Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

[Black Dog]

To most of us anyways. You still can't see that He is saying that random traditions about things like dietary restrictions (such as can be found in the book of Leviticus) are not God's law, much though the church might have you believe otherwise. Honoring one's Mother and Father is about love and reciprocity, which is God's law.

That is what he is saying, but the laws on homosexuality and immorality were and are God’s law.
Leviticus 20:1, 11-13, 15-16 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death.…
11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Now I am using bestiality as an example of a sin, that is still a sin even though Jesus never directly commented on it. He did not have to as it has already been told by God it was a sin.
All the laws in Leviticus 20 are God’s laws given directly to Moses. Even though the laws do not apply to Christians, they do give us input into what God finds abhorrent and sinful.

Lets look at the context some more shall we?
Jesus clearly thinks that sin is not about what you put into your mouth, but rather about having an unrighteous heart which seeks evil rather than love.
You are the one ignoring context here. Amazing how when Jesus says that in the beginning they were made male and female, in the context of saying that men shouldn't divorce their wives, you broadly interpret it to mean that homosexuality is a sin, yet when Jesus says that what goes into the mouth of a man does not defile him, you narrowly interpret it to mean only with regards to the tradition of washing one's hands to which He was immediately applying it in the context.

Again you are trying to take what he said and make it somehow mutually exclusive when this is not what Jesus meant. He was saying “intent” is as important for being sinful as actions. He was not saying actions have no consequences, or are no longer sinful.
He was talking specifically about “mans” law not Gods. Nothing to narrow, you are trying to build a wall without mortar.

So, in context, He was saying that breaking silly rules like "don't eat this kind of food" and "don't have sex with these kind of people" are not what defiles a man, but rather evil thoughts which come out of the heart and cause people to treat others in a way they would not want to be treated defile a man.

That is a leap. He says nothing to the kind. I have already shown that wrong above.

How can you post something that completely supports my argument, and pretend like it doesn't?

Because it does not support your argument in any way, as I have already explained many, MANY times. Instead of you looking at the definition as used literally and figuratively in scripture, you try to take only the figurative meaning and apply it literally when it is only 1 aspect of a broader definition in the cases you pointed out. Adultery does not always need betrayal (emotional) to be adultery. Every definition biblical, Christian, ancient and otherwise says “sexual relations with other than your spouse.” None from any sources say it is just betrayal, none.
You will again not accept this because you want to feel engaging in unrepentant sin like homosexuality, Adultery, fornication etc. is sanctioned by God.

Read the passage you posted. Jesus and his buddies were gathering food on the Sabbath. Gathering food was explicitly listed in the Bible as something that God's chosen people were prohibited from doing on the Sabbath.

I guess you ignored the whole “son of man” thing? Jesus was with them and he is not bound by the law.
He was also saying it was created for us, so he gave us dominion over it.

Even lighting a fire to stay warm was considered too much work to do on Sabbath, and the penalty was death.

Until sunset, so it was not that big a deal considering the location they were in. It was from sunrise till sunset.
Of course this is only one part of the whole story and it’s moral or teaching.

Why do you think Jesus told the story, if not to show how even though they were doing something unlawful, there was historical precedent for unlawful behavior being morally acceptable?

What??? He told the story to show that …
#1 The Son of man IS the law and not bound by it.
#2 “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” That God’s law trumps any churchly tradition or (man’s law.) I am not talking about government.
#3 we are the masters of the Sabbath day as it was created for us.
More than one thing here, you ignore the meat of the teaching.

She hasn't sinned anymore than Jesus and His buddies gathering food, or Jesus healing the woman on the Sabbath. No forgiveness is needed for taking care of one's children.

This is true. I was wrong. It was late and I was tired, sorry.
Of course this has nothing to do with immorality or homosexuality?
It also had nothing at all to do with the point the poster I initially responded to made.

Explain to me what sort of twisted context you think I took that line out of. Anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a second grader could see that the entire point of the story there was that folks shouldn't take that Sabbath business so seriously.

And this has something to do with homosexuality or immorality how?
Again I have shown it means allot more than your simple interpretation.

