BANNED!

[Frank Hipper]

Hate the sin and not the sinner. I`m suprised it took you so long on that one. What a cheap cop-out! Some people ARE capable of compartmentalisation in their morals, I suppose.

I'm not sure I totally agree here. I can dislike the actions of a person but not dislike the person. Are you saying that you only like people whose every action you agree with? (I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and present a different view on an old saying).

I understand your point, have done it myself. An action, to me however, is different than a state of being, which is the crux of the christian attitude on homosexuality. Labeling me a sinner due to being born different, and hating the difference I have no control over, is different than hating someone's chosen actions.

[data_link]

LEviticus 20: 13 (a):
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

Lets take a good look at this - first of all, and an admittedly petty point - this only talks about MSM, so is God okay with lesbians?

Second remember that this is the old testament - at the time this was written, women were considered property, with a value somewhere between cattle and dung. Taking this into account, is this passage saying it's wrong to have gay sex, or saying it's wrong to treat a man like a woman? This distinction makes a world of difference, especially if you're going to apply this ancient rule to modern life.

Speaking of modern life, lets see what else we're doing wrong according to Leviticus:

20:9:For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

21:17-21: Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

24:19-20:And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

So let's see: punishments should be given eye for an eye, no cripples should be allowed into the church, and anyone who curses his parents ought to be stoned. Remember: God was giving a direct order to Moses to enforce these laws, so you cannot say that this was merely a descriptive passage. Tell me, do you really want to use LEVITICUS as your standard of morality?

[haas mark]

Verilon:

Where have we said that you do?

I answered that quote I believe. ONe of the members said something like "so its ok to lynch, murder, harass homosexuals because..." Sorry for the paraphrasing, I'll find the quote in a sec.

Fair enough...I read that later on, btw.

But you do by saying that it is such a horrible sin and that you are better because you don't participate in it. You don't say it outrightly, but you sure do imply it well enough.

I am not better then them. I may as well sin just as often as they.

*ahem* You forget that I am one of *they.*

1) you are. 2) I don't personally see this. 3) you are.

1) God is judging, I am just believing in that judgement. 2) read the post that I was quoting. 3) I am not bigotted any more then you're a bigot towards bigotry(tongue twister)

1) You believe in the judgement, so therefore you are judging. 2) Hey, I'm agreeing with you! Take what you can! 3) Oh? YOu sure do seem biased against my way of life....

[XPViking]

I understand your point, have done it myself. An action, to me however, is different than a state of being, which is the crux of the christian attitude on homosexuality. Labeling me a sinner due to being born different, and hating the difference I have no control over, is different than hating someone's chosen actions. - Frank Hipper

Right. Just to merely rephrase what you said; most Christians think that homosexuality is a sin that is chosen. In other words, most Christians view homosexuality as not part of that particular person's being.

XPViking

[Frank Hipper]

I understand your point, have done it myself. An action, to me however, is different than a state of being, which is the crux of the christian attitude on homosexuality. Labeling me a sinner due to being born different, and hating the difference I have no control over, is different than hating someone's chosen actions. - Frank Hipper

Right. Just to merely rephrase what you said; most Christians think that homosexuality is a sin that is chosen. In other words, most Christians view homosexuality as not part of that particular person's being.

XPViking

As in it being a choice, correct.

[XPViking]

LEviticus 20: 13 (a):
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take a good look at this - first of all, and an admittedly petty point - this only talks about MSM, so is God okay with lesbians?

Second remember that this is the old testament - at the time this was written, women were considered property, with a value somewhere between cattle and dung. Taking this into account, is this passage saying it's wrong to have gay sex, or saying it's wrong to treat a man like a woman ? This distinction makes a world of difference, especially if you're going to apply this ancient rule to modern life. - data_link

I'm not really sure how the treatment of women in regards to status in society, but perhaps you mean something like this:

Men can treat women a certain way, but it is wrong to treat men in that fashion. Is that what you mean? Mind you, look at the verb "to lie". What do you think it means here?

