Gay Rights??

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 20, 2004, 8:40 pm

The exerpt from Lectivus

Leviticus?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 20, 2004, 8:41 pm

Homosexuality was very prevailant in Greece, and I have no doubt that it was fairly common in Rome, too. Durring Rome's waning years, it wouldn't surprise me if that was picked up on by the zealotts to differientiate themselves from the average person.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. I do not recall - bear in mind, it's been a while - since I read the Great Book, and in my last attempt I was unable to find anything specific in the New Testament about it. That being said, I do not believe that gay or straight sex outside of marriage is moral and I regret having done it in the past.

I think a solid portion of the Christian angst towards the Gay CUlture comes from the 'flamboyantly gay' men that wear sexually, ah.. you know. The leather outfits, the chains, ect, that only a handful of gay men do but it has soured the public mind because of it. Remember that saying, only takes one bad apple to spoil a bunch?

I have no problem with gay individuals. I do have a problem with sexually agressive outfits that should only be worn in private instead of public - and yes, I'd find just as much of an issue with a straight woman walking around in a bondage cat suit as I would a gay man.

Food for thought.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 20, 2004, 10:13 pm

Tenuvil wrote:
The exerpt from Lectivus
Leviticus?

Yeah, posting from work and I was too lazy to look up the exact name!

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 12:12 pm

noel wrote:
Atokal wrote:Forthe I have always believed you were ignorant and stupid. Cretin is a word I will add to describe you. Several times on many different threads people have said that Christians are not being persecuted or being treated any differently than anyone else. Discriminated because of religion... get it??

So in an amazing turn-around the gay movement has caused one of the most charitable organizations in the world to change venues in order to continue the Christmas tradition of collecting money for the poor... why? because they are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Forthe is neither ignorant or stupid. If you're going to brand everyone who doesn't hate homosexuals with your zeal as ignorant and stupid, I suggest you seek discussion elsewhere because we're all fools!

In your efforts to try and pigeon hole me as a gay basher or hater you have neglected to see the truth.

So I will once again tell you this I DO NOT HATE GAYS NOR DO I WISH THEM TO HAVE ANY LESS RIGHTS THAN I HAVE!!!!!!

My fucking argument is with Aaeamdar who said "Christians are not persecuted, and by saying this he means that Christians do not have to change their beliefs, they still have the same rights as any other group, and have never been discriminated against.

So my examples are simple, a Christian organization banned from government property because of their stance or belief that homosexuality is a sin. Remember freedom of religion??? Try this one on for size:

A homosexual group lobbying for government funding or collecting donations to fight aids is banned from government property because they do not subscribe to Christian principles.

Or better yet gay people are not permitted to use public property for gay pride day because the message they are sending is offensive to many people.

The example of Christmas in schools is NOT A GAY ISSUE but rather an example of discrimination against Christians and yes I would add here Western Tradition. At many levels in western society the Judeo Christian principles that were the basis for our society have been mitigated or completely removed. It is now ok to be a Christian and have deep beliefs but not in public and certainly not in your place of business or school.

But explaining shit to you is pointless because you cannot have any reasonable debate with someone who is incapable of independent thought.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 21, 2004, 12:17 pm

so what you are saying Atokal is that you embrace homosexuals openly and freely in society.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 21, 2004, 12:18 pm

Just the ones in elementary school.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 21, 2004, 12:19 pm

oh that ain't right

Post by **Sylvus** » October 21, 2004, 12:19 pm

Atokal wrote:But explaining shit to you is pointless because you cannot have any reasonable debate with someone who is incapable of independent thought.

That's a bit of a noodle-scratcher right there. Perhaps you misspoke?

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 12:26 pm

Sylvos wrote:so what you are saying Atokal is that you embrace homosexuals openly and freely in society.

Yeah, I have gay friends of which Dar is one. We argue but the friendship remains. Having said that I realize it sounds like all the folks who want to belong shouting HEY I HAVE A GAY FRIEND OR TWO. Not once (that I recall) have I slammed someone on these boards for being gay, nor have I exhibited a hate towards gay peeps. This all started because I was tired of Dar's intolerance of Christians and worse his bigotry.

So I am off to watch Will and Grace...

