Lesbian Awarded Money from Sept. 11 Victims Fund

Wow... Can I just ask one question? When did Christians support homosexuals? Does not it say in the Bible that this is wrong?
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
( 1 Corinthians 6:8-10)
I guess if you can explain to me when God changed this then I will agree with all you have to say on the subject.

Originally posted by Katz68
Wow... Can I just ask one question? When did Christians support homosexuals? Does not it say in the Bible that this is wrong?
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
( 1 Corinthians 6:8-10)
I guess if you can explain to me when God changed this then I will agree with all you have to say on the subject.

Click to expand...

Well, God never changed it, but *we* changed it. When Saint Jerome was translating the Vulgate Latin, everyone "knew" that the thing you have translated as "homosexual offenders" meant "male prostitutes".

Awareness of cultural issues of the time suggests that the "homosexuality is bad" position is itself the change.

Perhaps best, however, if you just go skim a few of the threads on this topic we've already had, all the arguments on both sides have been presented several times a month.

Well I have read what has been posted and I stick by what I wrote that this is not what God wanted for us.

Originally posted by Katz68
this is not what God wanted for us.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.  Others have prayerfully concluded otherwise.

"apart from the fact that homosexuality involves two consenting partners, and inappropriate behavior with animals doesn't"

so you're saying an animal has a right to decide what happens to it? Opps..arrest all those meat market people. sorry chicken, can't have your cake and eat it too. Its either they get a say, or they don't.

"That is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether the majority wants it to be so or not. The Constitution is there to protect the minority from such an act.'

Okay, then murder is okay if you're willing to submit that you might be killed. Mobs are legal according to you. Bad logic Mech.

"Again, the slippery slope fallacy applies."

Wrong-o. they are under the same umbrella, see my previous post.


"Like I said, I have trouble believing that people can keep the distinction clear."

Just because you can't see mars doesn't mean its not there. Sorry if you can't understand something Tek, but that doesn't make it not true

"Ok, read Galatians. "

I have, but one problem, its the bible, not just galatians

"what exactly does it do to you?"

It says its okay. The government is making a judgment on a moral insitution.

"That did not work so well during Prohibition. "

So? It was law. The only reason the law was repealed is because it was VOTED TO BE repealed. Again, majority rules.

Originally posted by Outspoken
"what exactly does it do to you?"

It says its okay. The government is making a judgment on a moral insitution.

Click to expand...

That's *IT*? Saying something is okay harms you? There is nothing in "lifetime commitment between two consenting people to love, honour, cherish, whatever, each other, for richer/poorer/sickness/health/good/bad/etc" that requires a man and a woman. Marriage is not about sex any more than school is about sports. Yes they are there and yes they make it better but they're not the be all and end all. If they can't have kids of their own then maybe they can adopt one or two of the many unwanted children around today. The government isn't making a judgement, they're taking it back. I can't find a single non-Biblical reason to ban gay marriage and using Biblical ones is religous tyranny. You want to run this country on religious principles and you'll get an Afghanistan with a different god. 

Originally posted by Outspoken

so you're saying an animal has a right to decide what happens to it?

Click to expand...

No, he's saying the animal *doesn't* - and since marriage requires consent, and an animal cannot give or withhold consent, animals can't marry.

Yes, the government judges moral issues. The government has laws against murder that flatly contradict the beliefs of some Christian denominations. It has laws allowing some kinds of violence that flatly contradict the beliefs of other Christian denominations. The government does, indeed, take some stands on issues about which we may form moral opinions - not as moral issues, but as functional necessities of society.

Originally posted by Outspoken
"apart from the fact that homosexuality involves two consenting partners, and inappropriate behavior with animals doesn't"

so you're saying an animal has a right to decide what happens to it? Opps..arrest all those meat market people. sorry chicken, can't have your cake and eat it too. Its either they get a say, or they don't.

Click to expand...

Animals do not have rights because they are incapable of making decisions. However, we do protect them from unnecessary pain and distress. It is for these reasons that we outlaw inappropriate behavior with animals.

Originally posted by Outspoken

Okay, then murder is okay if you're willing to submit that you might be killed. Mobs are legal according to you. Bad logic Mech.

Click to expand...

No, it's your bad logic. No such implications were made.

Wrong-o. they are under the same umbrella, see my previous post.

Click to expand...

Incorrect yet again. The slippery slope fallacy applies. inappropriate behavior with animals does not involve consent and homosexuality does.

So? It was law. The only reason the law was repealed is because it was VOTED TO BE repealed. Again, majority rules.

Click to expand...

But who was it that put the 21st amendment into effect to repeal the 18th amendment? Congress. That's who voted it to be repealed. They are our elected representatives. That is exactly why it's a republic.

"No such implications were made."

Sure it was, in some cultures, murder is a very initgral part of it. thus you say murder is okay because you can't legistate their morals.

"inappropriate behavior with animals does not involve consent and homosexuality does."

wrong-o, well unless you're seeking jail time for meat market people...I'm guessing you didn't read, yet again

"Congress. That's who voted it to be repealed"

taking statements out of context now are we? 1. not a reply to you. 2. this statement was made in reference to how the majority legistated either morality and then changed it. Please read the posts before replying. Thanks.

