|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
I agree with him. Prayer and forgivness are a part of it too. I know plenty of people who are either currently in a homosexual relationship, or who have persued that in the past. Now they claim they are gay, but in reality aren't, or have said they are bi, and are so not. I told Dave offboard of 3 examples of what I just said here. I wont go into detail because of who it is, but one of them I will at least say this. It's someone that grew up in a Christian home, grew up going to church, know's what the Bible says about homosexuality, and says they are willingly going againts God's word, but she's doing it anyhow. Oh and this person is still attracted to the opposite sex.
And don't think I'm siding with Dave on this one just to have someone in his corner either, I've talked to at least one friend about this from church and she agrees with what we've said 100%. In fact, she was over the other night and I showed her a post that klintion made on here where he took a passage from Mathew and misinterpreted it. My friend even said the same thing I did when she saw it. This isn't something that a select few Christians think, this is what is stated in Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
I would ask how your interpeting the Bible. By what it says in a literal way or a historical critical way. Looking at the Bible with it's historical context you get vastly different reading than a literal reading. Again I recomend "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" It looks at the actual Hebrew passages & takes into account the historical times & what is actually being said.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Literal, maybe not word for word, but literal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
OK heres an example of the other way to interpet the Bible. The sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality. That might sound silly but in it's historical setting & what actually happens it's the logical conclusion. As the story is referenced throughout the Bible it's not about sex but about how you treat strangers. Back then in the harsh desert climate you were supposed to take travelers in, even enemies. Raping the strangers would be as inhospitable as you could get. A common practice of armies at the time were to rape the losers. The term sodomy later came to mean anal sex. In the story it was at best male rape, a very different thing from homosexuality. So a story that was supposed to stress the importance of taking strangers in is commonly used against people who are thought to be strange (queer)
The book does a better detailed job but hopefully my attempt to paraphrase a bit of it didn't mangle it to much.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
I would ask how your interpeting the Bible. By what it says in a literal way or a historical critical way. Looking at the Bible with it's historical context you get vastly different reading than a literal reading. Again I recomend "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" It looks at the actual Hebrew passages & takes into account the historical times & what is actually being said.
Read my quotations of the Bible, beginning with the first post on page 4.
There is clearly no misinterpretation: that within the context of the Bible, homosexuality is a defining characteristic of a society so jaded that it is abandoned to self-destruction, shortly followed by destruction by God, IS UNMISTAKEABLE.
There is no "interpretation", that is literally what it says.
Again see GENESIS chapter 18 and 19, and ROMANS chapter 1.
(How many times have I said this? 12 times? 20 times? )
The message is clear and indisputable, you just choose for your own reasons not to accept a point that has been clearly made, that this is unmistakeably what the Bible says.
And to allow this false "Bible accepts the gay lifestyle" notion to slip by and be accepted as truth has a corrupting influence on society, and CHRISTIANITY ITSELF.
Attempting to change the subject and bring in divorce just muddies the issue. The issue we are discussing here is homosexuality.
It's like if a guy is arrested for murder, and you say, Well we don't enforce sodomy laws in our state, therefore we shouldn't punish murderers either.
Divorce is something I'm not wild about (being the child of a divorced family, I have some considerable experience on how hard that is on a family). But the fact that divorce exists doesn't absolve homosexuality. Divorce is another manifestation of our instant-gratification popular culture, that encourages adulterousness and breeds a lack of commitment, that needs to be addressed. But one does not rationalize the other, the existence of divorce does not make homosexuality acceptable. They are two separate issues to be addressed and resolved.
(There are situations where one can divorce legally, according to Jesus:
1) If your spouse has committed adultery, you are justified to divorce them. That is, again, an example of the sanctity of marriage, and violation of it by one partner frees the other to seek a faithful spouse. Although one can elect to reconcile, and try to save the marriage despite their partner's unfaithfulness.
and
2) Divorce is permissible if someone married as a non-Christian, and then divorced. At that point, they are free to find a Christian spouse. 1 CORINTHIANS 7: VERSES 15-16, among others. )
The slavery issue (which as I recall T-Dave and one other here raised) is a false issue. It was not something widely accepted by Christians. There is a verse in previous times used by some to falsely justifying slavery, that a vast percentage of Christians, --even in slavery times-- condemned as a non-Christian misinterpretation.
Abolitionist John Brown, among others, was a Christian who gave his life in a rather violent effort to abolish slavery, in 1859. He truly despised the notion of slavery, and made it a holy mission to abolish it. As did others.
The verse is in Genesis chapter 9 is the one I've heard used to rationalize slavery. Specifically Genesis 9:verses 26-27. It is clearly a curse on Ham for mistreatment of Noah, and does not condemn any race or people to slavery, but specifically Noah's son Ham (and Ham's son Canaan and his descendents, for the corrupt pattern they would follow as well.)
When the Jews left Egypt around 1400 B.C., they settled in the land of Canaan, remade the land and culture into Israel.
Anyone who doesn't have a Bible, here is an NIV you can access online to read any of these sections directly (as I linked with other verses earlier):
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=all
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
OK heres an example of the other way to interpet the Bible. The sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality.
The book does a better detailed job but hopefully my attempt to paraphrase a bit of it didn't mangle it to much.
If GENESIS 19 and 20 were the only mention of homosexuality, I might say unlikely, but maybe.
But in the context of, and cross-reference with, the rest of the Bible, it is clear that homosexuality itself is what God condemns, to the point that it marks a civilization for destruction when it becomes prevalent.
"Lack of hospitality" is not the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah. The reason for the destruction of these cities was well known in ancient times, and it is clear to any who are not homosexual what that reason is. Sodomy. Wanting to rape the very angels who came to save Lot and his family.
It was not "inhospitality" that compelled God to make the crater of these destroyed cities the lowest point on the planet Earth.
There are no other crimes listed in this portion of Genesis, other than men sleeping with men, and men raping men, or attempting to.
I'm frankly amazed at the level of denial here, to verses plainly stated.
quote:
Genesis 19:1-5:
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house.
5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Batwoman, a couple of pages back DWB said:
"As I said, I believe that it is a compulsion, an impulse, not inborn, and that it can be resisted, and virtually eliminated. There are many Christians who were practicing gays and lesbians, who are now happily married heterosexuals.
So for some at least, perhaps all, homosexual desire can be overcome and eliminated. Not repressed, but just eliminated as a desire by a change in goals, perspective and priorities."
Granted he doesn't say anything about an Institute. It does match their litrature though & I was going by memory. My mistake. So where does he get his conclusions though? I don't know any reformed homosexuals myself, I do know some self hating ones though or ones that had a long struggle with it. A result of a strict religous background IMHO
I get my conclusions from many sources over the last 20 years.
There are non-Christian conservatives who feel similarly, that gays try to create the idea that homosexuality is an inborn trait, and that it is a skewed scientific perspective, where gays in the scientific community, and those sympathetic to the gay position, basically fabricate the evidence of something indicating a "gay gene", or similar extrapolations. One article I saw was in TIME, that argued both the gay and the non-gay views from the scientific community. Sometime in the early/mid 1990's.
