Oregon judge orders recognition of Gay marriages...

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 23, 2004, 12:57 pm

I sold my soul in High School for $1 (though I'll be glad to sell it over and over if anyone else is interested). So I have no idea what scars might be on it. You'll have to contact the current owner (unfortunately, I can't remember who I sold it to, as several of us were in the business of buying and trading souls).

Perhaps I could go buy a sole. Might be close enough.

Post by **Sylvus** » April 23, 2004, 1:09 pm

Words have multiple definitions that you often times need to glean the meaning of from the context of the discussion. "Marriage" is, in this context, a contract of love, and the context also determines if that contract is made in the eyes of the government, the Christian God, some other deity, etc.

Adex wrote:Right now it is legal in the US to produce pornography. While there are many people who think pornography wrong, they tolerate it out of respect for other people who want to freedom to view it. Laws are written that allow for pornography. Nothing in our laws celebrate pornography, but it is tolerated.

Right, and a mainstream movie and a porno movie are both called "movies". You can enjoy either without endorsing the other, so why bother getting all hung up on the semantics? The word exists outside of the scope of the Sacrament of Marriage, and vice versa.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 23, 2004, 1:14 pm

Hrrrm lets look at the etymology of these words, shall we?

Etymology of Marriage

Old English developed around 550 AD. It’s possible that the words wedding and wedlock have had essentially the same meaning over the past 1400 years.

Wedding – From the Old English Weddian, meaning “a wedding.” Weddian comes from the Old English word Wedd, which meant “to pledge.”

Wedlock – From the Old English Wedlac, meaning “marriage bond.”

Betrothed – Derived through Middle English from the Old English Treowth, meaning “fidelity.”

Marriage – From the Middle English noun Mariage, “a state of being married,” with Middle French influence.

Bride – From the Middle English Bryd, meaning, appropriately enough “bride.”

Groom – From the Middle English Grom, but derived from the Old English Brydguma, meaning bridegroom.

A brydguma is a man about enter into wedlac at his weddian, where he will wedd his treowth to his blushing bryd.

Any inherently relgious connotations there? Nope because these words evolved pre-christian influence...In Gaul and Pre-Roman England...

So christians adopted these words for their celebrations as they translated their religious texts from Aramaic Greek Latin...and now claim the are their celebrations...The bible wasn't written in english...it was translated into english...so perhaps you should rethink your christian claim to pre-christian French and English words?...Feel free to use Qabin or some other Aramaic/Hebraic terms...you can argue philology with those groups...

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 23, 2004, 1:25 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:You guys must understand the impact behind the word marriage.

Especially if you want to push legislation past traditional voters.

And you must understand that marriage isn't a christian thing.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 23, 2004, 1:31 pm

adex has confused one thing.

because Christians 'celebrate' the sacrament of marriage, does not mean that to be legally married you have to have a religious ceremony.

conversely, i was not officially married when i exchanged rings with my wife, and lit the candle thing, and repeated what the priest said, etc.

i was legally married when i submitted to bloodwork with the county, received a license, and finally after the -wedding ceremony- the priest signed the marriage license.

the wedding ceremony/celebration is something that is neither necessary nor sufficient to become legally married.

so because your faith chooses to celebrate it Adex, is irrelevant. You say it is unfair to be asked to 'celebrate' gay marriage. Celebration has nothing to do with this. This is a legal contract that can be taken care of in a room with 3 people at a table without organs, flowers, white dresses, limos, champagne, and even bad dancing.

however, i do think an Open Bar is required by law...or should be

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2004, 2:10 pm

I simply propose a method that might stand a chance in the legislative process.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 23, 2004, 2:18 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I simply propose a method that might stand a chance in the legislative process.

i might be willing to bring bipartisan support to your bill, if i can attach the "Open Bar Rider"

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 23, 2004, 2:29 pm

Voronwë wrote:adex has confused one thing.

because Christians 'celebrate' the sacrament of marriage, does not mean that to be legally married you have to have a religious ceremony.

Yep.

You can be married at the courthouse in Las Vegas after paying 35.00 and filling out an extremely short form. No ceremony. No nothing.