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 12:30 pm

*boggle*

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 21, 2004, 12:34 pm

Way to ruin my joke with the Will and Grace comment.
Goddammit

Fredonia Coldheart · October 21, 2004, 12:36 pm

Atokal wrote:
noel wrote:
Atokal wrote:Forthe I have always believed you were ignorant and stupid. Cretin is a word I will add to describe you. Several times on many different threads people have said that Christians are not being persecuted or being treated any differently than anyone else. Discriminated because of religion... get it??

So in an amazing turn-around the gay movement has caused one of the most charitable organizations in the world to change venues in order to continue the Christmas tradition of collecting money for the poor... why? because they are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Forthe is neither ignorant or stupid. If you're going to brand everyone who doesn't hate homosexuals with your zeal as ignorant and stupid, I suggest you seek discussion elsewhere because we're all fools!
In your efforts to try and pigeon hole me as a gay basher or hater you have neglected to see the truth.

So I will once again tell you this I DO NOT HATE GAYS NOR DO I WISH THEM TO HAVE ANY LESS RIGHTS THAN I HAVE!!!!!!

My fucking argument is with Aaeamdar who said "Christians are not persecuted, and by saying this he means that Christians do not have to change their beliefs, they still have the same rights as any other group, and have never been discriminated against.

So my examples are simple, a Christian organization banned from government property because of their stance or belief that homosexuality is a sin. Remember freedom of religion??? Try this one on for size:

A homosexual group lobbying for government funding or collecting donations to fight aids is banned from government property because they do not subscribe to Christian principles.

Or better yet gay people are not permitted to use public property for gay pride day because the message they are sending is offensive to many people.

The example of Christmas in schools is NOT A GAY ISSUE but rather an example of discrimination against Christians and yes I would add here Western Tradition. At many levels in western society the Judeo Christian principles that were the basis for our society have been mitigated or completely removed. It is now ok to be a Christian and have deep beliefs but not in public and certainly not in your place of business or school.

But explaining shit to you is pointless because you cannot have any reasonable debate with someone who is incapable of independent thought.

But it isn't Christians being discriminated against - it is anything remotely related to religon. My 4 year old son is not allowed to talk about Halloween at his pre-school because it may offend Christians! They are actually talking about moving Trick-or-Treat to Saturday here so not to offend the Christians!

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 12:46 pm

Hey Toker, did you know the Ontario government uses your tax money to fund Christian (catholic) schools.

How would you feel if they created a program for 'gay only' schools?
What about Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist schools?
Would you want your tax dollars to pay for a school that excludes every child who is hetersexual and caucasian?

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 21, 2004, 12:53 pm

Fredonia Coldheart wrote:
Atokal wrote:
noel wrote:
Atokal wrote:Forthe I have always believed you were ignorant and stupid. Cretin is a word I will add to describe you. Several times on many different threads people have said that Christians are not being persecuted or being treated any differently than anyone else. Discriminated because of religion... get it??

So in an amazing turn-around the gay movement has caused one of the most charitable organizations in the world to change venues in order to continue the Christmas tradition of collecting money for the poor... why? because they are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin.
Forthe is neither ignorant or stupid. If you're going to brand everyone who doesn't hate homosexuals with your zeal as ignorant and stupid, I suggest you seek discussion elsewhere because we're all fools!
In your efforts to try and pigeon hole me as a gay basher or hater you have neglected to see the truth.

So I will once again tell you this I DO NOT HATE GAYS NOR DO I WISH THEM TO HAVE ANY LESS RIGHTS THAN I HAVE!!!!!!

My fucking argument is with Aaeamdar who said "Christians are not persecuted, and by saying this he means that Christians do not have to change their beliefs, they still have the same rights as any other group, and have never been discriminated against.

So my examples are simple, a Christian organization banned from government property because of their stance or belief that homosexuality is a sin. Remember freedom of religion??? Try this one on for size:

A homosexual group lobbying for government funding or collecting donations to fight aids is banned from government property because they do not subscribe to Christian principles.

Or better yet gay people are not permitted to use public property for gay pride day because the message they are sending is offensive to many people.

The example of Christmas in schools is NOT A GAY ISSUE but rather an example of discrimination against Christians and yes I would add here Western Tradition. At many levels in western society the Judeo Christian principles that were the basis for our society have been mitigated or completely removed. It is now ok to be a Christian and have deep beliefs but not in public and certainly not in your place of business or school.

But explaining shit to you is pointless because you cannot have any reasonable debate with someone who is incapable of independent thought.
But it isn't Christians being discriminated against - it is anything remotely related to religon. My 4 year old son is not allowed to talk about Halloween at his pre-school because it may offend Christians! They are actually talking about moving Trick-or-Treat to Saturday here so not to offend the Christians!