From Christian sources, if you were to watch The 700 Club or Coral Ridge Hour, I'm sure you'd see coverage of gay issues from the conservative/Christian perspective. One I don't watch as much who also discusses the Biblical position on homosexuality frequently is Hal Lindsey, on his program Wednesdays at 8:30 PM.
But my opinion on homosexuality was well established from secular sources, long before I ever gave the Christian news sources any serious consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Dave, I appreciate your taking the time to respond and clarify.
Most of your statements are your opinion -vs- my opinion. You simply hold a different opinion than I do, and since I already clarified my opinion abundantly, I won't repeat myself again.
I'll just add comment to these points:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
If I was a career criminal, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? Of course. Could I be married in a church? Sure.
If I was a drug abuser, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? You bet. Get married in a church? Yep.
If I was a disgraced politician, would the Church close its doors to me? No, it would not let me down. Could I get married in a church? No problem.
So, the Church will accept a sincere oath of marriage from criminals, drug addicts, and betrayers of the public trust, but it will not accept the same sincere oath from gays?
The key point is that these previous 3 situations you list are for forgiven PAST TRANSGRESSIONS.
Nope. Only one of those examples is intended to be a "past transgression". You can be a practicing criminal, or an on-going drug abuser, and still get married in a Chritian church by giving a solemn oath to God.
quote:
Christianity doesn't condone someone who continues to do the same anti-Biblical behavior ongoing, while attending church. Whether it's gay sex, heterosexual sex, political corruption, drug abuse, murder, or whatever.
I think Captain Sammitch already quoted above from the new testament gospels, where Jesus saved a prostitute from being stoned and then said "Go, and sin no more."
But the Bible (and Christianity) doesn't condemn ongoing immorality.
I hasten to add that a reformed homosexual can attend church, and marry a spouse of the opposite sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Homosexuality has no victims. It is on the same level as being black or white, a Pistons fan or a Lakers fan, a drinker of beer or of wine. You can choose to love a man, or a woman, or both. There is no harm to anyone. I know gays who have contributed to society in many positive ways, who are successful in their fields, who are leaders in the community.
Homosexuality subtlely does have victims, as a result of its insideous corruptive nature.
This sounds very subjective. Lets look at your sole example of "insidiousness" or "corruption":
quote:
Contrary to attempts by the gay-supporting liberal media to say otherwise, homosexuality still accounts for an overwhelming percentage of AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S.
I read an article two weeks ago in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel newspaper (the major Fl Lauderdale area newspaper) that in Florida, about 80% of AIDS cases can be traced back to a gay or I.V. drug using sex partner, or the combination of the two.
Nationally, that goes up to 83%.
It's not that heterosexuals don't get AIDS too, but the numbers are overwhemingly gay men. Women most often get AIDS from a secretly bisexual partner.
HIV/AIDS is a disease. There is nothing more morally insidious or corruptive about contracting HIV/AIDS than there is than being diagnosed with cancer.
quote:
And as I laid out at length in previous posts here, gay ideology seeks to re-write the Bible to suit its needs, which is inherently a corruption of Christianity.
As I've said, aspects of the Bible have been properly overlooked (I'm referring to slaver again, here), so I see no reason why condemnation of homosexuality cannot also be overlooked.
quote:
Heterosexuals who commit premarital/extramarital sex don't pretend their behavior is condoned by the Bible, and try to create traditions and ceremony that change/corrupt the meaning of Christianity. Homosexuality does attempt to re-write the Bible.
( As I believe Big Ol'Willie said above, if gays would not try to give Christian legitimacy to gay rights, they would no doubt meet far less resistance. )
To say nothing of the destructive nature of gay ideology, that condones their homosexual obsession, and prevents them from pursuing a normal heterosexual life, and instead to devoting their lives to fighting for their right to be corrupt and live a gay lifestyle.
If I was prevented from dating or marrying someone of African or Oriental decent by law, because they belong to a slave culture and slavery is condoned by the Bible, I'd be fighting for my rights to do so tooth and nail. Or if I was prevented from teaching evolution in a school, even though Occam's Razor shows that it makes more sense than the Bible, I'd be protesting loudly. What is the difference in position with gays asserting their rights?
And your sole example of the corruptive nature of homosexuality - with respect, such as it is - does not automatically lead to a designation of the term "corruption" .
I think you have in mind the misconception that perverted gays corrupt youths, some sort of anal rape which forever turns the poor innocent over to the sordid path of homosexuality. But anecdotally, I've never met a gay man so inclined. It just doesn't work like that. Gays make a choice in this day and age. From what I understand, again anecdotally, its a very difficult decision because it runs counter to societal expectations - get married to someone of the opposite gender, have a family, that sort of thing.
quote:
In a democratic society, it is their right, I guess. But I don't agree with it, and I don't have to.
Christianity that is true to the Bible is not "closed minded". It is fighting for the best interests of society and mankind, and for the laws our creator gave us, and told us never to change or corrupt.
There is absolutely no way you can convince me that homosexuality is not self-destructive and corrupting. The evidence of its corruptive and destructive nature, to individuals and to our society, is overwhelming as far as I'm concerned.
But you haven't given me any examples of its destructive or corruptive nature, other than HIV/AIDS, which even you concede is capable of being transmitted by straight people, and obviously people who use needles or have unsafe blood transfusions.
Is it destructive to a culture? Our cultures revere the ancient Greeks, their philosophers, their history, their military victories, all factors leading to Ancient Greece being considered a golden age. And yet they were a bisexual society: Socrates regarded homosexuality as quite ordinary. The bravest and toughest of them all, the Spartans, were the most flagrantly homosexual.
Richard the Lionheart, who was the flower of English chivalry, was openly homosexual.
You've debated me to a standstill on other issues, Dave, and I've been hard-pressed to match some of your well-thought out arguments. But, again with respect, your views on this issue lack cogent rationale.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
OK heres an example of the other way to interpet the Bible. The sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality but inhospitality. That might sound silly but in it's historical setting & what actually happens it's the logical conclusion. As the story is referenced throughout the Bible it's not about sex but about how you treat strangers. Back then in the harsh desert climate you were supposed to take travelers in, even enemies. Raping the strangers would be as inhospitable as you could get. A common practice of armies at the time were to rape the losers. The term sodomy later came to mean anal sex. In the story it was at best male rape, a very different thing from homosexuality. So a story that was supposed to stress the importance of taking strangers in is commonly used against people who are thought to be strange (queer)
The book does a better detailed job but hopefully my attempt to paraphrase a bit of it didn't mangle it to much.
Now see, that to me is a complet lack of understanding and manipulation of scriputre. I've read what DTWB said and I agree with him so I don't feel I need to add anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
So ignoring the history of the time & some how equating a mob trying to rape travelers to two guys having a loving relationship in todays society is following the scripture? And I gotta ask do you really believe rape is sex?
