Abomination Of Desolation:(the Gay Marriage Issue)

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by astoreth
ubermunche:

>Sorry, not really sure what you're trying to say here. Intelligence and nature are inclusive/exclusive????Have absolutely no bearing on the matter whatsoever?????

I would assume that the gay animal stories you are referring to will be the occassional "humping" noticed by observers between two animals of the same sex - most likely due to mistaken identity.

Show me a gay animal that decides to live (as a consenting adult) with another gay animal and I'll certainly be shocked. If this even exists in the animal kingdom, it wouldn't work in the long term as the gay relationship wouldn't produce any offspring and therefore the gene would die out.

Also, the difference between gay animals and gay humans is that gay animals have no idea what they are doing, let alone how nature works. Humans on the other hand have eyes and intelligence to observe nature and how it works. Observing and understanding how nature works and to then go against it has to leave yourself asking some pretty basic questions about why you operate in that mode...and don't blame it on a "gene".

>Oh and astoreth criticising someone who's a homosexual doesn't make you a homophobe per se, but criticising them simply for the fact that they are homosexual does.

Fair enough, I accept that...BUT phobia is defined as "an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations". Well, one thing I can tell you - I aint scared of any gay people, I just don't agree with the PROMOTION of the lifestyle.

As I have said before, the only difference betwene gay people and normal people is what they do in the bedroom. If gay people kept it in the bedroom then fine, however if you want to bring forth your bedroom kinks into the public realm then expect some opposition. I know I have a few bedroom kinks but I'm certainly not going to tell the world about them - they're private and it's none of the worlds business what I do in the bedroom.

For those that think being gay is NOT a choice, I would say this: why do the majority of gay blokes have a girlie voice? That certainly isn't natural, it is LEARNT...now the question remains; it is a choice to learn it OR is it subconsciously learnt through association? If it is subconsciously learnt through association then is it not possible that becomg gay was also learnt through association? From my discussions with gay people, the MAJORITY have been tampered with when they were children (for those that I am close with). A very good mate of mine simply states that "he can't stand women"...fair enough too, they can be challenging at times.

For those that think being gay is a choice then you may want to look into ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS. Here's a good FACTUAL story:

www.truehealth.org...

PS: Yes, I do have gay friends and YES I do tell them what they do is fine as long as they don't try to push it on the kids...and you know what - they're fine with that...in fact some even think that the small percentage of gays that are pushing for all these reforms are actually making it harder in some ways for gay people by polarizing the population.


Astoreth natural urges and intelligence and how the two interact is neither here nor there. To imply, as I seem to understand it, that somehow gay people should rise above their animal instinct and revoke such lusts is a null and void argument and could equally be applied to heterosexuals who should fight against their natural urge to procreate and have families. Instincts and intelligence exist equally within us and both equally tempers and alters the expression of the other whether you're gay or straight. It's a pointless argument that 'proves' absolutely nothing. And yes there are instances in the animal kingdom of exclusively gay behaviour in an individual context.

Fine if you don't like the word homophobia then bigot will do, but despite dictionary definitions they're both interchangeable but you're right any one who tries to 'push' their sexuality on others are very tasteless, tactless individuals but this so called 'pushing' is a very subjective matter really. You say what I do in the bedroom is fine, all well and good but does the FACT that I'm gay end at the bedroom door, for example am I allowed to say Hi I'm Phil and this is my partner Gavin or is that veiwed as pushing my lifestyle onto an unwilling society when I just veiw it as a simple fact of who I am. Put it another way, would you prefer to be told someone is gay or for them to keep it a secret. It ssems to me that the people who use this argument (not neccassarily you) but a lot of them really mean they want gays to stay in the closet and not be botherd by them. News for them we're everywhere at all levels and strata of society, may their children marry closet queens and then see how they feel about open and honest acceptance of others and what inhibiting that can lead to, when the brown stuff hits the fan.

And take it from me it's not a choice and wouldn't matter much to me if it was but any number of links isn't going to disprove what I know about myself. Girlie talk and behaviour can be learned behaviour but it in no way detracts from the fact that you were born with certain preferences which led you to a certain cultural grouping. The idea that lots of teenagers from working, middle and upperclass backgrounds swagger about and act and talk like their favourite gansta rappers doesn't prove one way or the other that they were born with a proclivity for criminal/antisocial behaviour. Again the argument is null and void. By the way you really ought to visit a few more gay pubs and clubs to realise the full spectrum of types their are within the gay community, camp, masculine, average. Try XXL or the Bear Pit to see you're 'girlie' theory turn to dust.