OMFG, Halloween makes people worship teh Pagan gods!!1!

That is certainly a new one on me. Perhaps someone should tell the fundie idiots there about All Saint's Day, formerly known as All Hallow's Day, the eve of which was known as Hallow's Eve, corrupted to Halloween.

Fucking retards.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 21, 2004, 12:55 pm

How come everyone always professes to have a gay friend, yet no one professes to have a Christian friend?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 12:58 pm

North American society is dominated by christians, the chances of someone having a christian friend is pretty damn close to 100%.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 1:05 pm

miir wrote:Hey Toker, did you know the Ontario government uses your tax money to fund Christian (catholic) schools.

How would you feel if they created a program for 'gay only' schools?
What about Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist schools?
Would you want your tax dollars to pay for a school that excludes every child who is hetersexual and caucasian?

Great point. I have always thought that if a group wanted their own school it should be privately funded. Once again where do you draw the line on government funding?

We have a perfectly good public school system that provides for all. So if you want your kids to have a different system or attend a special school you should pay for it yourself.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 21, 2004, 1:08 pm

Kilmoll: Because Christians are bad people and it's shameful to know one. It certaintly isn't PC.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 1:11 pm

Atokal wrote:Great point. I have always thought that if a group wanted their own school it should be privately funded. Once again where do you draw the line on government funding?

We have a perfectly good public school system that provides for all. So if you want your kids to have a different system or attend a special school you should pay for it yourself.

I agree.

----

Do you think it's fair that Christians in Ontario are afforded priviledges and rights that are not available to other religious groups?

And at the same time, Christian groups (in Canada and the US) are lobbying to remove the rights of homosexuals?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 21, 2004, 1:23 pm

Answer: No, I don't - I don't think the state should sponsor private schools, religious or homosexual. I think it is a mistake by the state, not buy us.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 21, 2004, 1:32 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How come everyone always professes to have a gay friend, yet no one professes to have a Christian friend?

Adex is our token Christian in any discussion.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 1:39 pm

miir wrote:
Atokal wrote:Great point. I have always thought that if a group wanted their own school it should be privately funded. Once again where do you draw the line on government funding?

We have a perfectly good public school system that provides for all. So if you want your kids to have a different system or attend a special school you should pay for it yourself.
I agree.

----

Do you think it's fair that Christians in Ontario are afforded priviledges and rights that are not available to other religious groups?

And at the same time, Christian groups (in Canada and the US) are lobbying to remove the rights of homosexuals?

No I do not believe that Christian groups should be afforded priviledges and rights that are not available to other groups. Do you think it is right that homosexuals are afforded special priviledges that are not afforded to other groups? For example making it a "hate crime" to disagree with the gay lifestyle.

Celebrating gay pride with outlandish behaviour and costumes that would land anyone else in jail. While severely curbing the Salvation Army from collecting donations to help the poor and homeless because they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. Salvation Army folks do not have any anti-homosexual literature nor do they support hatred of gays, yet they have been discriminated against because of their beliefs.

Having a company initiative that would stipulate a "gay safe zone" and not calling this discriminatory?

Groups can lobby for change and I fail to see anything wrong with that. It is the governments responsibility to reflect the opinion of the majority. Not to cater to special interest groups and infringe on the rights of others while doing so.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 1:39 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Answer: No, I don't - I don't think the state should sponsor private schools, religious or homosexual. I think it is a mistake by the state, not buy us.

But you see, the problem is that at the time the (conservative) governemnt in Ontario gave in to Christian special interest lobby groups and agreed to provide funding for their schools.

Christians are very active in lobbying the government for special treatment. They are also very active in makign sure that other groups not receive the same treatment or rights they enjoy.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 1:53 pm

Do you think it is right that homosexuals are afforded special priviledges that are not afforded to other groups? For example making it a "hate crime" to disagree with the gay lifestyle.

Desecrating a mosque because you hate muslims is a hate crime.
Murdering a person becase they are gay is a hate crime.
Painting swastikas on a synagogue is a hate crime.
Dragging a negro behind your pickup truck because he is black is a hate crime.
Burning down a church because you hate christians is a hate crime.

There is no special priveledge afforded to homosexuals in reference to hate crimes.

