PARATED pOSTS:

It's true that homosexual acts are sinful and sins are between the sinner and His Maker. But these sins are also vices and lawmakers should uphold virtue not vice.

 

 

 

 

 

]quote]If sin is between man and God, then the law of man shouldn't matter to you here on earth. Or am I still missing something? Because it seems to me that you are arguing against a law of man that doesn't affect you because of a law of God . . that also does not affect you.[/quote]

I'm not saying that because there are laws of God, we don't have to follow the laws of the land, I'm merely saying that they are two different things.  One can be in complete accordance with the laws of God, but be breaking the laws of the land.. in doing so, they become subject to the justice system of man.  God judges us based on his laws, and the justice system judge us on the laws of the land. 

How is creating an exception for one group of people that isn't offered to anyone else "less dictimination"?  As I said before, the way the laws are now, there is equality under the law.  somehow in our society, we have corrupted the meaning of the word "equality".  For some reason we've decided that NOT making exceptions for people in specific demographics is "discrimination", when the exact opposite is true.

As far as who is harmed, the entire concept and definition of "equality" is further corrupted.

Again with the opinion. Drinking was once upheald as  vice . . and drinking to excess and harming others still would be.  But having a glass of wine isn't. Right?

Same-sex anything isn't my thing.  It kinda freaks me out to tell the truth . . but I understnd that it's because of my upbringing I feel that way not some perfet set of rules.  Other than some variant of "God said so" what is the harm?

Why can not any two people of any sex forma contract?  That is what I am argueing.  What "exception" are you seeing?  I'm seeing an exception as it now stands; those two (straight) people can get state or federal benefits from each other . . but those two (gay) people cannot.  Huh?

I am talking about Marriage as it is now.  The Same Sex marriage proponents say that they should be able to marry who they love. However, that is a moot argument, since marriage laws in the US do not concern themselves with "why" people want to get married, it only defines who can officiate in them and who can participate. 

The same sex marriage proponents also do not call for "equality" at all, because they only want exceptions to the marriage laws made for themselves, but no one else.

The way the laws are now, there is equality, but that isn't good enough for the same sex marriage proponents... and it won't be until they get the special privelege they demand.

which, btw, doesn't make them any different than any other group demanding special priveleges based on demographics.  For too many people, "if my group isn't mentioned specifically, then I'm not included".. when the inclusive word was "all".

This is not true in all states.  And the purpose for the suit being brought forth.  So if the suit wins and the feds recognize same-sex marriage all is  . . kosher? 

And . . lest we lose track of what *I* originally posited, I believe that there should be a civil union seperate from religious marriages to avoid these issues.

Please define the exceptions that a man-man or woman-woman partnership would have that a man-woman partnership wouldn't.  Or is there some other group that does not have these same rights?

 

Homosexuality ends up harming everyone, the practicioners, their families, friends, the community and the greater society.

Ah.  That clears it up.  Thanks. 

The text doesn't mention sex except in the context of Lot's daughters.




The story is about hospitality. Angels came to Lot in the city of Sodom and didn't expect much hospitality but Lot insisted. Then the other townspeople came and asked to see (know) the strangers. Lot protected his guests and offered the townspeople them their way with his daughters instead. But it doesn't say anything about them wanting to see the strangers for the purpose you are thinking of.

The word is "venada3ah" and it means "and we knew" (but the "and" turns the tense around and hence it is "and we will know"). The verb "leda3at" ("to know") sometimes means "have sex with", but it depends on the context. When Abraham "knows" his wife, I know it means "have sex with". But that's where it ends. The word rarely means "have sex with" and it does require the assumption that the context is about sex to read it that way. Hence it has to do with the reader's mindset.

For someone like me, who thinks of "sex" when the context is a man and his wife the text reads differently than to someone like you, who thinks of "sex" when the context is a man and violent townspeople.

Also note that hospitality is traditionally the most important value in the middle east whereas homosoexuality is never assumed. (In fact in Iraq today two men can walk hand-in-hand down the road and then buy photographs of famous male singers in a shop and nobody will think they are gay.)




Gen 19 doesn't mention perversion as part of this wickedness, it only talks about hospitality and wickedness.

Polygamists?

 

I have enough problems managing with one wife . . I can't imagine having more than her. 

Before reading this, I was in favor of the government recognizing same sex marriages, but I think Zubaz brings up a good point that the government should not involve itself in marriages and should simply recognize civil unions for both same sex and heterosexual couples as that way it doesn't have to involve itself in any religious matters and is more neutral.

They have yet to come up with an example of such a society.

The S&G legend is interpreted differently depending on your faith.

And the other examples they gave were Christian empires falling to pagan and Muslim enemies.

The perverted Greeks did defeat the non-perverted Persians though.

 

I'm no biblical scholar so I can't speak for Sodom and Gomorrah but I have heard from some sources that the story may have been mis-interpretted.

As for Greece and Rome they didn't fall because they accepted homosexuality, they fell due to corruption and other reasons, homosexuality was NOT the cause of their demise.

How sacred is the institution when the divorce rate hovers around 50%?  I'm sorry but I just don't buy this argument at all.  I don't see how homosexual relationships are going to affect the stability of the family.

So what?  Why does that mean that it isn't time to change.  Convential thinking for centuries was that the earth was flat, so why not expand our horizons by allowing gay marriage?

You call it an aberration but for homosexuals it isn't.  For nature it isn't, chimpanzees (genetically very similar to humans) tend to be bi-sexual.

None that have the same legal ramifications as marriage which is where the real argument here lies.  Why can't someones life partner be in their hospital room when they are dying?  Why can't they file taxes jointly?  Why can't they automatically inherit the others estate upon their death?

huh?  They don't want to redefine marriage as only being between two members of the same sex, they just want it to be between to consenting adults.  How is that discrimination?  Only allowing heterosexual marriage is discriminating against homosexuals.

So by this argument I am not married because I don't believe in god, is that correct?  If so then why am I bestowed the same rights and privileges of a married couple simply because I am with someone of the opposite sex?