MA KO's Ban on Gay marriages

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charles [/i]
[B]I would like to see you put more effort into your post quality and posting things of value instead of inane logic unbecoming of even a three year old. [/B][/QUOTE]
*Bloodsin hits Charles over the head with a bucket of crayons*
I would sink to answer your unorthodox attack on some one who is under your skin, but some how, the act of physical violence seem more fitting.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charles [/i]
[B]Is it also logical to assume that one can be instinctively drawn to species that no longer exist? To plants? To geographical features such as Mount Kilimanjaro? To a specific variety of fungi, or perhaps one's right foot?[/B][/QUOTE]
You have completely missed my point.
And in the process, you've inevitability proved my sole point.
If one says, homosexuality is a choice, and people should let gays marry, why can't humans and animals get married? Is that too not a choice? Should the government block that?
Other people say it's in your DNA, That gay people are instinctively drawn to each other, if that is the case, can't it be stated that people can be instinctively drawn to animals?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B] You made a mockery of marriage. What I share with my husband is nothing like whatever you think is shared between humans and animals. It's also not close to what is shared between people in a civil union or marriage. Unless you think that what your mom and dad share is the same as what you and Fido or Furball share.[/B][/QUOTE]
HER NAME IS SOMKY, AND SHE LOVES ME!

That is my point.
Some people think only the marriage between a man and a woman is "civil".
I've seen those people ripped on.
My point is.
People can't say a damn thing about people not agreeing gay shouldn't get married when they themselves are not for the union of other things.
Bestiality is just an example.

If all of you can't see through that, I'll need to water- down my statement.

How about union of six people in marriage?
Are you ok with that?
If not then you can't justly be for gay marriages.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i]
[B]I'm not sure that I understand exactly how your "logic" operates. If you don't want to explain it here, then please feel free to PM me.[/B][/QUOTE]
What is it with you people and PMs?





[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by What's his face [/i]
[B] I don?t even care to see you refute this--because there is no argument. [/B][/QUOTE]
So..... You post attacking me, and won't stay for my reply......





Sweet.

[SadClown]

I'm sorry but YOU seem to be missing the point thats being made. Human's might be animals, but animals are not all human. Sex between two animals and sex between a human and an animal are tottaly different. An animal cannot consent to sex, a human can. Animals cannot love like humans can. You can't marrey an animal anymore than you can marry someone without their permission. We are debating marriage between two members of the same species, not two members of different species. A persona can choose to marry an animal yes, but the animal can't choose to get married back. And also, a person can be against polygamy and still be for gay marriage, because again, they are two different things. You can't just pull examples out of your *** to compare to gay marriage when they aren't inherently the same. You are the one who's missed the point, not us.

On a different note, my Soc. Proffessor lectured about something interesting that pertains to this topic in a way. He's in the process of writting a paper to get the term "sexual orientation" changed to "relational orientation." The reason for this is that "sexual orientation" denotes who you choose to have sex with while "relational orientation" is all-encompassing and applies to whom you choose to have a relationship with, not just who you screw. "Sexual orientation" is a derrogetary term because of this reason. It could very well be one of the causes in the inequatility between gay and straight people because it only makes us think about sexual acts. Not only that, but "relational orientation" is also much more broad. Whom a person has sex with and has a relationship with can be two different people, yes even animals in this case. Why should then they be labeled based soley on who they choose to have sex with? This theory is still in the works so I am aware that it is possible to find loop holes in it, but it's just something I thought I'd share with those who care, because it's basis makes sence.

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SadClown [/i]
[B]I'm sorry but YOU seem to be missing the point thats being made. Human's might be animals, but animals are not all human. Sex between two animals and sex between a human and an animal are tottaly different. An animal cannot consent to sex, a human can. Animals cannot love like humans can. You can't marrey an animal anymore than you can marry someone without their permission. We are debating marriage between two members of the same species, not two members of different species. A persona can choose to marry an animal yes, but the animal can't choose to get married back. And also, a person can be against polygamy and still be for gay marriage, because again, they are two different things. You can't just pull examples out of your *** to compare to gay marriage when they aren't inherently the same. You are the one who's missed the point, not us. [/B][/QUOTE]
Hold up, Dr. Doolittle.

How do you know that animals don't concede to love?
Because they can't think on the same level? Because they can't fully express it?

What about retarded people?
A lot of them just barely operate above the mental cap of animals.
So they can't love?

What about forced marriages?
Not everywhere is like the U.S.
In either or which case, I can pull whatever excuse out of my a[i][/i]ss I wish. As you've done in your post. To me, the idea of two people of the same gender getting married is silly.

You think it's silly for animals to get married(although I myself agree).
I was also making the statement that this new law also opens the flood gates for many other things.
20 years ago, people would've laughed at you for the idea of a gay marriage.
This law shows that you don't know a **** about what they'll Ok next.

There's no concept of right and wrong in this age.
All I hear is "We all choice what is right and wrong, it varies from person to person".

It's our morals and souls that set us aside form the beast of the world. We only have compassion because we're not threatened by any other race.

During the Y2K scare, people were all to quick to run out and buy all the food they could, and a gun to shoot anyelse that wanted it.
That's humanity.
Don't tell me all of mankind is completely different from animals.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Hold up, Dr. Doolittle.

How do you know that animals don't concede to love?
Because they can't think on the same level? Because they can't fully express it?

What about retarded people?
A lot of them just barely operate above the mental cap of animals.
So they can't love?
In either or which case, I can pull whatever excuse out of my a[i][/i]ss I wish. As you've done in your post. To me, the idea of two people of the same gender getting married is silly. [/quote][/b]

[size=1] I know that animals don't concede to love because I know that they don't have the emotional attachments we have. Love isn't just about sex, you know. It's far beyond that. And it takes an intellectual enough mind to feel these emotions. And animals, as far as I see, don't feel anything but a small, vague sense of emotion. They feel pain, etc, but none of the heavy psychologies that we feel.