Dave the Wonder Boy brings up Paul's letter to Romans. A literal reading ignoring the historical context once again turns what was said & understood at the time into the complete opposite of his message. Keep in mind Paul's audiance is both the Jews & the Gentile Christians. Arguments between the two groups are the major concern & he's trying to bring them together. He does quite cleverly with his letter. Both groups are being rebuked. He brings up homogenial acts as a purity matter to hook in the Jews & apeal to their sense of superiority. The whole goal is to bring the two groups closer together. At the time it was the least controversial of the purity issues. Sadly his main argument that faith & love are whats important in Christ & not what is pure or impure is used to divide people from the church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
"There are non-Christian conservatives who feel similarly, that gays try to create the idea that homosexuality is an inborn trait, and that it is a skewed scientific perspective, where gays in the scientific community, and those sympathetic to the gay position, basically fabricate the evidence of something indicating a "gay gene", or similar extrapolations. "
Heh, so any future scientific evidence that doesn't agree with you can be dismissed as false. Kind of makes for a safe tidy life I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Nope. Only one of those examples is intended to be a "past transgression". You can be a practicing criminal, or an on-going drug abuser, and still get married in a Chritian church by giving a solemn oath to God.
I highly doubt this scenario, Dave. This borders on a charicature of Christianity, and resembles true Christian marriage in no church I've attended. A pastor in any church I've attended meets with couples and counsels them to see if they're ready for marriage. A criminal or drug user would be advised to delay marriage until he/she has proven stable enough to reasonably commit to marriage.
quote:
[qb]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave:
Homosexuality has no victims. It is on the same level as being black or white, a Pistons fan or a Lakers fan, a drinker of beer or of wine. You can choose to love a man, or a woman, or both. There is no harm to anyone. I know gays who have contributed to society in many positive ways, who are successful in their fields, who are leaders in the community.
I strongly disagree. Being black or Asian is not the same.
Being gay is not a racial trait that one can be singled out for and harassed for. And besides, the argument has been made by any number of politicians and political groups that gays have a higher average income than any minority or group, including white heterosexual males. So much for persecution.
Some gays are noticeably effeminate, many are not. Some heterosexual men are effeminate, but are not homosexual. Many who have admitted to me they are gay, I would never have guessed it. Unless a gay person makes known that they are gay, it would be very difficult to discriminate. But regardless, they are not a bonafide minority.
Being gay is not a racial or otherwise easily distinguishable physical trait. It is a behavior. As I said, it is an obsession. I would compare it most closely to being a foot fetishist, or having a fetish for women's stockings, women's underwear, for lingerie, for cross-dressing, being a compulsive gambler, or an alcoholic, or to use another sexual example, a pedophile.
It is an obsession. And you don't give someone special minority status for a compulsion or sexual behavior.
( I can envision special minority status for men who wear women's underpants. Robin can be their poster-boy. ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) Break out the green panties... )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
I agree. (We think so alike that we must have been separated at birth, Danny--- maybe a wild pack of Australian Dingoes carried me away as a baby and then I was found and adopted by American tourists on vacation in the land of OZ? ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) )
Ah, but were that me, I would have then turned around and cooked and eaten the dingo. Whereas you would just break out some pink wool and knit a nice little dingo sweater. Then eat a salad.
Such is the major difference between us two...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Nope. Only one of those examples is intended to be a "past transgression". You can be a practicing criminal, or an on-going drug abuser, and still get married in a Chritian church by giving a solemn oath to God.
I highly doubt this scenario, Dave. This borders on a charicature of Christianity, and resembles true Christian marriage in no church I've attended. A pastor in any church I've attended meets with couples and counsels them to see if they're ready for marriage. A criminal or drug user would be advised to delay marriage until he/she has proven stable enough to reasonably commit to marriage.
But that's at the discretion of the pastor, not a dictat of the church. There is nothing to prevent a known gangsater from getting married in a church.
A devout Christian homosexual is more deserving than the straight gangster.
quote:
quote:
[qb]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave:
Homosexuality has no victims. It is on the same level as being black or white, a Pistons fan or a Lakers fan, a drinker of beer or of wine. You can choose to love a man, or a woman, or both. There is no harm to anyone. I know gays who have contributed to society in many positive ways, who are successful in their fields, who are leaders in the community.
I strongly disagree. Being black or Asian is not the same.
Being gay is not a racial trait that one can be singled out for and harassed for.
Like choice of religion and ethnicity, sexual preference is something people are singled out for and harassed for. But that is a minor point.
quote:
And besides, the argument has been made by any number of politicians and political groups that gays have a higher average income than any minority or group, including white heterosexual males. So much for persecution.
Many Jews have a higher than average income, but have been subject to persecution for centuries. Wealthy Chinese are the target of discrimination in places like Thailand, and wealthy Asians are the target of discrimination in Australia. Income earning potential does not equate to an immunity from persecution.
quote:
Some gays are noticeably effeminate, many are not. Some heterosexual men are effeminate, but are not homosexual. Many who have admitted to me they are gay, I would never have guessed it. Unless a gay person makes known that they are gay, it would be very difficult to discriminate. But regardless, they are not a bonafide minority.
Being gay is not a racial or otherwise easily distinguishable physical trait. It is a behavior. As I said, it is an obsession. I would compare it most closely to being a foot fetishist, or having a fetish for women's stockings, women's underwear, for lingerie, for cross-dressing, being a compulsive gambler, or an alcoholic, or to use another sexual example, a pedophile.
It is a behavioural choice. A choice by adult individuals to engage in homosexual behaviour should not be the subject of discrimination.
You suggest it is a compulsion, some form of procreative misprogramming?
quote:
It is an obsession. And you don't give someone special minority status for a compulsion or sexual behavior.
( I can envision special minority status for men who wear women's underpants. Robin can be their poster-boy. Break out the green panties... )
But you are according gays a special minority status: a disadvantageous one, rather than an advantageous one. The disadvantage is no ability to have a church marriage. If it is a mere obsession, and that it has no victims, then where is the harm?
Many people have a compulsion to buy full-ruins of comics, irrespective of their literary quality: such a compulsion does not hinder their religious freedom.
Does it make a difference that it is sexual?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I have heard plenty of people say that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights. What's your reasoning behind that?
Because to discriminate against someone simply because god/evolution/gamma radiation or whatever made them born different is wrong.
DaveTWB, you're attracted to women. Did you make the choice to be so? Did you look at some chicks, then look at some dudes, and gp 'eenie, meenie, minie... boobies!'? Or is it just the way you are, and you can't imagine yourself being any other way?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
[QUOTE]
Being gay is not a racial or otherwise easily distinguishable physical trait. It is a behavior. As I said, it is an obsession. I would compare it most closely to being a foot fetishist, or having a fetish for women's stockings, women's underwear, for lingerie, for cross-dressing, being a compulsive gambler, or an alcoholic, or to use another sexual example, a pedophile.
It is an obsession. And you don't give someone special minority status for a compulsion or sexual behavior.
( I can envision special minority status for men who wear women's underpants. Robin can be their poster-boy. Break out the green panties... )
Just to set you straight on this one, it is so much more than just a 'physical' obsesion. Speaking from a lifetime of knowledge on the subject, I can tell you it extends far beyond any initial physical attraction. I prefer the company of another man...I need it. I've dated many girls in my lifetime, and loved each of them for thier own beauty...but there is something there that falls short of any real connection.
