Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality

[koshergrl]

I provided the text where the Hindu religion condemned homosexuality. Again, if you want to redefine the word condemn to make it fit, you're going to, I can't do much about that.

This is akin to saying the Bible condones abortion based upon the fact that it doesn't use the word "abortion". It's not true, but if you want to justify the behavior, you will find a way to do it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Funny thing is that Leviticus was an ever changing Hebrew document that was edited many times with additions and deletions in it. The book was credited to be written by Moses.
Where is the sin of homosexuality in the ten Commandments.
Leviticus is old Jewish law.
I am a Christian, not a Jew.

 

[koshergrl]

You're not really anything at all that I can see. Christians who follow Christ don't smear the bible or discount the OT.

 

[Gadawg73]

You're not really anything at all that I can see. Christians who follow Christ don't smear the bible or discount the OT.

Christians do not judge others is what I was taught.
Christ never said a word about homosexuals and homosexuality.
You smear the message of Christ, LOVE thy neighbor.
You believe God wrote the Bible. Man wrote Leviticus and most of it was edited, deleted, added to and manipulated according to the Jewish mores of the time. Over thousands of years. DUH.
We are talking about 2500 years ago. Educate yourself. You just might learn something.

 

[Gadawg73]

You're not really anything at all that I can see. Christians who follow Christ don't smear the bible or discount the OT.

Leviticus demands you be put to death if you curse your parents.
........on ....................and....................on..........................
Educate yourself. Read and learn the facts.
Adulterers should be put to death.
And you claim this is the law we should go by.
You are not very swift there girl.
Leviticus states that if you are caught with your uncle's wife naked you shal die childless.
on..............on and on..................on.
Only a DAMN FOOL goes by Leviticus.
And you are Exhibit A.

 

[koshergrl]

Educate yourself, you loon. And show me where I said we should live by Leviticus? Not only are you brain dead, apparently you're a liar as well.

 

[bodecea]

Funny thing is that Leviticus was an ever changing Hebrew document that was edited many times with additions and deletions in it. The book was credited to be written by Moses.
Where is the sin of homosexuality in the ten Commandments.
Leviticus is old Jewish law.
I am a Christian, not a Jew.

Sad to say, even tho "Thou shalt not bear false witness" occurs in the ten commandments, we sure see a lot of so-called christians lying.

 

[logical4u]

Tell me what right they are being denied?

They are choosing not to marry a person of the opposite sex, they have that choice.

It isn't like somebody is saying, "You can't be married!"

They can be married, if they marry somebody of the opposite sex. And they can be married in any church that will marry them as homosexual couples. But they don't have the *right* to force the rest of the world to call their living arrangement "marriage" when it doesn't meet the definition of the word.

Pretty simple, really.

Full marriage rights in all states as would any straight couple. But I see that you support discrimination based on gender.

NO, it is not discrimination to uphold a "definition". It is mockery to pretend that a definition that has been in place for eons, can be changed to fit a tiny percentage of people that reject marriage for "sexual pleasure" (choice) of their own minds. It is a corruption of society, and will only encourage more corruption if allowed to twist the definition of marriage.

 

[logical4u]

Fiddlesticks, oh pompous gasbag. People of different colors got married quite routinely, I promise you. And the definition has always been one man, one woman,

And they have equal protection under the law. Gay people cannot be disciminated against because they're gay. however, they can't be married because MARRIAGE means ... you got it, one of each.

They're perfectly welcome to write wills and such naming one another as beneficiaries, and set up accounts together, and raise children together, and enter into contracts together, and get insurance together, etc. and so forth. There is no right they are being denied...except the right to pretend they meet the definition of married couples.

It was against the law for people of different colors to get married here if one of them was white for 200 years.
Your problem is you have no clue about the facts involved with the history of this country.
You live a sheltered life in LAH LAH land.
If they can do all the things you claim then why not allow them to also get married?
How does that affect you? Are you married? Why do you care?
What is the big deal? It is a NON ISSUE.
Pave the roads, police the streets and 1001 other things COME FIRST.
Figure them out and then we can talk about gay marriage. Until then, who gives a shit? Let them marry. No brainer. Doesn't affect anyone other than the busy body old maids that have nothing else to gossip about.
Sounds like you fit that bill.

Lol...I'm quite well versed in history. You said marriage was only for white people, and you were wrong.

Nor do I live a sheltered life. I know an ignoramus when I see one, and you fit the bill. We are not talking about race, which is a completely different ball of wax. Men and women were denied the right to marry (as other men and women do) based upon their color, and that was wrong. They were actually being denied the right based upon their skin.

Gays aren't being denied the right. They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is, by definition, what marriage is. If they want some other sort of union, say, a union with a person of the same sex, they are welcome to have that. What they DON'T have a right to do is force people to call their alternate union a "marriage" since it isn't a marriage.

They could just call it something else, but it's all about them forcing their sexual lifestyle into the spotlight.