In the end, love is just a word. It means what it means to you as a person. It's rather pointless to debate over a word that you, or I, or most don't even know what means but what it means to us.

The whole handicapped people angle doesn't really vividify your point or validate it either. Again, love is just a word. It doesn't matter what it means. And as far as I am concerned, a handicapped person is far more intelligent than a nature-abiding animal.

An animal beside a human doesn't have our intellect. It can't think for itself. It follows completely on its natures. And sex is a nature on one hand, and in their hands. They do it simply because it is interred in them, and simply because to have a species survive, you must keep making more members of that species for it to survive.

If that is love, then what is sex? Is sex love? No, as far as I see, it is not.

Again, what love means doesn't bear a matter on anything about what gays and their marriages mean. Love is an opinionatedly used word. And it's going to continue to be used like that.

I'd like to know more why you think it's wrong for gay people to marry? Is it because you've been taught that it's wrong? Nothing that you've been told is wrong and right should stay that way in your mind. You have to look at all angles to something. You can't just sit back and conform. That isn't thinking for yourself. That's not using your own brain. That's just eating something someone else has fed you and keeping it inside when it isn't yours.

What is right and wrong is set to human views. They are just what other people think. As far as I am concerned, there isn't really a set "right or wrong," but society influences its rights and wrongs on you. It's those people that look at something and examine it themselves that actually see the logical thing to think.

And logically, there is not a thing wrong with a gay marriage. People have the right to do whatever the world they want. There isn't any written law in anything aside from society that says it's wrong. And it's only prejudicial people that won't see this; only those people that don't think for themselves.

Too many people in this world don't think for themselves. They simply choose to believe in some god, or they simply choose to do something because it is marked good by society and its peoples.

So what is wrong with gay marriage? Marriage itself is mostly the product of the church, and I don't agree with it. That is forcing your values on another. And that's also what treating gay people the way they are treated is.

Morally, according to the gracious bible, it is bad to be gay. I say don't listen to what the bible says--think for yourself. Morals shouldn't even exist, they should more be what you believe, not what other people have lead you to beleve. Sadly, as I've said, people are so gullible that they don't even think about something in-depth.

Sexuality itself is a very unstable thing. In some senses it is a choice, in others it isn't. On one hand, society makes it seem bad to be gay. So most males in our society choose to be attracted to women, or so they say.

Even I've been attracted to a guy before. Just not as in strong a fashion as a woman. Women just seem to attract me more all together. And does this make me gay? I am not sure, but to me it doesn't. To me I shouldn't even be labeled as anything. To me what sex I am attracted to shouldn't matter. We are all sexual beings, we are all human, we all can love something. As for sex, it is more a nature than it is a form of love, but it heightens love to a new extent.

I don't know if I could have sex with a man, but I can tell you that I could love another man in more than just a caring way. Any single person can if they aren't so one-sided as society seems to make everything.

Honestly, I'm sure that any man has been attracted to another man on some level. My attractions haven't been sexual, but more along the lines of I was attracted to their personalities. I think personalities and so on are far more important than what the person is.

Love defies gender. And it should. It shouldn't matter what it is you love, as long as you truly love it under your definition of what love feels like.[/size]

[quote][b]You think it's silly for animals to get married(although I myself agree).
I was also making the statement that this new law also opens the flood gates for many other things.
20 years ago, people would've laughed at you for the idea of a gay marriage.
This law shows that you don't know a **** about what they'll Ok next. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] Again, you aren't thinking for yourself. What happened 20 years ago shouldn't have any bearing on what you think other than how it led your own thoughts and beliefs along.

I don't see a thing wrong with this law. It's civil rights. It's what people deserve.

Saying that it's wrong for two people of the same sex to marry is as bad as segregating black people and saying that they don't belong. It just isn't right at all. If you don't agree with people being gay, then that is your place. But at least see that it is possible for someone else of the same sex to love another of the same sex, and that it isn't bad, but only when you get one-sided and don't look past society and its ideals.

Eventually, someday, I hope nothing that defines you should matter but only to the extent that it makes you you. But I'm guessing that is far off.

I really find how one-sided and hostile people are about so many things to be silly. But ah well.[/size]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[b]I was also making the statement that this new law also opens the flood gates for many other things.
20 years ago, people would've laughed at you for the idea of a gay marriage.
This law shows that you don't know a **** about what they'll Ok next.[/b][/quote]

Twenty years ago, people would also have scorned the idea of an interracial marriage. I myself am the product of one such union, so I'm quite glad that the times have changed.

Fifty years ago, women in the United States didn't have half of the rights that they have now.

One century ago, child workers in factories were treated like animals.

It's called progress, darling. American society is slowly but surely [i]improving[/i]. Despite its flaws, our modern culture is far more diverse and tolerant than that of past eras. I don't know about you, but I certainly hope this pattern of change continues. Gay marriage is simply a part of the gradual trend towards greater acceptance.

EDIT: In ancient Greece--a civilization renowned for its wisdom and learning--homosexuality was considered perfectly acceptable. However, I cannot recall a single society in all of history that was ever known to endorse bestiality. That fact alone ought to tell you something.


[quote][b]It's our morals and souls that set us aside form the beast of the world. We only have compassion because we're not threatened by any other race.

During the Y2K scare, people were all to quick to run out and buy all the food they could, and a gun to shoot anyelse that wanted it.
That's humanity.
Don't tell me all of mankind is completely different from animals.[/b][/QUOTE]

Those people who chose to stock up on food and ammunition composed a very small minority of the general population. There's a reason that the press poked so much fun at them.

~Dagger~

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]HER NAME IS SOMKY, AND SHE LOVES ME!

That is my point.
Some people think only the marriage between a man and a woman is "civil".
I've seen those people ripped on.
My point is.
People can't say a damn thing about people not agreeing gay shouldn't get married when they themselves are not for the union of other things.
Bestiality is just an example.

If all of you can't see through that, I'll need to water- down my statement.