35.00 court marriage or multimillon dollar priest jabbering spectacle...it's the same thing.

Divorce, on the otherhand is a huge stack of paperwork with enforced "cooling off" times of something like 3 months before you can actually get the divorce.

If there's a celebration during a wedding there should be a priest and celebration during a divorce!

miir · Post by **miir** » April 23, 2004, 3:41 pm

There is no religious affiliation requirement for marriage.
There is absolutely zero paticipation or approval required by a religious organization in order for a couple to be married.
Atheists are allowed freedom to marriage as much as a buddhist, christian, jew or hindu.

Henceforth any argument based on religion either for or against same sex marriage is completely null and void.

Adex, using your logic, any person or group of people who goes against what you believe to be the correct interpretation of your gods will should be denied equal rights and freedoms.

Dude, you gotta step back, breathe deeply and take a long look at the sheer and utter absurdity and ignorance of your comments and opinions up to this point.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 23, 2004, 4:34 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Acting on homosexual impluses is wrong and it scars the spirit.

That offends me, especially coming from a proponent of a organization that has brought, factually, more evil unto the world than good. I know that my spirit is scarred my my experiences growing up forced into southern babtism. This is what I know:

I have always been personally offended by a christian religious leader when I explained my personal philosophies, and have as of yet not had one of those conversations conclude them saying "You are going to burn in hell."

I have never met anyone who was gay that attempted to shove it down my throat or force me to celebrate something I am not. Likewise, I have never been verbally abused by a homosexual when I stated "I am not gay."

I would like you to tell me why acting on homosexual impulses scars the spirit, and why it is wrong. If you can do that and not bring up belief, faith or show proof (because your quote sounded very factual and assured) that god knows that homosexuality is bad, then I will give you the biggest cookie ever.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 23, 2004, 4:40 pm

I have never met anyone who was gay that attempted to shove it down my throat

So to speak...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 23, 2004, 4:41 pm

Anzago5 wrote: I have never met anyone who was gay that attempted to shove it down my throat

Ermmm perhaps not the best choice of words?...

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 23, 2004, 4:53 pm

You guys are nasty

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 23, 2004, 5:45 pm

Adex, I think this boils down to one simple question:

Were seperate water fountains and restrooms for blacks an acceptable practice? If not, then why are seperate marriage classifications for gays?

I don't expect you to answer that in the forum, really. It is mainly just a basic thing for you to mentally chew on. The answer (which is obvious) is not as important as the thought process you go through in reaching it.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 23, 2004, 6:02 pm

I will do all I can to respect my neighbor, but I will not compromise on my faith.

I see (and shared with you) a solution that will provide all equal rights and access. I will vote accordingly.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 23, 2004, 6:18 pm

Well, then we are essentially at an impasse. No logical argument based on reason and my ethical views are going to trump your faith in your mind. Similarly, I am not going to be swayed by unquestionable faiths.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 23, 2004, 8:52 pm

I think the discussion is good.

I wonder if the gay marriage advocates realize how entirely hollow their victory will be?

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 23, 2004, 9:35 pm

Metanis wrote:I wonder if the gay marriage advocates realize how entirely hollow their victory will be?

How exactly will it be hollow? The only explanation I can see for such a statement is that legalizing gay marriage won't change the fact that many Americans will remain opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage. However, I doubt that the majority of those supporting the legalization of gay marriage imagine that legality will end prejudice against gays.

Becoming equal in the eyes of the government and the law isn't a hollow victory. Prejudice, unfortunately, will always persist regardless of the law. That doesn't make legal equality any less significant, though.

murr · Post by **murr** » April 24, 2004, 2:11 am

It's only hollow if you consider the fact that stubborn morons like yourself will continue to be fuckwits up until the point where it's no longer even remotely socially acceptable to express disgust or disdain for other people's sexual preferences/life choices. A condition that will come about all the sooner because of the "hollow" victory of gay marriage advocates.

