I'm a bit iffy when it comes to Gay marriage. Because i'm all for the Church and Religion staying out of Government/legal matters. And i think that if we were to say "Look, let Fags marry!" to the Church, it wouldn't be fair.

Besides, Queers can marry in Church. You just have to find the correct Church that'll allow you to.

And i agree with Amber, what's so wrong with Polygamy? So long as everybody is all for it, and all partys know, i don't see a problem.

Saying about the Bible thing though has intrigued me. The Bible condemns Homosexual shenanigans - but does it condemn Homosexual marriage? Or is that just another thing that the far right are making up? Like they did with Abortion. And i have heard a few cases against plastic surgery. Which i don't really understand. Because surely if God is all knowing, he'd know that Abortion and plastic surgery would be about soon. And so he should've commented on it in the Bible. But he didn't. So, does this mean he doesn't have anything against it?

EDIT - And apparently Parliament has passed a law making Queer marriage legal over here. Though i find it doubtful, 'cos i haven't heard anything about it! But i find it silly that such a small thing is "illegal". As in...an arrestable offence. Silleh!

The problem I have with polygamy is that I find it extremely doubtful that one person can love multiple spouses equally. I mean, really love them. The concept kind of goes against the whole idea of true love. Ya know, your ONE true love. Granted, love isn't a prerequisite for marriage. It should be. I don't find gay marriage nearly as much of an "attack on the sacred, God-ordained union of marriage" (actual words from some bullshit flier we got in the mail) as the shallow snobs and white trash Vegas couples who marry for money, excitement, or what have you, and undoubtedly get divorced or have entirely unhappy marriages. I think polygamists marrying would be equally mocking.
Of course, I can't say conclusively that a person can't love multiple people equally and strongly enough that they would want to marry them. In all fairness, if gays were given the right to marry, polygamists would have to be given the right to marry as well. But I don't see either of those groups having any major breakthroughs in the near future, especially under the Bush administration, so I guess it's okay for now.

I know it sounds odd that I'm so avidly against polygamists even though I'm such a staunch supporter of other things. I just hate the bastards. I mean, do you really think polygamists would marry for love?

Not about Homosexuality, but in the words of Marilyn Manson:

I went to God just to see,
And I was looking at me,
Saw Heaven and Hell were lies,
When i'm God everyone dies....

There is no reason that Gays should be denied marriage. How about instead of legalising gay marriage we ban ALL the legal types of marriage, then everyone would be in the same situation.

Just a thought.

I've came across verses in the Old Testament that almost sound like they are condemning homosexuals. The verses never flat out say it, but it seems as though they hint that God isn't pleased with it. Well, actually not the individuals but their actions. There's also parts that seem to discourage sexual acts before marriage. So maybe the Bible isn't exactly against homosexuals because of who they are but because any sexual stuff takes place outside of marriage due to their inability to be married. Sort of a catch 22--They can't get married because of their "impurity"; however, they can't be "pure" since they aren't allowed to be wed. (Random thoughts)

Did you see this one?

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

-oddguy

I shall provide my answers in the upcoming, "Nepharski's Guide to the Bible and...Stuff." Coming soon, to a forum near you.

Thank you. That is all I require.

True...humans are indeed under grace, as opposed to law...but Homosexuality is still clearly defined as sinful in the New Testiment.

For your viewing pleasure...
Romans 1:18-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

I am against it. Two rather large reasons for this. I believe that Homosexuality is both morally wrong and unnatural. I already tolerate their actions, but showing support for this shows approval as well. The other reason...

My second aforementioned reason. When such happens, who is to stop the 80-year-old from marriage to the 7-year-old? Who is to stop massive "orgy marriges?" Or mutliple partners. Or animals? Some of you other individuals may feel I am off the deep end, but trust me...it could happen.

The 7 year old thing can't happen as there is a law that states sex with anyone thirteen or under is statutory rape, whether the kid is willing or not.

Anywho, morality is a matter of opinion. Equality... is a bit more than opinion. People either have the right to marry the person(s) of their choice or they don't. Polygamy works for some people, so to them it is moral. Again, I ask, who does it harm? A child being wed to 40 year old would be very potentially harmful to the child. A loving family that has like 4 moms... doesn't harm anyone. As for the dog thing, were you honestly suggesting that allowing same sex marriages would lead to legalized bestiality? (Oh dear, I just got a flashback of the bestiality thread.) Anyway, that could be seen as harmful to the animal. Plus, animals are seen as property. I really doubt marriage will ever be given to anything that isn't human.