Originally posted by Outspoken
[B"inappropriate behavior with animals does not involve consent and homosexuality does."

wrong-o, well unless you're seeking jail time for meat market people...I'm guessing you didn't read, yet again
[/B]

Click to expand...

Ok, so you're comparing people to animals. But on the quote - if it's wrong, then either inappropriate behavior with animals involves consent or homosexuality doesn't.

I'd say the distinction here is that a) consent is required for sex and b) consent must not be possible for killing for food.

Attempting to throw homosexuality and inappropriate behavior with animals together is akin to throwing Christianity in with Darwin Fish's 'atruechurch'. (Man I love that.)

Originally posted by Outspoken

Sure it was, in some cultures, murder is a very initgral part of it. thus you say murder is okay because you can't legistate their morals.

Click to expand...

Nope, no implication was made.

wrong-o, well unless you're seeking jail time for meat market people...I'm guessing you didn't read, yet again

Click to expand...

I'm guessing YOU didn't read. Animals cannot choose. We use animals for subsistence. This is different from sexual practices. Animals cannot consent, end of story.

"Congress. That's who voted it to be repealed"

1. not a reply to you.

Click to expand...

I don't care. Just another excuse from you...

2. this statement was made in reference to how the majority legistated either morality and then changed it. Please read the posts before replying. Thanks.

Click to expand...

And you raised this point to illustrate democracy by majority rule. It is majority rule with respect to congress but does not make us a nation of a true democracy.

"a) consent is required for sex and b) consent must not be possible for killing for food."

then according to your logic its okay to practice canabalism. Ouch.


"Nope, no implication was made."

Sure you did, you said its wrong to legistalate morality. This means murder for some cultures. Its your logic.

"Animals cannot consent, end of story."

Then the people that are killing animals without their consent are wrong. That's what your logic is saying. You can't have it both ways. Either animals can consent or they can't. Either you say homosexuality is under the same umbrella as beastisality or that people killing animals should be jailed.

"And you raised this point to illustrate democracy by majority rule."

Noo...it was raised to illstrate morality being legistatled.

Originally posted by Outspoken

Sure you did, you said its wrong to legistalate morality. This means murder for some cultures. Its your logic.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I said it was unconstitutional to legislate Biblical morality in order to enforce the religious beliefs of one group over another. I didn't say it was wrong to legislate morality.

Then the people that are killing animals without their consent are wrong. That's what your logic is saying. You can't have it both ways. Either animals can consent or they can't. Either you say homosexuality is under the same umbrella as beastisality or that people killing animals should be jailed.

Click to expand...

Nope, again obtaining subsistence is different from sexual practices.

"And you raised this point to illustrate democracy by majority rule."

Noo...it was raised to illstrate morality being legistatled.

Click to expand...

It was to illustrate HOW morality was being legislated.

she was gay thats all she was just gay why should she get all that money while some kid whos mom and dad both died in sep 11 and what dose he get to help him thrugh why should she get more it is not a good thing to teach our kid that if you gay you get more that is crazzy.

Originally posted by Outspoken
"a) consent is required for sex and b) consent must not be possible for killing for food."

then according to your logic its okay to practice canabalism. Ouch.


"Nope, no implication was made."

Sure you did, you said its wrong to legistalate morality. This means murder for some cultures. Its your logic.

"Animals cannot consent, end of story."

Then the people that are killing animals without their consent are wrong. That's what your logic is saying. You can't have it both ways. Either animals can consent or they can't. Either you say homosexuality is under the same umbrella as beastisality or that people killing animals should be jailed.

"And you raised this point to illustrate democracy by majority rule."

Noo...it was raised to illstrate morality being legistatled.

Click to expand...

No, with cannibalism consent *is* possible if a) highly unlikely and b) wrong regardless. Any being that is capable of consenting to anything is not fair game for food, and any being that isn't isn't fair game for sex.

Originally posted by Toxic-Jubilee
she was gay thats all she was just gay why should she get all that money while some kid whos mom and dad both died in sep 11 and what dose he get to help him thrugh why should she get more it is not a good thing to teach our kid that if you gay you get more that is crazzy.

Click to expand...

Ok, since you're 14... you meet somebody, fall in love, get married, husband gets killed in terrorist attack, you go through massive pain and suffering. You'd like any help or whatever you can get.

A person will meet somebody, fall in love, can't get married but do a 'close enough' deal with various legalities, wife gets killed in terrorist attack, and you're told you can't get anything for your partner being killed because she was of the wrong gender.

What do you think? Is the pain felt by a homosexual person over the loss of a loved one any less than that of heterosexuals?

Originally posted by Toxic-Jubilee
she was gay thats all she was just gay why should she get all that money while some kid whos mom and dad both died in sep 11 and what dose he get to help him thrugh why should she get more it is not a good thing to teach our kid that if you gay you get more that is crazzy.

Click to expand...

What abject nonsense! No one said she'd get *more*. What she gets is the same everyone else who lost a partner to the attacks gets.

The fund goes to the families of the people killed. Life long partners are "family".