The example with David taking the shewbread was obviously intended to illustrate that it was ok for him to do something unlawful in order to take care of himself and his companions.
Saying that Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath was clearly meant to say that people should not suffer for the sake of the Sabbath, when the entire point of the Sabbath was to give people a break from the daily grind.
I can't even imagine how you interpreted that passage.
Maybe not, but it is what He meant.

Yes, and it has nothing to do with condoning or making sin OK.
So you want me to go back and correct all your spelling errors? Let’s not even go into the “to to.” So don’t even go there.

You claim that what He really meant was "So in giving good things to other people, give to others what you would have them give to you, for this sums up the portion of the Law and the Prophets that concerns gift-giving."

You have got to be kidding? Please don’t play stupid. You know exactly what I meant.

Do you think He just misspoke? He wasn't just concluding a discussion on how good God's gifts to us will be. Look at the context. He was talking about reciprocity all along:
"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you"
"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
Obviously He wasn't just talking about giving good gifts. He was talking about Judging the way you want to be judged, forgiving the way you want to be forgiven, loving the way you want to be loved, etc...

Forgiving is one thing, condoning is another. As I said before and Jesus, intent is as important as actions, so if you fully intended to live in sin ignoring God, I can forgive you. If you are however not repentant, it is still a sin.

The entire law is built around treating people the way you want to be treated. Being faithful to your wife the way you want her to be faithful to you, not murdering people the way you want them not to murder you, not stealing from people the way you don't want them to steal from you, respecting people the way you want them to respect you, honoring your parents the way you want them to honor you, not bearing false witness against your neighbors even as you don't want them bearing false witness against you, dealing honestly with your neighbors the way you want them dealing honestly with you, etc...

That is the bases of the second law. It does not however mean we condone or support sin.

You can't brush away the most important line in the Bible by saying "oh, He was just talking about giving good gifts, He didn't really mean for us to apply that rule "in everything" like He said.

I never said any such nonsense. Keep lying though; you are obviously building points with your god.

Well, I certainly don't think that immorality is okay with God, so I don't see how that statement is relevant.

But you don’t see anything as immoral. Under your weak interpretation almost everything including incest, bestiality, homosexuality, adultery and fornication is a OK with you.

 

[topshelf]

What exactly is "pro-gay propaganda"? The things I generally hear are "please stop murdering us" and "please stop making us second class citizens". That's a lot nicer than "you have to think exactly the way I do or else you deserve to be tortured for eternity in a pit of fire".

Literature being given out at school. Pamphlets sent in the mail. Constant gay in-your-face on TV. Parades down main street. Leud and lacivious acts of homosexuality in public.

It get's stale - very stale. I don't tie gays up and pull them behind my truck - I actually know and like a great many of them, but this constant in-your-face barrage of all-things-gay really can only be characterized as propaganda.

 

[Gardener]

Heck, just the other day some gay recruiters came to my door with their presentation. Their literature was very impressive, they were very professional in their demeanor, and their offer was very intriguing. They promised to give me full tuition for 4 years of college, and all I had to do was offer them 4 years of service first.

 

[Paschendale]

Literature being given out at school. Pamphlets sent in the mail. Constant gay in-your-face on TV. Parades down main street. Leud and lacivious acts of homosexuality in public.

It get's stale - very stale. I don't tie gays up and pull them behind my truck - I actually know and like a great many of them, but this constant in-your-face barrage of all-things-gay really can only be characterized as propaganda.

Now explain how that differs from people who want to put the ten commandments on a courthouse, want public prayer in schools, stick giant billboards up that talk about Jesus, stage demonstrations, take up vast amounts of public airwaves on TV and radio, tons of online advertisements, door to door proselytizing, the fact that we actually DO pray in courts and in congress (that's probably unconstitutional). For crying out loud, you have to put your hand on a bible and swear an oath to god in order to testify in court? How the hell is that not worse? You actually have to enter into a faith-based contract with a deity you may not believe in to participate in our legal system. Oh, woe is you that the gays on Will and Grace make you uncomfortable!