There's a reason gay marriage is the issue at hand, and not polygamy or bestiality. A significant portion of the population believes it should, in fact, be legalized. The jump from hetero marriage to homo marriage is much smaller, than say, marriage to multiple partners, thus will gather a much larger amount of support. Such an abundance of the US, if not the world is against polygamy it's a no contest in regards to legalizing it. I'd wager bestiality even moreso.

Now if you want to go into more technical reasons backing why gay marriage doesn't result in polygamy, I'll try to conjure some reasoning. Marriage has long been considered between two people, namely a man and a women, created and mantained as such. In at least my opinion, the main calling card for marriage is a loving bond between two people. Expanding to a coupling of two males, as opposed to a male and female, is simply a small expansion on the idea of a bond between two people. Polygamy comes from the entirely different angle that the intiment bond is shared by more than two people, an ideal that to my knowledge has remained consistently underground and unpracticed throughout history. Or something like that. My stance is a work in progress. Cut a bit of slack here, I've never bothered trying to type up any definitive stance such as this.

But once again, rest assured, polygamy has no hope of ever being legalized (at least for several generations). Outside of sexual orgies, the only news you hear of people "loving" more than one person rests in marital affairs. This idea has been trampled down so much by common belief and media display, it would be nothing more than a bump in the road. Granted, legalization of gay marriage would bring more media attention to the idea of 3+ parties participating in a marriage, but there's such minimal support outside of radicalist democratic parties, it's a fruitless cause. Sort of like Nader running for president.

Marriage between young and old runs somewhere along the same lines. There are POSSIBLY a few examples of significant age differences for desired marriage, between one party under and one party drastically under and one drastically over the age of consent. However, I feel the lack of hormonal agression in a young child would come close to, if not entirely, preventing the desire for such. Small children try to imitate what they've been brought up seeing, alongside medial portrayal of relationships. This portrayal has remained untouched, and will probably remain unchanged, for generations to come. There's no worry there. It isn't until the teen years couples even start to get serious about marriage, or a life together. The problem that needs to be focused on here, in fact, is unsafe sexual practice and relationships fueled on by infatuation.

Bestiality is so farfetched, I don't think a relevant argument even needs to be constructed at this point. Sure, you can stumble upon animal sex on the internet and such. But the property aspect, ownership ideal, and inabiity for the animal are inescapable boundaries. Not to mention, ANIMALS HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER LIFESPAN. If a person is crazy enough to think they and a household pet are in love, then you can count on them to take the relationship seriously. And the death of the animal in a marital relationship is something I'd like to see, purely from a psychological standpoint at least.

So you see what I'm saying? Nepharski, your "If...then" stance sounds like something being thrown out by an overly careful corporate lawyer concered with liability. It's like trying to say warning labels should be put on tall buildings, as you could fall from the top and kill yourself. Or, maybe that's a bad example. But you're trying to say something so abstract can arise, even though all common sense and statistical fact point against it. The mass public doesn't believe in polygamy, minor marriage, or bestiality. Sensible fact. A good portion of the mass public dose, however, believe in gay marriage.

Accept this is a fact you will have to tolerate, as it's an issue that is only going to exponentially increase given time. The world is becoming ever increasingly liberal. Now, the conservative bunch can try to unite and crush these upcoming ideals, or it can learn to keep to itself on issues that don't affect their lives. Two men married in Maine doesn't mean an elderly hetero couple in Oregon love matters less.

You can't legislate morality. Prohibition has proven that.

And anyways, what kind of guy hates lesbians?

(Damn, this took a long time.)

EDIT: It's about time for me to be off now. Nepharski, I see you're typing a response. I'll pick up my slack tomorrow.

