|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:58 pm
As far as I know and believe, the sin is not being gay itself but lust and sodomy, which is a sin even among heterosexuals.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:46 pm
Cyanna As far as I know and believe, the sin is not being gay itself but lust and sodomy, which is a sin even among heterosexuals. the answer to lust is marriage, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:03 am
chessiejo Cyanna As far as I know and believe, the sin is not being gay itself but lust and sodomy, which is a sin even among heterosexuals. the answer to lust is marriage, right? Not neccessarily...there have been a few times when people do get "married" for sex I'm afraid. That's abuse. ------------------------------------------------ Religion aside, seriously...besides the name, what is the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage" by a justice of the peace. I've only been to one such wedding in my life and I wish to know what the difference is. How big are the difference in legal benefits? There is a difference between fighting for the same legal benefits/recognition from the government and fighting to get into a Church. I live in a more liberal part of the country so I've had to learn to coexist with many laws I don't neccessarily agree with for a while. However I do feel that the religions should continue to practice their religions without government interference. And the definition of the term "marriage" is going to make or break it since there are some Christians out there who don't have issues with non-religious, secular ceremonies. Personally I would like to have another seperation of Church and State and take some State out of the Church. Let there be two distinct ceremonies, one in the eyes of the law and one in the eyes of your God. If you just came off of your religious marriage and wish to file your taxes jointly, go to a justice of the peace and get married by him/her. That's what my cousin did anyway. He married a woman from Germany. They had to get married in a secular ceremony in the US so she could enter the country as his wife. They had the religious ceremony in Germany. We may be a dominantly Christian country but do I understand that we are not a theocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 9:44 pm
Cyanna chessiejo Cyanna As far as I know and believe, the sin is not being gay itself but lust and sodomy, which is a sin even among heterosexuals. the answer to lust is marriage, right? Not neccessarily...there have been a few times when people do get "married" for sex I'm afraid. That's abuse. ------------------------------------------------ Religion aside, seriously...besides the name, what is the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage" by a justice of the peace. I've only been to one such wedding in my life and I wish to know what the difference is. How big are the difference in legal benefits? There is a difference between fighting for the same legal benefits/recognition from the government and fighting to get into a Church. I live in a more liberal part of the country so I've had to learn to coexist with many laws I don't neccessarily agree with for a while. However I do feel that the religions should continue to practice their religions without government interference. And the definition of the term "marriage" is going to make or break it since there are some Christians out there who don't have issues with non-religious, secular ceremonies. Personally I would like to have another seperation of Church and State and take some State out of the Church. Let there be two distinct ceremonies, one in the eyes of the law and one in the eyes of your God. If you just came off of your religious marriage and wish to file your taxes jointly, go to a justice of the peace and get married by him/her. That's what my cousin did anyway. He married a woman from Germany. They had to get married in a secular ceremony in the US so she could enter the country as his wife. They had the religious ceremony in Germany. We may be a dominantly Christian country but do I understand that we are not a theocracy. this is how i feel. i think the government should just get it's hands off marriage altogether. it should enforce "civil partenerships" for the sole purpose of taking care of dependents. i say partenership instead of union, but people the the wrong idea. i think the partenership should extend to anyone as the caretaker as well as anyone as the dependant. ie, two sibling could enter a domestic partenership to take care of an elderly parent, just as two people could join in one to take care of a child. leave marriages to the religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 6:09 pm
Lelas I don't have much to say, but I feel like Whosoever will say it best. http://www.whosoever.org/bible Wow! I found that very insightful (i read the whole thing) and very enlightening! Finally, someone else who sees that the Bible has been mistranslated and therefore can be wrong in many aspects. I'm happy to see that I have reason to not condemn homosexuals smile I never have and never will. Love thy neighbor as thyself no matter what not love thy neighbor as theyself as long as they follow all these rules that you probably break anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:10 pm
Neo_Merlin Here's something interesting. The bible does state homosexuality is wrong, I've read it. Howver it depends on whihc bible you're reading. Yes I have two bibles and one says somehting different to the other in the same part. This is a reason I do not find it very reliable. if I could rememebr where it was I'd tell you but osmehwere it has a list of some sins or bad deeds or what ever and it does have homosexuality as one of them in one version. So I don't see how you can use your bible to argue against it. the bible has been changed soooo many times, you cant really state that the bible says it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:28 pm
To the people who are saying that you can't really trust the Bible because it has been 'lost in translation'. WAKE UP!!!! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If there is not one book that says what his word truely is, then God would do something.