Tell me, how is a hetero couple performing "lewd and lascivious acts" in public any less offensive than a homosexual couple? Not that I find either offensive at all, but you seem to have a very blatant double standard here.

Of course, gay characters are on TV because they're a part of our population. People want to see that. They laugh when they watch Will and Grace, or Ellen, or Barney's gay brother James. And you can suck it up about the parades. That's protected by the first amendment. I don't go around saying you can't put up a big tree on Christmas. There's a basic level of respect people should have for each other. Seems like only one side has it.

 

[Gardener]

Literature being given out at school. Pamphlets sent in the mail. Constant gay in-your-face on TV. Parades down main street. Leud and lacivious acts of homosexuality in public.

Your town certainly sounds a lot more lively than my town.

 

[topshelf]

Now explain how that differs from people who want to put the ten commandments on a courthouse, want public prayer in schools, stick giant billboards up that talk about Jesus, stage demonstrations, take up vast amounts of public airwaves on TV and radio, tons of online advertisements, door to door proselytizing, the fact that we actually DO pray in courts and in congress (that's probably unconstitutional). For crying out loud, you have to put your hand on a bible and swear an oath to god in order to testify in court? How the hell is that not worse? You actually have to enter into a faith-based contract with a deity you may not believe in to participate in our legal system. Oh, woe is you that the gays on Will and Grace make you uncomfortable!

Tell me, how is a hetero couple performing "lewd and lascivious acts" in public any less offensive than a homosexual couple? Not that I find either offensive at all, but you seem to have a very blatant double standard here.

It's a false correlation - religion and heterosexuality are societal norms, homosexuality is not.

 

[CriticalThought]

It's a false correlation - religion and heterosexuality are societal norms, homosexuality is not.

So any form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward maintaining the status quo is not propaganda but any communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of the community toward changing a societal norm is propaganda?

 

[topshelf]

So any form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward maintaining the status quo is not propaganda but any communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of the community toward changing a societal norm is propaganda?

If you're trying to take something that most people find utterly revolting, and make it the norm - you can expect a little resistance. But gays seem to think the ends justify the means and I don't believe they do. They'll be eating the fruit of the poison tree if they force this upon the American people through shock and awe - like they often times try to do.

 

[CriticalThought]

If you're trying to take something that most people find utterly revolting, and make it the norm - you can expect a little resistance.

Do you have some evidence that most people find homosexuality "utterly revolting"? Or is that simply your personal opinion?

But gays seem to think the ends justify the means and I don't believe they do.

Are you arguing that all gay people think in terms of "the ends justify the mean"? That is quite a generalization. Can you expand on why you think all gay people think in those terms?

They'll be eating the fruit of the poison tree if they force this upon the American people through shock and awe - like they often times try to do.

What is "this"? How are gay people forcing "this"?

Also, you didn't answer my question:

So any form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward maintaining the status quo is not propaganda but any communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of the community toward changing a societal norm is propaganda?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Gardener]

That is what he is saying, but the laws on homosexuality and immorality were and are God’s law.
Leviticus 20:1, 11-13, 15-16 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death.…
11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
.

Oooh -- Leviticus. Everybody's favorite!

here are mine:

Leviticus

19:19 Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard


11:9/10 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

So why aren't you going on and on about Red Lobster, General Mills, Old Navy or Supercuts?

 

[FilmFestGuy]

If you're trying to take something that most people find utterly revolting, and make it the norm - you can expect a little resistance. But gays seem to think the ends justify the means and I don't believe they do. They'll be eating the fruit of the poison tree if they force this upon the American people through shock and awe - like they often times try to do.

I find bigotry utterly revolting. So do most people.

 

[topshelf]

I find bigotry utterly revolting. So do most people.

There you go - throw out the bigotry word just because someone disagrees with your lifestyle. That's going to get you far. Typical name-calling hateful liberal.

 

[CriticalThought]

There you go - throw out the bigotry word just because someone disagrees with your lifestyle. That's going to get you far. Typical name-calling hateful liberal.

It's fine if you are simply arguing that homosexuality is wrong, but you are going way beyond simply making that moral argument.