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Lecky:

>Didja hear that all you queers? Astoreth ain't afraid of no gay folk!

Well that was educational wasn't it.

>How is wanting to get married equal to revealing a few bedroom kinks?

Based on my quote, how you linked marriage to it I do not know, however I can say that if gay people need a piece of paper from the government to prove their love for each other then they have a problem in that they need an "official" blessing to let them know that what they are doing is OK. You will find that the gay people who aren't concerned about the marriage issue accept themselves as being gay and couldn't give two hoots what anyone thinks...and you know what I think of those types of gays? Good on 'em - I take my hat off to them! Personally, the only time I would get married is to have kids - so they aren't confused whether to use mummies or daddies surname at school...simple really.

>It's LEARNT ya'll...they dun learnt it!
>I love your brilliant theory on gay men learning the "girly" voice...do they offer classes for that?

I made that statement based on the simple fact that the girly voice is learnt by association. It was a "test" question, however I didn't expect anyone to go the way you went


>Hmm...I'd like some stats to back that claim up please.

You'll have to do your own research lecky.

>There are those who are molested as children, but then again there are lots of people who are molested and aren't homosexual.

True, however did you also know that the majority of pedophiles are molested when they were children as well?

>>A very good mate of mine simply states that "he can't stand women"...fair enough too, they can be challenging at times.

>Challenging? Nah...how so?

LOL. I love your sarcasm!

>Yea, I read that fascinating link...but GUESS WHAT? Homosexuality has been around a loooong time before plastics, pestacides, etc. got here...

Well that is true but DNA sampling for a "gene" is only new as well and I would bet that any gene they find is a direct result of DNA mutation by endocrine disruptors.

>LOL I needed a good laugh, thanks for that alternative healing website...really credible.

OK then, maybe the Guardian will convice you:

observer.guardian.co.uk...

>>in fact some even think that the small percentage of gays that are pushing for all these reforms are actually making it harder in some ways for gay people by polarizing the population.

>Why because it's pissing off homophobes like you? Once again...that's your problem.

Hmmm, you obviously don't know what polarizing WRT to lobbying/politics is Lecky. Polarizing makes people choose "good" or "bad", based on a PERCEIVED promotion of "good" or "bad", whether or not the promotion of the "good" or "bad" is true or false.

Polarizing is just plain BAD.

I'll give you an example of how I think:

I accept people for who they are, however if someone comes out and says "I'm this way" and "you have to accept me for being that way" then I'll likely dismiss them for their arrogance. Take for example Ellen - good show and I enjoyed it every time I watched it and I accepted her for who she was. Then she had to use the show to "promote same sex partners" and, guess what, I stopped watching it because what she did was wrong. I know other people stopped watching it for the same fact and guess what? Ellen no longer exists.

Another example is euthinasia - it was very well know that it existed in the hospital system where doctors/nurses would "pump up" the morphine levels so someone could "move on" if they were in too much pain etc. Then out come the "right to lifers" etc etc and now the doctors/nurses are sh i t scared to do anything and...the result? More people suffer more pain.

Remember, if you start pushing, people will push back



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
On The Darker Side

It has been medically proven that the sex act between two men is the most fertile ground for contracting the "AIDS VIRUS". If the Aids infected man bleeds, the other is almost sure to get the virus.

Most of the gay men that grew up in the area I grew up in, are now dead. I would estimate that 95% of them died from Aids and not natural causes. Most died at early ages. But I quess this is just a coincidence that comes along with being gay.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
ubermunche:

>And yes there are instances in the animal kingdom of exclusively gay behaviour in an individual context.

I'd be interested in a link uber


>Fine if you don't like the word homophobia then bigot will do

Well, that's nice!

>am I allowed to say Hi I'm Phil and this is my partner Gavin

Haven't got a problem with that at all.

>...you were born with certain preferences which led you to a certain cultural grouping.

I'd be interested to know these preferences uber. Personally, I don't think it's a gene thing - I believe it's something that's triggered in the early years of childhood.

>The idea that lots of teenagers from working, middle and upperclass backgrounds swagger about and act and talk like their favourite gansta rappers doesn't prove one way or the other that they were born with a proclivity for criminal/antisocial behaviour.

No it doesn't, however there is a lot of subliminal crap going on these days - listen to some of the songs...unbelievable!

>By the way you really ought to visit a few more gay pubs and clubs to realise the full spectrum of types their are within the gay community, camp, masculine, average.

