Bush....what a fucking douche.

[Hobo_Bill]

I wasn't yelling, yet.. However, you're wrong in several cases as well. I did google the Torah, and it isn't the old testament, it's the HEBREW rendition of the old testament, NOT the widely accepted King James version, therefore it is NOT "the old testament".. There are quite a bit of discrepancies between the two, trust me. I guess we could agree to disagree... You're still wrong, Jesus was never "the messiah", especially in Jewish beliefs, because Orthodox Jews believe that Jesus was, as I said, only a messenger, and very extreme believers think that Jesus not only was not God's son, but was an agent of Satan. Jews were cast out as God's chosen back when they wandered for 40 years in the desert and forsook their duties as his chosen people. Obviously I don't know shit about what I'm talking about.. obviously.. google that... And I didn't say I agreed with the whole issue of the bible saying homosexuality was wrong, again, I was just saying that the bible saying it was right is completely inaccurate.

[apathy]

Originally posted by Hobo_Bill

What of Sodom and Gomora? Pick up the good book and read why he sent flaming balls of fire to consume both of those cities, and why the wife of his servant turned to salt when she turned to look longingly back at the city they fled. Homosexuality is blantantly wrong, according to the bible, as is sodomy (comes from Sodom, imagine that?!?). There is no argument you can present that will make it any more right, in my mind anyhow. The closest thing I have to a father is gay, so don't get me wrong, I have nothing, personally, against homosexuals. But to say that there's nothing wrong with the idea is ludicrous. And why should we encourage something that is morally wrong, biblically wrong, and naturally wrong? By allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, that's essentially what we're doing. Keep your business in the closet where it belongs, and everyone will be happy, as far as I'm concerned.



Well, actually, homosexuality being against the teachings of the Bible is very arguable. The Bible describes an event where the people of Sodom weren't worshipping God and were instead acting as if they were the most powerful people in the land. When the two angels came to Lot's house, an angry mob formed outside his house demanding to "meet" the new guests. Lot, knowing they were angels, offered up his daughters instead.

Sodomy, therefore, would have nothing to do with homosexuality, but everything to do with power and corruption.



It's all in the interpretation. And it's all right there. In the "Good" Book.

[EvanElias]

As I said in my previous post, this discussion is getting very off topic, but as long as you continue to post blatantly incorrect statements that you haven't researched in the slightest, I'll feel inclined to correct you...



Originally posted by Hobo_Bill

you're wrong in several cases as well. I did google the Torah, and it isn't the old testament, it's the HEBREW rendition of the old testament, NOT the widely accepted King James version, therefore it is NOT "the old testament".. There are quite a bit of discrepancies between the two, trust me.



The Hebrew "rendition"? The Torah was the original version of the Old Testament, predating the King James version by a COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS. The King James version is simply a translation which preserves about 99% of the meaning of the exact phrases and verses. In any bookstore, you can purchase copies of the Old Testament which have the original Hebrew side-to-side with the King James English.



The "discrepancies" in King James and other versions from that era are simply a combination of accidental translation errors, along with intentional mis-translations of certain phrases to alter the meaning of some verses that would very profoundly contradict the New Testament.



I don't really understand why you would give more credence to the King James version over an older version of a supposedly holy book. Any alterations made to the Old Testament around the King James era were clear alterations made by man. If you believe the bible is the word of god, why would you trust a later edition that has knowingly been edited by man?





I guess we could agree to disagree... You're still wrong, Jesus was never "the messiah", especially in Jewish beliefs, because Orthodox Jews believe that Jesus was, as I said, only a messenger, and very extreme believers think that Jesus not only was not God's son, but was an agent of Satan.



Let me get this straight, you're claiming that ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that Jesus was an agent of Satan? That's pretty funny, considering that *SATAN DOES NOT EXIST IN JUDAISM*, Orthodox or otherwise. There is no concept of "hell" in Judaism either.



Obviously I don't know shit about what I'm talking about..



EXACTLY!

[Hobo_Bill]

hahaha, ok, I'm through debating this with you because I keep repeating myself. I agree with a few of your points, but I can say just as easily that you've misinterpreted what you're spouting here today. A self-proclaimed atheist, who probably just today googled a couple of things to try to prove himself. I know quite a bit of the subject, it just so happens that I don't have the time nor the patience to try to explain myself, nor do I need to. As you said, it's off topic. Regardless, it's all up to interpretation. The King James version of the bible is the version I was referring to as "widely accepted", in other words, most people don't know anything else. NIV, Study Bibles, whatever, they all refer to King James, not the Torah. So again, it's all interpretation. Back to the second topic of the whole thread, homosexuality is condemned by God in his book, whether or not I agree with it is immaterial. And back to the original topic, who cares if gays and lesbians get married? Is it going to affect me any? Hell no. Thanks for an interesting debate tho, there's no hard feelings on my part, tho I still believe what I believe and have researched, and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise on points that I know I'm correct on. Other points, I'll accede that you're right. Good argument, Evan.