If this were merely the desire to have sex with other men, as you seem to think, then I'd have long ago resigned myself the the idea that it was simply a sexual 'fetish'...But I know (and don't you dare argue me on this one, because cannot possibly argue it with any accurate understanding) it's more than that. As I've said before, my relationship carries all of the emotional baggage of any 'straight' relationship. Quite frankly, if I was in it just to satisfy a sexual fetish, I sure as hell wouldn't be settled down as I am now. I'm lucky if he's in the mood once or twice a week. :lol:
And if you ever mention pedophilia in the same breath as homosexuality again, I will hunt your arrogant ass down. I am sick to death of that. There is no possible connection, other than the ones your twisted sense of superiority has drawn.
Another thing, earlier in here you mentioned the whole 'yes it does hurt others, look at AIDS', or something to that effect. I hate when people mention this as a legitimate argument. Look at the social factors that have shaped the gay community...It has formed around secrecy and shame. There was a time (not that long ago, really...10 years back otta do it) when a successful gay relationship was a fantasy in light of societal pressures. We've seen people grow into their old age knowing deep down what they want, but not being allowed to live thier life in accord with thier heart's desire. Out of this shame, coupled with the fact that men (gay or 'straight') are generally more sexually active, we've seen the devlopement of a sub-culture where instant gratification was the closest one could get to thier ideal existence. It's sad and disgusting...and it's existence can be pinned more on judgmental forces like yourself and your church than those who sought personal fulfilment.
And at the end of the day, you'd be wise to note that lesbians have the lowest rate of HIV transmission out of any demographic, thereby blowing your whole theory to hell. Just who are they hurting?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Homosexuality subtlely does have victims, as a result of its insideous corruptive nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
This sounds very subjective. Lets look at your sole example of "insidiousness" or "corruption":
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Contrary to attempts by the gay-supporting liberal media to say otherwise, homosexuality still accounts for an overwhelming percentage of AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S.
I read an article two weeks ago in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel newspaper (the major Fl Lauderdale area newspaper) that in Florida, about 80% of AIDS cases can be traced back to a gay or I.V. drug using sex partner, or the combination of the two.
Nationally, that goes up to 83%.
It's not that heterosexuals don't get AIDS too, but the numbers are overwhemingly gay men. Women most often get AIDS from a secretly bisexual partner.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
HIV/AIDS is a disease. There is nothing more morally insidious or corruptive about contracting HIV/AIDS than there is than being diagnosed with cancer.
I feel like I've explained this repeatedly, but I'll attempt to clarify.
AIDS is not highly contagious, like SARS or Hantavirus or Ebola or the common cold. AIDS is a very preventable disease.
There ARE innocent victims of AIDS, but almost all cases are through illicit sex, infidelity, prostitution, or I.V. drug use. By this, as I'm sure you already know, it is a disease almost exclusively caused by immoral behavior and selfish disregard for the safety of a person's sex partners. The children born to AIDS infected mothers, and unsuspecting partners of adulterous and bisexual men being the usual exceptions.
And as I said, in the U.S. and much of the industrialized world, it is largely a gay disease.
In places like Asia and Africa and the undeveloped world, it is more related to prostitution and heterosexual anal sex (as a way to prevent pregnancy through unprotected vaginal sex).
And in the example of a gay man who gives HIV/AIDS to another man or a girlfiend, or a wife, or to children through his infected wife, through a secret bisexual life or other lack of consideration for his partner, homosexuality is clearly not a "victimless crime".
Homosexuality is not the only cause of AIDS and sexual indiscretion, but it is certainly a big one.
It's frustrating for me to have to type this explanation, because you're far too informed and intelligent to not have already seen this perspective. Perhaps you just wanted written clarification.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And as I laid out at length in previous posts here, gay ideology seeks to re-write the Bible to suit its needs, which is inherently a corruption of Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
As I've said, aspects of the Bible have been properly overlooked (I'm referring to slavery again, here), so I see no reason why condemnation of homosexuality cannot also be overlooked.
Because it is among the most severely criticized behaviors in the Bible.
As I've said repeatedly, to condone and accept homosexuality is repeatedly depicted as the mark of a decadent civilization on the verge of destruction.
It's not like eating shellfish or pork, it's a major transgression, raised repeatedly throughout the Bible as a milestone on the brink of a civilization's total destruction and collapse (see my post again at the top of page 4 of this topic. Even that is not a complete list of relevant verses.)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
If I was prevented from dating or marrying someone of African or Oriental descent by law, because they belong to a slave culture and slavery is condoned by the Bible, I'd be fighting for my rights to do so tooth and nail.
I don't agree with the logic of this scenario. I don't know anyone who argues as a Christian who they will date, based on a passage that endorses slavery. The Bible does NOT endorse slavery.
And as I pointed out above, the rationalization of slavery that was alleged to exist in the Bible was NOT considered valid, even by a vast number of Christians in that Civil War time (1865 and prior). Certainly slavery was not endorsed in the North. And the example of John Brown, that I gave above, a Christian who risked his life and died in a personal effort to stop slavery. As did many other Bible-reading Christian abolitionists.
And many well-populated Western U.S. territories were denied statehood for decades, up till after the Civil War, to prevent the further spread of slavery.
I'd say Darwin is to blame for beliefs of racial superiority, NOT the Bible. Beliefs of racial superiority emerged from Darwin's writings.
As I said, what Noah said (in Genesis) to Ham, and Ham's son Canaan, was a judgement where Ham was cursed for his specific individual immoral actions, NOT condemning a race as inferiors.
Canaan and his descendents would be slaves to Shem and his sons, because Ham and his sons would be morally corrupt, and punished by God, having inferior blessings to that of his two brothers. Shem and Japheth, in contrast, would be rewarded. Much like the contrast of Cain and Abel.
quote:
GENESIS 9, verses 24-27:
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,
25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD , the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."
Clearly, Ham by his actions has lost his father Noah's blessing, and Noah has forfeited his inheritance to his two brothers Shem and Japheth. (Canaan is Ham's son).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Or if I was prevented from teaching evolution in a school, even though Occam's Razor shows that it makes more sense than the Bible, I'd be protesting loudly. What is the difference in position with gays asserting their rights?
I've yet to see any conclusive scientific proof that homosexuality is inborn/genetic. It's just a theory.
What I've seen indicates that homosexuality is an abberant impulse. And that it does have a corrosive effect on society, in that homosexuality kicks open the door for a variety of abberrant sexual behaviors: Bondage and discipline, rimming, fisting, group sex, swing clubs, cross dressing/transvestites, sex changes, various other fetishes, and with or without the blessing of the gay community, pedophilism (as Big Ol'Willy also previously noted).
The America of 2003 is far more crass and vulgar than the America of 1990. And the gay movement is a part of that, a big part. It is a part of the in-your-face/ shock value/morally compassless, group-sex, anything-goes culture, that has very few standards left.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
And your sole example of the corruptive nature of homosexuality - with respect, such as it is - does not automatically lead to a designation of the term "corruption" .