Yeah, have done...you forgot the queenies and the rockers.

Must admit the drag shows are a laugh.

>Try XXL or the Bear Pit to see you're 'girlie' theory turn to dust.

LOL. Got me there



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by astoreth
Personally, the only time I would get married is to have kids - so they aren't confused whether to use mummies or daddies surname at school...simple really.


Again that's you, some people actually get married for *gasp* love, and not to merely pro-create.



You'll have to do your own research lecky.

Hi, you made a statement that most homosexuals were molested, I didn't...you are the one who needs to back a claim like that up. Sorry we can't just go by heresay...no matter how "worldly" the messenger.



True, however did you also know that the majority of pedophiles are molested when they were children as well?


Seriously, you are making this way too easy for me. Pedophiles and homosexuals are 2 totally different types of people. Homosexuals do not go around trying to have sex with children. You are just showing me how uneducated you are about this topic.



Well that is true but DNA sampling for a "gene" is only new as well and I would bet that any gene they find is a direct result of DNA mutation by endocrine disruptors.


In the article...the plastics, pesticides, etc were the endocrine disruptors...they didn't have those things in ancient times.


I'll give you an example of how I think:


This will be entertaining...



I accept people for who they are, however if someone comes out and says "I'm this way" and "you have to accept me for being that way" then I'll likely dismiss them for their arrogance. Take for example Ellen - good show and I enjoyed it every time I watched it and I accepted her for who she was. Then she had to use the show to "promote same sex partners" and, guess what, I stopped watching it because what she did was wrong. I know other people stopped watching it for the same fact and guess what? Ellen no longer exists.


Thank you for your touching story on when you first realized you were a bigot...really, I'm in tears.

We are talking about gay people getting married, how does that have anything to do with making you personally accept them into your life? Yeah it doesn't...
If you know that gay people are allowed to get married, how the hell is that going to affect you? If it were allowed, I promise you all the gays aren't going to come out of hiding and start making out in the streets. Your whole problem is that you are a judgmental bigot who doesn't understand homosexuals so you refuse to accept them as regular people.

(BTW Ellen has her own talk show now
)


Another example is euthinasia - it was very well know that it existed in the hospital system where doctors/nurses would "pump up" the morphine levels so someone could "move on" if they were in too much pain etc. Then out come the "right to lifers" etc etc and now the doctors/nurses are sh i t scared to do anything and...the result? More people suffer more pain.


WTF are you talking about? You are comparing euthanasia with gay marriage...how will legalizing gay marriage equal anyth...you know what forget it...you are a lost cause.


Remember, if you start pushing, people will push back


So true...in more ways than you know


I wish you well in your honorable quest for ignorant bliss, so far you are on the right track.



[edit on 11/21/2004 by Lecky]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday ProphetThe main purpose of sexual intercourse is for reproduction.
Okay, let us reflect on your statement, and for the moment give you that it is correct. Why then concentrate on decrying gays? Since, probably every married heterosexual couple engages in sexual intercourse for pleasure, and probably most use some form of birth control, and many decide to have their tubes tied, or undergo a vasectomy? If it was for procreation, then should you not be vociferously condemning sex between men and women for anything but?

Aside from that, lets be as frank here as the moderators will permit. Most people when they think of homosexuals think of two men, as is clear by the girly voice nonsense. These men engage in one practice that heterosexual couples also engage infellatio. When will you righteous sex is for procreation people start demanding that fellatio be abolished and when will you start condemning the heterosexual(edit) couples who engage in same, since I cannot name one instance in all of mankind whereby a living being was created by the ingestion of sperm, can you? Next is anal sex, since that seems to be the crux of your disgust. I am going to state flat out that anal sex is commonplace in heterosexual relationships, and I am also going to state that there are those who willingly engage in same, speak openly against the same act as done by man on man. How sanctimonious and hypocritical is that, as they hide in their own closets of perversion? Next, I address sex toys. When was the last time a heterosexual female either with or without the aid of a male partner, employed the use of a sex toy to impregnate herself, and when will you be blaspheming those?

The answer is, you wont! Why? Because your bias is blind and quite frankly, limp. If sex is for pro-creation, and the bible-thumping, self-righteous moral crowd truly believed that, the contraceptive industry would not be as large or as successful as it is. Doctors wouldnt be making money from snipping either fallopian tubes or vasa deferens, the birth control and day after pills wouldnt be on the market. So your argument as sex being for pro-creation flies in the faces of those who employ any of the above and make that claim, and couples would have more than the 2.2 children.