Celebrating gay pride with outlandish behaviour and costumes that would land anyone else in jail.

Caribana is a celebration of west indian culture with outlandish behaviour and costumes. I don't see them throwing all those people in jail.

While severely curbing the Salvation Army from collecting donations to help the poor and homeless because they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. Salvation Army folks do not have any anti-homosexual literature nor do they support hatred of gays, yet they have been discriminated against because of their beliefs.

Go ahead and make a big deal out of one single instance of some group overreacting against the salvation army.... cling to this one example in the hope that it may somehow validate your argument...

Meanwhile, I can drudge up HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of examples of where homosexuals are discriminated against in society, by christian groups and by the governement.

There are nutjobs in every minority. The Black Panthers are an example. This attitude an behaviour are an exception, not the norm.

However, Christian suppresion of homosexual rights is, infact the norm.

Having a company initiative that would stipulate a "gay safe zone" and not calling this discriminatory?

Who does this discriminate against?
Where exactly is the discrimination?
Who rights are being taken away or infringed upon?

Groups can lobby for change and I fail to see anything wrong with that. It is the governments responsibility to reflect the opinion of the majority. Not to cater to special interest groups and infringe on the rights of others while doing so.

I don't quite get you, dude.
You say 20 things that are absolutely moronic, but then you make a statement like this which is spot on and totally contradicts all the stupid shit you just said.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 21, 2004, 2:08 pm

Just a quick little bit.

Saying anything is the government's responsibility and not ours, is bullshit.

It is our responsibility to keep the government in check. If the gov't makes a mistake, it's our responsibility to point it out, and run their nose in it until they fix it.

Otherwise, they will serve their own interest, and not ours...which is something happening today, in certain areas.

(that's not a knock on the current administration, so chill out)

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 2:12 pm

Miir, What if someone were to put up a sign at their desk that said "gays not welcome here" or "not a safe gay zone" would this be tolerated?

Because that is exactly what the perception would be for everyone who did not display their Rainbow sticker at their desk.

Further I find it humorous that the "one" instance of discrimination I mentioned is viewed as insignificant in your world and you have the stones to call me a moron? ROFL.

Discrimination against ANYONE is wrong. FOR FUCK SAKES I am not condoning the discrimination that is perpetrated against gays or any single group. What I am damning is anyone being afforded SPECIAL status.

Cheers

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 2:28 pm

Miir, What if someone were to put up a sign at their desk that said "gays not welcome here" or "not a safe gay zone" would this be tolerated?

Because that is exactly what the perception would be for everyone who did not display their Rainbow sticker at their desk.

If someone chooses not to be openly accepting of a something, only faulty logic would dictate that they intolerant.

If someone does not voluntarily profes their love of Jews, does that make them an anti-semite? If I don't voluntarily announce my love of women does that make me gay?

Further I find it humorous that the "one" instance of discrimination I mentioned is viewed as insignificant in your world and you have the stones to call me a moron? ROFL.

It is insignificant because the vast majority of homosexuals and homosexual groups do not advocate or believe in the suppression of christian rights... or the suppression of any group or minorities rights.

Would you dismiss all persons of colour because the Black Panthers advocated an agenda of violence towards the 'non black' establishment?

Discrimination against ANYONE is wrong. FOR FUCK SAKES I am not condoning the discrimination that is perpetrated against gays or any single group. What I am damning is anyone being afforded SPECIAL status.

Please indulge me and tell me what special status is being afforded to homosexuals?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 21, 2004, 2:48 pm

Now you mentioned the government not letting Christian organizations that disagree with the gay lifestyles use their lands. I think you're talking about the Boy Scouts case in particular. Because the Salvation Army thing (I never heard of that case) is voluntary. The government can not and should not support organizations that promote discrimination. If there are gay rights groups keeping out heterosexuals, I'd have no problem with their being kicked off.

I don't think the KKK are especially welcome either. Sorry, you'll have to hold your meetings elsewhere.

-=Lohrno

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 21, 2004, 3:13 pm

Christians are very active in lobbying the government for special treatment. They are also very active in makign sure that other groups not receive the same treatment or rights they enjoy.

Any and every group is allowed to lobby for whatever they want.
Is is the government's responsilibty to make or not make the changes that are asked for.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 3:18 pm

miir wrote:

Further I find it humorous that the "one" instance of discrimination I mentioned is viewed as insignificant in your world and you have the stones to call me a moron? ROFL.
It is insignificant because the vast majority of homosexuals and homosexual groups do not advocate or believe in the suppression of christian rights... or the suppression of any group or minorities rights.