First and Foremost, I do admit that these claims are indeed far-fetched. After all...
However, I must stress that none of these are impossible. Let us turn towards...the snowball effect. Gay Marrige is seen as a, dare I say it, minor* issue, when compared to somewhat larger polygamy, and the absurd size of Bestiality. But, if Homosexual union is recognized, the next smallest issue will demand recognition, and the next...and the next...and the next. Suddenly the most minor issue is now the largest one. Do you see? None of these claims are impossible. Yes, highly unusual and extraordinarly unlikely, but still. Slowly, more and more increasingly, "radical," beliefs will be pressed upon us. In my opinion, legalizing Gay Marrige is but the first step, down a dark and twisted road.


This kind of guy. Why any man or woman would approve of Homosexual activities is beyond me (Unless, of course...they practiced such deeds themselves).

If Homosexuality was, in fact, natural, all the homosexuals would have long been extinct, for failure to pass the genes onwards (Two Gays or Lesbians cannot give birth to offspring).





*Size in this argument is refering how far-fetched the concept is. The more the idea seams realistic, the smaller it is.

You. . . don't like lesbians? . . . Wow. How old are you exactly?

How is homosexuality immoral?

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's genetic. And if homosexuality weren't natural. . . what the hell would it be? You can't manufacture a sexual attraction towards a particular gender (to my knowledge-- you never do know, what with them white labcoat types doing their experiments nowadays and what have you). I think homosexuality should be considered natural. The fact that we are sentient and self-aware doesn't change the fact that we are animals. We do not dictate the forces at work within our own minds and bodies. If homosexuality has manifest itself in humans, then it is natural, because we are part of nature.

Ambi, you have the coolest insights. I'm actually getting somewhat kind of inspired to read the Bible at some point, just to read this kind of stuff for myself.

Majic, that was, to my knowledge, the longest post in this thread.

WHOA! I just thought of something. Okay, okay stay with me here. . . God can't speak directly to human beings, right? Because it would kill them or something because he's so powerful? Well if he's all-powerful, why does he not have the power to like. . . speak more quietly or something? So that he could speak directly with people? That's interesting.

Anyway, what made me think of that is that I was wondering how many angels are in the service of God? Like, should he want to send everyone in the world a personal message at the same time, so he had to use a different messenger for each of the six-odd billion people on the planet, could he do that?

And what made me think of THAT was, I was thinking that the Bible is just a book, you know? Maybe people could serve God best if he were to just speak directly with them rather than finding all these middle-men, you know, prophets and whatnot. Like, wouldn't it be cool if, every time you made a mistake, God could just tap you on the shoulder (metaphorically speaking, of course) and be like, "Hey, do you think maybe you could try to be a little more like this when you're doing that?" Because then you wouldn't have to look stuff up in a ridiculous gigantic book all the time that was written over a thousand years ago.

And also, humans were created in the image of God, right? Humans are obviously not perfect. Does this mean God has his flaws as well? Or did humans become flawed? And if this were the case, would that not mean that God could develop flaws? Can God change? Does he exist within time? I'd like to think of God as being somebody who ages and has flaws and can change his mind and whatnot. I find the image of a God who's actually quite like his umm people or subjects or whatever you would call them more comforting than the old portrayal of God, you know, infallible and terrible, fire and brimstone, f*cking with Job just to prove that Job will still love him no matter what.

BTW, isn't that the worst story you've ever heard? I mean, great googah-moogah. Perhaps this can be construed as more proof that God changes depending on who is interpreting him, and that the Bible should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. Or not. I dunno. I'm tired. Construe it any way you'd like.

Raisin, in your signature, it's "kill a yak", not "kill a goat".

Oh... And on topic...
... Umm...
I like lesbians.

I'm sorry, but as soon as these posts have more than like three paragraphs, they get really boring.

Hmm, in that case how would you feel if you had children and some discoverd that they were homosexual. If you loved them as much as the rest of your family and they wished to marry a same sex partner would your opinion change?*

*of homosexuals in general.

That's an easy one to dispute. Undoubtably you are aware that only 10% of the human population are gay. That leaves the other 90% of heterosexuals to procreate. There will always be homosexuals, because the heterosexuals are the reason homosexuals exist. If you look in history books, you'll see that homosexuals have been around as long as humanity has (although, it could not be in the first few generations of humanity, the imbalance would occur a tad later, like all natural mutations, if I dare use that word in this context).

