Sodomy does not refer only to homosexual conduct...THAT is the whole point.
Ezekiel 16 - "As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."The point is that he says it does, gives biblical references, you say it doesn't, give nothing as a source...as stated before, I will go with what seems more plausible.
Yeah. The thing is, there's only one reason we even have the word "sodomy" in our English language. Etymologically, it originates in that story of the men of Sodom who wanted to have sex with the two angels God sent to rescue Lot. Any use of the word must therefore necessarily involve whatever occurred in the biblical reference to Sodom. And there's only one plausible behavior for which that can apply - which is the behavior for which the word has always applied - homosexual behavior, or if people prefer, the desire of men to have sex with other men. That is the story of what happened. There are ancillary messages, like the "don't look back" story involving Lot's wife (who did look back at the destruction of the city and was turned into a pillar of salt), or the story of Lot's two daughters. But there is only one story that has always been linked to the behavior of the men of that city - and that's the story from which we get the term "sodomy."The point is that he says it does, gives biblical references, you say it doesn't, give nothing as a source...as stated before, I will go with what seems more plausible.
Yeah. The thing is, there's only one reason we even have the word "sodomy" in our English language. Etymologically, it originates in that story of the men of Sodom who wanted to have sex with the two angels God sent to rescue Lot. Any use of the word must therefore necessarily involve whatever occurred in the biblical reference to Sodom. And there's only one plausible behavior for which that can apply - which is the behavior for which the word has always applied - homosexual behavior, or if people prefer, the desire of men to have sex with other men. That is the story of what happened. There are ancillary messages, like the "don't look back" story involving Lot's wife (who did look back at the destruction of the city and was turned into a pillar of salt), or the story of Lot's two daughters. But there is only one story that has always been linked to the behavior of the men of that city - and that's the story from which we get the term "sodomy."
Sure, but that is not what parent should have to be putting time into, deconstructing, deprogramming and obviating what their kids are "learning" in school everyday. That is an opportunity cost, lost time and effort that could have been used teaching their kids something useful, worthwhile and positive, instead of wasting that time in class and then out of class trying to cancel each other out...is it a wonder that we rank low in comparison to many when it comes to the truly necessary skills to survive in a global market?
I think Stalin took away tens of millions rights to freedom of conscience, he just starved, murdered them. Your right of conscience pretty much evaporates if you are gone.
Teaching should always be a parents job. If you don't trust the government to teach your child then homeschool them.
Yeah, I know quite a few of those home schooled kids who are currently working at Walmart and who believe the world is 5,000 years old. Perfectly fine in my book.
I understand and acknowledge that the author is drawing a parallel between the black civil rights movement and today's homosexual rights movement. That's clear, but that's also my point.
Yes, this nation was (and perhaps still is in some ways) divided on the black civil rights issue.
And yes, this nation is dividing on the homosexual issue.
My point is that it is not only improper to attempt a parallel between black civil rights and homosexual rights, it's also inordinately disrespectful (imho) of the former. What you have is a group of people attempting to distinguish themselves solely on the basis of their sexual preference and at the same time draw identic parallels with a group distinguished by the color of their skin. I don't believe it's proper to draw such parallels, let alone equate sexual preference with skin color. In fact, I believe it's disrespectful.
On the contrary, I would suspect that the writer was mostly concerned about indulging dishonest turnspeak to further his agenda... and while he might not be using it, others here are using his skin color to deflect criticism of something that they cannot defend straight up [ no pun intended ].
As Edwin correctly states, using, misappropriating, the cause of Civil Rights to apply to Gay Rights in the form of same sex marriage is an abomination and not only a slight to Lincoln but also to Dr. Martin Luther King and all the others that worked so magnanimously in this country for real Civil Rights, not for faux civil rights.
Oh so you have your red line that you will not cross in regard to sexual discrimination. Well the folks who are members of NAMBLA see nothing wrong with it. So if you find other sexual relationships equal to traditional then who are you to deny them their rights?
If our society is willing to allow an underaged girl to seek an abortion without a parent's consent how far of a stretch would it be? Not far.
I will probably not spend a whole lot of time with you as one can immediately tell who is going to actually debate and who will not. I will start with this and see how you counter. If its just the ad hom calls of bigotry...bye bye...
We currently have the exact same rights [ that would be equality ]. I, a hetero, cannot marry another man in my state, neither could another man, be they homo or hetero; a woman cannot marry another woman, the exact same. Equality. You are advocating for special rights...sorry.
Oh, I didn't preclude that being an argument, too... I think many groups, using the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, will do just that...and what will be the legal defense? I mean, you let "that group" do it, which gave them special rights [ we all having equal rights as it exists now, at least in the states that do not allow SSM ], so it would be discriminatory to disallow my group...
Once you erase the hard fast lines, you never know where it will go finally.
There are limits only as long as those of us that are putting our fingers in the dike [ no pun intended ] keep trying to keep the dam from collapsing... until we can get some small respite from this constant damn busting, these attempts to take down the steady bulwarks of a good society. If we can catch a breath we will come back, repair the damage already done so our posterity can have things at least as good as we had it handed down to us.