XPViking

[Durandal]

So, you don't hate homosexuals, yet you believe that they deserve an eternity of pain and suffering, and have no problem with such punishment being visited upon such people who have not harmed society in any conceivable way?

[haas mark]

From the Catholic Bible:

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

It says unjust. That means in the eyes of the law. Nowhere here does it say that the law is God's word. In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, it is subtitled as Sexual Immorality. Nothing in there states anything against Homosexuality.

Footnote: The Grek word translated as boy prostitutes designated catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated practicing homosexuals refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

In Romans, it is nothing more than stating immoral. In 1 Timothy, it is the same operative, "practicing homosexuals." This Bible says that it is gay pedophilia, NOT homosexuality in general.

It also makes reference to Galatians 5:19-21, where again nothing is stated about homosexuality:

19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, 21 occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

In the first part, he is condemning a lot of things that are instinctual. Let us go on to another reference, Ephesians 5:5:

Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Again, nothing against homosexuality. The quote of Galatians has a reference to Colossians 3:5-6. Let us see what is there:

5 Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry. 6 Because of these the wrath of God is coming [upon the disobedient].

Once more, nothing against homosexuality. See where I'm going with this?

Leviticus 20:

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed.

Haha! Nowhere does it state they cannot achieve status in Heaven! Although God says himself it is abominable (Lev 18:20), he did not say that it was something that prevents one from getting to heaven.

[neoolong]

LEviticus 20: 13 (a):
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take a good look at this - first of all, and an admittedly petty point - this only talks about MSM, so is God okay with lesbians?

Second remember that this is the old testament - at the time this was written, women were considered property, with a value somewhere between cattle and dung. Taking this into account, is this passage saying it's wrong to have gay sex, or saying it's wrong to treat a man like a woman ? This distinction makes a world of difference, especially if you're going to apply this ancient rule to modern life. - data_link

I'm not really sure how the treatment of women in regards to status in society, but perhaps you mean something like this:

Men can treat women a certain way, but it is wrong to treat men in that fashion. Is that what you mean? Mind you, look at the verb "to lie". What do you think it means here?

XPViking

And if the Bible is supposed to be taken literally why doesn't it just say "Oh yeah, homosexuality is wrong," instead of using a literary form?

[Coyote]

From the Catholic Bible:

This Bible says that it is gay pedophilia, NOT homosexuality in general.

So this could actually be an indictment against attacks on children, rather than consenting sex between adults...

And CreationistAllTheWay--

I did not say that you, persoanly, hunt down gays and lynch them, but you are part of a system that condones this and has, at times, carried out such persecutions. And I don't mean the mad actions of individuals, but I'd be willing to bet that there have been cruelties sanctioned by official church action...

And you don't just have to physically attack to be discriminatory: what of exclusion from the community-- shunning and banishment? I posit this hypothetical scenario:

Congress has a bill before them to legalize homosexual marriage and all the benefits therein: adoption, insurance, etc. Congress decides to put to a public referendum. How do you vote and why?

[data_link]

I'm not really sure how the treatment of women in regards to status in society, but perhaps you mean something like this:

Men can treat women a certain way, but it is wrong to treat men in that fashion. Is that what you mean? Mind you, look at the verb "to lie". What do you think it means here?

XPViking

No, this isn't about what I mean, as all I mean by the above postis that one cannot use that passage as reasonable justification for regarding homosexuality as immoral. As for Leviticus, given that the usual biblical euphamism for sex is "know," I think that lie is probably using this definition:

Lie (v.) 3. To be or remain in a specific condition.

Thus, according to Leviticus, if your condition with men is the same as your condition with women - i.e. you treat them the same way - then you are committing an abomination. So yes, that is how I'm interpreting this verse, the bible is full of misogynist verses, and this is one of them.