How about union of six people in marriage?
Are you ok with that?
If not then you can't justly be for gay marriages.[/B][/QUOTE]

I have a few things to say:

1- A marriage is [b]COMMITMENT, BOTH WAYS[/b]. How exactly does a two way commitment go on between a man and a pig?

"Babe, do you take this man to be your husband?"

"OINK! OINK!"

It just doesn't work.

2- A marriage is [b]UNITY[/b]. How exactly does a man become unified with an animal? Animals ARE completely different. Whether you want to go by genes or by the Bible, a man and another animal simply can not procreate in the same way that two different races of man can, or two different breeds of Pig. Inter-breeding only goes as far as different sub-species in the species you are in.

And finally..

SHUT UP

I may be a Christian, and I may follow Jesus, but even Jesus had to put his foot down every so often when a fool started spouting some rubbish- and believe me, you are such a fool.

It seems to me the only reason you're even arguing is to portray a different or "radical" point of view. But let me tell you this- Smartness doesn't come from going against the crowd alone, but from knowing where the crowd is wrong.

And you, mate, haven't a ******* clue.

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i]
[B]

EDIT: In ancient Greece--a civilization renowned for its wisdom and learning--homosexuality was considered perfectly acceptable. However, I cannot recall a single society in all of history that was ever known to endorse bestiality. That fact alone ought to tell you something.
~Dagger~ [/B][/QUOTE]

The Romans, I think, didn't have a problem with it. They (mostly the soldiers and gladiators) would screw anything with an orifice and a pulse)

Which leads me to say: During the times the Bible was written, things like that were happening. I think what it really means when it condones sodomy in the Bible is that it is condoneing f-ucking without a connection, somehow. I also know that it says the Bible is not for us to interpret so therefore I am not right and neither are the people who site Bible passages as ways of striking down homosexuals.

I see where thay girl who made the beastiality comment is comming from. I don't agree, but I can see how she thinks that. She ( or he, sorry if you are a guy) is probably just trying to make an argument.

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]Which leads me to say: During the times the Bible was written, things like that were happening. I think what it really means when it condones sodomy in the Bible is that it is condoneing f-ucking without a connection, somehow. I also know that it says the Bible is not for us to interpret so therefore I am not right and neither are the people who site Bible passages as ways of striking down homosexuals.[/B][/QUOTE]

To condone something is to endorse it. I think you probably meant "condemn" ;) .

Does it really not say the Bible is not for us to interpret?.... I mean, if that's the case, how do we learn anything from it..

I think what it says is not to put our own interpretations onto the Bible. Ie. you can take the literal interpretation of a passage, or the message, or the theme, but the moment you start using it to justify your own wrong causes (ie. which are spoken against in other parts of the Bible) then that's when you're out of line.

Such as condemning homosexuals to hell when it blatantly says "love your neighbour" and "do not judge".

And the bible condemns homosexuality. The act, not the person. Just like lying, which I've done countless times. In fact, lying even made it into the ten commandments, so if you're going to play "greater sin-weaker sin" then lying HAS to be greater. and I've certainly done that before, so I'm pretty screwed without Jesus.

But anyway, the Bible says "do not sleep with a man as you would with a woman- this is abhorrent to God" Leviticus 18:22. Or 22:18. Either way there's an 18 and a 22, I just forget which is which. And the context of the verse is that it's a list of rules about sexual relations. You can't really get much of another meaning out of that now, can you..

My point is, don't make up stuff about why the Bible condones (ie. approves of) homosexuality, or why it doesn't condemn it. The Bible [b]does[/b] condemn it -but not the person, as I stated earlier- so you have a choice. Either follow the Bible, in that light, or don't follow it.

Even if you do follow it in that light, it doesn't mean you can't love homosexuals and love God- because god tells us to love everyone. And it doesn't mean you can't be homosexual and love God- because the Bible says that his grace (and not our righteousness) is our way into heaven.

Jesus loves gay people!!

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B]But anyway, the Bible says "do not sleep with a man as you would with a woman- this is abhorrent to God" Leviticus 18:22. Or 22:18. Either way there's an 18 and a 22, I just forget which is which. And the context of the verse is that it's a list of rules about sexual relations. You can't really get much of another meaning out of that now, can you..[/B][/QUOTE]

Let me first mention that although we may disagree on a couple of points, you seem to be an amazingly reasonable person, and I must applaud you for that.

Now, I'm not exactly a student of theology, and it's been a long while since I so much as glanced at a Bible. However, if I recall correctly, Leviticus (like much of the Old Testament) contains numerous prohibitions against all sorts of behavior, as well as an expansive set of rules governing people's food, clothing, and general comportment. Not all of these guidelines are still followed today, so why is the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality treated any differently than, say, its remarks about the inferiority of women? I'm just curious.

~Dagger~

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[BIf one says, homosexuality is a choice, and people should let gays marry, why can't humans and animals get married? Is that too not a choice? Should the government block that?
Other people say it's in your DNA, That gay people are instinctively drawn to each other, if that is the case, can't it be stated that people can be instinctively drawn to animals?
Some people think only the marriage between a man and a woman is "civil".
People can't say a damn thing about people not agreeing gay shouldn't get married when they themselves are not for the union of other things.
Bestiality is just an example.
If all of you can't see through that, I'll need to water- down my statement.
How about union of six people in marriage?
Are you ok with that?
If not then you can't justly be for gay marriages.
What is it with you people and PMs?[/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]Is that like the stupidity that's drawn to you? Because if that's the case maybe you can tell us more.
Anyway, There are no government regulations on inter-species marriage because that's just utterly illogical. But then again, maybe logic just isn't for you?
But let's get down to the best part of your post so I can go do something more important.
THe whole six people in a marriage thing, that's called polygamy. Some cultures allow this some don't.
I know of a guy who was stationed with my husband in Korea, this guy is planning on a wedding between himself, a woman he knows and a guy he knows. I wouldn't do it myself, but hey, you're welcome to all the confusion you want. That said, I guess I can still say I'm for gay marriages and not get lectured on not being for Smokey and yourself to get married. IF uh, that's what Smokey [i]really[/i] wants.[/color]