What part of denying me the right of conscience don't you get? The willingness of the court to deny me that right because that federal judge sitting on the bench is a political appointee in the name of sexual discrimination is willing to take my rights away!
The fear is real it is happening to people all over the place but like so many of you aren't interested in the rights of all, just what floats your boat. But some day the line you are not willing to cross will happen and then maybe you will understand the importance of honoring all person's rights to conscience whether you believe with them ideologically or not.
So everyone knows, Sodom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all. It was hospitality and protection. God punished those two cities because they were inhospitable, including towards his two angels that he sent. The "sodomy" that he was referring was NOT homosexuality, but was RAPE. The homosexuality misinterpretation comes from the fact that the angry mob wanted to rape (male homosexuality) the angels that visited Lot. This was a very common method of humiliation that was used at the time, especially amongst Pagans towards their enemies. During this time period, we had a patriarchal society, so, with the men in charge, humiliating and intimidating them was more effective. God's warning is that sodomy... RAPE, especially homosexual RAPE, is sinful... hence his destruction of those two cities where that practice occurred. The story says nothing about consentual homosexual behavior.
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex
I dont disagree about the homeschooling, however, we do not pay taxes, or rather should not pay taxes, for education that turns out to be a lot of left wing indoctrination. If the taxpayer funding followed the student, now that would be equitable.Teaching should always be a parents job. If you don't trust the government to teach your child then homeschool them.
No, civil rights, aka political rights, are only civil rights if we decide they are. They are NOT human rights, which are naturally endowed to each human no matter what. They are, instead, man-made government legislated laws that include and leave out whoever we want.Civil rights are civil rights, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation..
Sounds nothing like separate but equal...sounds like equal is equal...exactly the same. With Plessy v Ferguson it was separate schools, separate teachers, hand me down books if books at all, separate rail road cars, separate fountains, separate bathrooms, separate restaurants...GAWD...does that sound familiar--heard it before---sounds a lot like 'separate but equal'...
Maybe some people should just mind their own business and keep their noses out of their neighbor's business...
Same-Sex Marriage, Gay RightsThat, however, has not been, and apparently is not currently, good enough. Now we have to accept, condone and even, as has been brought out elsewhere in this thread, teach and encourage our children and thus confuse our children about this practice that many, if not most, disagree heartily with all the way down to those who may not have a problem with it but do not see it as promoting a healthy culture. We allow it, we certainly DO NOT want to promote it.
.
| % | % | % | ||||
| 7/18-22/13 | legal 55 | not legal 39 | unsure 6 |
Other people might be suggested to do the exact same, my dear. That would be equal treatment, right?
Fact of the matter is we have extended exactly that to the homosexual community. We minded our own business, looked the other way, didn't think about it because we really didn't want to delve that deeply. We were what was wanted, what was asked, we were "tolerant".
That, however, has not been, and apparently is not currently, good enough. Now we have to accept, condone and even, as has been brought out elsewhere in this thread, teach and encourage our children and thus confuse our children about this practice that many, if not most, disagree heartily with all the way down to those who may not have a problem with it but do not see it as promoting a healthy culture. We allow it, we certainly DO NOT want to promote it.
I have, as do you, a right to my opinions on how I WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE, again just as you do. Just saying shut up is not an argument in the circles where I hang out, probably much more in other, more liberal circles that seems to go for proper argumentation. Might as well add that from the left proper argumentation also seems to include ad homs, demagoguery, straw men, lack of knowledge of actual events yet pushing a false narrative, etc... you get the picture.
Sorry, not about to shut up, have been meek, holding our tongues for too too long... time to stand up and fight for that which will keep our integrity and the continued strength of this great country.
Well you sure do act like you think they are. From NAMBLA BS to your active promotion of discrimination in public accommodations.
Well then get 'er done...Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Rights
CBS News Poll. July 18-22, 2013. N=1,036 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
.
"Do you think it should be legal or not legal for same-sex couples to marry?"
.Civil Rights
% % % 7/18-22/13 legal 55 not legal 39 unsure 6
People who support gay marriage need to understand that when marriage is redefined in LAW it lays the foundation for all different types of sexual orientations to be pursued in the name of Civil Rights and that their practices be recognized lawful. Since morality in a religious sense can't be used as an argument against gay marriage, it can not be used in relationships like what NAMBLA promotes either. Nor can it be used as an argument against incest relationships. In other words because of changing the definition of marriage and all the discrimination laws associated with it has open the door for all sexual orientations to have rights. Some of them you may not be willing to support just like those today who do not support gay marriage but because of the discrimination laws being written today over gay marriage and sexual orientation, you will be forced to. And just like you are not willing to respect the religious conscience of those who deny services over gay marriage claiming them to be discrimination, some day down the road when you can no longer support something, you too will be charged with discrimination and because you were unable to stand up for the rights of conscience of others, will be denied your rights.
Let the buyer beware.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?