[neoolong]

I'm not really sure how the treatment of women in regards to status in society, but perhaps you mean something like this:

Men can treat women a certain way, but it is wrong to treat men in that fashion. Is that what you mean? Mind you, look at the verb "to lie". What do you think it means here?

XPViking

No, this isn't about what I mean, as all I mean by the above postis that one cannot use that passage as reasonable justification for regarding homosexuality as immoral. As for Leviticus, given that the usual biblical euphamism for sex is "know," I think that lie is probably using this definition:

Lie (v.) 3. To be or remain in a specific condition.

Thus, according to Leviticus, if your condition with men is the same as your condition with women - i.e. you treat them the same way - then you are committing an abomination. So yes, that is how I'm interpreting this verse, the bible is full of misogynist verses, and this is one of them.

Interesting. I don't suppose if you know what the original term was. That may shed some light on what lie means in this case. It may also be a euphamism though.

[haas mark]

That is claiming to know my heart, which you do not.

It is the same for all, not just you.

[haas mark]

From the Catholic Bible:

This Bible says that it is gay pedophilia, NOT homosexuality in general.

So this could actually be an indictment against attacks on children, rather than consenting sex between adults...

Exactly.

[Utsanomiko]

It does muchly; The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian church

Not to compare catholocism with polytheism, but you do know that polytheism has been around longer then Calvinist and Catholic churches. Does that make it "outrank" calvinism/

Yes, it does. Catholism outranks 'Calvinism' (I thought that died out after the salem witch trials?) because it predates it. Judaism predates and outranks Catholism, and all of that is outranked by the Jewish cult worship of the Canaanite mountain god who later came to be known as Yahweh.

Christianity is just cult revisions of the belief of El-Shaddai. You've simply choosen to look at El-Shaddai differently than what he originally was.

[data_link]

Interesting. I don't suppose if you know what the original term was. That may shed some light on what lie means in this case. It may also be a euphamism though.

Sadly (or perhaps fortunately), I have not studied the bible in the original hebrew. Someone who has care to fill us in?

[Non Catenatum]

Wow, lots of posts to respond to...

Congress has a bill before them to legalize homosexual marriage and all the benefits therein: adoption, insurance, etc. Congress decides to put to a public referendum. How do you vote and why?

I vote no because

1. The Bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

2. Thus homosexuality cannot be a marriage and is prematernal sex.

Men can treat women a certain way, but it is wrong to treat men in that fashion. Is that what you mean? Mind you, look at the verb "to lie". What do you think it means here?

Lie is used commonly in the Bible to mean have sex with (as is "know")

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That says right in it "nor praciticing homosexuals".

Haha! Nowhere does it state they cannot achieve status in Heaven! Although God says himself it is abominable (Lev 18:20), he did not say that it was something that prevents one from getting to heaven.

I agree with you here, God says its abominable (a sin). I nowhere said that homosexuality is the final ticket to hell. ITs by grace that we're saved from hell, not by hetro-sexuality.

So, you don't hate homosexuals, yet you believe that they deserve an eternity of pain and suffering, and have no problem with such punishment being visited upon such people who have not harmed society in any conceivable way?

Read above

Yes, it does. Catholism outranks 'Calvinism' (I thought that died out after the salem witch trials?) because it predates it. Judaism predates and outranks Catholism, and all of that is outranked by the Jewish cult worship of the Canaanite mountain god who later came to be known as Yahweh.

Christianity is just cult revisions of the belief of El-Shaddai. You've simply choosen to look at El-Shaddai differently than what he originally was.

Age does not necissarily mean worth. Ancient egyptian beliefs predate Catholism, and the theory of evolution for that matter.


Also, I have some thing about the Apocrypha

Here are some verses that contradict the rest of the Bible:

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

Purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.


Also There are roughly 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha


Theres more but that should be enough for now. Tell me if yo uwant me to respond to your post, so many to choose from

[neoolong]

Wow, lots of posts to respond to...