You are dehumanizing gays by arguing that most people find their behavior revolting, you are denigrating gays by arguing that they are maliciously forcing their way of life onto others, and you are persecuting gays by arguing that any attempts they make to bring about societal change are propaganda.

That is bigotry, and I'm not surprised you avoided responding to my post. The most ironic part is that you called that poster a "hateful liberal" in rebuttal to their alleged "name-calling". Your egotism and sense of entitlement are truly astounding.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

It's a false correlation - religion and heterosexuality are societal norms, homosexuality is not.

Societal norms are in a nearly constant state of flux.

Owning other human beings because they had black skin was considered fine by society and religions for hundreds of years. Did that make it right?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

There you go - throw out the bigotry word just because someone disagrees with your lifestyle. That's going to get you far. Typical name-calling hateful liberal.

Irony: You has it.

 

[Panache]

Hmmmm I learned something new. "following" and "bound" mean the same thing.

This is priceless. When did I ever imply that "following" and "bound" were the same thing? You were the one who implied that. Look what I said:

"They so are not. According to Mosaic law, it was a sin to touch a leper. Jesus touched a leper. You claim that Jesus always followed Mosaic law. Instafail."

Look how you replied:

"Since when is God bound by the Mosaic law? Or any other law for that matter? The Bible does not say he is?"

I pointed out that you were wrong about Jesus following the law, and you replied by saying that Jesus wasn't bound by the law.

How does that reply make any sense when I was addressing your claim that He always followed the law, unless you are conceding that He didn't always follow the law, but mitigating that it was ok, because He wasn't bound by the Law?

To answer your question about Jesus being "bound" by the law, I have been claiming that He wasn't bound by it from the beginning. In fact that is precisely the point that I am trying to make. He wasn't bound by it, and He didn't follow it, because it wasn't God's Law. The one Law that He DID follow was the Golden Rule. And since He was the perfect example of model behavior, that is the one Law the we should follow as well.

Now that I have answered your question, how about you answer mine? How is you assertion that your arguments are "Biblically sound" justified, when you have argued that Jesus followed Mosaic Law, despite the Bible saying that He touched a leper, and also saying that it is a sin to touch a leper under Mosaic Law?

 

[Panache]

That is what he is saying, but the laws on homosexuality and immorality were and are God’s law...
...All the laws in Leviticus 20 are God’s laws given directly to Moses. Even though the laws do not apply to Christians, they do give us input into what God finds abhorrent and sinful.

Even if they were passed down from God, they don't apply to Christians. You just said so yourself. Your claim that they give input into what God finds abhorrent and sinful is specious, when you claim that things like "don't wear mixed fabrics" and "don't eat bacon" aren't sinful for Christians. If the Old Covenant no longer applies, then it no longer applies.

Again you are trying to take what he said and make it somehow mutually exclusive when this is not what Jesus meant. He was saying “intent” is as important for being sinful as actions. He was not saying actions have no consequences, or are no longer sinful.
He was talking specifically about “mans” law not Gods. Nothing to narrow, you are trying to build a wall without mortar.

Right, because Leviticus was "man's" law, whereas the Golden Rule is God's law. He said that what you put in your mouth doesn't defile you. He didn't say "What goes into your mouth defiles you, but what comes out of your mouth also defiles you." Leviticus says "put bacon in your mouth and you are defiled" Jesus says "no you aren't, but let evil thoughts proceed from you mouth and then you are defiled."

That is a leap. He says nothing to the kind. I have already shown that wrong above.

No you haven't.

Because it does not support your argument in any way, as I have already explained many, MANY times. Instead of you looking at the definition as used literally and figuratively in scripture, you try to take only the figurative meaning and apply it literally when it is only 1 aspect of a broader definition in the cases you pointed out. Adultery does not always need betrayal (emotional) to be adultery. Every definition biblical, Christian, ancient and otherwise says “sexual relations with other than your spouse.” None from any sources say it is just betrayal, none.
You will again not accept this because you want to feel engaging in unrepentant sin like homosexuality, Adultery, fornication etc. is sanctioned by God.