I think you have in mind the misconception that perverted gays corrupt youths, some sort of anal rape which forever turns the poor innocent over to the sordid path of homosexuality. But anecdotally, I've never met a gay man so inclined. It just doesn't work like that. Gays make a choice in this day and age. From what I understand, again anecdotally, its a very difficult decision because it runs counter to societal expectations - get married to someone of the opposite gender, have a family, that sort of thing.
????!!!???
I don't know what the anal rape thing is about in your statement.
Although there are gay rapes. Though I don't consider that a major factor. Except in U.S. prisons, where it is estimated a million men a year are raped, which far exceeds the number of women raped nationally.
A guy I met at church in 1988 had just left the gay lifestyle and become a Christian. He was anally raped by two men at a Miami zoo when he was 13, and it screwed him up sexually for several years (he was 20 when I met him). He described frequenting gay clubs and having anonymous sex with many men, frequently in a parking lot or alley behind a gay club. Several gay men who have left the homosexual life have described similar experiences to me.
A friend of mine's home was adjacent to the back alley behind a gay club, and he complained that it was a frequent problem, of gays making out in or near his backyard.
But in saying corrupting influence, I mean a lowering of standards in society, at a more broad mainstream/secular level, as well as trying to re-write and undermine the Bible to suit their own needs, as well as adopting children, who growing up in such an atmosphere would be more likely to be homosexual or bisexual. And trans-gender stuff that really creeps me out. Women who look like Janet Reno. Men who look like men, but behave like women. And sometimes dress like women as well.
In Miami a few months ago, some 17-year-old kid in a Miami high school dressed in drag and was elected prom queen, and the guy came on stage in drag and accepted his award. A freakshow. Hideous. Perverse. That could never have happened 10 years ago. There were opinions interviewed on the news, both pro and con. Most of the kids who voted for him did it expecting a freakshow, and got what they expected.
It just lowers the moral bar.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
But you haven't given me any examples of its destructive or corruptive nature, other than HIV/AIDS, which even you concede is capable of being transmitted by straight people, and obviously people who use needles or have unsafe blood transfusions.
On the contrary, I feel like I've given extensive examples. If not, I just gave more above in this post.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Is it destructive to a culture? Our cultures revere the ancient Greeks, their philosophers, their history, their military victories, all factors leading to Ancient Greece being considered a golden age. And yet they were a bisexual society: Socrates regarded homosexuality as quite ordinary. The bravest and toughest of them all, the Spartans, were the most flagrantly homosexual.
The Greek and Roman cultures began with great promise, then sunk into decadence that destroyed them from within. Many Christian scholars have written of the similarities between Rome on the verge of collapse, and modern America and Europe: huge public debt, huge entitlement programs, moral decadence and social division, orgies, bread and circuses (which were comparable to popular entertainment such as Jerry Springer, The Bachelor, House Party , and a slew of other insulting trash reality dating shows that border on softcore porn, and and other vulgar movies, television and music, that add to the perception that we live in a wild, promiscuous, standardless society, and create a common-sense notion that: "Well, it's on every channel, that must be what real dating is like..." and becomes a role-model of behavior for a generation of teens and pre-teens who are given pure tittilation in place of a real culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Richard the Lionheart, who was the flower of English chivalry, was openly homosexual.
This one, I admit, is a surprise for me.
If this is even true, I can't imagine it is that well known. There are more prominent gay men in history, I'm sure, such as Michaelangelo, and several Greek and Roman figures you've given mention to.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
You've debated me to a standstill on other issues, Dave, and I've been hard-pressed to match some of your well-thought out arguments. But, again with respect, your views on this issue lack cogent rationale.
I don't know how to answer other than to take the discussion one question at a time.
As I'm sure you can imagine, many of your points from the other perspective don't ring true for me either.
For me, it's so obvious and self-evident, but I understand you come from another perspective. The Bible stance on homosexuality in particular seems so crystal clear, as it relates to the corruptive notion of gay marriage. I find it difficult to believe, whether you believe the Bible or not, that you don't see that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.
All the re-spinning of that obvious point is making me dizzy.
We may just agree to disagree. But I hope that you can at least see my perspective, whether or not you agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
And Dave...can't you see, despite all of your arguments as to what the Bible says on the matter, that this discrimination is just plain wrong? I mean, you show these glimmers of being a sensetive, normal guy and then top it off with such venom and contempt.
I mean, if you were really so worried about the sanctity of marriage, wouldn't you become a marriage counselor? It seems to me that 'straight' people - christian and otherwise - don't really view it with any sort of divine respect, what with the 50% divorce rate and all....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
So ignoring the history of the time & some how equating a mob trying to rape travelers to two guys having a loving relationship in todays society is following the scripture? And I gotta ask do you really believe rape is sex?
Dave the Wonder Boy brings up Paul's letter to Romans. A literal reading ignoring the historical context once again turns what was said & understood at the time into the complete opposite of his message. Keep in mind Paul's audiance is both the Jews & the Gentile Christians. Arguments between the two groups are the major concern & he's trying to bring them together. He does quite cleverly with his letter. Both groups are being rebuked. He brings up homogenial acts as a purity matter to hook in the Jews & apeal to their sense of superiority. The whole goal is to bring the two groups closer together. At the time it was the least controversial of the purity issues. Sadly his main argument that faith & love are whats important in Christ & not what is pure or impure is used to divide people from the church.
I'm not buying.
The New Testament repeatedly condemns sexual immorality. Homosexuality is certainly that, in any verse it is mentioned in the Bible.
This is yet another contrived rationalization, that bypasses the clear and consistent portrayal of homosexuality in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
. In fact, she was over the other night and I showed her a post that klintion made on here where he took a passage from Mathew and misinterpreted it.
I can understand your not accepting my assesment of St' Paul's assertations, or Moses' condemnations (quite frankly, as I stated at the time, those are personal conclusions that I've drawn, and never presented them as anything else)...But I honestly thought that it was commmon knowledge that Christ did away with the original covenant with Isreal. I've heard many a sermon in my lifetime to that effect, usually to explain why christians are no longer subject to some of the more bizzare implications of it. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone question this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
Because to discriminate against someone simply because god/evolution/gamma radiation or whatever made them born different is wrong.
DaveTWB, you're attracted to women. Did you make the choice to be so? Did you look at some chicks, then look at some dudes, and gp 'eenie, meenie, minie... boobies!'? Or is it just the way you are, and you can't imagine yourself being any other way?
Again, this has already been covered abundantly, but you choose to not read my previous posts.
If I lusted after 12-year-old girls, or had an inborn impulse to rape women, or to kill people, would I have a right to act on those impulses because it's an inborn part of my identity?
No. Of course not.
I again stand by what I said earlier, that homosexuality is an impulse, a compulsion, an obsession, that can be controlled, redirected, or even eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
And Dave...can't you see, despite all of your arguments as to what the Bible says on the matter, that this discrimination is just plain wrong? I mean, you show these glimmers of being a sensetive, normal guy and then top it off with such venom and contempt.
I mean, if you were really so worried about the sanctity of marriage, wouldn't you become a marriage counselor? It seems to me that 'straight' people - christian and otherwise - don't really view it with any sort of divine respect, what with the 50% divorce rate and all....
What I've stated is the clear standard of the Bible, chapter and verse. It is NOT "discriminatory and wrong". That is what it says. And to say otherwise is just misrepresentative spin on your part.