Sects of Christianity justified slavery via the Bible just like they now justify their views on gay marriage. And I'm damn sure none of them were willing to "compromise their faith" either. I can't and won't knock Adex or anyone else for choosing to place faith in the Christian or any other God. But I can express my disappointment in confusing that belief in a higher, unquestionable power with a man-made and edited text that has proven quite fallible in the past.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 24, 2004, 2:29 am

Well said lawn gnome.

Another point I'd like to make a little more bluntly...

Think for yourselves. Letting some work of fiction decide your life for you removes your individuality and turns you into a lemmings.

To be fair, anyone who is strickly democrat or republican may just as well be shoved into the same cattle car the blind followers of religion are packed into.

Everyone should be independant thinkers, consider all the facts, and then make a decision based on your own reasoning and not because it's part of a package deal of any kind.

Knibble · Post by **Knibble** » April 24, 2004, 7:57 am

I support the same sex marriages only because I believe if you love someone that much even if it is of the same sex then so be it.Some say fate brings people together and that also happens with same sex relationships as well.
I personally know gay folks and I can say this..they are the most kindest people I have ever met.Will do anything for you.
I know many people think it's wrong and wrong in gods eyes but if thats the path they choose in their life then they are entitled to live it happy even if it is with the same sex.
It's not just about morals nor about whats right and wrong.It's about 2 people wanting to make the rest of their life happy.

I know slam me for my paragraphs I don't care.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 24, 2004, 10:04 am

murr durr wrote:<snip>... to express disgust or disdain for other people's sexual preferences/life choices.</snip>

What a crock of shit. You dimwitted Libs never seem to understand the difference between tolerance and thought control.

I've already posted in this thread that I support new forms of marraige and that it's time to divorce Christian ideals from secular law.

That doesn't mean I have to express pleasure or even casual acceptance of these relationships. You go too far when you attempt to police my thoughts.

I stated their victory is going to be hollow... and it will be hollow because the institution of marraige will change beyond their wishes. Marraige will not be as meaningful as they find it now. Most of what they are bitching about now could be handled with appropriate Powers of Attorney.

The more important disappointment for gays will be the issue of perceived respect. I think many gay couples think that marraige is going to confer some element of respectability to their relationship. It won't be so, they will merely dilute the meaning of marraige.

So I will openly tolerate gay marraige. However, I won't lift a finger to make it happen and I will publicly advocate the divorce of "marriage" issues from secular law and public policy.

MF <--- current

MM MF FF <--- proposed

MMM MMF MFF FFF <--- next?

-expand at will-

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 24, 2004, 10:07 am

Im still waiting to see where in the Bible it states that homosexuality, or gay marriages is wrong.

Drolgin Steingrinder · April 24, 2004, 10:27 am

Most of what they are bitching about now could be handled with appropriate Powers of Attorney.

You're missing the point: appropriate powers of attorney SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY. People who choose to live with their same-sex partners should not need to sign documents covering every eventuality to feel "safe". They shouldn't need to pay extra for health insurance because they're not covered by their partner's. They shouldn't need to feel like second class citizens who are barely tolerated - they should have exactly the same rights and privileges that you enjoy, regardless of who they choose to marry.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 24, 2004, 10:42 am

Lynks wrote:Im still waiting to see where in the Bible it states that homosexuality, or gay marriages is wrong.

Geez... 1 minute on Google...

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlin ... amesex.htm

I'm not stating an opinion about that site, I'm merely passing on a link that appears to answer your question about what the Bible says. Interestingly enough that summary also offers counterpoint arguments.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 24, 2004, 12:24 pm

Most of what they are bitching about now could be handled with appropriate Powers of Attorney.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. There are many many legal relationships that exist not between two people, but between one person and a government body. Even complete Powers of Attorney would merely allow one partner to act on the other's behalf.

As just one example, no Power of Attorney can allow me to keep my Japanese boyfriend in this country. We live under the constant threat that he may lose his job and be unable to find reemployment at a job that will sponsor his premanent residency. I am about to go take a new job in Los Angeles. He will very likely be stuck in NYC, and we therefor will be apart, for at least the next two years. No document he or I sign will ever change that.

No document we sign will ever allow my boyfriend to recover in tort if some drunk asshole runs me down and kills me.

