If you're going to try to rebuke a Christian by pointing out something from the Bible, do not use the Old Testament (OT). One has to understand the context for why the OT is there, it's history and guidance, not any sort of set in stone guidelines for the Christian. In a nut shell, the OT was the way for Jews to get to heaven. They repeatedly kept falling short, so God sent them judges, then kings. Finally, after all of this didn't work, God sent Jesus. The covenant between God and his people required them to live by the rules you find in the OT. Abiding by those codes are no longer required, all one needs to do is accept Jesus as their lord and savior.
Dear President Bush: Understanding Leviticus
[HR][/HR] Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin).
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination?
6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. It must be really great to be on such close terms with God and his son, ... even better than you and your own Dad, eh?
J. Kent Ashcroft (and others).
DOMA ruling is a start.
- Thread starter kpmarine
- Start date
- Status
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It's primarily heterosexual because it's been banned at the threat of death to even practice homosexual relationships for the majority of human history
Biological foundations? Not at all. Traditional marriage was nothing more than a business transaction between two people. It had nothing to do with procreation, and in fact, still to this day doesn't as evident by homophobes approval of sterile or elderly couples marrying
Clearly, the only arguments brought forth rely on an emotional reaction. As always, it comes down to "it's icky so no". 2013.. adults who still walk around with this mindset.. I hate humanity.
Not entirely true, at least in the west, which is the most relevant to this thread. Greece and Rome were quite tolerant and encouraging of homosexuality. It didn't become taboo until the onset of the major monotheistic religions.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
You know, if you disagree with something people may be inclined to challenge it. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make you the victim.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
If memeory serves, the Greeks and Romans were somewhat supportive of relations with adolescent males; not so much of two adult males shacking up. In fact, two adult males in a relationship was generally frowned upon. Now, if it was a 12-17yo boy, you were good.
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
You should read your above statement ^^ the next time you think of calling someone a bigot.
If you know that, then you should know that the adult was not to penetrate the adolescent. However, you are wrong, homosexuality was not taboo. Men have always had a taste for the young, and it is only in the last century or so that a grown man getting married to a 13 or 14 year old female has become "wrong." One cannot judge another culture by the norms and taboos of their own.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Yes, I will. Given you think homosexual marriage is tantamount to animal fucking. Let's not forget this gem right here, either:You should read your above statement ^^ the next time you think of calling someone a bigot.
You actually fit the definition of bigot pretty well. So...bigot...
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I'm less of a leg man and more of a rack man. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
children raised by homosexual couples actually do better and are better adjusted than the children of heterosexual couples on average.
so there goes that argument of yours.
can you produce anything that is not based in your own bigotry and delusion, rather than reality?
I oppose any marriage that isn't between two consenting human adults. How can you call it a slippery slope from there? Why are you comparing me or the people I've dated to animals and children when in reality we are adult human beings just like you are?
If it's about love, why can't everyone just get married in a church and shut up? Of course, your statement just isn't true. When states passed marriage amendments, a lot of them wiped out civil unions in the same stroke. They left nothing, not even recognition of marriages/civil unions from other states.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Only adult humans can get married. This is about a contract that is recognized in so many financial and legal ways, you might want to think about it.
Friend of mine is an ER doctor and just had to throw out a boyfirend, even though the girlfriend was dying. He had no standing and was not allowed to stand.
Just think about the contract. It is an opener to doors, none of us may realize till we get there.
Friend of mine is an ER doctor and just had to throw out a boyfirend, even though the girlfriend was dying. He had no standing and was not allowed to stand.
Just think about the contract. It is an opener to doors, none of us may realize till we get there.
echelon1k1
New Member
link? Or youre just whispering crack...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
​You're delusional!
​You're telling me in say 100 years bleeding heart liberals will be the only party? LOL Why don't you move to China or North Korea if you prefer a one party system.
Most of the world is based on a two party system since Roman times or before.
Republicans are only for the white party? They want to eliminate people of different skin color and sexual orientation?
​You're delusional!
Why not take a little break from RIU over the weekend and take some time to relax?
For a forum moderator, you are biased, belligerent and seem to be losing your mind.
Nutes and Nugs
Well-Known Member
According to this source only 3.4% of the population is gay.
It would be hard to base any study on such a small group.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_are_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html
Impman
Well-Known Member
You speak in bold italic because your ideas are ignorant and you are ashamed of them. You know in your own mind that you are wrong. But you have never had any real life experiences to know better. You are a lost soul, you are not capable of enlightenment on any level
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, did those only show equality in outcomes?
here, let me take another 2 seconds to show better outcomes: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
you poor thing. it sucks when you're on the losing side of history, doesn't it?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It is necessary for humans to kill animals to eat to sustain life, it is not necessary for humans to rape animals for sexual gratification. That's the difference, that's why killing animals is acceptable and raping them isn't. Even if you were to kill an animal after you had raped it, for consumption, raping it would be wrong because it's completely unnecessary.
Life doesn't require consent. Eating an animal for consumption is different than raping it for sexual gratification, you must understand, acknowledge and accept this. You will not die if you don't get your rocks off, that's the difference. If you would, raping non consenting beings might be seen differently, but in the reality we occupy, this is the rule.
That's absurd, how could you possibly know that unless you knew every gay couple, their occupations and what they did in their spare time?
Contributing to the economy by having kids? Is that what you're getting at? Even more absurd.
You're delusional if you think 'rape' = 'sex'
Yes, it is
I'm telling you that your public disapproval of homosexuality will be gone, just like blatant racism is gone today. Sure, there will be small pockets of idiots who linger in the shadows and hate gay people in secret, but the open, blatant bullshit will absolutely be a thing of the past. This is progress. Your grandkids will be as embarrassed to admit you were homophobic as grandkids today are to admit their grandparents were racist bigoted assholes, that's the light people like you will be seen in in 50 years, bask in it, enjoy it, you've earned it.
SHOTGUN420
Active Member
So your source includes MAY in the headline which normally I wouldn't even bother reading on. But for shits and giggles I did . It goes on to talk about some asshat named Gartrell and her theories not a single fact just thoughts or should we assume biased opinion.
FACT: According to US Census Snapshot published in December 2007, same-sex couples with children have significantly fewer economic resources and significantly lower rates of home ownership than heterosexual married couples.
- Status