Would you dismiss all persons of colour because the Black Panthers advocated an agenda of violence towards the 'non black' establishment?

Discrimination against ANYONE is wrong. FOR FUCK SAKES I am not condoning the discrimination that is perpetrated against gays or any single group. What I am damning is anyone being afforded SPECIAL status.
Please indulge me and tell me what special status is being afforded to homosexuals?

I think it was Kilmoll who said earlier that if someone were to have Christian safe zones in the work place or to even have a pilot project to cause people to be more tolerant of Christians they would be ridiculed and/or branded. However, because it is a "gay" friendly program it actually made it out of the boardroom. Now explain to me how that is not special.

Further how is the special protection of homosexuals in hate crime legislation not giving them more rights than the rest of us.

This makes the bible "hate literature" because of the verses that describe homosexuality as a sin. It might be a stretch but then again perhaps it isn't that a preacher could find himself arrested for preaching that homosexuality can send a person to hell.

Is this an infringement on the freedom of religion?

If someone is beaten up because they are gay, black, chinese, jewish, christian or because they said the wrong thing to someone in a bar on Friday night it is still assault, or attempted murder or fucking murder regardless of the reasons behind the assault. Making a distinction is fucking stupid, making the crime itself carry a heavier punishment is stupid. Make all the punishments heavy.

Now if an organization is printing literature that promotes the killing or beating of a segment of society then the hate laws would fit. I have neither read nor heard of any mainstream Christian organization promoting violence against any group.

But back to my earlier statement and your response that the Salvation Army situation is "in your words" insignificant. Your response is what is prevalent in society today, that Christian concerns, causes etc are to be the subject of scorn, ridicule and when they are unfairly treated it should be viewed as insignificant.

Well my friend lets take one... just one instance of prejudicial treatment against gay people. Lets say we can give them ALL the changes they want with regards to a civil union but they cannot legally go on any church grounds.

Cheers

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 21, 2004, 3:25 pm

One flaw with that, toker.
Church is for the sinners, not the saints. The saints already know the gospel, it's the sinners that need to hear it. If you ban gay people from church grounds, and given that it seems certain Christian groups consider homosexuality to be a 'sin', you're writing a law that infringes on the religion itself.

The idea is to show people our morals, and then if they decide if we're right, then they can learn. If they don't, then they're welcome to leave - we're not supposed to force it on anyone. Free will, remember?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 21, 2004, 3:31 pm

Atokal wrote:This makes the bible "hate literature" because of the verses that describe homosexuality as a sin. It might be a stretch but then again perhaps it isn't that a preacher could find himself arrested for preaching that homosexuality can send a person to hell.

Please quote for me anywhere in the teachings of Christ (any version of the New Testament) a passage that unequivocally states that homosexuality is a sin.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 3:39 pm

archeiron wrote:
Atokal wrote:This makes the bible "hate literature" because of the verses that describe homosexuality as a sin. It might be a stretch but then again perhaps it isn't that a preacher could find himself arrested for preaching that homosexuality can send a person to hell.
Please quote for me anywhere in the teachings of Christ (any version of the New Testament) a passage that unequivocally states that homosexuality is a sin.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Now having said that, the Christian Faiths all preach from the old testament as well. So now the bible would qualify as hate literature?

Dexail · Post by **Dexail** » October 21, 2004, 3:42 pm

Though this would add a little punch to the discussion
http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bi ... uality.php

A. Nature and Reproduction

Genesis 1:26-28 - God created male and female and told them to reproduce. God's natural order is for male and female to mate and reproduce. Fundamental human anatomy confirms this. But homosexuality is an unnatural abuse of reproductive mating. These are the undeniable basics.

Leviticus 18:22,23; 20:13,15,16 - A man lying with a male was an abomination. The expression "as with a woman" proves that "lie" here refers to sexual mating (see any dictionary). (Cf. Gen. 30:14-17; 39:7-14; Num. 5:13, etc.)

God associated homosexuality (v22) with bestiality (note: "nor"), obviously because both are unnatural defilements of reproduction. This is why homosexuality is an abomination.

Romans 1:26,27 - Men burning in lust for men clearly refers to homosexuality. This is described as leaving the natural use of a woman and exchanging the natural use for what is "against nature." God says this is "vile passion," "shameful," and "error." It is classed with other kinds of immorality that lead to spiritual death (v28-32).