[Voodoo_Chile]

Corn-holers and carpet munchers do have the same rights as everyone else in this country. We tolerate pillow-biters and transvestites and any other social defective you can think of. Having said that, equal rights does NOT mean special rights. Marriage is a sacred bond between man and wife. Gay couples can have what we call "social arrangements" and that's all they should get. We have to tolerate their lifestyles, but we don't have to give them the same treatment as heterosexuals. So if you're an ass-gobbling, cock munching, monkey fucker I hope that I have offended you in every possible way.

[Hobo_Bill]

lol.. nicely said..

[apathy]

Originally posted by Voodoo_Chile

[...] Having said that, equal rights does NOT mean special rights. Marriage is a sacred bond between man and wife. Gay couples can have what we call "social arrangements" and that's all they should get. We have to tolerate their lifestyles, but we don't have to give them the same treatment as heterosexuals. [...]



#1: They're not asking for special rights. they're asking for equal rights. Which they don't have, despite what you think. That's what this whole thread is about.

#2: Marriage is a two part process. The first part, and the only part that's sacred, is the religious part. Whether or not religions allow gays to be wed is up to them. But what about marriages perform by the state without religion? There's nothing sacred about that.

#3: Forget about calling it "marriage". It's about legal equivalence. And more (read: probably most) importantly, it's about society recognizing someone's love for someone else.



We have to tolerate their lifestyles? Yeah, because it's horribly inconvenient for us all to have gays in the world, right? Or it's putting you out because some man loves another man. When you see two women kiss, you think it's hot, don't you? Why is it that their love for each other is so fucking taboo? And by the way, why shouldn't we give them the same treatment as heterosexuals?



You've done nothing but express your opinion without backing it up with a valid reason that explains why it should be that way. My side is that legal rights of "life partners" of any kind, hetro or homo, should be the same. Insurance, adoption policies, and tax purposes are my reasons. What are yours?





As for the previous posts: can we all try to keep it nice in here? I know this topic is bound to bring out heated emotions, but try to keep your fury directed towards against the issue and not each other.... we're all adults here. Nothing needs to get personal.

[Reckless]

Originally posted by Voodoo_Chile

Corn-holers and carpet munchers do have the same rights as everyone else in this country. We tolerate pillow-biters and transvestites and any other social defective you can think of. Having said that, equal rights does NOT mean special rights. Marriage is a sacred bond between man and wife. Gay couples can have what we call "social arrangements" and that's all they should get. We have to tolerate their lifestyles, but we don't have to give them the same treatment as heterosexuals. So if you're an ass-gobbling, cock munching, monkey fucker I hope that I have offended you in every possible way.





Can you point that out to me in the constitution or did your precious moron use it to wipe his ass since he can't seem to respect anything else in Washington.





That was a well thought out post Apathy. It's people like Voodoo_Chile and Bush who are such fair weather christians it's astounding. It's ok to kill (which is blatantly against any christian belief), but other things are not? Like I said earlier, if two people can find happiness in this life, by all means let them go through the ceremony. Don't push religious beliefs on everyone else, THAT is UN-AMERICAN!!! Our founders would be rolling over in their graves if they could see some of the incompetent legislation over the last 200 years. Furthermore, marriage is merely a CONTRACT in the eyes of the government and it should not be looked at as anything else. The justice of the peace can legally marry someone, without a church, that means that marriage is not controlled by the church. Keep the corruption of the church out of Capitol Hill.

[dxpac666]

Originally posted by Reckless

I'm wondering how a man that is so rooted in his christian beliefs can believe in one of the greatest sins. I'm referring to the death penalty. Thou shalt not kill. It's plainly stated and pretty direct. However, he thinks that a woman and a woman being together (and men with men) is a far greater sin.



Hmm isn't he the one that was governer or however it's spelled of Texas... and put more people to death than any other state? And made Saddam seem like a "monster" for pretty much doing the same thing? Not that I'm defending Saddam... Bush is... ahem... fucked up in the head.

[Necrosaro420]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ace2

[B]wouldnt your real friends (if you have any) laugh if they knew you were defending homos.



No, I have a gay friend =P