No children or families are born out of it. It only serves to forfill a burning lust.
Youre absolutely correct, none have, but so too none have from any of the above I mention, and all of those are found rife within the heterosexual community.


Growing up in jamaica, if a men was found to be gay, they would cut his part off, maybe a bit extreme, but you will not find too many gay men in jamaica.
Is that so, and what happens when they are found to have engaged in anal sex with women?


Someone said that there are gay animals, I doubt this and if it has occured it has to be very rare.
And yes it is so, and not so rare. In reference to another poster, it is not by mistake either. Just months ago I watched a discovery channel documentary on this subject where spider monkeys knew exactly what they were doing. The female would lie on her back, the other would mount her and you can take the picture from there.

Such close-mindedness is reprehensible.



[edit on 11/21/04 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Lecky:

I made an effort to make a balanced post in the last post to you with NO anger towards yourself.

You came back and called me names and shed "tears" etc for me.

I gave you my personal opinions because you questioned my personal beliefs...then you had the GALL to ask why I replied that way.

I now know you are the bigot here as you came back with utter crap.

Don't bother replying as I won't be looking at this thread again.

Oh, BTW, thanks for the links I asked for.

DOLT!



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
``

actually the meme: Abomination of Desolation

might very well be Homosexual acts
or could be the Pedophelia amongst the clergy

as either is also characterized as sodomy or fornications etc*;*


So sayeth you, against those who understand the scriptures in Daniel, The Maccabees texts, the historical references of Flavus Josephus and umpteen scholars.

I have to admit though, I do get a chuckle out of those who pull whatever meaning they want to out of the Bible just so they can claim it fits their particular bent. I can even say Abraham asked for God to overlook Lot because they were having a fling amongst themselves, and being a good buddy, Abraham called in a favour.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
You are right, I shouldn't make fun of ignorance it's not nice. You can't help the way you are...or can you? Pardon me if you don't have my sympathies.


Take care




[edit on 11/21/2004 by Lecky]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by St Udio
``

actually the meme: Abomination of Desolation

might very well be Homosexual acts
or could be the Pedophelia amongst the clergy

as either is also characterized as sodomy or fornications etc*;*


So sayeth you, against those who understand the scriptures in Daniel, The Maccabees texts, the historical references of Flavus Josephus and umpteen scholars.



SomewhereinBetween...you surely lost me

?So sayeth me??

the phrase Abomination of Desolation is found in scripture and is something that the Anti-Christ puts-in-place//

The phrase, Abomination of Desolation, is also the Title of This Thread...togetherwith the authors' linking? gay-marriage as an Abomination (by inferrence)

In reply, i was attempting to show that several behaviors, including pedophelia as stated, and implied that masterbation?, fellicato?, or any number of deviations which hedonistically 'waste' the 'seed of life'....
could well be considered the scriptual Abomination of Desolation

...if you, SomewhereinBetween, did indeed read that post...

~'~



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

SomewhereinBetween...you surely lost me

?So sayeth me??

the phrase Abomination of Desolation is found in scripture and is something that the Anti-Christ puts-in-place//

The phrase, Abomination of Desolation, is also the Title of This Thread...togetherwith the authors' linking? gay-marriage as an Abomination (by inferrence)

In reply, i was attempting to show that several behaviors, including pedophelia as stated, and implied that masterbation?, fellicato?, or any number of deviations which hedonistically 'waste' the 'seed of life'....
could well be considered the scriptual Abomination of Desolation

...if you, SomewhereinBetween, did indeed read that post...



I did not mean to lose you, St. Udio. "So sayeth you," means that is what you say. I gave you an edification on the abomination of desolation, which to make it clear, has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or any perversion other than the defiling of the Jewish temple and or their sacred places, despite the corrupt and decidely perverse definitions revisionists may wish to apply to same.

I trust that helps.





posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by astoreth
OK...

Here's an easy way to solve this once and for all.

Find a planet and move all the gays there.

If what they do is natural then they'll propogate.

I can guarantee you what the population would be if you went back in 1000 years too - ZERO!

Conculsion? Being gay is NOT natural.





So extremly True, and i Agree 100%. No one can deny this, it would be stupid to disagree.

And by the comments in this thread, if your not for legal rights for homosexuals, you must be a homophobe, that is just bs.

Would you marry your sister or brother because you love them so much?
Would you marry your dog or cat becasue you love them so much?
{Would you marry A Homo sapien of the oppsite sex so you can spawn new life?}
{It has been this way from the beggining and will be this way at the end.}

It maybe legalized but it will never truly will be natural or right.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Titan007]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   


And by the comments in this thread, if your not for legal rights for homosexuals, you must be a homophobe, that is just bs.