[Guest Vash137]

From the posts I've read here, there are many many gays and/or gay supporters here. I am VERY against gay marriage, probably more than anyone who has posted in this thread. Yes, I am still in highschool, I'm one of those kids who makes fun of the gays along with almost every other boy in the school, nobody likes them except the girls. They are not accepted by those their age, (like me), and are looked down upon as a screw up. I don't really give a **** if you think its morally right and crap. It's just plain wrong for two gay guys/girls to marry each other in my book. Oh, and I don't get this strong anti-gay from my parents, they have a couple gay people they know, and don't really mind them. I don't give a **** if there is no reason behind my post, its my ******* opinion. That's what this thread asked for. Not for people to rip apart one anothers posts finding the smallest errors in the way people stated things and bending the truth to an extreme. Majority of the world looks down upon gays because they are minority, and its not a normal act. I believe it is a mix of the way you are brought up, personality, and friends when you are young that determine if you are gay, not something built into your DNA. If Gays are near me I make fun of them, what the hell that's legal so why not. I am aloud to voice my opinion, make fun of others, do whatever I want. That's the beauty of America, so all you gays that posted in here stop ripping the anti-gay posts apart and raping the people who wrote them.

[Syk3]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vash137 [/i]
[B]From the posts I've read here, there are many many gays and/or gay supporters here. I am VERY against gay marriage, probably more than anyone who has posted in this thread. Yes, I am still in highschool, I'm one of those kids who makes fun of the gays along with almost every other boy in the school, nobody likes them except the girls. They are not accepted by those their age, (like me), and are looked down upon as a screw up. I don't really give a **** if you think its morally right and crap. It's just plain wrong for two gay guys/girls to marry each other in my book. Oh, and I don't get this strong anti-gay from my parents, they have a couple gay people they know, and don't really mind them. I don't give a **** if there is no reason behind my post, its my ******* opinion. That's what this thread asked for. Not for people to rip apart one anothers posts finding the smallest errors in the way people stated things and bending the truth to an extreme. Majority of the world looks down upon gays because they are minority, and its not a normal act. I believe it is a mix of the way you are brought up, personality, and friends when you are young that determine if you are gay, not something built into your DNA. If Gays are near me I make fun of them, what the hell that's legal so why not. I am aloud to voice my opinion, make fun of others, do whatever I want. That's the beauty of America, so all you gays that posted in here stop ripping the anti-gay posts apart and raping the people who wrote them. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=teal]Judging by the comments made in your post, I don't believe that you have a place here on OtakuBoards. I'm all for sharing your own opinion, but when you decide to support it with ignorance and prejiduce, there will be concequences.[/color]

[quote][b]If Gays are near me I make fun of them, what the hell that's legal so why not. I am aloud to voice my opinion, make fun of others, do whatever I want.[/b][/quote]
[color=teal]This statement in particular is especially disturbing, and represents just how immature you really have exposed yourself to be.

Insulting someone's sexual preferences, when it has no basis whatsoever on the kind of people they are, shows that you have a lot to learn before you can possibly re-join this discussion.

Unfortunately, you can kiss that chance good-bye. You have been banned.[/color]

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B] I may be a Christian, and I may follow Jesus, but even Jesus had to put his foot down every so often ... *******... [/B][/QUOTE]
Jesus talked like that too?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B] you are such a fool.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, you're a hypocrite for telling others not to judge, yet you yourself comit the act of judging.
The bible also warns not to correct a moker, unless you're up for an insult :p.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B] I'd like to know more why you think it's wrong for gay people to marry? [/B][/QUOTE]
They bring about the pale hourse.

[Semjaza]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i]
[B]Let me first mention that although we may disagree on a couple of points, you seem to be an amazingly reasonable person, and I must applaud you for that.

Now, I'm not exactly a student of theology, and it's been a long while since I so much as glanced at a Bible. However, if I recall correctly, Leviticus (like much of the Old Testament) contains numerous prohibitions against all sorts of behavior, as well as an expansive set of rules governing people's food, clothing, and general comportment. Not all of these guidelines are still followed today, so why is the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality treated any differently than, say, its remarks about the inferiority of women? I'm just curious.

~Dagger~ [/B][/QUOTE]

Leviticus is extremely archaic. Honestly, if someone is going to follow it's vague condemnations on homosexuals, they might as well listen to everything it says. One of the following verses basically says that slavery is fine, as long as you don't sleep with them. Obviously, this book is not exactly great source material for modern arguments lol.

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i]
[B]Now, I'm not exactly a student of theology, and it's been a long while since I so much as glanced at a Bible. However, if I recall correctly, Leviticus (like much of the Old Testament) contains numerous prohibitions against all sorts of behavior, as well as an expansive set of rules governing people's food, clothing, and general comportment. Not all of these guidelines are still followed today, so why is the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality treated any differently than, say, its remarks about the inferiority of women? I'm just curious.[/B][/QUOTE]

Leviticus does indeed contain an [i]EXHAUSTIVE[/i] set of rules (the word "expansive" isn't wrong though ;)) on how to live. One of the chapters contains a list of regulations to do with mildew.

There are some truly rediculous parts in there, at least that's how we'd see them, purely because our culture has changed so much. However there are some gems in there too. "Love your neighbour as you would yourself" comes from Leviticus.

And the interesting thing to note in the case of the verse to do with homosexuality is this: it say not to practise this because "[i]it is abhorrent to God[/i]" or "[i]it is detestable[/i]". This commandment is not to do with the culture of the time, but to do with the will of God. In fact, I believe if we could learn a lot more about the culture of the time, we would see a lot more of God's will in Leviticus rather than just an exhaustive set of rules.