No document we sign will ever make me elegible for health benefits from his employer (though, in this case, his employer extends health benefits to same sex partners, but there were hoops to go through and he was, necessarily required to reveal his sexual orientation to his employer to effectuate those - something that many gays would not want to do for fear of discriminatio nin advancement).

The list goes on and on. You really are completely in the dark, but glad you decided to share your wisdom.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 24, 2004, 12:55 pm

The only real reference that I found condeming two men/woman having relations was in the Leviticus.

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

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

Anyone using these 2 verses to argue that homosexuality is wrong is pretty much a hypocrite. The Leviticus also says that "all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an abomination." You can't just use this verse and ignore the rest.

Also, homosexuality had a different meaning in the Bible than what it means today. In fact, some people believe that this word was mistranslated. The closest thing that they can come up with is "male" and "bed, believed to be male prostitutiuon.

Metanis wrote:Interestingly enough that summary also offers counterpoint arguments.

Its also says that "same-sex marriage is totally foreign to the Bible, and to the doctrine of Christ..." therefore, any argument against same sex marriage or homosexualty using the Bible is wrong.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2004, 1:26 pm

You know there was a thread in the past where we hammered out all of the biblical verses related to homosexuality.

If I remember at the time Aaemadar was asking if there was any reference to lesbianism. However my searches aren't bringing up that thread.

The reason I mention this is for Lynks. It would take me a couple hours to dig up and restate all the material that you need to see to form a better opinion. I can't spend two hours today doing that. If you could find that thread I mentioned however, the material is there.

... What was the title? Was it in the current events forum? I think the thread started on the topic of gay adoption.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 24, 2004, 1:31 pm

I'll look it up.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2004, 1:40 pm

Maybe that thread was too old and has been dropped off the archive.

A shame.

Quickly here's a few more verses that deal with address homosexuality.

I've included different translations.

Lev 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." - KJV

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." - NIV

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - RSV

1 Corinthians 6:9

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," - KJV

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" - NIV

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts," - RSV

Romans 1:26-27

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." - NIV

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2004, 1:58 pm

I can't find the lesbianism and gay adoption thread Lynks.

I did bump into a related topic that deals with reasonable explaination of sometimes strange Levitical laws. The good stuff is in the middle of the thread.

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... &start=100

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 24, 2004, 2:36 pm

To only take one passage from the hundreds of other wrong verses in the Leviticus is hypocritical.

Lev 7:23-24 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of that which dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of animals, may be used for any other service; but you shall in no way eat of it."

Lev 11 speaks of the animals you can't eat. Rabbits, pigs, fish and the list goes on. Have you ever had ham of bacon? If yes, you're an abomination! You're going to hell.

Lev 12 speaks of sacrificing a lamb by burning it when a woman gives birth.

As for Romans 1: 26-27, the homosexuality talked about is reffered to Pagan worshiping. Pagans had Gods that could take on both male and female form. Ill leave you with this quote I found. "Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over gays and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace."

murr · Post by **murr** » April 24, 2004, 3:46 pm

Metanis wrote:So I will openly tolerate gay marraige. However, I won't lift a finger to make it happen and I will publicly advocate the divorce of "marriage" issues from secular law and public policy.

That's a great attitude. I wasn't saying your thoughts should be controlled and you should be forced to espouse your love for gay relationships and ideals. I simply said that hopefully, in the future, it would not be socially acceptable to express disgust for it, as many now do. There is a HUGE difference between social rules and enforced "thought control." It's the same reason why you could certainly think that women are somehow lesser than men, no one can force you to think differently, but it is in no way shape or form socially permissible to express such ideas.

Would you claim to stand for equality? Choosing to "not lift a finger to make it happen" is just supporting and legitimating the status quo (and thereby saying that homosexuality should be considered differently or as lesser than male-female relationships).

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 24, 2004, 3:58 pm

Metanis wrote:What a crock of shit. You dimwitted Libs never seem to understand the difference between tolerance and thought control.

What a crock of shit. You dimwitted conservatives never seem to understand the difference between legality and morality (no offense to the un-Metanis like conservatives out there).