That's a lie. Your own sources that YOU cited say that it means infidelity. Those same sources say that infidelity means "disloyalty" and "a breach of trust." If you remove the aspect of disloyalty and breach of trust, it is no longer infidelity, and thus, no longer adultery. It's all in post 598. Your own sources claim that adultery is not just sex with someone other than your spouse, but DISLOYAL sex with someone other than your spouse.

I guess you ignored the whole “son of man” thing? Jesus was with them and he is not bound by the law.

Again you seem to concede that Jesus did not always follow Mosaic law because He was not bound by it. Did Jesus always follow Mosaic Law or didn't He?

He was also saying it was created for us, so he gave us dominion over it.

What do you think that means? Dominion over the Sabbath? I think it means that it is meant to serve us, not for us to serve it. How about you?

Until sunset, so it was not that big a deal considering the location they were in. It was from sunrise till sunset.
Of course this is only one part of the whole story and it’s moral or teaching.

what happened to us having dominion over the Sabbath? Doesn't that mean that if we have need of a fire on Sabbath that the Sabbath shall bend to our needs rather than us bending to it?

What??? He told the story to show that …
#1 The Son of man IS the law and not bound by it.
#2 “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” That God’s law trumps any churchly tradition or (man’s law.) I am not talking about government.
#3 we are the masters of the Sabbath day as it was created for us.
More than one thing here, you ignore the meat of the teaching.

So you are saying that:

1: David was the Son of Man, and that was why he was allowed to eat the shewbread?
2: That God's law trumping churchly tradition somehow made it okay for David to break God's Law?
3: That we are masters of the Sabbath and that is why it was ok for David to eat food that God's law only permitted priests to eat?

Explain to me why Jesus was talking about David eating food that was forbidden by Mosaic Law for anyone but priests to eat. It was obviously to show that the "Law" can be broken with impunity when necessary.

This is true. I was wrong. It was late and I was tired, sorry.
Of course this has nothing to do with immorality or homosexuality?
It also had nothing at all to do with the point the poster I initially responded to made.

The point was that the law saying not to work on Sabbath is one of those laws (like laws against homosexuality) that doesn't hurt anyone if broken, and so it can be broken with impunity to satisfy the needs of Love and Reciprocity, which are the True Law.

And this has something to do with homosexuality or immorality how?

Because the Sabbath is not the only Law made for man rather than the other way around.

Yes, and it has nothing to do with condoning or making sin OK.

According to Mosaic Law, it was sinful for anyone but the priests to eat the shewbread. According to Jesus, David, who was not a priest, was condoned in his eating the shewbread. The implication was that the "sin" of David eating the shewbread was OK. Of course, being ok, it wasn't really a sin. A real sin would be if David treated someone in a way that he wouldn't want to be treated. Like the matter of Uriah the Hittite, his one and only sin.

So you want me to go back and correct all your spelling errors?

Sure. That would be entertaining.

Let’s not even go into the “to to.” So don’t even go there.

That wasn't an error. That was grammatically correct.

Blackdog (to roguenuke): "If you truly loved God above all things you would want to follow his commandments etc. You don't appear to."

Panache (to Blackdog): "She appears to to me."

Clearly not an error.

You have got to be kidding? Please don’t play stupid. You know exactly what I meant.

No, but I know what you said: "He is talking about giving good things"

Forgiving is one thing, condoning is another. As I said before and Jesus, intent is as important as actions, so if you fully intended to live in sin ignoring God, I can forgive you. If you are however not repentant, it is still a sin.

You missed the point. I am not saying that forgiving is the same as condoning. I am saying that reciprocity is the law. "Forgive as you want to be forgiven" is just one example of "do X to others as you want other to do X to you."

That is the bases of the second law. It does not however mean we condone or support sin.

It defines sin. Sin is not doing to others as you would have them do to you. That is the sum of the law. There is no sin that is excepted from this rule, so as long as you do not support breaking this rule, you do not support sin.

I never said any such nonsense. Keep lying though; you are obviously building points with your god.

That's pretty rich coming from you.