At the end of the day, the Law is not to do with restrictions. It's not meant to keep you confined and restrict your movements by telling you what you can't do. It's meant to free you by instructing in the right way to live. Unfortunately the Torah is almost always interpreted as "Law" rather than the true meaning of the Hebrew, "instruction". It is interpreted as restriction, not as freedom. Part of this is due to our limited human understanding, part of it is due to the tactics of our spiritual enemy.

Either way, any interpretation of Leviticus, or any of the OT which leaves you thinking you are restricted in the way you live is the wrong one- but due to our nature it is hard to find an interpretation other than this.

There is a practice called "exegesis". It involves finding out the context of a bible passage, relating it to the culture of the time, thus finding out exactly what it is saying and why, and THEN you can apply it to your life at the moment.

Most people don't understand what Jesus means when he says we are the Salt of the Earth. They seem to think it means that "we add flavour" or something. Actually it means that when we are spread about, we help grow good fruit, and when we are concentrated we disinfect the crap in the world. But in order to find that out you need to know what Jesus meant by salt (not NaCl) and what it was used for. Not assume that 2,000 years ago they used Salt for the same thing.

Leviticus is even older- thus to get any kind of understanding of how to apply it we need to really work at finding out what it really meant.

However some things, such as the homosexuality verse, really don't mean a lot different in and out of context. The original message was that God's will was not for a man to have sex with another man. There are only a limited number of ways you can apply that.

But do bear in mind- God loves us all. First and foremost. This is the message of the gospel.

[b]GOD LOVES YOU[/b]. In fact he loves you so much that he gave his son so that you can have eternal life.

In fact, it goes much deeper than that. He gave his son to be in covenant with you. In dying he became a covenant sacrifice, so that he may also be your covenant partner. This means that you get everything he has achieved and he has everything you have achieved, as well as what you already have.

I can't stress the importance of covenant.

[quote][i]quoted from [url]http://www.covenantinblood.com/bc/Ancient.html[/url][/i]
"If Christianity learned to view the bible as a blood covenant, this alone would eventually cause denominationalism and racism to come to an end. This is because these two seem to be directly opposed to one another. The practice of Christians being separated from one another on the basis of skin color or religious preference comes from a misunderstanding of the blood covenant which we have entered into with Christ. We do not need race or doctrines to bind us to each other, we have the power of the covenant. This is the true bind which no man has any right or authority under heaven to break. When we bind men together by such artificial methods, it might give us a perception of strength in numbers, but the reality is that we share the same weaknesses because our bonding is primarily based upon what we have in common. Blood covenants were primarily entered into on the basis of differences not similarities. As such, the results of the covenant brought new strengths to obvious weaknesses. The union would tend to make both parties stronger, this was often the purpose for the covenant.

The terms or conditions of the covenant were not arbitrarily written down. Both parties would go to great lengths to determine the needs of each party. Each party would negotiate these terms before quickly agreeing to the terms. They must consider the cost, that is their own responsibility. What will they gain or are they being deceived or cheated. The covenant was indissoluble once it had been cut. There was no way out, one the ceremony had been completed. Very often a curse or penalty would be incorporated or pronounced upon the party who might willfully default. Such curses were expected to be visited upon the guilty party by the many deity's who had been called to witness the transaction. Most often much of the curse had to do with things beyond the power of man such as sickness and disease, poverty, famine, etc. Such curses would required a supernatural power to execute and it was believed that the gods would perform such curses quickly. Similar blessing were often attached to the covenant which again would require the act of the supernatural entities to perform such as, abundant harvests, prosperity, good health, many children, etc. The blood covenant was the most serious relationship that one man could enter into with another. In many cases, his life would be placed on the line.

After the terms, conditions, and penalties were negotiated, the covenant representative would be selected from each tribe. The selection was often based upon the greatest attributes of the tribe. He would be the one person in whom the entire tribe could identify with. He would be so to speak the living image which represented that tribe to other tribes. Next a covenant site must be chosen. The site could be chosen because it had been regarded as a place of neutrality, or often because it was spacious enough for all members of either tribe to attend the ceremony and observe the cutting of the covenant between the two representatives. Sacrificial animals must then be chosen, often large animals who would shed a great deal of blood. The animals were often cut down the backbone making two separate halves. The halves of their carcasses would be laid opposite of each other to form a walkway of blood. All this was done in preparation for the sacred ceremony.

On the specific day chosen, the ceremony would begin. The representatives would walk through the walkway of blood to the center and perform the symbolic gesture of the coat exchange. The coat represented both the strength and authority of the representative as awarded or pledged by the entire tribe. By exchanging their coats, they were symbolically changing their authorities which they held among the people of their tribes. At the same time they would exchange their weapons. The exchange of weapons insinuated that each tribe would come to the aid of the other in battle. They would fight along side their covenant brother as if they were of their own tribe. All of these things, although being symbols of the covenant rite, became living realities.

Now the most important part of the ceremony would come. Each party would declare aloud the conditions of the covenant. The terms were declared in the presence of all, for every man in each of the tribes would become forever bound by these terms. Often in later days these would be written down but that was not really necessary as every man present had been considered a witness to the terms. Finally, in the midst of the slain animals, the river of warm blood often soaking all the way up to their ankles, both parties swore an oath to keep the terms of this covenant, and concluded rehearsing the curse or penalties for default for every hear to hear.

Although it is usually not so obvious, there was an understood element of the curse which was considered to be implied. At any time the sovereign from one of the tribes could declare the curse to no be in effect upon the other tribe. It was perceived that they had somehow broken the covenant. When such a case did exist, that sovereign would exercise his special role as the "agent of the avenging deities". As the ultimate curse, the avenging agent had divine authority to completely annihilate the others kingdom.

Finally, each representative had an incision made within his hand, wrist, leg, or another area of his anatomy. The blood that flowed from the incisions of each man would be captured into a small goblet to be drunken by both at the covenant meal. The incisions would be touched together, sometimes the wrists or legs being tied together with a strip of leather or cloth. The scars would be made to appear more prominent by the rubbing of gunpowder or other substances. The scar would serve to be a reminder as long as the two representatives lived that the covenant of blood had been cut between the two tribes.