Congress has a bill before them to legalize homosexual marriage and all the benefits therein: adoption, insurance, etc. Congress decides to put to a public referendum. How do you vote and why?

I vote no because

1. The Bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

2. Thus homosexuality cannot be a marriage and is prematernal sex.

Right because the Bible is always right, even when it is contradictory. Do you actually an argument or just an appeal to authority. Besides, the Invisible Pink Unicorn created everything, including the notion of God and the Bible. He is actually for homosexuality and wants people to figure it out himself. Instead of just telling them. Can you disprove what I have said?

Men can treat women a certain way, but it is wrong to treat men in that fashion. Is that what you mean? Mind you, look at the verb "to lie". What do you think it means here?

Lie is used commonly in the Bible to mean have sex with (as is "know")

Right, but that would be interpreting. Again you take the Bible literally when it fits your beliefs and you interpret when it is contrary to your beliefs so that it suddenly becomes a justification for your beliefs. Or you just say it's wrong.

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That says right in it "nor praciticing homosexuals".

"The term translated practicing homosexuals refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."(Verilong) That's a subsection of the homosexual population. You interpret it as saying that all homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God because you don't want them to. Not, because the Bible says that.

Haha! Nowhere does it state they cannot achieve status in Heaven! Although God says himself it is abominable (Lev 18:20), he did not say that it was something that prevents one from getting to heaven.

I agree with you here, God says its abominable (a sin). I nowhere said that homosexuality is the final ticket to hell. ITs by grace that we're saved from hell, not by hetro-sexuality.

So homosexuality is a sin. That means that a homosexual would go to hell because homosexuality is not a choice. Unless he decided to make gay animals as a lark and decide that he's going to make something not a choice, and still make it a sin. Oh, and you said that you think homosexuals go to hell above. That means heterosexuality is a prerequisite to getting into heaven.

So, you don't hate homosexuals, yet you believe that they deserve an eternity of pain and suffering, and have no problem with such punishment being visited upon such people who have not harmed society in any conceivable way?

Read above

Right you don't think they will go to hell if they chose not to be gay, despite it not being a choice. So they go to hell. Right, that's really not hating them.

Age does not necissarily mean worth. Ancient egyptian beliefs predate Catholism, and the theory of evolution for that matter.

Your point being. You cannot objectively prove the Bible nor Egyptian beliefs. You can prove evolution however. And if you want to go by the Bible literally, you need to go the unedited(in this case the older) version, not the one that you made to fit your viewpoint.

Also, I have some thing about the Apocrypha

Here are some verses that contradict the rest of the Bible:

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

Purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.


Also There are roughly 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha

Right, so the Bible is right because you want it to be right. While the Apocrypha is wrong because you want it to be wrong. It's still your choice, and you hate homosexuals because of your beliefs.

[Darth Wong]

Congress has a bill before them to legalize homosexual marriage and all the benefits therein: adoption, insurance, etc. Congress decides to put to a public referendum. How do you vote and why?

I vote no because

1. The Bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

2. Thus homosexuality cannot be a marriage and is prematernal sex.

Thank you for finally admitting that you advocate discrimination against homosexuals, based on your ridiculous belief system.

You've been selling this ridiculous bullshit story for 10 pages now about how you think homosexuality is "immoral" but you don't think they should be discriminated against (obviously trying to straddle the fence to evade criticism). With this post, you demonstrate that all of your waffling claims are lies, and that when push comes to shove, you gladly discriminate like the bigot that you are.

[Non Catenatum]

Right because the Bible is always right, even when it is contradictory. Do you actually an argument or just an appeal to authority. Besides, the Invisible Pink Unicorn created everything, including the notion of God and the Bible. He is actually for homosexuality and wants people to figure it out himself. Instead of just telling them. Can you disprove what I have said?

Oh no, not the infamous IPU again.

I cannot disprove it, and I have said on more then one occasion thatI do not expect you to believe God's word unless He has shown it to you.