So homosexuality is contrary to nature, a violation of the natural order ordained by God. Therefore, it is inherently an abomination.
B. Marriage and Children

Homosexuals seek the right to marry. But even if human law would agree, what about the requirements of Divine law?

Genesis 2:18-24 - God ordained marriage at creation - man cleaves to his wife and becomes one flesh. The New Testament confirms that this refers to the lifetime marriage bond, and man has no right to change God's order (Matt. 19:3-9; Eph. 5:22-33; cf. Rom. 7:2,3).

Note that God created woman to satisfy man's need for a marriage companion. Animals were not adequate, nor did God create another man for this purpose. For man to join to a man (or a woman to a woman) violates God's order in marriage and sexual mating just as surely as joining to an animal. And it follows that such relations cannot truly meet man's need for companionship, which explains why we will see that homosexual relations virtually always fail. (This point will also be made below on 1 Cor. 7:2-4.)

Genesis 1:26-28 - God told male and female to reproduce and said man should be "one flesh" with his wife (2:24). "One flesh" includes the sexual bond (1 Cor. 6:16). The sexual union and reproduction must occur within the marriage bond, which gives children a family with both a father and a mother to raise them.

Homosexuals also cannot achieve this Divine purpose for marriage. First, reproduction is physically impossible for them, by themselves. Even if they could obtain children, how could they train them to "honor your father and mother" (Eph. 6:3)? The "family" should teach children to relate to both father (male) and mother (female). Throughout Scripture, only heterosexual marriage gives children the family relationship God ordained.

Ephesians 5:22-26 - The husband should be head of his wife as Christ is Head of the church, and she should submit to him. In a homosexual marriage, who would be the "husband" (the head), and who would be the wife (in submission)? God's commands apply to heterosexual marriage, because that is the only kind of marriage He accepts!

In all such passages throughout the Bible, "husband" is the word "man," and "wife" is the word "woman" (only context shows they are married). So marriage, as ordained by God, is a lifetime relationship between one man ("husband") and one woman ("wife").

So homosexual "marriage" is a perversion, first because marriage must be between a man and a woman, and second because homosexuals cannot form the family that God intends children to have. In our next point we will also see that homosexuals do not observe God's requirement for marital fidelity.
C. Sexual Morality

God's marriage law requires one man joined with one woman for life, giving children a stable family. So God permits the sexual union only in that relationship.
Sexual morality and marriage

Genesis 2:24 - Sexual mating ("one flesh") is proper only in marriage between one man and one woman. Since homosexuals may not marry, they have no right to a sexual union.

Hebrews 13:4 - The sexual union (the "bed") is undefiled only within marriage. A sexual relationship outside marriage constitutes "fornication." But remember that marriage is honorable only between a man and a woman. So homosexuality must be fornication.

1 Corinthians 7:2-4 - To avoid fornication, a man should have his own "wife" (i.e., woman). Husband and wife should give one another due affection, because neither has authority over his/her own body. Note: God here expressly confirms that marriage companions must be of the opposite gender and that each may satisfy sexual desires only with his/her marital companion. It necessarily follows that same-sex unions are not proper marriages and constitute "fornication."

Genesis 19:1-11 - When two men (angels) stayed in the home of Lot, the men of Sodom insisted that Lot bring them out so they might "know them" (v5). "Know" here clearly means sexual knowledge - to "know carnally" (NKJV; cf. any dictionary). It could not mean simply to make acquaintance, for Lot would not have called that "wicked" (v7). (For similar instances, note v8 and see Num. 31:17,18,35; Gen. 4:1,17,25; Matt. 1:23-25; Luke 1:27,34, etc.).

Clearly, the men of Sodom desired homosexual conduct, but Lot said this was "wicked" (v7) and God determined to destroy the city (19:12-28). The name of this city has become synonymous with homosexuality.

2 Peter 2:6-8; Jude 7 - Contrary to what some believe, God still holds the same view of such conduct. The New Testament describes the conduct of these men as "ungodly," "filthy," "wicked," and "lawless." Sodom is expressly cited as an example that God will punish wicked people.

And note that Jude 7 expressly calls their conduct "fornication." This confirms the conclusions we already reached: homosexuality is classed by God as fornication.