I'll say it again. Homosexuals will be accepted one day in the foreseeable future. Just as Blacks and Women were once oppressed by religion, religion will change to accomodate for homosexuals. It is inevitable, and rather funny to see all the anti-homosexuals who you know will undoubtably die grumpy old men / women because they still hold grudges towards a changing society.

Jesus never condemnded homosexuals, but he did with biggots.

Alcar...

Well, he confessed to hating lesbians. I thought hating your 'neighbour' was also a sin?

I think governments should do away with marriage altogether and instead introduce civil unions for all couples, regardless of their sexuality. The fact remains that marriage is a religious institution, despite the fact that for most people who get married, the religious connotations are never considered. It's logical that civil unions are what is needed - marriage is about legal rights. If you attach religious meaning to it, that is your business, but homosexual couples shouldn't be denied the legal rights that come with marriage simply because of religion.

It's funny how homosexuality gets so much attention from Christians when there are so many other, pressumably more important rules to follow (The Ten Commandments, anyone?). Why do I never see Christians condemning those who work on the sabath? Jealousy is also mentioned in the ten.

Personally, I find Christians rather annoying and mostly morally bankrupt themselves. Times are changing and you fundamentalist Christians are being left in the past where you belong.

I don't know why homosexuals exist, but the fact that sexuality is a biological mechanism leads me to believe it has biological origins. We already know the role that sex hormones have during prenatal development, ie, the formation of sexual organs. And we are aware of the kind of physical abberations that can occur when this part of the development goes wrong (intersexualism, hermaphroditism, AIS, etc), so the most logical explanation of homosexuality is that its a form of brain hermaphroditism; parts of the brain are feminised, resulting in a female sexual orientation.

The whole 10% of the world being Gay does make me ponder however. It makes me ponder "Who the Hell found that out?" though saying that. They also say 1 in 10 people are Fag. And 1 in 7 are Bi.

But i think there may be more Queers in the world than we know. If there was no such thing as badness to Homosexuality, then i'm sure it'd be more like 40-60. Something like that. Due to the closets themselves et al.

What you really have to start asking yourselves, however, is are Homosexuals bitchy because of their nature? Or is it because of some outside interference. Oh yes. Oh yes indeed.

I said something along the same lines earlier except in my post there was no civil union either. Couples would be faced with the prospect of no union (As Homosexuals currently are) and only each others love and trust. This would separate people who get married for love and people who get married so they can legally get a share of money or higher social standing. People would idealy only be together because of love and the family*.

*Which is what the Christian God apparently wants.

Oh, and Jacob, I only thought some gays were bitchy and others act like everyone else.

That brought a huge smile to my face. :happy:

Hee, and yours was SO short. :p Anywho, Majic's post was worth the read. He elaborated on some issues to an extent that I'm not eloquent enough to do.

Where to start.. I think God's communication between his followers and himself is supposed to be beyond physically speaking. I believe it's supposed to be a completely internal thing from the metaphorical heart. The best things in life are beyond physical recognition, ya know? Even if that's not exactly why, I'm sure God has his reasons.

That's what faith is, afterall, isn't it: trusting that there is something there that you can't see, touch, or physically feel? (Perhaps believing in something that way seems foolish and blind, but there's no harm being caused to me or anyone else, so who cares? And as a matter of fact, I don't consider my faith to be blind because I challenge it and question things. The truly faithful have questioned their faith.) Besides, maybe God's definition of "all powerful" is different from our definition. His definition might just be that no one is capable of doing what He can do, so He is the most powerful being.

Hmm, I'm sure there's a number of angels that will always exceed the number of humans if that is how God sends messages. I think that's only optional. As for the tapping on the shoulder thing, that goes back to the thing I said about internal communication. God does say "Hey, you know you shouldn't be doing that" sometimes if I'm willing to listen. (It's more of a feeling than hearing a voice, but still.) Nonetheless, sometimes I wish God had email.

Yes, according to the Bible, humans were created in the image of God. I've thought about this very subject over and over again. Again, I think this depends on His definition of perfection. God tells us to try to be perfect, which I'm sure most would find humanly impossible. However, if He thinks being perfect means doing your very best then it can be possible. God knows he is the best for the job and he does the best he can; therefore, by that definition, he is perfect. Or something.