As I've said repeatedly, related to the Bible, I've only repeated what it says.
One man's "venom" is another man's facts. Reading the Bible, what I've quoted are clearly GOD's facts. And straying from God's standard has brought anarchy to our culture. Sorry you don't see it that way. The anarchy in our culture seems pretty evident to me.
The divorce thing has already been mentioned. It's largely a result of popular culture, and lack of commitment bred from bombardment of messages selling instant gratification in our popular media. That's your secular culture at work, undermining Christian ideals, commitment and fidelity, saying that every kind of "alternative lifestyle" is okay. Of which gay culture has no small hand. But if we object to the obvious moral ambiguity that is causing it, we're "narrow-minded" and "homophobes".
I don't dislike gays as people, I think they're good people who have bought into a belief system and lifestyle that a few decades ago any individual would have just snapped out of, and gotten on with their life. And looked back 20 years later, sitting next to their wife, and said; Geez, what a crazy idea that was...
Whereas now there's a huge movement that pushes for all kinds of twistings of our traditions, and rights for the 2% or so who are gay (and even THAT number seems incredibly high to me), and stomp on the traditions of the other 98% of the population who aren't gay.
Do you REALLY think that's not going unsettle and piss off a lot of people?
I really don't see why gays need marriage, other than to annoy conservatives nationwide. Will it really win any more respect from the mainstream for gay marriage? Or will it just be something where a vast percentage of that 98% heterosexual majority will just roll their eyes and say "whatever..."
I mean, why not just live together? Many heterosexual couples do. And they don't pretend God or the Bible sanctions their doing so.
Gays would serve their cause better by not rubbing their abberrant sexuality in the rest of our faces. It's just gross to me, I don't even want to think about it. I feel no hostility toward gays, let them do whatever they want behind closed doors.
But force me to look at it, and to see laws passed that undermine the definition of marriage as it has existed for 6,000 years, and twists the very meaning of the Bible itself... well, you've crossed the line of what you can do in your own home, and tried to pervert what is sacred to me. Just so you can rationalize your own lifestyle.
And hell yes, I have a problem with that.
I've offered explanations, clear and indisputable, but you clearly won't accept anything other than YOUR VERSION of the truth (which is to say, a lie that rationalizes homosexuality) despite all logic to the contrary. Well, don't expect me to endorse your lie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
From Supreme Court AP
Ruling on Gay Sex May Affect Other Issues
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's ruling striking down bans on gay sex also strengthens the constitutional underpinnings for legal abortion and other socially divisive issues, some legal experts say.
The court said Thursday that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business and not the government's, a historic civil rights ruling that will likely be used to challenge other bans involving private conduct.
The decision in many respects deals with the same issues as the court's 30-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling that provided for legal abortions. Emory University law professor David Garrow said the ruling "strengthens and enshrines" the court's thinking in the abortion case.
The case involving gay sex was in the final batch of rulings handed down by the Supreme Court this term. The justices take a three-month summer break each year. Justices in the past have chosen the last day to announce if they plan to retire, but no one did so Thursday.
Also this week the court upheld the use of affirmative action in cases involving college admissions policies at the University of Michigan.
The court, in striking down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturned an earlier ruling that had upheld sodomy laws on moral grounds. The law allowed police to arrest gays for oral or anal sex, conduct that would be legal for heterosexuals.
"The scale and footprint of this far swamps the Michigan duo (affirmative action rulings) in long-term historical stature," Garrow said.
Justices used strikingly broad and contrite language in the 6-3 decision.
The Constitution's framers "knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
Two gay men arrested in Texas after police walked in on them having sex "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
In a lengthy, strongly worded dissent, the three most conservative justices said the ruling was a huge mistake that showed the court had been co-opted by the "so-called homosexual agenda."
"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for himself and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, suggesting the ruling would invite laws allowing same-sex marriages.
Matt Coles, director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court's decision was broader than expected and will affect other social issues involving gay rights.
The ruling also, he said, "should go a long way to make us feel a lot more comfortable about the continuing vitality of a woman's right to choose."
Houston District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal Jr., who argued in favor of the law before the high court, called the ruling a major departure from earlier court statements.
"I am disappointed that the Supreme Court (majority) did not allow the people of the state of Texas, through their elected legislators, to determine moral standards of governance for this state."
Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
Thursday's ruling invalidates all of those laws, lawyers said.
Garrow said it also weakens the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in ruling in 1997 that terminally ill people do not have a constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but would have decided it on different constitutional grounds. She also did not join in reversing the court's 1986 ruling on the same subject.
The court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the dissenters.
Although the majority opinion said the case did not "involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," Scalia said the ruling could open the way to laws allowing gay marriage.
"This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Scalia wrote.
The ruling also threatens laws banning bestiality, bigamy and incest, he wrote.
The two men at the heart of the case, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were each fined $200 and spent a night in jail for the misdemeanor sex charge in 1998.
The case began when a neighbor with a grudge faked a distress call to police, telling them that a man was "going crazy" in Lawrence's apartment. Police went to the apartment, pushed open the door and found the two men.
"This ruling lets us get on with our lives and it opens the door for gay people all over the country," Lawrence said Thursday.
The case is Lawrence v. Texas, 02-102.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
I just wanted to quickly address this, before heading off home: quote:
He described frequenting gay clubs and having anonymous sex with many men, frequently in a parking lot or alley behind a gay club. Several gay men who have left the homosexual life have described similar experiences to me.
If you substituted the word "homosexual" for "heterosexual", and "man" for "woman" in that passage, you'd be describing my lifestyle in the late 80s and most of the 90s.
"Decadence" isn't confined to gays. Which kind of gets back to my point: I could have married in a church, entirely unrepentant of my lifestyle, and yet a committed gay couple who have lead a chaste life for years and years cannot. (As an aside, I did not get married in a church because I'm an atheist, and I felt it would been hypocritical and shown disrespect to the church if I had done so).
I'd like particularly to address your assertion that AIDS is a predominantly homosexual disease and a sign of the corruptive nature of homosexuality, and therefore a reason why gays should not be allowed to get married in a church, but will have to leave it until the morning (my time).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
...I've offered explanations, clear and indisputable, but you clearly won't accept anything other than YOUR VERSION of the truth (which is to say, a lie that rationalizes homosexuality) despite all logic to the contrary. Well, don't expect me to endorse your lie.
That was rather inappropriate, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
From the Supreme Court article:
The court said Thursday that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business and not the government's...
This much I can agree with.
But unfortunately...
quote:
From the Supreme Court article:
... a historic civil rights ruling that will likely be used to challenge other bans involving private conduct.
Matt Coles, director of the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court's decision was broader than expected and will affect other social issues involving gay rights.
Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four — Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri — prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
Thursday's ruling invalidates all of those laws, lawyers said.
Garrow said it also weakens the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in ruling in 1997 that terminally ill people do not have a constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide.
Scalia said the ruling could open the way to laws allowing gay marriage.
The ruling also threatens laws banning bestiality, bigamy and incest, he wrote.
...it doesn't end there.