[/url]

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 21, 2004, 3:42 pm

Old Testament = Guideline
New Testament = Rules set in place.

Remember, if it doesn't say it specifically in the New, it doesn't apply still from the Old. That is how I was raised and taught.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 21, 2004, 3:43 pm

Scroll back, I already listed the two instances, which are both suspect at best.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 21, 2004, 3:48 pm

Out of mild curiosity, why should the Christian bible have ANYTHING to do with how modern day homosexuals should be either perceived or treated in our modern legal system.

On the subject of the Bible, I don't really see it as being hate literature since it's careful to tell the people who actually pay attention to what it says that it's not their job to judge their fellow man, God will take care of that. Obviously, that's often forgotten.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » October 21, 2004, 3:51 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How come everyone always professes to have a gay friend, yet no one professes to have a Christian friend?

I'm a recovering Christian if that helps...

miir · Post by **miir** » October 21, 2004, 3:53 pm

Toshira wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How come everyone always professes to have a gay friend, yet no one professes to have a Christian friend?
I'm a recovering Christian if that helps...

I'm a closet christian

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 21, 2004, 4:01 pm

Dexail, what your quoting is a christian groups' interpretation of a translation of the bible. The actual original texts, in their original language, do not make the kind of statements that these gay haters are attributing to them. There are also many passages in those same books that detail acts that modern christians participate in as being sinful, that get conveniently ignored. And, even if they did, the New Testemant (Bible 2.0 AD Edition!) renders anything old testement obsolete and invalid.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 4:04 pm

noel wrote:Out of mild curiosity, why should the Christian bible have ANYTHING to do with how modern day homosexuals should be either perceived or treated in our modern legal system.

Yeah, modern legal system? Can you say Oxy...moron?

noel wrote:On the subject of the Bible, I don't really see it as being hate literature since it's careful to tell the people who actually pay attention to what it says that it's not their job to judge their fellow man, God will take care of that. Obviously, that's often forgotten.

Missing the point as usual.

Don't just post because you are bored man, read, think, respond.

The law leaves the door open to charge preachers with hate crimes if they preach on any of those verses that Dexail quoted.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 21, 2004, 4:09 pm

Atokal wrote:The law leaves the door open to charge preachers with hate crimes if they preach on any of those verses that Dexail quoted.

As Jice already stated, and I was in the process of researching, THOSE VERSES ARE MISQUOTED AND INNACURATE. Why don't you read, think and respond? Hell I'd settle for you just thinking for a change.

Furthermore, no preacher will be charged with hate crimes for preaching verses you fucking idiot. In this country we have freedom of speech. A minister, preacher or priest of any religion in this country can preach all the hate and bigotry they like. They just can't act on it. Speaking of missing points... In your zeal to find Christian's being persecuted by homosexuals, you've completely missed the point. Again.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 21, 2004, 4:30 pm

Atokal wrote:
archeiron wrote:
Atokal wrote:This makes the bible "hate literature" because of the verses that describe homosexuality as a sin. It might be a stretch but then again perhaps it isn't that a preacher could find himself arrested for preaching that homosexuality can send a person to hell.
Please quote for me anywhere in the teachings of Christ (any version of the New Testament) a passage that unequivocally states that homosexuality is a sin.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Now having said that, the Christian Faiths all preach from the old testament as well. So now the bible would qualify as hate literature?

1 Corinthians 6 wrote:...
[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,
[10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
...

This is from the King Jame's Bible. I am skeptical of an historical text that would include the actual word homosexual. That would be a modern addition not present in early texts.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 21, 2004, 4:33 pm

I agree, since homosexuality is a modern word, it would be wise to assume that it had another meaning 200 years ago.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 21, 2004, 4:40 pm

The point here is that people subtly (and not so subtly) alter the text of the Bible to suit their own agendas. Not being able to read Aramaic I have no idea what Paul originally said in his letter to the early Christians in Corinth but I'm pretty sure it didn't include specific injunctions against homosexuality.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 21, 2004, 4:45 pm

noel wrote:
Atokal wrote:The law leaves the door open to charge preachers with hate crimes if they preach on any of those verses that Dexail quoted.
As Jice already stated, and I was in the process of researching, THOSE VERSES ARE MISQUOTED AND INNACURATE. Why don't you read, think and respond? Hell I'd settle for you just thinking for a change.