Moving on, of course God changes his mind. It's as easy as comparing the Old and New Testaments. God decided that there can be a better way for people to reach him: Jesus. God isn't all about fire and brimestone. Sure, the Bible stresses the horrors of hell to a terrifying point, but He's just giving us a fair warning, I believe. If you do sometime pick up the Bible even just for mere researchy purposes, don't get hung up on the bad things that can happen. Concentrate on the love and good guidelines. I suggest getting a parallel Bible, which has the KJV and some new version side by side for comparison. I actually have one with 4 versions of the Bible. Every page has the same exact verses side by side from each version. Oh, and definitely read parts of Mathew, Proverbs, and Romans.. They have some of the best, most uplifting quotes. Random example: "Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good."

I know, I went off on to some major tangents, but hopefully there a bit of help provided.

The Bible states that marriage, in fact sexual contact of any kind, is between a man and a woman...all else is perversion.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin." You would do well to remember that.

So...are you saying morals have no place in the future?

*Universe explodes.*

Ladies and gentleman, Homosexuality, if anything, is a disease of the mind...a lust. Both of these can be overcome.

'Ladies and gentleman, Homosexuality, if anything, is a disease of the mind...a lust. Both of these can be overcome.'

And the proof of the pudding is where, exactly?

It does make sense though...a bunch of Fags wanting to marry for lust...yes...yes it makes sense. Oh, and the fact that some Queers have feminine facial/body structures also must be something they chose. Yes. Of course.

I do love that saying, and I hope that's what you're trying to practice. With some of the things you've said, you make it sound like you're not. But don't get me wrong, I still like you even if I disagree with a lot of what you say. Anywho, I have a quote I'd like to say now:

Luke 6:37--"Do not Judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Well, what do you know, everybody, looks like we have a doctor amongst us! Sorry, I'm just teasing now. But seriously, I can't believe you actually said that. :nonono:

EDIT: Funny... I always thought diseases were called that because they harm the person. How is homosexuality in your opinion harmful?

You seem to be implying that only fundamental christians have morals...

"Homosexuality is immoral because the Bible says it is." Sigh. Okay. We're sliding backwards here. Fact: the Bible wasn't written by God. Okay? So now that we've made that clear, let's look at what the Bible is: a book. Sure, it's an important book. Sure, it carries some power. But when you start living your life by a freaking book, you are being controlled. Make up your own mind about topics like this, don't just side with the Bible. Or, if you must, at least don't try to use the Bible as your trump card, your argument-ending undeniably correct book of facts. I don't believe in the Bible. I can safely say a majority of the world doesn't believe in the Bible. It's a fine source if we're talking about something within the confines of Christian history, but homosexuality is something that exists in the present, in the real world, and you're going to have to do a little better than "The Bible says this so I'm right!" So, Nepharski, what REAL WORLD proof do you have to support your opinion that homosexuality is immoral?

As to the gay marriage topic, I think the separation of legal and religious marriage is a good idea. Some form of legal union is absolutely necessary-- I assume you've all heard the horror stories of gays who have been hospitalized and their partner can't get any information because they're not officially married. That's just a really bitch thing to do. How would you like it if your significant other were hospitalized and you couldn't even find out what happened to them because you weren't legally married? Even if Christianity isn't going to recognize their union, the U.S. government needs to.

EDIT: Sorry for the lengthy asshole post. Indignancy levels falling. . . anger dwindling. . . normal emotional state achieved.

I've got no problem with people using the bible to justifying their opinions as those opinions have probably been formed from their religion. I do have a problem with people saying that because the bible says something, it should apply to everyone.

You may be under grace, but I don't consider myself to be. Many other forumers would not consider themselves under either grace or law. Perhaps you should phrase yourself a little more specifically rather than just saying 'we' or 'us'.

I've always thought that this justification is completely ridiculous. Can you point to any example where a slight loosening of the severity of a law lead to such a major change as you've suggested. The end of Prohibition did not lead to a legalisation of every single illegal drug - in fact more drugs have been criminalised since then.

To my knowledge, both the Torah and Koran also condemn the said activity.

