Since you don't speak for the state again I disagree and stand by the numbers.
The state speaks for the state. The reasons why the state sponsors marriage is: 1) To assist in the positive rearing of children; 2) To assist in creating a financially and interactively stable society and; 3) To promote the health of the population. All of these things are attained by both traditional marriage and SSM with no differences between them. This is why you are incorrect and why your numbers are irrelevant.
That's good because they are smaller.
Nope. They are not.
"I know I am but what are you" Please.
When you just stick to your inaccuracies no matter what is said, there is really little else to say other that to repeat that you are wrong... which you are.
Then you reject the dictionary definition. OK that makes sense.
You can reject it all you want, this does not change the facts.
Problem is you have no facts on this issue. Name NAMES, BD. You asked, so I said to do it.
And you were wrong.
If you are not interested OK. Much like you talking about the wealth of information you have posted about gay marraige and tell others to look it up. I am telling you the same thing and you only have to go a few pages back rather than search the entire forum.
If you are not willing to do this simple deed, how do you expect others to do it for you?
I CONSTANTLY repost the information that I have posted in the past. I am asking for clarification. You don't want to give it... fine. This particular issue is done.
This does not change the fact that it is not conclusive or any kind of fact in and of itself.
So? It's what I observe.
I was interpreting the Bible, not the Torah or God as you tried to suggest. I did in fact interpret what the Bible Old and New Testament says correctly.
You quoted comments from the OT.. which is the Torah. I demonstrated what it's ACCURATE interpretation is. It was originally written in ancient Hebrew, so THOSE words are what are accurate translations/interpretations. You interpretted it wrong. I have now corrected that.
Since yours does not include anything from the NT, it has little bearing on Christians.
The NT is irrelevant to me, but YOU quoted passages from the OT ONLY in order to justify your position. I have now corrected those interoretations... so now you are moving the goal posts and making the NT your central argument. Tell us, BD... why would you quote Leviticus and then, when shown you are wrong, THEN switch to the NT? Seems like you couldn't prove your position the way you thought, so you had to switch gears.
Only if "if" now means "we.
I will ask again. In this statement "If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on", are you referring to people in general?
Really?
Romans 1:26–27 For this reason wGod gave them up to xdishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,3
NT. Has nothing to do wth my religious beliefs and nothing to do with what you originally quoted.
Marraige:
Genesis 2:24 24 tTherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
This passage does not indicate the gender of one's wife.
1 Corinthians 7:2–16 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 uThe husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 vDo not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, wso that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 Now as a concession, xnot a command, I say this.1 7 yI wish that all were zas I myself am. But aeach has his own gift from God, bone of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that cit is good for them to remain single das I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, ethey should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married fI give this charge (not I, but the Lord): gthe wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, hshe should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and gthe husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. iOtherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you2 jto peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, kwhether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Again. The NT has nothing to do with my religion and nothing to do with the your original quotes that you made from Leviticus. How are you going to justify your position on homosexuality and religion, BD, now that I have take Leviticus away from you?
I have shown they are crystal clear.
No, you have been shown that your interpretations of your original quotes were completely false.
They had no word for "sexual orientation" so that is a given. Of course reading the sections with the NT brings clarity.
And again, the NT is not relevant to the beginings of this discussion. You quoted Leviticus. I showed the correct interpretations.
Already demonstrated.
My example was for clarification, nothing more. You choose to ignore it for whatever reason. Global or not it remains logical and you can't ignore that without being intellectual dishonest.
NOT global and only individual and you cannot ignore that without being intellectually dishonest.
Nope... it's what I did.
So, as I have shown, religious tenets are NOT clear. MY religion accepts homosexuality based on accurate intepretations of Leviticus. Now, if you want to go along with what the NT says, that is YOUR religion, and certainly is you right to do so. It's your belief and there is no argument around that. But basing it on Leviticus? Can't do that.
Now, if you'd like, I can show you why the Christian church chose to interpret/translate Leviticus in the way that it did, and why, even with the information that I posted, Christianity has not and probably will not print the accurate translations.