Furthermore, no preacher will be charged with hate crimes for preaching verses you fucking idiot. In this country we have freedom of speech. A minister, preacher or priest of any religion in this country can preach all the hate and bigotry they like. They just can't act on it. Speaking of missing points... In your zeal to find Christian's being persecuted by homosexuals, you've completely missed the point. Again.

FUCK YOU ARE AN IGNORANT SELF ABSORBED SHITHEAD. You cannot be this fucking stupid. I said it LEAVES the door open for a charge of this nature. Further where is your degree in theology? or Jice's for that matter.

Does printed material fall under your guidelines for freedom of speech?

Is the Bible hate literature?

OTTAWA - An attempt to broaden Canada's hate-crimes laws to include protection for homosexuals has sparked a fierce debate in Parliament over whether the Bible and the Koran could be branded as hate literature.
"
It centres on a bill from gay Member of Parliament Svend Robinson that would make it a crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, to incite or promote hatred against homosexuals.

But his attempt to end gay-bashing has brought warnings that pastors or imams could be thrown into jail for preaching homosexuality is evil and that their scriptures could be banned or confiscated.

Robinson, a member of the minority New Democratic Party, dismissed the fears as unfounded.

"There's not an attorney general in the country anywhere at any level who would consent to the prosecution of an individual for quoting from the Bible," he told a House of Commons committee examining the bill.
"An attorney general who tried something like that would be run out of town on a rail."

Opponents of the bill point to the Owens court case in Saskatchewan five months ago involving the right to quote the Bible in an newspaper ad against homosexuality. The judge ruled that a Biblical passage in Leviticus "exposes homosexuals to hatred."

Even though the Owens case dealt with human rights legislation, critics said that sort of ruling could just as easily be applied in a hate-crimes case under the criminal code.

"I'm concerned about the chilling effect of this kind of decision," said Vic Toews of the official opposition in Parliament, the Canadian Alliance.

The gay-rights lobby group Egale suggested the courts would eventually insist on including sexual orientation in the current hate-crimes legislation, which prohibits hatred on the basis of colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

"I would suggest to this committee that the legislation as it stands, by being under-inclusive, by failing to protect a group equally needing protection, is unconstitutional," Egale's John Fisher said this week.

He said gays were more likely to be attacked than heterosexuals.

Pat O'Brien, a legislator from the governing Liberal Party, recalled an incident in which Robinson himself had confronted a Roman Catholic priest on Parliament Hill who was protesting homosexuality, and Robinson threw one of his signs over the embankment he was standing on.

"I have concerns whether somebody like that is going to be able to carry out his freedom of expression," O'Brien said.

© Reuters
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2003.

Further fucker....this law was passed in Canada.

The Criminal Code provides that it is a criminal offense in Canada to publicly communicate statements which incite hatred or willfully promote hatred towards members of these groups.

Once again shitface NOT all the happenings on the planet are strictly USA.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 21, 2004, 4:47 pm

The bible also makes it pretty clear that masturbating, or pulling out during sex is a horrendous sin.

We should legislate against these.

Hmm, I remember a passage against slander and gossip too. That means the national inquirer is hate literature!

noel · Post by **noel** » October 21, 2004, 4:51 pm

I don't give a flying fuck what laws are passed in Canada. Not because I don't care about Canadians, but because I don't think it's the United States job to police Canadian Laws.

That said, it's sad that the legal system needs to police the religious system because they can't even take the time to preach the true verses from the Bible because the FUCKING CHRISTIANS are so wrapped up in their own agenda of hatred and bigotry. Am I getting through to you yet? This is NOT a case of homosexual persecution!

That law wouldn't make it anywhere in the US because, as I already stated the 1st Amendment would protect the rights of the ministers, preachers and priests to say whatever the hell they wanted.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 21, 2004, 7:07 pm

I'll try to find the thread late but I posted an alternative interpertation of that verse you posted. Note "homosexual offenders" I think the Greek word means a male pedophile... but research that

Not saying it's correct, just an alternative view.

Marb

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 21, 2004, 8:03 pm

Atokal wrote: I think it was Kilmoll who said earlier that if someone were to have Christian safe zones in the work place or to even have a pilot project to cause people to be more tolerant of Christians they would be ridiculed and/or branded. However, because it is a "gay" friendly program it actually made it out of the boardroom. Now explain to me how that is not special.

You don't think this is being ridiculed? All it takes to make it out of the boardroom is one high level jackass that thinks this is the solution to some problem they have.