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.
Not again true. My numbers go to support "To promote the health of the population" if we go by my numbers and the resulting AIDS info, I am absolutly correct.
You did not look at the relatively high numbers with homosexual vs heterosexual did you? Then you just flat out say I am wrong?
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.
And yet the logical numbers who have no wrong or right say I am stating my position accurately and you are not.
Problem is you have no facts on this issue. Name NAMES, BD. You asked, so I said to do it.
Do I have to name BDboop? Criticalthought? Redress? I mean please man, be real.
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.
I don't remember you ever posting it, I could be wrong. I have on the other hand seen you mention it MANY times. So I figure you are not willing to exchange the same courtesy, no problem.
Yet what I observe is dismissed out of hand? We have a word for this.
You quoted comments from the OT.. which is the Torah. I demonstrated what it's ACCURATE interpretation is.
You quoted what AN interpretation is as you yourself said "Probably" and then post nothing about any evidence for "prostitution," none.
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.
No I did not because homosexual sex was still outlawed and it said nothing about it being prostitution.
The NT is irrelevant to me, but YOU quoted passages from the OT ONLY in order to justify your position.
As an example of an accurate translation AND it backing up the NT which it does.
I have now corrected those interoretations... so now you are moving the goal posts and making the NT your central argument.
The NT was always part of my argument???? You took one part out of one post and then got it wrong and still could not prove homosexual sex is not a sin.
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.
#1 I was not showen wrong.
#2 It was part of a larger discussion that you did not take part in.
#3 The translation I put forward is accurate and you have yet to show were it "probably" says they only meant "prostitution."
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?
Well lets see since you seem to all of a sudden have forgotten English...
"If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on."
If: 1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to.
OK so we are setting that the condition is of someone calling themselves a Christian. They should know the holy book of said religion.
You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton on the stand.
NT. Has nothing to do wth my religious beliefs and nothing to do with what you originally quoted.
It has everything to do with it as I pointed out in the statements in red you ignored. When you jump into the middle of a conversation it is amazing how much you miss.
This passage does not indicate the gender of one's wife.
You have got to be kidding me. Please point out where in the Bible it EVER used the term "wife" for anything other than a female? :lamo
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?
You have not taken anything away from me. Anal sex is a sin. Anal sex is a large part of homosexuality. So please explain what you have taken away again? Or in context did you end up backing up my point? :mrgreen:
No, you have been shown that your interpretations of your original quotes were completely false.
They are completely the same. You are trying to say because they said only anal sex, somehow this does not apply. Wow.
And again, the NT is not relevant to the beginings of this discussion. You quoted Leviticus. I showed the correct interpretations.
So you still got nothing. I got it.
Ahh no.
NOT global and only individual and you cannot ignore that without being intellectually dishonest.
Oh I get it. If your "observations" are not "global" it's OK. If mine are it's not.
No problem.
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.
Leviticus does not change. I have shown this with your help. I don't need to do anything else.