No difference between straight/gay love

[Manc Skipper]

22 “‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.

23 “‘A man must not have sexual intercourse with an animal to become unclean by it; nor should a woman offer herself to an animal to have intercourse with it. It is a violation of what is natural.

24 “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for it is by all these things that the nations that I am driving out from before you have made themselves unclean." Leviticus 18:22-25

Your 22 is about adultery, promiscuity, and idol worship among neighbouring tribes.

23 is about bestiality, not the gay.

24 doesn't apply either. Unless you're talking about never eating shelfish, or mixing fibres in your clothing.

 

[btthegreat]

I remember similar threads in the mid ninties in another forum. I get tired of educating people after all this time. Gays fall in love. Gays have sex. Gays parent. Gays get STDs. Gays eat apples. Gays sing songs. Gays play basketball. Gays tell lies. Yawn.

 

[Angel]

Love is a many-splendored thing.
Sex is politics.
People are funny.

 

[Kal'Stang]

22 “‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.

Do you know why that was added to the bible by the Council of Trent? Hint: It wasn't because "God said so".

The whole bible was put together by a council. A council who made a rule that nothing that was discussed while putting together the bible would be considered heresy unless and until they were done putting the bible together. Then, after the bible was made, if it didn't make it into the bible, yet was still discussed, then it would be considered heresy. If God was who made the Bible, or inspired it....such a rule would not have been needed.

The Bible was written by man, to control man.

 

[marke]

The word of god never mentions sodomy.

And yet God condemned the sodomites and opposed sodomy. Go figure.

 

[cabse5]

Gay couples can have children, too. And even couples that choose not to have kids (which plenty of straight couples also choose to do, a good lot of them), that doesn't make it any less fufulling than anyone else's relationship. Plus, plenty of gay couples adopt, or have surrogate mothers, or get pregnant through artificial insemination.

Instead of bearing the agony of reading all the posts of this thread, I have to thank Gov for providing the way out:

SIAP. The difference between gay and straight couples is REPRODUCTION.

 

[cabse5]

Do you know why that was added to the bible by the Council of Trent? Hint: It wasn't because "God said so".

The whole bible was put together by a council. A council who made a rule that nothing that was discussed while putting together the bible would be considered heresy unless and until they were done putting the bible together. Then, after the bible was made, if it didn't make it into the bible, yet was still discussed, then it would be considered heresy. If God was who made the Bible, or inspired it....such a rule would not have been needed.

The Bible was written by man, to control man.

You must agree the recent legal precedents to allow gay marriage were written by men (and women) to control men (and women).

 

[Daisy]

Your 22 is about adultery, promiscuity, and idol worship among neighbouring tribes.

23 is about bestiality, not the gay.

24 doesn't apply either. Unless you're talking about never eating shelfish, or mixing fibres in your clothing.

Really? lol...

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is generally anal or oral sex between people or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but it may also mean any non-procreative sexual activity.[1][2][3] Originally, the term sodomy, which is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis,[4] was commonly restricted to anal sex.[5][6] Sodomy laws in many countries criminalized the behavior.[6][7] In the Western world, many of these laws have been overturned or are not routinely enforced.

Sodomy - Wikipedia

 

[OlNate]

Really? lol...



Sodomy - Wikipedia

You're giving a fine demonstration of God's love today, Elvira. Great work. Weaponizing God is fun.

Only problem, God says you've gotta love ALL your neighbors, even the ones you might find "icky". Truly love them, Elvira. It's also says God is the judge, not you. Those two ideas essentially pull the carpet from under all so-called Christians who use their religion to lash out against people from any demographic, which is the theological equivalent to a bratty kid chewing their sibling out, only to be reminded by their parents whose job that is.

I would suggest that we all have more than enough of a challenge personally following God's word to be worried about being petty and hateful towards others we, for whatever reason, perceive as "failing".

Meanwhile, one of the most beautiful church services I've ever been to was held at the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto. MCC is a church put together in the LGBT community. You ever want to look at what real faith and devotion look like, go there. They go to worship God, despite the fact that a huge number of their "fellow" believers think they are filth, and would never support them. It's places like that where God's love can be witnessed, free of the expectation of walking away with the smug superiority of some other denominations... Even if I felt entitled to judge, and came down on the same side of things as you, I'd still say they show greater obedience to God than those who spread hatred.

To everyone else: We're not all like this. Many of us reject this attitude entirely. For some reason that feels important for me to say.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Thou shalt not lie with men as with women, it is an abomination.

LOL! The bible isn't the word of god.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

And yet God condemned the sodomites and opposed sodomy. Go figure.

No, god never once has done that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You must agree the recent legal precedents to allow gay marriage were written by men (and women) to control men (and women).

At least they're open about it instead of hiding behind God to do it.

 

[Manc Skipper]

And yet God condemned the sodomites and opposed sodomy. Go figure.

Common misconception. The sin was being unkind to strangers. Hospitality toward others is a big theme in the bible.

 

[marke]

No, god never once has done that.

You are right. God did not once condemn sodomy, but He did it several times, for those who are comprehending the Bible.

 

[marke]

Common misconception. The sin was being unkind to strangers. Hospitality toward others is a big theme in the bible.