This is clearly a beach-head, that will push through legal precedents that will defy all common sense, for a majority of Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Gays would serve their cause better by not rubbing their abberrant sexuality in the rest of our faces. It's just gross to me, I don't even want to think about it. I feel no hostility toward gays, let them do whatever they want behind closed doors.
But force me to look at it, and to see laws passed that undermine the definition of marriage as it has existed for 6,000 years, and twists the very meaning of the Bible itself... well, you've crossed the line of what you can do in your own home, and tried to pervert what is sacred to me. Just so you can rationalize your own lifestyle.
*thunk* (Klint engages in the infinitely more productive activity of slaming his head into a wall).
As I said in I think the very first reply i gave to you, it's not about 'getting respect'. I don't want your respect, or even your approval. What I do want is to know that if I'm in the hospital, my boyfriend will be allowed at my bedside. What I do want is to be confident that if I died tomorrow, my boyfriend would unquestionably inherit my estate. What I want is the satisfaction that I am not a second class citizen, subject to the whims of people like you. Fine, you feel that Christ hates me. That's your perogative. That is still no justification for treating me as an invalid member of society.
I don't want to shove anything in your face any more than you'd want to shove your life in mine. Quite frankly all of the 'abberhant' sexuality that goes along with my life is my buisness....I think I'd be more disgusted if you were wittness to it than you ever could be. :)
And for the last bloody time, before you start flining the word 'lie' at me, and my faith in Christ, you should really take a step back and re-examine all of the 'facts' that you've presented in your arguments. I'd hoped you'd understood that my intentions in extrapolating on bible context are genuine in their intent. Quite frankly, that whole discussion should never have taken place because it's pretty much drowned out anything else that's been said to you, hasn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
...I've offered explanations, clear and indisputable, but you clearly won't accept anything other than YOUR VERSION of the truth (which is to say, a lie that rationalizes homosexuality) despite all logic to the contrary. Well, don't expect me to endorse your lie.
That was rather inappropriate, don't you think?
I'm not sure I get your meaning, Wednesday.
I've offered several topic pages of quotes and explanations, and I can't seem to get the slightest acknowledgement of what the words in the Bible clearly say... is CLEARLY WHAT THEY SAY !
It took a lot of time to find and post thiose passages. And for what?
I feel the clear validity of my points (of what the Bible and Christian teachings clearly say about homosexuality) is being deliberately ignored.
I guarantee when the current legislation has undermined Christianity as I predicted, that no one will be arguing the rights of Christians to their beliefs and lifestyle.
And by the way, I haven't threatened anyone. klinton has.
quote:
klinton:
And if you ever mention pedophilia in the same breath as homosexuality again, I will hunt your arrogant ass down. I am sick to death of that. There is no possible connection, other than the ones your twisted sense of superiority has drawn.
So much for civility.
My "twisted sense of superiority" is supported by the words of Justice Scalia. And no doubt millions of other displeased Americans.
My position makes ideological sense. Yours only bends the truth to rationalize your lifestyle.
I've stuck to the issue, and resisted namecalling. Many on the liberal side of this topic have not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Oh, shit. Sorry about that one Dave. You just have no idea how much it sickens me when people attempt to get sympathy for thier bigotry by alluding to pedophilia. You'd be more correct in stating that there's a stronger connection between heterosexuality and mollesting children, as the vast majority of such cases are indeed carried out by 'straight' men.
You know, that I wish you no ill, right? If I had, I'd have given up talking to you days ago. It was a knee jerk response to a statement I've grown to hate with a violent passion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
You know, klinton, I really am trying to understand.
To get back to the issue, setting aside the Christianity aspect for a minute, I understand gays wanting to live together. And while I've met and know many gay men (although only one lesbian) I've never heard them express a desire for gay marriage.
From my own experience, very few gays even want to be part of the Christian church, and are virtually all atheist that I've met.
That's largely why I see gay marriage as a trumped-up gay activist ploy, rather than a legitimate desire for marriage.
Again, if gays want to live together, it's a free country, and many heterosexual couples do the same, and simply live together, bypassing the issue of Christianity and marriage.
The point where I have a problem with HETEROsexual unmarried cohabitation is when children are involved. I really feel sorry for kids who grow up without legitimate parents. Which is the same reason I also oppose gay adoption.
But again if gay men (and women) want to live together, that's their right, and many companies already offer spousal-type benefits to gay couples (Ben & Jerry's in Vermont was the first I heard of). Gays already HAVE the right to cohabitate together, be openly gay, and even show affection and hold hands in public. I fail to see why gay marriage is necessary. Except to piss off Christian conservatives and attempt to change their concept of marriage out from under them, against scripture.
Gays have freedom. If they pushed for no other legal changes, they would find far less resistance. Why does every last institution have to be overturned? And why would you assume that is not threatening to the conservative/traditional mainstream?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
The point where I have a problem with HETEROsexual unmarried cohabitation is when children are involved. I really feel sorry for kids who grow up without legitimate parents. Which is the same reason I also oppose gay adoption.
Here's one area where I'll almost agree with you, but for entirely different reasons. I have no intention of bringing children into my family, as I don't want them to have to live with the stigma and burden that it might entail. This is not to say that I would oppose anyone of my friends who decided differently, or feel that the option should be denied them (who would argue that Rosie O'Donell doesn't come across as the perfect mom?). It's just not something I would want a child to have to cope with.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Wow. Something resembling agreement ! It only took 10 pages...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Dave the wonder boy, you can repeat things as many times as you want. That obviously doesn't make something more true.
Going back to Sodom & your misuse of the story. In Mathew 10:5-15 Jesus refers not to gay sex when sending out his 12. He says "If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom & Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town." He is obviously talking about hospitality here and there is no reference to consensual gay sex in either.
I brought divorce not to argue one makes the other right but to point out the lack of concern about it. You argue about the gays ruining the concept of marriage yet huge numbers of hetrosexuals have been getting divorced & remarried. Where was the concern & efforts to protect marriage when hetrosexuals started to abuse it?
As for Paul's letter to Romans, your focusing on one passage & missing the point of what he's saying. Romans 14:14 "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
.
Going back to Sodom & your misuse of the story. In Mathew 10:5-15 Jesus refers not to gay sex when sending out his 12. He says "If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom & Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town." He is obviously talking about hospitality here and there is no reference to consensual gay sex in either.
How the heck do you see Jesus apointing his apostles to go and tell peole of Him with Sodom and Gamora? Those are 2 completly differnt things. Sodam and Gamora was about the imoral lives everyone was living, not about inhospitality as you claim it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Why does Jesus bring up Sodam & Gomorah when sending out his 12? It's obvious that they are going to towns & are expected to be taking in. Like the angels in Sodom if they are not treated right that town is going to suffer worse than Sodom did.
DWB, homosexuality is certainly not a fetish. Some people might lust after a shoe or an object but they don't love the object. Anyone in a long monogomous relationship gay or straight can tell you it's not the lust keeping two people together but the love. I count myself very fortunate in that respect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I think you are all missing Dave TWB's point.
Because the Bible says homosexuality is immoral, DTWB formulates his opinion on these religious teachings.(and I think it takes a dramatic stretch of reason to assume that there isn't overwhelming evidence of such a condemnation within the overall collection of the Christian Bible)
But in response, there are two lines of criticism.