 

[logical4u]

It was against the law for people of different colors to get married here if one of them was white for 200 years.
Your problem is you have no clue about the facts involved with the history of this country.
You live a sheltered life in LAH LAH land.
If they can do all the things you claim then why not allow them to also get married?
How does that affect you? Are you married? Why do you care?
What is the big deal? It is a NON ISSUE.
Pave the roads, police the streets and 1001 other things COME FIRST.
Figure them out and then we can talk about gay marriage. Until then, who gives a shit? Let them marry. No brainer. Doesn't affect anyone other than the busy body old maids that have nothing else to gossip about.
Sounds like you fit that bill.

Lol...I'm quite well versed in history. You said marriage was only for white people, and you were wrong.

Nor do I live a sheltered life. I know an ignoramus when I see one, and you fit the bill. We are not talking about race, which is a completely different ball of wax. Men and women were denied the right to marry (as other men and women do) based upon their color, and that was wrong. They were actually being denied the right based upon their skin.

Gays aren't being denied the right. They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is, by definition, what marriage is. If they want some other sort of union, say, a union with a person of the same sex, they are welcome to have that. What they DON'T have a right to do is force people to call their alternate union a "marriage" since it isn't a marriage.

They could just call it something else, but it's all about them forcing their sexual lifestyle into the spotlight.

Question: Why don't gays get the same tax cuts and legal rights?

Traditionally, the gov't encouraged "traditional marriage". That was the original purpose of giving child credits on income taxes (it used to be that you had to be married to claim the child credit). That was done because the gov't recognized that "stable families" built stable communities, thus a stable country. The gov't also needed more people to settle the land, that meant having children in a time when test tubes were not available for children (the old fashioned way, the green way); heterosexual marriage was the "best" way to have law abiding citizens.
Immoral sex, traditionally, was DISCOURAGED, by the gov't: no tax breaks for shacking up, no child credits for being unmarried with children.
Because it is the "gov't", once a program is started, it pretty much stays in place forever. The homosexual activists will probably get those "benefits", eventually. At this point, it will be extremely hard for congress or the administration to justify more rewards for more immoral sex (the gov't welfare programs to "assist" the unmarried hasn't worked out so well). It will probably have to wait until the country is prosperous again, and with this administration, that might be decades.

 

[logical4u]

There's nothing wrong with a pedophile and murderer being given a chance to bond together for the rest of their lives if they're opposite sex, but boy oh boy if 2 law abiding tax paying gay citizens wanna get married my morals won't stand for it!!!!!!

That has to be most Retarded Comparison in the History of this Debate...



peace...

It's a perfect comparison to a legal marriage and an illegal one.

If someone is a pedophile or a murderer and they want a straight marriage, yay, hooray let's make it happen asap.

If a law-abiding, tax paying gay person wants to get married, certain people with crooked moral compasses have a fit.

Theoretically, you are wrong. If a "convicted" murderer or pedophile wants to get married and they are in prison, they cannot get married. If they have served their sentence (thus paid for their crime and are right in the eyes of the law), they can get married; albeit reformed murderer and pedophile. So you see, your comparison is hardly accurate.

 

[logical4u]

so you care about jewish moral law but not jewish ceremonial law?




That makes perfect sense............................

they aren't analagous...

They aren't in the same chapter, and christs blood changed many things...

But one thing is consistent from old to new...

Homosexuality is an abomination and sin 100% of the time it's talked about.

It's this easy... If you are a proud homosexual, you have no place in the christian church.

Find another faith.



peace...

um, homosexuality wasn't mentioned. Anal sex was.

duhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

 

[logical4u]

Leviticus 11 is about Food...

Leviticus 18 is about Unlawful Sexual Relations...

Jewish Cerimonial Law in 11... Moral Law in 18.

And here's what God said about some things in 18:

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: Lev. 20.1-5 I am the LORD.

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Lev. 20.13

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Ex. 22.19 · Lev. 20.15, 16 · Deut. 27.21

24 ¶ Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

Seems God saw Beastiality as "Confusion", but Homosexuality as an "Abomination"...

Stop Comparing Rules about Food to Moral Law...

They have nothing to do with each other and are not even in the same Chapter.

They are 7 Chapters Seperated.



peace...

So you care about Jewish Moral Law but not Jewish Ceremonial Law?




That makes perfect sense............................

Christians eat ham sandwiches and have pig roasts (also prohibited under Judaic law).

My question is........why are Christians beating gays over the head with Judaic law?

Because, it doesn't matter how many times Christians point out where homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual activists want to declare themselves more powerful than the Lord by proclaiming an act that the Lord, THE LORD, and His Son, Yeshua, declared sinful, not so. Homosexual activists with no authority over eternity are bearing false witness and leading people into the pit by declaring the Lord's declaration, void.

If homosexuals wanted "to just be left alone", they could go to the depraved parts of town, and not bring their "lifestyle" into daylight. The homosexuals have chosen not to do that. The homosexuals want to flaunt their lifestyle and lie about it. When they are called on the lies, they play the victim, like people are trying to persecute them, instead of just stating the truth. Obviously, homosexuals cannot handle the truth.