No one in this thread has advocated anything close to "thought control." You're free to express disdain for whatever lifestyle(s) you choose. Making gay marriage legal does not infringe upon this right. There are many who hope that legal equality for gays will eventually lead to greater acceptance, but that's more a byproduct of social change than of the legislation itself.

I stated their victory is going to be hollow... and it will be hollow because the institution of marraige will change beyond their wishes. Marraige will not be as meaningful as they find it now...
The more important disappointment for gays will be the issue of perceived respect. I think many gay couples think that marraige is going to confer some element of respectability to their relationship. It won't be so, they will merely dilute the meaning of marraige.

Marriage will become less meaningful to who? To people like you who can't stand the thought of gays having the same rights you do? Who cares? There are people who think interracial marriages make marriage as a whole less meaningful, but you'd be hard pressed to find any real evidence that this is so. The only people for whom the meaning of marriage will be diluted is people like you, and as far as I'm concerned, that's no real loss.

MF <--- current

MM MF FF <--- proposed

MMM MMF MFF FFF <--- next?

Ahh this idiocy again. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that marriage as recognized by the government is legal rather than moral? In other words, there are legitimate legal reasons for the prevention of polygamy, such as tax laws, social welfare laws, and the like. I'm sure if you try real hard you could even think of some. However, there are no legitimate legal reasons to prevent two people of any gender from being legally married in the US. People like you fail to comprehend this difference, and thus you think that the legalization of gay marriage is a sign of declining morality in the US, leading eventually to 6 person marriages and farm animal orgies. Only in illogical minds such as yours could such a sentiment make sense.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 24, 2004, 5:50 pm

Other people have stated this, but Leviticus is filled with so much bullshit that no one in their right mind would observe, not even hard core crispies, that using it as a biblical basis for anything is ludicrous. It promotes the mistreatment of women and intollerance to cultures not hebrew, among other things. Furthermore, it is old testament and the creation of hard case Judaists who would make Al Queda look like the local Rotary Club. The day you start treating women like cattle and eating only kosher foods again is the day you can claim to be following leviticus (and being just a bigot, instead of a bigot and a hypocrite). If you can selectively disregard parts of the bible, then why bother with any of it?

As for the Romans passages, those are the King James translations (which he put a spin on) and are indeed really about the multigender pagan gods the people who wrote the passages hated at the time. But, you probably already knew this. If you are going to disregard parts of the bible, then you have to admit that your selective adherance to the bible is the direct result of personal choices that you, yourself have made and not any sort of divine mandate.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 24, 2004, 9:29 pm

You can answer those levitical laws point by point.

Lev 7:23-24 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of that which dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of animals, may be used for any other service; but you shall in no way eat of it."

Lev 11 speaks of the animals you can't eat. Rabbits, pigs, fish and the list goes on. Have you ever had ham of bacon? If yes, you're an abomination! You're going to hell.

Keep in mind when this law was given, God (via Moses) was trying to rid his people of the practices and traditions they got while being captive of Egypt. God set these laws down in a way to separate the Jews from other people and to develop their own culture. God had made a special deal with the Jews, that he would be directly involved with that nation's destiny. Their behavior was directly linked to their prosperity by God. To prove their devotion he set these rules down for them to follow. There are other reasons (such as sanitation) for the rules as well if you consider the time period in which they received them.

When Jesus came and did his thing, God no longer gave just the Jews a special arrangement. Nowadays any and everyone can take advantage of a relationship with God. Also, in times before Jesus' paid for our sin debt it was necessary to do those things to earn holiness. Today Jesus covers all our sin debt. It is no longer necessary for us to have some kind of dietary laws to increase our holiness. Our holiness in is entirely linked to Jesus making us holy, not anything we do. So today it is acceptable to eat non kosher foods.

Lev 12 speaks of sacrificing a lamb by burning it when a woman gives birth.

You quote misses the context :
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.

This was more or a law of sanitation in a time before people had a firm grasp on how disease spread. Today we don't need to worry about such things because 1 we have soap and knowledge of how disease spreads, and 2 we don't need to be purfied because Jesus has already taken care of it.