But you don’t see anything as immoral. Under your weak interpretation almost everything including incest, bestiality, homosexuality, adultery and fornication is a OK with you.

Weren't you the one who was just talking about building points with God by lying? You know that what you just said isn't true. I see breaking the Golden Rule as immoral, and have said so many times on this very thread.

 

[topshelf]

It's fine if you are simply arguing that homosexuality is wrong, but you are going way beyond simply making that moral argument.

oh?

You are dehumanizing gays by arguing that most people find their behavior revolting, you are denigrating gays by arguing that they are maliciously forcing their way of life onto others, and you are persecuting gays by arguing that any attempts they make to bring about societal change are propaganda.

So what? I find their behavior revolting - how does that dehumanize them? What are they - a bunch of crybabys that love to criticize but can't handle someone disapproving of them? And that's BS about persecution - and an absolute lie. I have a right to believe what I want - if you call that persecution, clearly you've never been persecuted.

That is bigotry, and I'm not surprised you avoided responding to my post. The most ironic part is that you called that poster a "hateful liberal" in rebuttal to their alleged "name-calling". Your egotism and sense of entitlement are truly astounding.

You don't even know what bigotry is, clearly. I just don't approve of their lifestyle and I get tired of the gay pride parades in my community where their behavior is almost sub-human - with whips, chains, near nudity. It's foul and disgusting and the gay community has everyone too afraid to say its disgusting for fear of being labeled by apologists and labelers like you.

 

[CriticalThought]

oh?



So what? I find their behavior revolting - how does that dehumanize them? What are they - a bunch of crybabys that love to criticize but can't handle someone disapproving of them? And that's BS about persecution - and an absolute lie. I have a right to believe what I want - if you call that persecution, clearly you've never been persecuted.


You don't even know what bigotry is, clearly. I just don't approve of their lifestyle and I get tired of the gay pride parades in my community where their behavior is almost sub-human - with whips, chains, near nudity. It's foul and disgusting and the gay community has everyone too afraid to say its disgusting for fear of being labeled by apologists and labelers like you.

Just another immoral theist. :roll:

Choosing to judge others for their behavior when you have disregarded reason to justify your beliefs. I believe I'm entitled to find that revolting.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

oh?



So what? I find their behavior revolting - how does that dehumanize them? What are they - a bunch of crybabys that love to criticize but can't handle someone disapproving of them? And that's BS about persecution - and an absolute lie. I have a right to believe what I want - if you call that persecution, clearly you've never been persecuted.


You don't even know what bigotry is, clearly. I just don't approve of their lifestyle and I get tired of the gay pride parades in my community where their behavior is almost sub-human - with whips, chains, near nudity. It's foul and disgusting and the gay community has everyone too afraid to say its disgusting for fear of being labeled by apologists and labelers like you.

What you are doing here is talking about behavior NOT sexual orientation. Here it comes folks... my favorite question that those who are truly anti-gay have a problem with. Tell us what the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation is?

 

[roguenuke]

Literature being given out at school. Pamphlets sent in the mail. Constant gay in-your-face on TV. Parades down main street. Leud and lacivious acts of homosexuality in public.

It get's stale - very stale. I don't tie gays up and pull them behind my truck - I actually know and like a great many of them, but this constant in-your-face barrage of all-things-gay really can only be characterized as propaganda.

I have lived in several places, all over the country and my family has lived in probably 3x the amount of places I have lived. I have never seen or heard about a gay parade in any of those areas, while I was there. The only references to gays I've seen in TV commercials (since gays in TV or movies aren't exactly main stream), were on LOGO, which is a network for homosexuals, much like many other TV networks that are specifically targeting other groups of people.

What kind of literature is being given out at schools? Schools that you or your children attend? Is it actually graphic literature or just books with homosexual couples? What ages of students get what type of literature? My children are not of school age, none of the parents I know personally with school age children have ever said anything about stuff like this, and I never seen any type stuff while I was in school. What kind of pamphlets are you getting in the mail? I have never received or known anyone who received pamplets on gays through the mail. What exactly is on these pamphlets?

