"Gathering Storm" Ad in Iowa

[brightmorningstar]

To tanzanos,
Christianity is about the love of God and diagreement doesnt necesarily mean hate. Disagreement can mean love. As Christians we restore each other when we are in error or sin. (see Galatians 6 and 1 Tim 3)

 

[David Brider]

To David Brider,

Thanks. Interestingly you don’t give the translation and it does support what you say about the translation.
I see that it has translated the Greek ‘Chresis’ as love.
This is largely unique to gay theology and isn’t widely recognised as accurate in the slightest. For example in addition to the NIV and KJV based on strongs Romans 1:26-27

Can you give the translation please as this does suggest the biggest attack on God’s word and His truth is coming from gay theology.

It's the New International Reader's Version - I'd normally use the regular NIV, but biblegateway.com was having some sort of problem searching on it so I used the NIRV instead. To the best of my knowledge, the translators of that version don't have any intention to "attack God's word and His truth" by using "love" as the translation of Chresis.

What exactly do you mean when you say that that particular translational choice is "largely unique to gay theology"? Is there a particular reason for that?

David.

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,
But the reason that one is fundamentally different to the other is the ability to reproduce, right?
Yes.

So if the ability to reproduce is the important thing, why are you only applying this criteria to same sex couples, and not all people?

So what were gays doing in male/female partnerships? If they can they don’t need same sex partnerships, and if they have changed so can others. If they are bisexual then they wont mind being in male/female partnerships.

Do you really not understand the difference between love and attraction? I am straight; this means I feel an attraction to men and not women. But not all men, and I only love one man. Do you think I would leave my partner just because there are other people who I have found attractive in the past? Would you leave your wife for that reason? Besides, on that logic we might as well split up the couples where one member is infertile, and put the fertile member with someone else.

People can feel pushed to be “normal” often by families. That’s one reason. And just because a person has been male/female relationships in the past does not mean they want to in the future.

Ok well that’s not what many pro-gay advocates say, those who are adamant that sexual orientation cannot change. Pro-gay advocates never challenge each other’s inconsistencies.

I personally do not feel that orientation never changes. I do think it’s a rare event though. It seems fixed in most people. However, whether it changes or not, how does that affect the fact that people may end up in relationships that they are not entirely comfortable with. Just because a person marries, does not mean that they love their partner.

Fertility is only an issue for at most two out of three of those groups, (you could make arguments either way about post menopausal women). Child free couples may well be fertile, but they don’t have children.

there is only one group male and female, all others are dysfunctional.

No, there are 4 groups of people who do not reproduce: infertile couples, post menopausal couples, same sex couples and child free couples. However, you feel only one of those groups should be denied the right to marry.

 

[tanzanos]

In Greek PARA PHYSEIN means unatural but also An.al sex. The passage is referring to women who indulge in such sexual acts. Chriseis does NOT mean love. It means USE OF! Thus the passage says that women who have changed (metalaxein) the Natural USE into the Unatural way. Bassically it means that women who choose to have An.al sex! There is absolutely no mention of Homosexuality in this passage.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To David Brider,

It's the New International Reader's Version –

Ah yes. I would point out the translation of chresis as love is not widely accepted and not so helpful to the uninformed reader who might understand love in modern terms as all kinds of things and confuse love with sex as we have seen in our debates.


Nonetheless if you are happy with that translation then…
1 Corinthians 6. “Don't you know that evil people will not receive God's kingdom? Don't be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts. Neither will thieves or those who always want more and more. Neither will those who are often drunk or tell lies or cheat. People who live like that will not receive God's kingdom. “
If not, can I suggest your objection to the translation isn’t so much about translation but about you not liking what it says.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To tanaznos,

In Greek PARA PHYSEIN means unatural but also An.al sex.

Not necessarily, besides Paul doesn’t use ‘para physin’ in the same way that contemporaries like Aristotle, the Stoics and Aquinas did.
If you wish to take anal as being unnatural as well I would agree though.

The passage is referring to women who indulge in such sexual acts.

I don’t thinks so as it is women with women instead of men, so how woud the anal acts come in between two women as opposed to men?
Which is why it is against homosexuality being same sex.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The Bible describes God's creation purpose of man and woman in union, or celibacy. That already rules out same sex. So 'homosexuality' as in same sex attraction is somthing ruled out by the Bible. One has to be careful saying the Bible says nothing about what the Bible rules out.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

So if the ability to reproduce is the important thing, why are you only applying this criteria to same sex couples, and not all people?

I am applying it to all people, all people are male or female, it is just ruled out for same sex couples by nature and biology.

Do you really not understand the difference between love and attraction?

Yes that’s my point I am saying you don’t as I have argued.

I personally do not feel that orientation never changes.

I think you are right and look forward to your support in future on that point.

No, there are 4 groups of people who do not reproduce: infertile couples,

Infertile couples are only the opposite of fertile couples so there are only two groups.

same sex couples

Same sex couples are the opposite of male female couples so there are only two groups on that basis.