After this very impressive display, which was designed to be deeply ingrained within the minds and memories of every witness, and especially upon the minds of the representatives themselves, these two would give each other a new name. Often their names had been joined together to form a new name representing both tribes. This exchange of names implied that they were becoming one new family out of the joining of the two. After all this had transpired they would never regard each tribe as being separate or distinct from each other, for now in their spirits they had become as one. Often the ceremony would end with the planting of the trees upon this very site. Trees were planted because of their long life. The trees would become a memorial from one generation to another.

The finale ceremony would be the covenant meal, normally the offering of bread and wine to each other. The bread represented the body, while the wine represented the new shared blood of both men. At least within the Assyrian loyalty oaths, there was a certain understanding that by both parties partaking the were also saying, "Just as bread and wine enter the intestines, so may the gods let this oath enter your intestines".

The blood was said to be inter-commingled and as such, the two spirit natures had now become one. Often the wine would be mixed with the blood captured during the ceremony from the covenant incision as described above, but often only wine was used in the drink. As each drank from the cup they would say, "Drink my life's blood as I drink your life's blood." "I see you fulfilling all the terms of the covenant as I fulfill your life." Then they reached over the table, both taking a piece of the bread, and lifting to each other's mouth they recited, "Take me - all that I am. Eat of me, I am yours.""[/quote]

Part of the covenant process is the exchanging of places. Jesus, in order to fulfill the covenant, needed to change places with us, and thus take on the punishment for our own lives of sin. Where "sin" is not with measure. Either you have sinned or you haven't and we all have.

And with that done, we can take his place with him in being judged as sinless.

Now let's look at this again:

Jesus lived a perfect life, and he gains the punishment of a sinner from being in covenant with us.

We are sinners, and we gain being judged as perfect from being in covenant with him.

Is it me or does it seem like a bad deal on Jesus' side?

That's the whole thing with Grace. We don't deserve it, but we get it anyway, if only we accept it. And Grace takes full priority over every other thing in our faith in Jesus. Sure, we grow to new levels of faith, but if we don't have the [b]Grace of God[/b] it's all useless.

Christianity isn't just about laws and rules, it's also about priority. Grace and forgiveness takes a higher priority than sin, in God's eyes. If it were not the case, none of us would be saved because God's grace wouldn't be enough to deal with our sins. But it turns out that his grace is sufficient for us. (1/2 Corinthians 12:9 or something)

_______________________

[b]Bloodsin[/b]: I like your last post. It's actually a challenge for me to reply to :p

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Jesus talked like that too?[/B][/QUOTE]

Jesus talked Aramaic. His life story is told in greek. That, and it was written a while after his death by people he knew (mostly). Who knows what kind of interesting things he said.. But it is certain that he rebuked those who were talking a load of rubbish. Mostly the Pharisees.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Well, you're a hypocrite for telling others not to judge, yet you yourself comit the act of judging.[/B][/QUOTE]

This isn't judgement- this is rebuke. There is a difference. One we are told to accept and even to love because it grows us as people, and exposes our areas of wrong, and the other we are told not to do.

The word Jesus used that is translated "Judge" means "to condemn or punish".

Let me give you an example of each:

Condmenation: You were born an idiot. You are an idiot. You will die an idiot.

Punishment: Therefore I am going to kill you.

When I say "you are a fool" (the word "such" that I used, taken out of context, means a completely different thing) and "you have no ******* clue", I am referring to at the moment.

I was once more foolish than I am now in many ways, and I had no clue. However I have changed. I am still a fool now and I have no clue. What I have no clue about, I have no clue, otherwise I would have some idea and I would no longer have no clue.

I do not judge you- I say these things to correct your error, not to put you down for good.

You are acting like a fool, right now. That doesn't mean there is no possibility of you inproving, it just means you are a fool right now. You have no clue what you're on about- right now. But people learn.

Don't take anything I say as a permanent thing. If I say you're wrong (as opposed to you're different to what I believe) then what I mean is you're wrong, right now. But I point that out so that you may be right, not so that you may continue to be wrong.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]The bible also warns not to correct a moker, unless you're up for an insult :p.[/B][/QUOTE]

Something like that. But I don't have much problem with being insulted :p.



As for the last thing you quoted, I don't believe I said that...

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B]
[b]Bloodsin[/b]: I like your last post. It's actually a challenge for me to reply to :p

Jesus talked Aramaic. His life story is told in greek. That, and it was written a while after his death by people he knew (mostly). Who knows what kind of interesting things he said.. But it is certain that he rebuked those who were talking a load of rubbish. Mostly the Pharisees. [/B][/QUOTE]
I was refering to your profanity.
You compared yourself to Juses, yet, in the same post, told me I don't have a "*******" clue.

You compare me to the Pharisees, yet the sin of the Pharisees was pride, and being overly religious, correcting people while they pasted over their own sin.
But perhaps you're correct, I'll kind out when I actually read your post in a sec.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]I was refering to your profanity.
You compared yourself to Juses, yet, in the same post, told me I don't have a "*******" clue.

You compare me to the Pharisees, yet the sin of the Pharisees was pride, and being overly religious, correcting people while they pasted over their own sin.
But perhaps you're correct, I'll kind out when I actually read your post in a sec. [/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=red]Wee! I take this to mean that if DanL. was a pagan he could insult you all he wanted and you wouldn't be offended? if that's the case let me know so that i may inform my pagan and homosexual friends.
As far as I can tell, Dan L. was perfectly within his rights to tell you to shut your pie hole. You neither know or understand anything. All you know how to do is whine, beyotch moan and argue. And your arguements make no sense what so ever! They are completely irelevent to every single topic you reply to!
*straightens up her clothing and fixes her hair*[/COLOR]
[COLOR=crimson]On a back to the subject post. Does anyone else have any opinions on the military's don't ask don't tell policy? Okay, so it's not completely on the subject, but RT brought it up, so now I'm curious.[/COLOR]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]I was refering to your profanity.
You compared yourself to Juses, yet, in the same post, told me I don't have a "*******" clue.[/B][/QUOTE]

I realised that. My point was exactly that- The gospels were written in a different language, years later. Who knows what "interesting" (in the language of the time) things he said while rebuking people.