Yes, the Sodomites were unkind to the two angels in Lot's house. They tried to break down Lot's door to assault and rape the angels but the angels struck the perverts blind. The next morning the angels took Lot by the hand and removed him from the city just before God burned the city into the ground in fierce wrath.

 

[cabse5]

At least they're open about it instead of hiding behind God to do it.

Most judges abhor any religious influence in American gov't. while, in the mean time, foisting their political ideology on everyone.
Religion is a subset of ideology. Veganism or progressivism or Wiccanism or conservativism is allowed in American gov't but religion isn't? For sure, one could include atheism as an ideology allowed in American gov't.

 

[CannonballB]

22 “‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.
23 “‘A man must not have sexual intercourse with an animal to become unclean by it; nor should a woman offer herself to an animal to have intercourse with it. It is a violation of what is natural.
24 “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for it is by all these things that the nations that I am driving out from before you have made themselves unclean." Leviticus 18:22-25

I don't give a good god damn about your bible. There, argument over. Your bible has zero domain over me, nor should it have any domain over my country, and I'll fight until I'm dead to make sure that some stupid book from 2,000 years ago has zero influence over my life.

sex, fun, and profit. Especially the profit. But it's the danger of disease that tells us that the gays should be kept out of the mainstream.

First, this is a stupid statement that makes zero sense. Second, straight people spread disease too - should we keep them out of the mainstream? No? Then stuff it.

Yes, STD's affect everyone. And that should be taught in our schools, to the young and old alike.

This completely contradicts your statement above. I mean, if STDs affect everyone, then we better keep all people out of the mainstream! Oh wait...

Socially accepted deviance; do people choose to be sexually attracted to young children? Man child love is next.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

False equivalence is false. Bad strawman analogy is bad.

I remember similar threads in the mid ninties in another forum. I get tired of educating people after all this time. Gays fall in love. Gays have sex. Gays parent. Gays get STDs. Gays eat apples. Gays sing songs. Gays play basketball. Gays tell lies. Yawn.

How dare you suggest the gays are like everyone else! Don't you know our agenda?



I for one would welcome a world where brunch was much more mainstream!

Most judges abhor any religious influence in American gov't. while, in the mean time, foisting their political ideology on everyone.
Religion is a subset of ideology. Veganism or progressivism or Wiccanism or conservativism is allowed in American gov't but religion isn't? For sure, one could include atheism as an ideology allowed in American gov't.

Religion has no place in government. Just because there is overlap between ideologies doesn't mean that the two are the same. Do not equate them. Wiccanism is a religion and is not allowed into the government, same as Scientology. Veganism, progressiveness, conservatism, none of these are religions.

 

[RamFel]

No, god never once has done that.

if that were true, then God woudnt
have said it.

 

[RamFel]

No, god never once has done that.

God has done that.

 

[CannonballB]

if that were true, then God woudnt
have said it.

He didn't.

 

[Eriech]

False equivalence is false. Bad strawman analogy is bad.

It is not false equivalence.

We accept homosexuality because we were told ( by scientists) that attraction to the same sex was not a choice. It is nature. By the same measure attraction to young children is not a choice it is nature.

The choice is acting on those attractions or not.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[CannonballB]

It is not false equivalence.

We accept homosexuality because we were told ( by scientists) that attraction to the same sex was not a choice. It is nature. By the same measure attraction to young children is not a choice it is nature.

The choice is acting on those attractions or not.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

It is completely, totally and utterly false equivalence. Stop playing coy.

You're comparing something where the two individuals involved have the ability to give consent to something where one party in said relationship cannot legally give consent.

Not only are you giving a false equivalence and a strawman, but you're throwing in there the slippery slope fallacy. Congratulations, you hit the stupidity trifecta.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Yes, the Sodomites were unkind to the two angels in Lot's house. They tried to break down Lot's door to assault and rape the angels but the angels struck the perverts blind. The next morning the angels took Lot by the hand and removed him from the city just before God burned the city into the ground in fierce wrath.

Homosexuality was not the problem, but the attack on travellers/guests.

A similar crime against hospitality, although the reverse, took place in Scotland, where to this day, the Campbell clan are detested by many, but especially MacDonalds, for a heinous breach of hospitality.

Massacre of Glencoe - Wikipedia

The offence was not the murders per se, but the fact that they were commiited by guests rising up and attacking the hosts, rather than meeting them honorably in battle

 

[Eriech]

It is completely, totally and utterly false equivalence. Stop playing coy.

You're comparing something where the two individuals involved have the ability to give consent to something where one party in said relationship cannot legally give consent.

Not only are you giving a false equivalence and a strawman, but you're throwing in there the slippery slope fallacy. Congratulations, you hit the stupidity trifecta.

An assault on parental rights lowering the age the of concent for children re: right to an abortion without parental notification or concent or to chose a gender other than ones own at a very young age is pushing that age of concent lower incrementally.

It's how the social change agenda works. Homosexuality was illegal once in many locals at one time. Is it is not far fetched to see a similar acceptance.

Again, is attraction to children a choice?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Tanngrisnir]

God has done that.

Newp. Not even once, nor can you show that god has.

Nice fail.