And yes if they aren’t the same I don’t think they should be treated the same or can they have the same rights.

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,

So if the ability to reproduce is the important thing, why are you only applying this criteria to same sex couples, and not all people?
​

I am applying it to all people, all people are male or female, it is just ruled out for same sex couples by nature and biology.

It's ruled out by biology for the infertile and post menopausal couples too. It's ruled out by nature for child free couples.

Do you really not understand the difference between love and attraction?

Yes that’s my point I am saying you don’t as I have argued.

So what is your point? That people should be with the person they love, but just anyone they can reproduce with? Surely not.

​

​

​

No, there are 4 groups of people who do not reproduce: infertile couples,

Infertile couples are only the opposite of fertile couples so there are only two groups.

same sex couples
​

Same sex couples are the opposite of male female couples so there are only two groups on that basis.

And yes if they aren’t the same I don’t think they should be treated the same or can they have the same rights.

Do the following reproduce unaided?
Same sex couples yes/no
infertile couples yes/no
child-free couples yes/no
post menopausal couples yes/no

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

It's ruled out by biology for the infertile and post menopausal couples too. It's ruled out by nature for child free couples.

But I am applying it to all people, and besides that’s your argument, my argument is its not about fertility as the infertility of a male/female couple is malfunction, whereas with a same sex couple its dysfunction. As opposed to same sex couples male/female can reproduce.
So if you wan to propose infertile couples should not be allowed to be married do so. ... but that would of course include all same sex couples.

 

[b&wpac4]

To Psudopod,
But I am applying it to all people, and besides that’s your argument, my argument is its not about fertility as the infertility of a male/female couple is malfunction, whereas with a same sex couple its dysfunction. As opposed to same sex couples male/female can reproduce.
So if you wan to propose infertile couples should not be allowed to be married do so. ... but that would of course include all same sex couples.

What, in your mind, is the difference between a malfunction and a dysfunction?

 

[Andreusz]

^ Excellent question.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,
I have already explained that, a male/female should be able to reproduce providing they are fertile. A same sex couple arent able to reproduce as they are the wrong couple in the first place.
But that ha come out of fertility, if you want to see fertility as a criteria for marriage then say so, if not what ask me about it?

 

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,
I have already explained that, a male/female should be able to reproduce providing they are fertile. A same sex couple arent able to reproduce as they are the wrong couple in the first place.
But that ha come out of fertility, if you want to see fertility as a criteria for marriage then say so, if not what ask me about it?

I don't want to see fertility as a criteria for marriage. But you can't both hold it as a criteria and not hold it as one at the same time. Double-standards are bad.

 

[b&wpac4]

Let me walk though this logically:

Why do you consider homosexual couples as being unable to marry? They are dysfunctional because they cannot reproduce.

Do you want fertility to be a criteria for marriage? No, it shouldn't be.

Then do you back off your first argument, that the reason they cannot marry is due to not being able to reproduce? They are dysfunctional because they cannot reproduce.

So fertility is a criteria for marriage? No, it shouldn't be.

Then why do you hold homosexual couples to that standard but not heterosexual couples? They are dysfunctional because they cannot reproduce.


Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b%wpac4,
But I dont hold it as a criteria, the criteria I hold is the sex of the couple. Try and form your own argument rather than telling me what you think mine should be. What we are discussing is couples in union, I can see a same sex couple cant be compared with a male/female one because they cant reproduce. You, unable to acknowledge the difference instead try to argue about fertility, thats your argument not mine and one I believe is a deception.

 

[Andreusz]

Why is the sex of the couple a criterion? Why are same sex couples "dysfunctional" if fertility isn't a criterion?

 

[b&wpac4]

To b%wpac4,
But I dont hold it as a criteria, the criteria I hold is the sex of the couple. Try and form your own argument rather than telling me what you think mine should be. What we are discussing is couples in union, I can see a same sex couple cant be compared with a male/female one because they cant reproduce. You, unable to acknowledge the difference instead try to argue about fertility, thats your argument not mine and one I believe is a deception.

So, I'm the one constantly posting that it is dysfunction because they can't reproduce?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4

Let me walk though this logically:

My previous post should be sufficient but nonetheless.

Why do you consider homosexual couples as being unable to marry?

I consider same sex couples cannot be treated as marriage as they are not the same and cannot fulfil the same function as male/female.

Do you want fertility to be a criteria for marriage? No, it shouldn't be.

agreed.

Then do you back off your first argument, that the reason they cannot marry is due to not being able to reproduce?

No same sex couple can reproduce so they should not be compared with a male/female one.

Then why do you hold homosexual couples to that standard but not heterosexual couples?

I cant hold a same sex couple to a standard they can never reach so I don’t make the comparison or treat them the same.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Firends, same sex couples cant reproduce so there is no point in arguing. You may think fertilty as a criteria undermines this argument but I would say it cant. ... and of course it could only undermine my argumen, its till cant change the difference between male/female and same sex couples.