Also, I unfortunately have to say that no matter which translation you get, it says homosexuality is wrong. It might not use those specific words because of different translations, but it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Bible so many times if God was not trying to make a point.
I do not belive homosexuality is based only on lust. I belive that it is a want for love or acceptance from a group that is already homosexual. People get rejected by one sex and then see how comforting their own sex is. It is the nature of humans to want acceptance and love. It is also our nature to sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:46 pm
Mercution To the people who are saying that you can't really trust the Bible because it has been 'lost in translation'. WAKE UP!!!! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If there is not one book that says what his word truely is, then God would do something. Also, I unfortunately have to say that no matter which translation you get, it says homosexuality is wrong. It might not use those specific words because of different translations, but it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Bible so many times if God was not trying to make a point. I do not belive homosexuality is based only on lust. I belive that it is a want for love or acceptance from a group that is already homosexual. People get rejected by one sex and then see how comforting their own sex is. It is the nature of humans to want acceptance and love. It is also our nature to sin. The older Greek versions say nothing about homosexuality. Pederasty: yes, lust: yes, the male being the bottom partner: yes, homosexuality: no. Pederasty is not the same as homosexuality, pederasty is one who enjoys a**l intercourse, especially with boys. In other words, one who enjoys a**l intercourse with underaged males. Underage males, means not men. The male being the bottom partner refers to raping a male. As for your homosexuality = sin; again, it is not homosexuality, as much as the act (if you are willing to believe that the translators translated the Greek the right way). Also, about naturalness, as in the case that homosexuality is not natural; you must then believe that the only reason we have sex is for procreation, and that pleasure should have nothing to do with sex. Now, if that is the case, why would is it so pleasurable to have sex? Secondly, why would God make something so trivial to be a sin? And lastly, if sex is only for procreation, then why must we be married first?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:15 pm
Mercution To the people who are saying that you can't really trust the Bible because it has been 'lost in translation'. WAKE UP!!!! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If there is not one book that says what his word truely is, then God would do something. Also, I unfortunately have to say that no matter which translation you get, it says homosexuality is wrong. It might not use those specific words because of different translations, but it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Bible so many times if God was not trying to make a point. I do not belive homosexuality is based only on lust. I belive that it is a want for love or acceptance from a group that is already homosexual. People get rejected by one sex and then see how comforting their own sex is. It is the nature of humans to want acceptance and love. It is also our nature to sin. from studies i have seen and anidotal evidence, i'm convinced that in at least 90% of the cases, it is biological. people are determined in utero whether they will be homosexual or not. a lot of hetrosexuals and homosexuals don't like to think that, but i have been convinced of it as strongly as someone's eye-color is determined in utero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:20 pm
Kalorn Mercution To the people who are saying that you can't really trust the Bible because it has been 'lost in translation'. WAKE UP!!!! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If there is not one book that says what his word truely is, then God would do something. Also, I unfortunately have to say that no matter which translation you get, it says homosexuality is wrong. It might not use those specific words because of different translations, but it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Bible so many times if God was not trying to make a point. I do not belive homosexuality is based only on lust. I belive that it is a want for love or acceptance from a group that is already homosexual. People get rejected by one sex and then see how comforting their own sex is. It is the nature of humans to want acceptance and love. It is also our nature to sin. from studies i have seen and anidotal evidence, i'm convinced that in at least 90% of the cases, it is biological. people are determined in utero whether they will be homosexual or not. a lot of hetrosexuals and homosexuals don't like to think that, but i have been convinced of it as strongly as someone's eye-color is determined in utero. About time someone agreed on that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:06 pm