 

[Sky Dancer]

And the anti-gay drone goes on and on and on and on and on........

 

[percysunshine]

Where are all the gay catfish?

Some biologist must have found at least one of them.

 

[Sky Dancer]

So you care about Jewish Moral Law but not Jewish Ceremonial Law?




That makes perfect sense............................

Christians eat ham sandwiches and have pig roasts (also prohibited under Judaic law).

My question is........why are Christians beating gays over the head with Judaic law?

Because, it doesn't matter how many times Christians point out where homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual activists want to declare themselves more powerful than the Lord by proclaiming an act that the Lord, THE LORD, and His Son, Yeshua, declared sinful, not so. Homosexual activists with no authority over eternity are bearing false witness and leading people into the pit by declaring the Lord's declaration, void.

If homosexuals wanted "to just be left alone", they could go to the depraved parts of town, and not bring their "lifestyle" into daylight. The homosexuals have chosen not to do that. The homosexuals want to flaunt their lifestyle and lie about it. When they are called on the lies, they play the victim, like people are trying to persecute them, instead of just stating the truth. Obviously, homosexuals cannot handle the truth.[/QUOTE]

Hysterical. I am rolling in the aisles.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That has to be most Retarded Comparison in the History of this Debate...



peace...

It's a perfect comparison to a legal marriage and an illegal one.

If someone is a pedophile or a murderer and they want a straight marriage, yay, hooray let's make it happen asap.

If a law-abiding, tax paying gay person wants to get married, certain people with crooked moral compasses have a fit.

Theoretically, you are wrong. If a "convicted" murderer or pedophile wants to get married and they are in prison, they cannot get married. If they have served their sentence (thus paid for their crime and are right in the eyes of the law), they can get married; albeit reformed murderer and pedophile. So you see, your comparison is hardly accurate.

Actually, you are wrong.

In the 1987 case of TURNER v. SAFLEY, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that a prisoners right to enter into Civil Marriage could not be usurped simply because they are incarcerated.

"In support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. They urge that the restriction is reasonably related to legitimate security and rehabilitation concerns.

We disagree with petitioners that Zablocki does not apply to prison inmates. It is settled that a prison inmate "retains those [constitutional] rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system." The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals.

Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context.... "​

So at the end of the day "If a "convicted" murderer or pedophile wants to get married and they are in prison, they cannot get married." is incorrect, they can get married in prison. So it is correct to say that in some States murderers and phedophiles have more of a right to marriage then law abiding, US Citizen, consenting adult same-sex couples when it comes to Civil Marriage.


The thread is now returned to it's normally scheduled posting.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Tell me what right they are being denied?

They are choosing not to marry a person of the opposite sex, they have that choice.

It isn't like somebody is saying, "You can't be married!"

They can be married, if they marry somebody of the opposite sex. And they can be married in any church that will marry them as homosexual couples. But they don't have the *right* to force the rest of the world to call their living arrangement "marriage" when it doesn't meet the definition of the word.

Pretty simple, really.

Full marriage rights in all states as would any straight couple. But I see that you support discrimination based on gender.

NO, it is not discrimination to uphold a "definition". It is mockery to pretend that a definition that has been in place for eons, can be changed to fit a tiny percentage of people that reject marriage for "sexual pleasure" (choice) of their own minds. It is a corruption of society, and will only encourage more corruption if allowed to twist the definition of marriage.

Just so we are clear...

..............................Which definition are we using?


......................................One man and one woman?


.........................................One man and multiple women?


...............................................One man and one woman (or more women) as long as they are of the same race?




>>>>

 

[Political Junky]

Christians eat ham sandwiches and have pig roasts (also prohibited under Judaic law).

My question is........why are Christians beating gays over the head with Judaic law?

Because, it doesn't matter how many times Christians point out where homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual activists want to declare themselves more powerful than the Lord by proclaiming an act that the Lord, THE LORD, and His Son, Yeshua, declared sinful, not so. Homosexual activists with no authority over eternity are bearing false witness and leading people into the pit by declaring the Lord's declaration, void.

If homosexuals wanted "to just be left alone", they could go to the depraved parts of town, and not bring their "lifestyle" into daylight. The homosexuals have chosen not to do that. The homosexuals want to flaunt their lifestyle and lie about it. When they are called on the lies, they play the victim, like people are trying to persecute them, instead of just stating the truth. Obviously, homosexuals cannot handle the truth.[/QUOTE]

Hysterical. I am rolling in the aisles.

I think they probably got tired of hiding, as you would prefer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Traditionally, the gov't encouraged "traditional marriage". That was the original purpose of giving child credits on income taxes (it used to be that you had to be married to claim the child credit).

I'm sure you can provide some support for this claim, being 51 years old and filing taxes over that period I've never seen any requirement that only Civilly Married couples could claim a child as a Dependent (or the Child Tax Credit instituted in 1998).



>>>>