Right, but that would be interpreting. Again you take the Bible literally when it fits your beliefs and you interpret when it is contrary to your beliefs so that it suddenly becomes a justification for your beliefs. Or you just say it's wrong.

Ill check out the hebrew meaning for this word when I can.

"The term translated practicing homosexuals refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."(Verilong) That's a subsection of the homosexual population. You interpret it as saying that all homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God because you don't want them to. Not, because the Bible says that.

For one, saying "nor boy prostitutes nor phediofile homosexuals" would be redundant. It would be like me saying "Homosexuality is wrong. So is male homosxuality"

Also, I'll try to find the verse that says Sodom and Gommorah was destroyed as homosexuality being one of the reasons when I have the time.

So homosexuality is a sin. That means that a homosexual would go to hell because homosexuality is not a choice.

You say its not a choice, I say to endulge in homosexual lust is.

Also, its God's grace that gets us to heaven, and the lack of it to hell. MAny Christians sin often as well. IT isn't a "Sin-o-meter" God uses to say "yup, that guys going to hell, but he isn't" Its up to grace.

Your point being. You cannot objectively prove the Bible nor Egyptian beliefs. You can prove evolution however. And if you want to go by the Bible literally, you need to go the unedited(in this case the older) version, not the one that you made to fit your viewpoint.

I was not aware that I was one of the scholars that helped translate the Bible, but I do try to look at the Hebrew meanings on verses I am unsure of.

Right, so the Bible is right because you want it to be right. While the Apocrypha is wrong because you want it to be wrong. It's still your choice, and you hate homosexuals because of your beliefs.

MY point is against the Catholic Bible, which accepts both, not whether the Apocrypha is true, or else the rest of the Bible is.

[Non Catenatum]

You've been selling this ridiculous bullshit story for 10 pages now about how you think homosexuality is "immoral" but you don't think they should be discriminated against (obviously trying to straddle the fence to evade criticism). With this post, you demonstrate that all of your waffling claims are lies, and that when push comes to shove, you gladly discriminate like the bigot that you are.

How is it discriminating to say I do not approve of homosexual marriage? That doesn't mean I'm witholding the right of marriage from them because of the predjiduce, I am saying according to God marriage can not exist between them.

And homosexuals are getting the same right as hetrosexuals. If a homosexual man wants to marry a woman, be my guest.

[neoolong]

Right because the Bible is always right, even when it is contradictory. Do you actually an argument or just an appeal to authority. Besides, the Invisible Pink Unicorn created everything, including the notion of God and the Bible. He is actually for homosexuality and wants people to figure it out himself. Instead of just telling them. Can you disprove what I have said?

Oh no, not the infamous IPU again.

I cannot disprove it, and I have said on more then one occasion thatI do not expect you to believe God's word unless He has shown it to you.

Right, and I'm supposed to believe you simply because you claim to have heard God and he told you that hating homosexuals is right depsite it being irrational.

Right, but that would be interpreting. Again you take the Bible literally when it fits your beliefs and you interpret when it is contrary to your beliefs so that it suddenly becomes a justification for your beliefs. Or you just say it's wrong.

Ill check out the hebrew meaning for this word when I can.

Ok.

"The term translated practicing homosexuals refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."(Verilong) That's a subsection of the homosexual population. You interpret it as saying that all homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God because you don't want them to. Not, because the Bible says that.

For one, saying "nor boy prostitutes nor phediofile homosexuals" would be redundant. It would be like me saying "Homosexuality is wrong. So is male homosxuality"

No it's not redundant. It saying that a boy prostitute who can have sex with a woman is wrong. As well as a man who has sex with a boy prostitute. Face it you just want to believe it says that homosexuality is wrong because you want to justify your own irrational hatred.

Also, I'll try to find the verse that says Sodom and Gommorah was destroyed as homosexuality being one of the reasons when I have the time.

Go ahead.

So homosexuality is a sin. That means that a homosexual would go to hell because homosexuality is not a choice.