Despite the fact that Homosexuality has never had any proof of being natural, many individuals seem to be under that concept. How, is beyond me. I was a little harsh when I called it a disease, but it is a lust. Every teenage male in this forum knows what lust is (unless, your name is, "Mr. Chill"). Love, is when there is one person in the world who is exactly right for you (You may not have met them yet, but they are indeed in existance) and you will save yourself for that person. How can you truely love someone, if you give into the lusts and, "dark desires," of the world. Lust, in any form, is immoral (This, at least, I would think we might share a position on). Homosexuality is just a different version of that lust.

No, God did not pick up a pen and author the Bible, but it is believed he "dictated it." TR, you said God never talks to men...that he should make his voice less powerful, so that they might hear him. And I was under the impression that you had read the Bible. God talks to many people. Moses, Solomon, Paul, etc. And in at least one case, he does, in fact, "lower his voice."

Concidering the Bible was writen by a multitude of different authors, most of whom never met each other, and yet NEVER contradicts itself...leads me to favor its (For your benefit, I say, "supposed") truth. No, the Koran does not contradict itself...but it was writen by one man...a man who almost instantly used it to forge more of an empire than a religion.

I would like to appologize to anyone who finds this rude. It was not intended as such.

NOTE: Yes, AA...I do practice that phrase. But there is also a difference between loving someone, and liking someone. God loves everyone, but that doesn't mean he approves of and likes the actions and decisions of everyone.

Nepharski, do you suggest that homosexuals give in to their sexual desires and cannot know true love? I highly doubt it. I would be interested to see what the divorce rate is among homosexuals compared to that of heterosexuals. (There have been many homosexual couples married, right? In California?)

I wouldn't go so far as to say lust is immoral. Like I've said, we are animals. It's instinct to want to have sex with attractive members of the opposite sex. I definitely don't support giving in to lust, but I would say it's more of a weakness on the part of he or she who lusts than a disregard for morals. And forgive the generalization, but if you've never experienced lust at all, you either have a practically inhuman degree of control, or a practically inhuman lack of sexual desire.

If someone tells me a seemingly believable scientific fact, and they are a respected source, I believe them. The same goes for gossip and announcements and basically any normal human-to-human message. But God has a different degree of importance. I will never believe anyone claiming to have been spoken to by God. This is another reason for my general dislike of most organized religions: God apparently speaks only to certain people who then pass on messages to regular folk and expect to be met with complete faith. If God ever has something really important to say to me, he/she/it can say it directly to me and cut out the middle-man. I'll be listening.

I can understand your reasoning somewhat, but you lost me on animals. Humans are more than mere animals...we are above them. Look at us. Do you really think we have what it takes to be on the top of the food chain. I look at humanity around me, and I am inclined to think not. All the things we have accomplished that give us dominace, no mere animal could do. Do you really believe animals to have reasoning abilities?

I never said I was innocent of this atrosity. My distaste for lust, if anything, is partialy fueled by this fact. I oppose it in the same way that a war vetran opposes war.

Noted...but just make sure that you are, in fact, listening. That is all I have to say to this.

You're right when you define homosexuality as a lust. You just forgot to mention that heterosexuality is also a lust. Whilst sex can and should be an expression of love, it's impossible to extricate the lust from it. Where you are wrong is in saying that gay people can't experience love like straight people can. This is profound ignorance on your part and shows a lack of ability to see things from someone else's perspective.

I assume that you are referring to the New Testament. If that is correct then I must point out that the different authors contradict themselves frequently. I'm not a scholar so I can't give actual references but the different gospels offer quite different versions of the various events. In particular, the ones that were written chronologically later ascribe much higher levels of divinity to Jesus as well as very different versions of his crucifiction.

And where, exactly, did I say such a thing? I do not recal ever reciting such information. I would, however, like to state that lust and love are similar enough that some might get the aforementioned...emotions mixed. I never proclaimed that Homosexuals cannot experiance love...but I do feel that they are not, in reality, actually experiencing love between themselves...though they may lable it so. Still, you are in possession of a view which merits further studies and conversations relating with it.

...And kindly refrain from insulting me for proclaiming an opposing viewpoint. I do, in fact, see things from other perspectives.

Yes, I am aware that the authors of the Gospels all proclaim different views, but the message, ideals, concepts, beliefs, etc...they never vary. Sitll, I must request validation of your claim of contradiction. Thank you for your time.