As for Romans 1: 26-27, the homosexuality talked about is reffered to Pagan worshiping. Pagans had Gods that could take on both male and female form.

While there was pagan worship during this time, the focus wasn't exactly as you say.

Read it again, Paul, in that chapter writes:
14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[3] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[4]

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Another way to say it is they stopped focusing on God, and became mentally weak. And in that weakness, lacking direction they started worshiping rocks and chunks of gold. Still directionless, and feeling empty (Only God can fill this emptyness) they started turning to any and everything to fill the void, including homosexual lusts and acts.

Ill leave you with this quote I found. "Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over gays and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace."

It is sin to think yourself better than another person. By doing so you assume that something you do, day to day makes you any more worthy than someone else. You have to remember that God judges by a perfection basis. In his eyes if you aren't perfect, you can't be with him in perfection (heaven). Any screwup or imperfection gets you a ticket to hell. ALL christians deserve a ticket to hell right along with the Hitlers in this world. A christian is no better than anyone else.

The only thing a christian has going for them that a non-christain does not is the fact that when Jesus offered to take the punishment for their sins and make them perfect in God's eyes again, they accepted the Jesus' outstanding offer.

I'm no better than you, I'm no better than Stalin. For a christian (or anyone) to act cocky is an insult to God.

That's why God says:

Matthew 5
5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Proverbs 18
12 Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,
but humility comes before honor.

Zephaniah 2
3 Seek the LORD , all you humble of the land,
you who do what he commands.
Seek righteousness, seek humility;
perhaps you will be sheltered
on the day of the LORD's anger.

Colossians 3
12Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

Titus 3
2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

Proverbs 11
2 When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.

If you really want to piss God off, think yourself better than someone else.

And for the record, I did my best to avoid diving into theology during this thread as it wasn't it's original focus. It's just that some bible stuff quoted in this thread is way off base.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 24, 2004, 9:49 pm

Did Jesus say specifically:

"Disregard all that leviticus stuff, its outdated. Except the parts about homos, of course."

If he never said anything of the kind, then on what basis do you reject one part of a section of biblical text and accept another, if not personal opinion?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 24, 2004, 9:57 pm

Yes Jesus said that in the often forgotten book of Phil. I quote:

Phil 3:21 All that weird crap in Leviticus you can like, totally ignore now. 22. That was for egyptians and jews and shit. 23. Except that part about fags. Don't stop following that. 24. Fags are like, gross and stuff. I mean, how does a dude stick his cock in another dude? 24. I am all about peace and love and tolerance and all that hippy liberal crap, but that shit is just taking it too far.

Although Adex writing off the majority of Leviticus as culturally outdated while keeping the rest as the absolute divine word of God amuses in that "wow, look how stupid people can get" sort of way.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 25, 2004, 12:13 am

Adex,
Earlier in this thread you said you just had to defer to the wisdom of God and not your own reasoning when deciding homosexuality is bad.

I am curious though, when you justified all the other parts of Leviticus that you choose not to follow, you don't cite other acts or words of God, but instead you apply your own reasoning as to why they should no longer be followed.

Can you explain to me why this approach is not inconsistant? If you cannot explain away the inconsistancy of the approach, can you at least explain why you personally choose reasoning for so much of Leviticus and "God's" word for homosexuals?

Finally, as a means of pre-emption (and really just restating what Jice said earlier), can you address the following charge:

You do not follow the word of God, you follow your own beliefs. In some cases the word of God is (arguably) consistant with your beliefs and in those cases you attribute your beliefs to God. In other cases, your beliefs are inconsistant with the word of God and in those cases you have created reasons (or more properly, justifications) for why the word of God really means something different from its plain meaning or is no longer applicable.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 25, 2004, 12:18 am

Adex, do you interprit every single verse in the bible literally?

out of curiosity on an indirectly related note, do you support the death penalty?

do you think that jesus would support the death penalty?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 25, 2004, 1:06 am

Well, if the bible is going to be used in this arguement, then I refer you to the incident that points out god's shallowness (proposed) in the entire book of Jobe.