1. The argument that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
and
2. Some derision for the position itself which manifests itself in two possible forms:
A. Disgust at the Bible for taking a stand contrary to one's opinion, or
B. Disgust at Dave TWB for having a position contrary to one's own.
As to Point 1, I have said above, I feel this is at best revisionist history. I think it is possible to take my view that it is not the divine word of god, but rather God's word as told by man. Or even to dismiss it as folklore. But it is also a legitimate view to believe as DTWB does. That everything in the Bible must be followed as the way he or his church reads it. You may not approve of his views, but I think it is a legitimate view. Because I believe that if a person who had never read the Bible before came to this topic in an objective manner, one would conclude that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. Right or wrong, I feel the overall tone and content of the Bible (as a whole) does not approve of the lifestyle.
Point 2 is more complex. Point 2a is the easier part. It should be the crux of the debate, actually. The true debate here should be whether the Bible is correct. I think there is some room here. DTWB feels that the Bible is ALWAYS correct. Others may feel that the Bible is folklore. I am in neither camp.
But that brings me to Point 2b: the derision of DTWB for his views. I will defend DTWB. DTWB doesn't seem to have malice. He seems to be defending a position that has been given to him by a higher power. He believes it because he is a firm believer in his faith. I find that admirable.
I understand the argument that if we remove the teachings of the Bible with which we don't agree, then it is not God's teachings, but rather man's.
I think people are too quick to dismiss others as hatemongerers when they are subscribing to a theory that is not their own.
Now, I imagine someone would make the argument that DTWB should do some thinking on his own. But I think we'll all agree that "Does God exist" is a WHOLE other 10+ Page thread.
The simple fact is, DTWB has subscribed to a doctrine that tells him the moral code of life is "x" and he, in his reasonable opinion, has to follow all or nothing.
I think DTWB's theory is perfectly valid, though I disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
BigOl'Willie while I beleive DWB deserves a pat on the back for debating his beliefs with others & spending much time & energy doing that it doesn't make his point anymore valid than mine or anyone elses. Like anybody else he has a right to it.
As for the Bible condeming homosexuality, I too used to believe that years ago. The thing is I had only read parts of it. To me, DWB is looking at the tree & not seeing the forest. Pauls letter to Romans is a good example of this. By emphasizing the bit where Paul is saying homosexuality is socially unacceptable, you lose the entire point of what Paul is speaking about. (The purity matters in Levitcus don't matter & should not be used to divide Christains)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
[QB] I think you are all missing Dave TWB's point.
Because the Bible says homosexuality is immoral, DTWB formulates his opinion on these religious teachings.(and I think it takes a dramatic stretch of reason to assume that there isn't overwhelming evidence of such a condemnation within the overall collection of the Christian Bible)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only logical response to that is that the inquisitions, the crusades (essentialy mass genocide), and the witch hunts, were all based on what was deemed accurate interpretaion of the bible at the time. These readings have since been revisited, and their merits discounted. To propogate hate in the name of the bible is, in my eyes, not a valid theory. It's a travestty against humanity, masquarading as 'christian morality'.
I mean - just to step outside the argument at hand here - the church botches things as simple as not praying to idols, nor making for oneself representations of anything in the heavens or on earth for devotion. They set up saints as mediatiors to pray to, when they angels themselves (perfect creatures that bask in God's glory) refuse any sort of devotion from men, and Christ specifically said that no oe can approach the father exept through him. These too are simple, stated in black and white principles that the church ignores to thier own ends. When asked in his book about the use of titles in the church (a practice specifically condemned by Christ), Jean-Paul replied something to the effect that 'these traditions had been in place so long that what harm could there be in them'....exactly the sort of behavior Christ had warned against.
These are just a few minor examples...all things stated just as plainly in the bible as 'homos are bad', but yet somehow they can look the other way here, and reason thier way around them...but to look for justification for my existence from my creator is to propogate lies?
Do you understand why I argue so fervently? As I've said, I have nothing against Dave. He actually sounds like a right decent guy, who's willing to concede more than most. But just as he cannot let go of his convictions, I cannot possibly ignore my own.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
[QB]
The only logical response to that is that the inquisitions, the crusades (essentialy mass genocide), and the witch hunts, were all based on what was deemed accurate interpretaion of the bible at the time. These readings have since been revisited, and their merits discounted. To propogate hate in the name of the bible is, in my eyes, not a valid theory. It's a travestty against humanity, masquarading as 'christian morality'.
That is a facially interesting argument but it is not on point. Simply because one thing (which I think you will find is more political than religious if you study the true motives of those events) is repudiated does not invalidate EVERYTHING that is IN there.
But the biggest thing I would like to highlight is "in my eyes". I agree you think it is the wrong interpretation. I agree with your interpretation. But UNAMBIGIUOSLY there are criticisms of the practice. If you accept that, then you must believe that.
quote:
I mean - just to step outside the argument at hand here - the church botches things as simple as not praying to idols, nor making for oneself representations of anything in the heavens or on earth for devotion. They set up saints as mediatiors to pray to, when they angels themselves (perfect creatures that bask in God's glory) refuse any sort of devotion from men, and Christ specifically said that no oe can approach the father exept through him. These too are simple, stated in black and white principles that the church ignores to thier own ends. When asked in his book about the use of titles in the church (a practice specifically condemned by Christ), Jean-Paul replied something to the effect that 'these traditions had been in place so long that what harm could there be in them'....exactly the sort of behavior Christ had warned against.
These are just a few minor examples...all things stated just as plainly in the bible as 'homos are bad', but yet somehow they can look the other way here, and reason thier way around them...
This is absolutley unfair. This is as blanket a statement.
When you say "the church" you refer to Catholocism. I doubt DTWB is Catholic.
But overall, your point is valid. I simply think it was unfairly couched. The real question you should ask is Why follow one thing to the letter and slide on other things? That is a legitimate question if not made murky with sniping and generalization.
quote:
Do you understand why I argue so fervently? As I've said, I have nothing against Dave. He actually sounds like a right decent guy, who's willing to concede more than most. But just as he cannot let go of his convictions, I cannot possibly ignore my own.
But what exactly is it that you are arguing? I can't gather it. It seems all over the board.
Which position is closest to your view on this topic?
A. That the Bible doesn't say or doesn't mean homosexuality is immoral.
B. That even if it says it, DTWB and others should ignore that passage as antiquated.
C. That the Bible, if it feels that way, is morally wrong.
D. That DTWB is wrong regardless of the Bible.
It seems he has been hit with every possible option. I am just confused on the crux of the debate.
Finally (and slightly out of order):
quote:
but to look for justification for my existence from my creator is to propogate lies?
I didn't like that line either. I could reasonably see that you feel that is true. I don't like the "know" school of religion. I prefer the "believe" school.
But here is the interesting point: why are you trying to justify your existence to your creator by convincing Dave?
Dave can't keep you from justifying your existence with God. The only thing DTWB can do is keep you from justifying your existence at the Court House. Isn't that the real issue here?
|
|
|
|
|