Like...wow. So many giant posts that I can't be bothered to read.

Anyway, I don't agree with homosexuality...but I'm not going to judge those that follow such a lifestyle.

-oddguy

I do not judge...but I do confess to expressing my distaste for it.

EDIT: Check that...I am a somewhat judgemental person.

Sorry. I didn't mean it as an insult. Ignorance is a lack of information - not stupidity. But you aren't seeing things from other perspectives if you continually claim

You are not only claiming that gay people are incapable of feeling love for on another but also that they are so foolish that they erroneously believe that they are. Love is a feeling, an emotion. It can't be measured or quantified. As the oracle says "No-one can tell you you're in love, you just know it through and through". Thus you have no right to say if someone else is capable of feeling love for someone else.

If you can give me a scientific method of measuring love then you can come over to my place and we'll test your theory :fuzwink:

This may take some time as I'll have to ask my friend the New Testament expert (at least compared to me).


Final word: I'm not trying to attack you here. Its just that I find your statements confusing and I'm trying to understand you better.

I believe I do, indeed, see your point.

I never stated or implied that an individual engaging in Homosexual activities cannot love, but I do feel (and this is mostly an opinion) that the, "love," between two Homosexuals is not, dare I say it, "True." Again...mostly opinon.

First you take a pinch of salt...

My father too is an expert on matters relating with and towards the New Testament, and the Older one as well. Having read the Bible back to front, it is he that informed me of the lack of contradiction. I may be in need of bringing him down here for a few minutes...but let us not talk of such things at this time.

Understandable. Besides, I can only assume that my already confusing statements are further frazzled by my verbosity. If you are requiring any short and simple answers, free of my usually verbose banter, PM me, and I shall abstain from my writing style, in favor of a more...conversational style, shall we say.

Thank you very much.

Nepharski, I love you. Not necessarily your opinions on gay matters, but just you in general. Bet you're great in bed. Make love to me, big boy. Or, at least shake my hand. Your consistent, reasonable stance is a step up from the typical crap spewed out.

On a side note, wouldn't this be much easier if we could click over to "gay" mode to test out the arguments? Nothing beats personal expiriences:p

So basically you are of the belief that gays can love. . . but they can't experience true love. Hrm.

We are animals. We are different from other animals, but we are still animals. As for other animals not having reasoning abilities. . . I'm inclined to say otherwise. You've probably heard of the famous chimpanzees that were taught sign language, then actually taught it to their children. Or, in the wild, the chimpanzees that use twigs to pull termites out of their mounds. These are reasoning animals, but they are still subject to instinct and primal urges. It's just more obvious than with humans.

That doesn't change my point. Just take every time I mentioned the word 'love' and insert the word 'true' before them.

The problem with reading any religious text is that people interpret from their own viewpoint. I'm including myself in this; its quite obvious from this discussion that I don't find the Old Testament as disturbing as others here. Similarly your father is less likely to see inconsistencies as someone who is not Christian.

How interesting. You and Mac the Janitor now share a common statement.

My gratitude. If nothing else, I would at least like to maintain respect for my consistency.

*Shakes Majic's hand.*

So...would you like to go to the movies?...I mean...

*Pulls a Nueralizer from his pocket. Pushes the button.*

You shall remember...nothing...

*Exits building undetected in the shadows.*

Possibly...but we shall see. I trust you shall not mind, if we both, "study," any inconsistencies...

no problem

Indeed, most excellent.

Side Note: What, exactly, is the story behind, "Nephelometer Turbidity... Rising?"

The breakfast show on the Australian radio station Triple-J used to be Adam & Will (up until last friday when they retired forever *sniff*). Every tuesday they had a comedy band called Tripod on. They would give the band a couple of topics and they had an hour to write a song about them. One week they had to reference some unusual units of measurement, including nephelometer turbidity which is a measure of the murkiness of a liquid. [if you want to hear the song, download it here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/breakf...ny_m958578.mp3. If you want to hear others from one of my fave bands go to the Triple-J website downloads page: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/breakf...o_alpha_T.htm]

Long story short; in saying "Nephelometer Turbidity... Rising" I'm implying that with my post I am merely muddying the waters of any discussion.