OK.. but the word I used was a little [i]too[/i] profane even for my liking, so I'm sorry about that :)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]You compare me to the Pharisees, yet the sin of the Pharisees was pride, and being overly religious, correcting people while they pasted over their own sin.
But perhaps you're correct, I'll kind out when I actually read your post in a sec. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry- my main intention there wasn't to compare you directly to the pharisees, but to make the point that Jesus rebuked people. Most of the time it was the Pharisees- that point wasn't meant to carry any extra meaning other than "Most of the time it was the Pharisees", ie it wasn't meant to imply that you are comparable to a pharisee.

Chibihorsewoman:

Don't ask don't tell policy?....

Sorry.. I'm just an ignorant little british guy :p

[Dagger]

"Don't ask, don't tell" is an American military policy. It states that if a homosexual servicemember reveals his or her orientation, he or she will immediately be discharged. But up until that point, no one is supposed to question that person's (or anyone else's) sexual preferences, so as to prevent him/her from telling the truth and subsequently being discharged.

I frankly think that "don't ask, don't tell" is a rather stupid and counterproductive policy. Just the other day, I read an article (in the Washington Post, I believe) about a number of gay linguists who had to find other work after coming out. At this point in time, our army is sorely in need of experts in Arabic, and it amazes me that the American military is willing to lose valuable specialists simply because of their orientation.

~Dagger~

[Dan L]

Man...

in that case my opinion on it is that it sounds all a bit stupid to me... I would have less of a problem with them simply saying "no homosexuals may join the army". Simply because at least then they have some kind of standing, even if not one which people like.. but dismissing people on the grounds of them revealing their sexuality is just plain dumb. Why don't they just assume that no-one wants sex and dismiss everyone who reveals themselves to be either way?..

[SadClown]

We can debate the morality of homosexuality all we want and it will still be nothing more than a continuing loop. The bible, like every other religiouse scripture, contains a set of rules and traditions that one specific group has chosen to follow. This is there view of reality, but not reality itself. And no one view is the right view, no matter how superior you might think it to be. So with that said, can we just stop this argument because it is only making the problem worse.

Also, I am conducting a survey for my Sociology Final project and I need the help of any GAY MALES to help me out by taking it. Its only 13 questions long and shouldnt take more than 5 minutes to answer but your participation would greatly help me out. If your interested, please write me an email and I will respond tonight (10:30 pm PST) with the survey. Thanks a lot! Email: [email]Harlequin02@hotmail.com[/email]

[Drix D'Zanth]

Agh what a touchy subject. I?m debating this subject constantly within my head and it?s hard for me to give a concrete stance.

Firstly, whatever homosexual couples want to do behind closed doors is up to them. Great, have your pride, congrats. Don?t expect me to agree or accept homosexuality as a good or right choice. However, I will accept that you are homosexual. That?s the main problem. If you disagree with a [I]personal choice[/I] such as your sexual preference, you suddenly become "homophobic", and I?ve been called "racist" because I think being homosexual is wrong. I don?t go out and tell homosexuals to change their lifestyles, so don?t tell me I?m "homophobic" because my opinions differ.

As for marriage.. we must recognize it as the religious practice it is. The Bible is against homosexuality (do I really need to post verses? I?d hope we all agree on this one). Matrimony is fundamentally religion based? so by definition gay?s cannot be married or the religious institution defies its own philosophy. *shrug* If you think you are married, I don?t care. It worries me when churches are pressured or almost forced into allowing the marriage of Gays or Lesbians. That?s my problem with that issue.

The government , historically, has created benefits for family environments for married couples. They are supporting a religious event in marriage. If homosexuality is contradictory to the religious event, then why do homosexuals even want the holy matrimony? *shrug*

Should homosexual couples adopt? I say "why not". Children need love, whether it comes from a gay couple, or a straight couple. We shouldn?t bias our adoption policies (in Virginia a gay couple were given an adopted child over a straight couple because gays are, according to the agency, "less likely to create an abusive or harmful environment"). It just comes down to the needs of the children over the needs of the adults. Gays should not adopt because they feel the necessity to "procreate" (this includes artificial insemination). I don?t think there?s too much to say on this.

Gays in the military? Not touching that today.

Overall, I just see this as a moral decline. If we continue to let the structure of our morals slip into permeated relativity, where everyone can have their "personal truth", we lose sight of an absolute truth that holds civilization and law together in the first place.

Ex: I want to now marry a donkey. I have a right to marry this donkey, and I believe this donkey loves me and I love it. You are prejudice against me if you say I can?t because our love is true. No, we can?t have children. No, this isn?t natural. I don?t care. My donkey and I demand that we are recognized, and our proud of our bestiality!

How can you argue against bestiality if you argue for homosexuality? Having sex with a donkey and having sex with the same gender isn?t any less "unnatural". They both aren?t supposed to happen. It?s natural or unnatural , no gray area in this instance.

*sigh* We are going to slip into the same fate that?s befallen history over and over again. Moral decline, ethical decline, leads to political decline, social decline? it?s a downward spiral. Right and wrong don?t exist anymore. It?s frightening to me what could happen to the future integrity of our nation.

If you are going to practice homosexuality.. please keep it to your personal life, behind closed doors.

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]Ex: I want to now marry a donkey. I have a right to marry this donkey, and I believe this donkey loves me and I love it. You are prejudice against me if you say I can?t because our love is true. No, we can?t have children. No, this isn?t natural. I don?t care. My donkey and I demand that we are recognized, and our proud of our bestiality!