Good God man you're so right, these people actually think they can have RIGHTS and LEGAL ones at that. Homophobe, where do they get these ideas from.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche



Good God man you're so right, these people actually think they can have RIGHTS and LEGAL ones at that. Homophobe, where do they get these ideas from.



Of course 'they' can have rights, just never will be equal as a true marriage between a man and a woman.

Im just talking about the marriage issue not being equal.

Love, Lust im sure for homesexuals can be that is the same as it is for man and a woman, but marriage, No.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
So why not just make gay marriage, christian marriage and civil marriage, you see all seperate but all equal, all happy. It's all just words.

Lastdayprophet,

you're from Jamaica, well then I'm not surprised by your attitude, after all it's well known that Jamaican men are some of the most predjudiced, misogynistic and promiscuous lot going. treat there women like sh*t, screw around on them and never do a days work in there lives and they hate queers with a vengeance don't they.

See, we can all fall back on cheap stereotypes and easy bigotry can't we lastday, no ones immune to it or from it, hows it feel with the boot on the other foot.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by crusader
I am sick. Totally of gay people wantin rights as hetrosexual couples. and also the supposedly clergy who are supposed to be close to God permitting and also marrying man and man or woman and woman. This could be the abomination of desolation the bible has spoken about. the descration of God's holy places can;t be allowed to continue. And I brelieve as the bible says it's an abomination for mankind to lie with mankind..
feedback welcome...


Solution: If you're a guy, don't marry a guy. Problem solved.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   
This would be a good Debate topic, would it not?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   
To all the detractors and sick people commenting on this thread. heres' the commandment go on and look it up in your bible,(if you have one) Maybe you don't anyway. Leviticus 18: 22 `` thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. also in Deuteronomy 23: 117. `` there shall be no whore of the daughters of israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of israel. The punishment of the sodom and Gomorrah. was for these same despicable acts. And don't tell me that this events never happen. iT DID , SCIENCE ALSO PROVED THAT. So all the detractors. please stop encouraging sin, SIN is SIN! God condemns all of this. And also in the Old testament, the punishment for these acts sodomy, l(gay acts) bestiality. was punishiable by death. And it shall be so.THE UNREPENTING GAYS AS WELL AS THE WARMONGERS MURDERS ADULTERESS< THE FORNICATORS< LIARS. WILL ALL be thrown in a lake of fire.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by crusader
To all the detractors and sick people commenting on this thread. heres' the commandment go on and look it up in your bible,(if you have one) Maybe you don't anyway. Leviticus 18: 22 `` thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. also in Deuteronomy 23: 117. `` there shall be no whore of the daughters of israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of israel. The punishment of the sodom and Gomorrah. was for these same despicable acts. And don't tell me that this events never happen. iT DID , SCIENCE ALSO PROVED THAT. So all the detractors. please stop encouraging sin, SIN is SIN! God condemns all of this. And also in the Old testament, the punishment for these acts sodomy, l(gay acts) bestiality. was punishiable by death. And it shall be so.THE UNREPENTING GAYS AS WELL AS THE WARMONGERS MURDERS ADULTERESS< THE FORNICATORS< LIARS. WILL ALL be thrown in a lake of fire.

..Ah...
...the old ignorant "bible says" arguement, eh?
Do you really want to play "bible says"?
I mean there are so many ways to respond...

... not all of them polite...


