because you make that speculation doesn't mean you have a clue as to why those verses are not taken literally, nor why the verses on homosexuality should or should not be taken literally now.
February 7, 200719 yr Locke are you talking about the society the Bible was written into and why they where acceptable then and not so much now? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr Author Locke are you talking about the society the Bible was written into and why they where acceptable then and not so much now? I'm speaking specifically to knowing the culture of the time the Bible was written, why certain parts of the Bible could be considered cultural, and why others could be considered universal statements. I'm not sure what you're saying in your post, but if you are asserting that homosexuality was not accepted in Biblical times when those verses were written (compared to now) you are horribly wrong.
February 7, 200719 yr I think i read homosexuality in those times was a common engagement in some circles. I'm not refering to the society that didn't accept it, but the Bible certainly does say things which would seem to condem homosexuality so i am refering to the Bible's opinion in general. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr Author I think i read homosexuality in those times was a common engagement in some circles. I'm not refering to the society that didn't accept it, but the Bible certainly does say things which would seem to condem homosexuality so i am refering to the Bible's opinion in general. I don't understand what your point would be then.
February 7, 200719 yr Just what we need, a gay bashing law that ALSO will cause more overpopulation :roll: way to go :evil:
February 7, 200719 yr I was saying the Bible was quicker to condem it back then because of the type of society they lived in. As in spiritual instead of scientific. so anything that was written as Gods word would be accepted a lot more than it would be today. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr Author I was saying the Bible was quicker to condem it back then because of the type of society they lived in. As in spiritual instead of scientific. That point assumes that homosexuality was condemned for societal reasons, and not because God wanted to universally condemn it. You don't know that.
February 7, 200719 yr It would make sense from a socialogical point of view. Anything to do with what God wants would have to be a guess whereas if we look at the society they lived in, and what they deemed acceptable it would give us a better idea as to why the bible condems it. The writers of the Bible may have condemed it because of what it did to familys, and saw it was more damging that good and assumed from that God thought of it as bad. Unless you take the Bible as the word of God written by him. You're right i don't know if God wished to condem it universaly despite of the society the people lived in. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr It would make sense from a socialogical point of view. Anything to do with what God wants would have to be a guess whereas if we look at the society they lived in, and what they deemed acceptable it would give us a better idea as to why the bible condems it. The writers of the Bible may have condemed it because of what it did to familys, and saw it was more damging that good and assumed from that God thought of it as bad. Unless you take the Bible as the word of God written by him. You're right i don't know if God wished to condem it universaly despite of the society the people lived in. I think it's because it wasn't prone to procreation, and back then they saw that as bad, they lived a harsh life, so procreating was a way to survive. It also states in Genesis Man is for Woman and Woman is for Man, and they saw it as going against God's wishes if it was Man Man or Woman Woman. Me doing staff.
February 7, 200719 yr Author It would make sense from a socialogical point of view. Anything to do with what God wants would have to be a guess whereas if we look at the society they lived in, and what they deemed acceptable it would give us a better idea as to why the bible condems it. The writers of the Bible may have condemed it because of what it did to familys, and saw it was more damging that good and assumed from that God thought of it as bad. Unless you take the Bible as the word of God written by him. You're right i don't know if God wished to condem it universaly despite of the society the people lived in. Homosexuality was condemned in parts of the Bible where it was the societal norm. I don't see how it would make sense from a sociological point of view. The best way to understand intent would be to see in what context the condemnation appears, which we could go into, but it seems that going that far is unnecessary because that is something to be sorted out in between two Christians. For a non-Christian, it doesn't matter. I think it's because it wasn't prone to procreation, and back then they saw that as bad, they lived a harsh life, so procreating was a way to survive. It also states in Genesis Man is for Woman and Woman is for Man, and they saw it as going against God's wishes if it was Man Man or Woman Woman. That's not even close to accurate. Some of the places in the Bible where homosexuality is condemned is found in parts referring to extremely wealthy and comfortable people. Once again, I refer you to what I said when you first tried to pretend like you know a good deal about the Bible. Your guesses should never be put off like they have any substantial weight to them at all.