How can you argue against bestiality if you argue for homosexuality? Having sex with a donkey and having sex with the same gender isn?t any less "unnatural". They both aren?t supposed to happen. It?s natural or unnatural , no gray area in this instance.[/B][/QUOTE]

A major difference between homosexuality and bestiality is that one cannot have consensual sex with an animal; they're incapable of indicating any kind of consent. Animals are also incapable of expressing (much less feeling) romantic affection for a human being--whereas two men or women can demonstrate through both voice and action that their love is mutual.

Call it unnatural if you will, but it's clearly possible for homosexual people to love each other, regardless of whether or not their love is considered to be morally correct. While I suppose that a person could hypothetically fall in love with an animal, it would be rather difficult to prove that the animal loved him/her in return.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinions about the immorality of homosexuality (although I personally disagree), but I don't think that a strict comparison of homosexuality and bestiality holds up under close inspection.

~Dagger~

[Guest rttocs77]

I think that genetics play a big part in it. Do they mention dopamine, seratonin, and other various chemicals found in the brain that determine how we think or feel?

If you are going to argue about things happening that are unnatural, Drix D'Zanth, wouldn't taking medicine be a sin? A horrible deadly sin in which you are most certainly going to spend an eternity in hell for taking any?

Surgeries are unnatural. If you have surgery are you going to burn in hell-fire?

What is it to you to decide what is moral and what is not moral? Morals have been changing since the beginning of time! We started being REAL uptight pricks thanks to Queen Victoria who starte imprisoning gays. In the middle-ages Kings f-cked whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. They didn't believe it was immoral, and it seemed neither did the rest of society then.

You are being an idiot.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i]
[B]As for marriage.. we must recognize it as the religious practice it is. The Bible is against homosexuality (do I really need to post verses? I?d hope we all agree on this one). Matrimony is fundamentally religion based? so by definition gay?s cannot be married or the religious institution defies its own philosophy. *shrug* If you think you are married, I don?t care. It worries me when churches are pressured or almost forced into allowing the marriage of Gays or Lesbians. That?s my problem with that issue.[/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]Okay, so the Bible doesn't recognize it. Maybe these same sex couples don't want a church wedding. What about a Justice of the peace or a handfasting(wiccan wedding ceromony) THere is a thing called Separation of Church and State which basically means that Religion should keeps it's nose from government affairs. This hasn't happened yet, but one can hope. For the time being, let them get married outside of the church but recognize it. A hundred years in the future they can have a Vatican 50 and discuss women being priests and Gay marriages.
The Bible may be against the act, but how do we know that when someone wrote Do not lie with another man as you would a woman, they weren't talking about women?
You're just assuming that [i]only[/i] Christian same sex couples want to get married.[/color]

[quote][b]The government , historically, has created benefits for family environments for married couples. They are supporting a religious event in marriage. If homosexuality is contradictory to the religious event, then why do homosexuals even want the holy matrimony? *shrug*[/b][/quote]
[color=violet]As I stated before, this makes assumption that there are only Christian same sex couples who wish to be married and have their unions recognized. What about the pagan same sex couples and those who don't believe in any religion? Don't they have a right to get married? Or is Christian marriage the only union allowed to be recognized?[/color]

[quote][b]Overall, I just see this as a moral decline. If we continue to let the structure of our morals slip into permeated relativity, where everyone can have their "personal truth", we lose sight of an absolute truth that holds civilization and law together in the first place.[/b][quote
[color=violet]I see stupidity and ignorance a moral decline, but apparantly, this doesn't effect people. However, homosexuality does, Go figure. You can have Drugs, pornography, and violence, no problem, but add homosexuality and suddenly moral decline.
Please, I'm sick of people who decide alternative lifestyles and religions lead to moral decline.[/color]

[quote][b]Ex: I want to now marry a donkey. I have a right to marry this donkey, and I believe this donkey loves me and I love it. You are prejudice against me if you say I can?t because our love is true. No, we can?t have children. No, this isn?t natural. I don?t care. My donkey and I demand that we are recognized, and our proud of our bestiality!

How can you argue against bestiality if you argue for homosexuality? Having sex with a donkey and having sex with the same gender isn?t any less "unnatural". They both aren?t supposed to happen. It?s natural or unnatural , no gray area in this instance.[/b][/quote]
[color=violet]I believe I had this same discussion with Bloodsin. Beastiality is completely different from homosexuality [i]and[/i] heterosexuality. It's like this. THe donkey can't love you. Yes, you can both be jackasses together (no pun intended), but the donkey can't reciprocate your love no matter how hard he tries.
The Donkey has no rights. You are basically abusing this donkey for sexual gratifictation.
However, my husband's aunt and her partner love eachother. They can reciprocate eachother's love. And they raised my husband for a while. Neither one of these ladies is using the other.
You using a computer isn't natural. Driving a car isn't natural neither is getting immunizations. But you do them anyway. If someone came up with a law that said you couldn't use a computer because it's not natural, I'm sure you'd be quite pissed off.
Now take that feeling and pretend that the situation is that you and some girl you love can't get married because of some stupid reason. Let's take religion as an example. Let's say for arguments sake that you're Baptist and she's Seventh Day Adventest and the law says that Baptists can't marry 7th Day Adventists. And then, say that neither one of you is willing to change your religion. It sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? It gets worse.[/color]

[QUOTE][B]If you are going to practice homosexuality.. please keep it to your personal life, behind closed doors. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]Okay, if I was a homosexual, I would practice behind closed doors (I'm married to a really hot guy, so I can't), but only if you'd practice your religion behind closed doors.
Yes, simpole as that. You ask people to practice their beliefs behind closed doors, you must do the same thing. It's only fair, right? You don't want to know their sexual orientation and they certainly don't want to know your religious affiliation.
To be quite frank, I think you are a homophobe. It's just worse becuase you can't admit to it.[/color]