I mean seriously, after ruining a man's life by getting into a dick measuring contest with the devil, am I supposed to do anything but support anything anti-god? God allowed (by his own admission, according to the bible) the devil to work any act of heinous evil upon poor Jobe he could think of, but could not kill him. This the same deity that says *gay is bad*?

PS: I do not think god is evil, just think the bible is a crock of shit.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 25, 2004, 1:23 am

Further proof that religion and logic don't mix.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 25, 2004, 1:53 am

Aaeamdar wrote:Adex,
Earlier in this thread you said you just had to defer to the wisdom of God and not your own reasoning when deciding homosexuality is bad.

I am curious though, when you justified all the other parts of Leviticus that you choose not to follow, you don't cite other acts or words of God, but instead you apply your own reasoning as to why they should no longer be followed.

Can you explain to me why this approach is not inconsistant?

Oh no man, I'm not trying to reason this stuff away. After Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice for all sin. Old laws that were performed to cover sin were no longer necessary. Jesus took care of it.

This information is found in the post-ressurection books of the bible.

For example, the apostle Paul talks about the kosher eating rules being no longer necessary in Romans 12:

Romans 14
The Weak and the Strong

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[1] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[2] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Simply put you can eat anything you want, but don't flaunt that freedom in front of someone who still clings to kosher rules. It might create a barrier to him accepting Jesus' get out of Hell free card.

There are other instances.

There is mention of how trying to follow the levitical law will fail us every time. The purpose of the old testiment law was to show how lacking we were. It's purpose was to show how badly we needed the perfection that only Jesus could provide. By accepting Jesus' gift alone are we able to dodge the punishment of hell for our sins.

Check it out:

No One is Righteous
Romans 3

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[2] ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[3]
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."[4]
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."[5]
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[6]
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."[7]
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[8]
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Righteousness Through Faith

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

What does this mean? It means we'll never get a ticket to heaven to be with God in perfection without letting Jesus fix our legal problem.

Once we accept Jesus, he changes our hearts, and gives us supercharged spirit. Jesus gives us perfection communication with the Creator of the Universe. The beauty is, as we grow close to God through this perfect communication we start losing the desire to sin.

Instead of: "Fear God, don't break the rules"
you have: "Love God and you'll lose the desire to break the rules"

Everything in life snaps in to alignment when you lock your focus on God.

From a personal level, this is how you deal with homosexual impulses.

Once you start talking and walking with God, homosexual urges become similar to first grader calling a 30-year-old a poopyhead. Sure the urge is there but it no longer has any power over you. Likewise for other vices. And as things like homosexual urges, or that destructive habit you previously couldn't bust start losing their power over you, you will understand what it means to finally be at peace. You'll feel at rest while chaos churns around you. You've been freed of the grip of the world and been given assurance of a better place yet to come.

We are God's creation. Like a violin resonating by the hands of a master, whom plays it to most of its design, no greater will we surge with joy when we perform as designed, in fellowship with our loving God.

Sadly, my words are a dim conveyance of something truely bright.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 25, 2004, 2:15 am

Acies,

Life is screening process and bootcamp for greater things to come. Hardships even as great as Jobs' are nothing but training senarios to determine our role in the afterlife.

Mathew 6
19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Those who suffer greatly here on earth are rewarded greatly in heaven. They passed the toughest of tests.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 25, 2004, 2:17 am

There's a comedy routine in here somewhere, I just know it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 25, 2004, 2:20 am

Anyway I can convince you I'm jesus reborn Adex? I shouldn't have to prove it. It's all based on faith.

Send me all of your money my son.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 25, 2004, 2:23 am

Someone asked a bible question, I try to answer as best I can.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 25, 2004, 2:28 am

Salvation is a God initiated event Winnow.

Right now you see it as an act of blind faith.

A christian interacting with God, knows it as a confirmed faith.

He makes himself real to you. You'll literally feel him.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » April 25, 2004, 3:10 am

Isn't "confirmed faith" an oxymoron?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 25, 2004, 3:15 am

I think it's a logical fallacy. But Christianity is built on a giant one so smaller ones are merely stamped as divine truths.