February 7, 200719 yr I'd just like to add, Gay marriage bans are the stupidest laws created to date. They don't benefit anybody, in any way, shape, or form. All they do is give the religious order more power and allow them to say "haha! we rule over you!". Rules should be created to make things fair and equal, or make people happy. All this rule is going to do is make alot of people angry. Gay marriage bans are rediculous RANT PHASE DEACTIVATED :wink:
February 7, 200719 yr Wakka it's not a bill that expects to be passed it's one made to highlight how people could see the current law as being ilogical. One reason Gay people arn't allowed marrige is because the can't have children. So this says that opposite sex couples cant marry unless that plan on having children. If you disagree with this you are discriminating against either straight or gay couples. Which the law currently does. It's just to highlight this point to people. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr Wakka it's not a bill that expects to be passed it's one made to highlight how people could see the current law as being ilogical. One reason Gay people arn't allowed marrige is because the can't have children. So this says that opposite sex couples cant marry unless that plan on having children. If you disagree with this you are discriminating against either straight or gay couples. Which the law currently does. It's just to highlight this point to people.So people would be forced to have kids? that doesn't sound right to me. There are already too many kids in adoption homes, the last thing we need are more if people don't want them.
February 7, 200719 yr Author So people would be forced to have kids? that doesn't sound right to me. There are already too many kids in adoption homes, the last thing we need are more if people don't want them. They aren't actually trying to pass a law, they are trying to prove a point about anti-gay marriage legislation. That's why in the first post I said, "I don't like it when people play with the law just to prove a point."
February 7, 200719 yr So people would be forced to have kids? that doesn't sound right to me. There are already too many kids in adoption homes, the last thing we need are more if people don't want them. They aren't actually trying to pass a law, they are trying to prove a point about anti-gay marriage legislation. That's why in the first post I said, "I don't like it when people play with the law just to prove a point."Ah, I see, well, I'm pro same-sex marriage. I say, if it makes you happy, go for it, more power to you. The government has no right to interfere if its not hurting anybody (and its not).
February 7, 200719 yr Author The government has no right to interfere if its not hurting anybody (and its not). Did you know that marriage is an institution of the government?
February 7, 200719 yr And as a government which is supposidly meant to be pro-human equality a government institution shouldn't dsicriminate against people for being different to them. As at the end of the day thats is what they are doing. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr Author And as a government which is supposidly meant to be pro-human equality a government institution shouldn't dsicriminate against people for being different to them. As at the end of the day thats is what they are doing. Unless it is the belief of the people that "marriage" as an institution should be man + woman. Everyone in the country can partake in marriage, gay or not, but marriage has to be the joining of man and woman.
February 7, 200719 yr That's horrible for the gay community. Excellent 8-) This is my point exactly. Religious people who hate homosexuals for NO REASON other than their religion. Nice one, bigot. Kant - The only reason growing up with two same-sex parents is "bad" for the kid is this; the kids peers are stupid kids who tease. Homosexuality doesn't "rub off" and it isn't taught, so that's not a problem. Rebdragon - Christian's do not look at God as a loving figure. They look at Jesus as a loving figure. They absolutely still fear God. They fail to use common sense when thinking about God. Would God create someone, without a choice, and then punish them for eternity for not doing right? That makes no sense. Why would he even create you? The thing is, there is no Hell. When you die, you get one of 3 things. 1. You go to Heaven. 144,000 of only the most dedicated people will go to Heaven and they'll be, you know...The people who watch over stuff, or something. 2. You get to stay on a perfect Earth for eternity. Anyone who accepts God and Jesus and la-de-da will get this once they're forgiven. 3. You die FOREVER. No Hell, no punishment, you just cease to exist. This is what happens to people who were not forgiven for whatever reason. Most people won't even go to Heaven. Almost noone will go to Hell. Most people will stay on Earth. That's just according to the Bible of course. I personally don't really care because I think it's ficticious. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
February 7, 200719 yr Author Kant - The only reason growing up with two same-sex parents is "bad" for the kid is this; the kids peers are stupid kids who tease. Homosexuality doesn't "rub off" and it isn't taught, so that's not a problem. There are plenty of people in the psychiatric world who believe that the child begins life with a disadvantage by not having both a mother and father in the household. It's one of those issues you can never prove one way or the other, but there is evidence that seems to suggest it.
February 7, 200719 yr Kant - The only reason growing up with two same-sex parents is "bad" for the kid is this; the kids peers are stupid kids who tease. Homosexuality doesn't "rub off" and it isn't taught, so that's not a problem. There are plenty of people in the psychiatric world who believe that the child begins life with a disadvantage by not having both a mother and father in the household. It's one of those issues you can never prove one way or the other, but there is evidence that seems to suggest it. I agree, but is that because there is only one parent, or is it because there is a male/female figure missing? Not to stereotpye too much, but most gay men/women in long-term relationships have the whole 'femme/dominant' roles played by eachother. One is more manly, one is more feminine. I agree it could hurt a child perhaps, but most gay people adopt...What's worse - Having two same-sex parents, or no parents at all, you know? :P The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
Create an account or sign in to comment