...I mean first I could point out all the other things the bible says...
But lets try Denying your Ignorance first:
Homosexuality is NOT a sin. All scripture passages aside, when it's all said and done, sin is something you CHOOSE to do. I know of no one, myself included, who chose to be homosexual. I know of no one who chose to be
Bi-Sexual, or Lesbian or straight, for that matter. It is what we are, and a part of who we are.
It's not surprising that the Church would condemn homosexuality,
since, as a whole the church has a history of condemning sexuality in
and of itself. For example, The Church says that it's a sin to have sex before marriage. That's not biblical. Some churches say you can't kiss passionately, or masturbate. That's also not biblical. Some churches say
that you can't live with someone of the opposite gender before you marry them. This too isn't biblical. The Church's condemnation of homosexuality is only one link in a line of condemnations regarding sexuality that the church
has taught as "truth". The real truth of the matter is that it's a sin to teach that you're sexuality is evil or sinful. It's a sin to teach that one sexuality is right and that any other kind of sexuality is wrong. It's a sin for the church or anyone else, for that matter, to shame you because you desire sex, or
because you find it pleasurable. God created sex, God designed your sexuality.
When someone, even a priest, a minister or a pastor,
condemns you for your sexuality, they're automatically condemning God, because God created your sexuality. What about scripture ? Doesn't scripture agree with church doctrine ? Absolutely not ! Scripture has been pulled out of context to make it appear to agree with church doctrine. For example, the religious right loves to quote Leviticus 18:22 "...You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. .." First of all, when you present scripture to anyone, you present more than just one sentence. When you read the bible, you read the whole paragraph, or the
whole chapter, if need be, to find out what's going on and who's being spoken to. For example, if we look at the same passage of
scripture, and start reading it at the beginning, it says "The Lord spoke to Moses saying " Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: I am the Lord your God. According to the doings in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. You shall observe My judgments and keep my ordinances to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore keep my statues and my judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. ..." Following this, he gives the Israelites the sexual code where
Leviticus 18:22 comes from. This puts a whole different spin on Leviticus 18:22.
Egypt was a pagan culture, as was Canaan. God was telling the Israelites, "People, you left a pagan culture and you're going to go to a pagan culture, but you are NOT to act like a pagan culture. You are not to
copy their religious practices, nor are you to follow their laws. Do as I tell you , and you will survive." Leviticus 18:22 is talking about a pagan religious rite. In fact, notice that in that particular passage, God calls this practice "an abomination". In Hebrew that word is "towebah" (Tow-ay-bah) it means "idolatry" This "homosexuality" was in fact a religious rite. This had nothing to do with affection, or love. This was about religious obligation, "duty to the GODS", that kind of thing. More importantly, if Leviticus is so important a book to them, why don't they follow the rest of the commands given there.
For example, in Leviticus 19:19 it says that you shall not let you livestock breed with another kind, or that you shall not sow your field with mixed seed, or that you shall not wear a garment of mixed linen and wool. Leviticus 19:27 says that you shall not shave around the sides of your beard nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard. How about the laws concerning clean and unclean animals ? (Leviticus 11:24-47) How
about the forbidden foods in Leviticus 11:1-23). These are thing that "the
religious right" never mentions, and yet, they're part of our daily lives. For
example, just about everyone wears clothes that are poly-cotton blend. Most people who have beards, shave them a bit so they look neat and presentable. Both in direct violation of Leviticus. Also, how many of them do you suppose like football? That too, is in violation of scripture. The ball
is pigskin, which according to Leviticus, is unclean to eat or to touch . My point here is that you can't just piecemeal scripture that way. You can't just obey one part here and one part there and cut out the parts you don't like. That doesn't work , but yet, that's just they attempt to do when they pull passages out of the Old Testament like that. Another one they love to quote is 1 Corinthians 6:9, which in some translations of the bible actually uses the word "homosexuals". That word in Greek, it turns out, is
"arsenokoites" which means, literally, "man-bed", "man-couch", "man - chambering" NOT "homosexual". Paul's history was that he was
very direct in what he said, he didn't mince words. He was also a very
intelligent man, he spoke Aramaic and Greek, he was able to write Greek as well. So with that in mind, if he wanted to write "homosexual" why wouldn't he have used the word "homophilia" which means homosexual ?
Bear in mind, also, that Corinth wasn't exactly a "squeaky clean " town either. Corinth had a reputation for being a town of drunks, hookers (only, they called them "Courtesans") and basically, corrupt people. Their type of worship before Christ was introduced to them was the worship of aphrodite. (believe me, they got pretty lewd in their "worship practices of her") . It kind of makes you think, that when Paul was referring to "man-beds" he may have been referring to the "courtesans" (they had both male and female at that time). Finally, if homosexuality really was a sin, it would
bear the fruits of sin. Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:17-19 that a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit. In that case, what are the fruits of homosexuality ? There really aren't, are there? You can't say that A.I.D.S / H.I.V is a fruit of homosexuality , because if it were, then straight people wouldn't get it, neither would children be born with it or die of it.

So, when people tell you that homosexuality is a sin, don't believe it !

Will you Deny you Ignorance?
Or will you embrace it?

[edit on 22-11-2004 by I_AM_that_I_AM]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   
well answer me this? iam that I am. if homosexuality is not sin, what is it. The bible clearly says it's an ABOMINATION! Against God's will. and that's is sin. to the ppl trying to justify homosexuality. They have thes homo tendencies. And they should desist from posting on this thread.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join