You say its not a choice, I say to endulge in homosexual lust is.

Right, says you. Because you hate homosexuals. Oh yeah, and what is homosexual love to you then?

Also, its God's grace that gets us to heaven, and the lack of it to hell. MAny Christians sin often as well. IT isn't a "Sin-o-meter" God uses to say "yup, that guys going to hell, but he isn't" Its up to grace.

Yet, you still avoid the point. You have claimed that heterosexuality is a prerequisite to heaven. That still means homosexuals go to hell.

Your point being. You cannot objectively prove the Bible nor Egyptian beliefs. You can prove evolution however. And if you want to go by the Bible literally, you need to go the unedited(in this case the older) version, not the one that you made to fit your viewpoint.

I was not aware that I was one of the scholars that helped translate the Bible, but I do try to look at the Hebrew meanings on verses I am unsure of.

Right so you know the meanings and they are?

Right, so the Bible is right because you want it to be right. While the Apocrypha is wrong because you want it to be wrong. It's still your choice, and you hate homosexuals because of your beliefs.

MY point is against the Catholic Bible, which accepts both, not whether the Apocrypha is true, or else the rest of the Bible is.

And you get to decide what is right and what is wrong because? Oh wait because you want it to justify your hatred.

How is it discriminating to say I do not approve of homosexual marriage? That doesn't mean I'm witholding the right of marriage from them because of the predjiduce, I am saying according to God marriage can not exist between them.

Yes you are. You have hatred of homosexuality and to justify it you use the Bible. If it literally supports your ideas it's true. If you can interpret it to fit your beliefs then the interpretation is true. And if you can't and it goes against what you believe, then it's false. All because you say so. All because of your hatred.

And homosexuals are getting the same right as hetrosexuals. If a homosexual man wants to marry a woman, be my guest.

Right, that is the same right. Homosexuals can't marry each other, but they can marry someone of the opposite sex. If they had the same right there wouldn't be a law against homosexual activity in some states and you wouldn't oppose a homosexual marriage.

[Andrew J.]

That doesn't mean I'm witholding the right of marriage from them because of the predjiduce, I am saying according to God marriage can not exist between them.

And we are saying that what God says means diddly-squat, because of seperation of church and state. The fact that you accept this part of the Bible reflects your own hatred, intolerance, and bigotry.

Dumbass.

[Non Catenatum]

Right, and I'm supposed to believe you simply because you claim to have heard God and he told you that hating homosexuals is right depsite it being irrational.

No, you are not expected to.

No it's not redundant. It saying that a boy prostitute who can have sex with a woman is wrong. As well as a man who has sex with a boy prostitute. Face it you just want to believe it says that homosexuality is wrong because you want to justify your own irrational hatred

Where does it say "who can have sex with a woman" ??I'm not the only one interpreting here.

ight, says you. Because you hate homosexuals. Oh yeah, and what is homosexual love to you then?

I"ve just about given up on claiming I don't hate homosexuals. You continually use it as an argument because you equate hating one's actions with hatings that person himself.

Yet, you still avoid the point. You have claimed that heterosexuality is a prerequisite to heaven. That still means homosexuals go to hell.

I have not claimed, I said hetrosexuality will NOT get you to heaven.

Right so you know the meanings and they are?

In general I use Strongs Concordance.

And you get to decide what is right and what is wrong because? Oh wait because you want it to justify your hatred.

You don't get it. the catholic postion believes that both the old, new, and apocrypha are true. My point is that they cannot ALL be true.

Right, that is the same right. Homosexuals can't marry each other, but they can marry someone of the opposite sex. If they had the same right there wouldn't be a law against homosexual activity in some states and you wouldn't oppose a homosexual marriage.

I am just mnaking the ponit that they both are given oppurtunity to marry one of the opposite sex.

[Darth Servo]

I am saying according to God marriage can not exist between them.

And why not? You have yet to give rational reason. And here's a hint: 'because God said so' is not a rational reason.