Kalorn Mercution To the people who are saying that you can't really trust the Bible because it has been 'lost in translation'. WAKE UP!!!! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If there is not one book that says what his word truely is, then God would do something. Also, I unfortunately have to say that no matter which translation you get, it says homosexuality is wrong. It might not use those specific words because of different translations, but it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Bible so many times if God was not trying to make a point. I do not belive homosexuality is based only on lust. I belive that it is a want for love or acceptance from a group that is already homosexual. People get rejected by one sex and then see how comforting their own sex is. It is the nature of humans to want acceptance and love. It is also our nature to sin. from studies i have seen and anidotal evidence, i'm convinced that in at least 90% of the cases, it is biological. people are determined in utero whether they will be homosexual or not. a lot of hetrosexuals and homosexuals don't like to think that, but i have been convinced of it as strongly as someone's eye-color is determined in utero. I always figured it was a random factor (I think the same about personality), but I have read that there is some evidence that it is a ressesive gene (which I guess would be random in itself). Either way, I know that I did not choose my sexuality, though I think that there might be some that do, or that convince themselves that they are a different sexuality for some reason or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:10 am
SyphaBelnades Kalorn Mercution To the people who are saying that you can't really trust the Bible because it has been 'lost in translation'. WAKE UP!!!! God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If there is not one book that says what his word truely is, then God would do something. Also, I unfortunately have to say that no matter which translation you get, it says homosexuality is wrong. It might not use those specific words because of different translations, but it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Bible so many times if God was not trying to make a point. I do not belive homosexuality is based only on lust. I belive that it is a want for love or acceptance from a group that is already homosexual. People get rejected by one sex and then see how comforting their own sex is. It is the nature of humans to want acceptance and love. It is also our nature to sin. from studies i have seen and anidotal evidence, i'm convinced that in at least 90% of the cases, it is biological. people are determined in utero whether they will be homosexual or not. a lot of hetrosexuals and homosexuals don't like to think that, but i have been convinced of it as strongly as someone's eye-color is determined in utero. I always figured it was a random factor (I think the same about personality), but I have read that there is some evidence that it is a ressesive gene (which I guess would be random in itself). Either way, I know that I did not choose my sexuality, though I think that there might be some that do, or that convince themselves that they are a different sexuality for some reason or another. actually there are LOTS of mechanisms that can lead to it, it doesn't have to be genetic. the more estrogen that gets to the brain, the more "masculine" the brain is and thus the more the more likely the brain will be attracted to females, and vise versa. That seems backward, but it’s not, I can get more into the biology if anyone wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:51 pm
Kalorn actually there are LOTS of mechanisms that can lead to it, it doesn't have to be genetic. the more estrogen that gets to the brain, the more "masculine" the brain is and thus the more the more likely the brain will be attracted to females, and vise versa. That seems backward, but it’s not, I can get more into the biology if anyone wants. Actually that makes a lot of sense. Like, for example, how you can tell a guy is gay by the way they talk. And they've always talked like that. It's kinda feminine-ish...so yea...made sense to me anyway *shrugs* (note: i know lots of gay guys who dont talk like that, im just saying the ones that do you can tell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:16 pm
Wow did not have time to read all of that but this seems like a really good idea for a topic! biggrin
Anyways,
about the speaking thing I know that you said this but we don't all do that O_o, anyways I don't think it is biological because there is no gene that determines who you like!! Anyways I tihnk the reason most people are gay/bi is to have a wider range of personalities to choose from when choosing a partner. And also in religion class I have com eacross the teaching that sex is to show someone that you really love them, not just to have babies. I guess it changed over the years but whatever, that would mean that to gay guys doing it to show that they love each other wouldn't be against modern christianity. Anyways I don't see what christians have again gay/bi people..?? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:57 am
Some_Guy15 Wow did not have time to read all of that but this seems like a really good idea for a topic! biggrin Anyways, about the speaking thing I know that you said this but we don't all do that O_o, anyways I don't think it is biological because there is no gene that determines who you like!! Anyways I tihnk the reason most people are gay/bi is to have a wider range of personalities to choose from when choosing a partner. And also in religion class I have com eacross the teaching that sex is to show someone that you really love them, not just to have babies. I guess it changed over the years but whatever, that would mean that to gay guys doing it to show that they love each other wouldn't be against modern christianity. Anyways I don't see what christians have again gay/bi people..?? confused i don't think there is a gene that says who you like specifically, but i do think genes determine whom you are sexually attracted to. anecdotally, i'd prefer to be bisexual if possible, but frankly, i've tried and i do not get aroused from a man at all. just doesn't happen. i could be looking at a dog for all my body is concerned. *shrugs*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