The rest sounds more like something you are getting from those sites which go out of their way to point out every time something leud or "indecent" occurs in a gay pride parade or event. And, in those cases, it wouldn't actually be the gay people putting gayness in-your-face, it would be those who are against the gays.

Your argument could easily be used against Christianity. I know that I have gotten flyers in the mail in almost every place I've lived, unsolicited, from Christian churches in the area. Plus, I have had several different Christian groups actually come to my door to try to get me to convert to their religious views. I personally think the most annoying and disrespectful group is Fred Phelps' bunch.

I bring this up to point out that, just as it is wrong to associate all Christians with Fred Phelps and his lot, it is also wrong to associate all gay people with those who are disrespectful in their attempts to get their way.

 

[Black Dog]

Oooh -- Leviticus. Everybody's favorite!

here are mine:

Leviticus

19:19 Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard


11:9/10 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

So why aren't you going on and on about Red Lobster, General Mills, Old Navy or Supercuts?

Funny how you cut out my remark about why I posted it, and took it out of context to play the "Leviticus" card.

Now I am using bestiality as an example of a sin, that is still a sin even though Jesus never directly commented on it. He did not have to as it has already been told by God it was a sin.
All the laws in Leviticus 20 are God’s laws given directly to Moses. Even though the laws do not apply to Christians, they do give us input into what God finds abhorrent and sinful.

 

[Black Dog]

This is priceless. When did I ever imply that "following" and "bound" were the same thing? You were the one who implied that. Look what I said:



Look how you replied:



I pointed out that you were wrong about Jesus following the law, and you replied by saying that Jesus wasn't bound by the law.

How does that reply make any sense when I was addressing your claim that He always followed the law, unless you are conceding that He didn't always follow the law, but mitigating that it was ok, because He wasn't bound by the Law?

To answer your question about Jesus being "bound" by the law, I have been claiming that He wasn't bound by it from the beginning. In fact that is precisely the point that I am trying to make. He wasn't bound by it, and He didn't follow it, because it wasn't God's Law. The one Law that He DID follow was the Golden Rule. And since He was the perfect example of model behavior, that is the one Law the we should follow as well.

Now that I have answered your question, how about you answer mine? How is you assertion that your arguments are "Biblically sound" justified, when you have argued that Jesus followed Mosaic Law, despite the Bible saying that He touched a leper, and also saying that it is a sin to touch a leper under Mosaic Law?

Like I said you don't understand the difference between "bound and "follow." Pretty simple. Following the law voluntarily has nothing to do with being "bound" by it as the people were.

Why don't you be honest and stop trying to twist everything I or the Bible says to suit your immoral needs?

And I just saw your "to to " response. You can't even admit to a grammatical error! pathetic.

Have a good life.

 

[CriticalThought]

Why don't you be honest and stop trying to twist everything I or the Bible says to suit your immoral needs?

God said then Jesus said then Paul said then the dudes who put the Bible together said then the translators said then Blackdog said that something was immoral. Quite the game of telephone.

Meh, we should all just live our lives the way we want to live them and stop bickering.

Regardless of whether the state or anyone else recognizes it, I will get married and I will live my life as I please. That isn't anyone's business but my own. If anyone gets in my way, then I'll live my life in spite of them, and they can use force to stop me if they want, but then it will be clear who is imposing on who.

 

[Black Dog]

God said then Jesus said then Paul said then the dudes who put the Bible together said then the translators said then Blackdog said that something was immoral. Quite the game of telephone.

Not really true. CT, you have made so many mistakes on the Bible. It's OK though not an insult, I just think you probably should study it a little, that's all.

Meh, we should all just live our lives the way we want to live them and stop bickering.

So true.

Regardless of whether the state or anyone else recognizes it, I will get married and I will live my life as I please. That isn't anyone's business but my own. If anyone gets in my way, then I'll live my life in spite of them, and they can use force to stop me if they want, but then it will be clear who is imposing on who.

See this is my problem. I want you to have your life the way you want it. I want you to be happy. I would not disparage you or your spouse at all. This however does not mean I support a law condoning it.

It's that simple.