Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You've told us you don't like gay marriage, you haven't said why.

40kFSU wrote:Oh for pete's sake Mellssia, I thought we were talking about gay marriage in the US.

I thought we were talking about you living in denial of the fact that homosexuals ARE oppressed.

Also, the original versions of the bible did not condemn homosexuality, but if you want to base your opinions off of the translations of a retranslated mistranslation that was translated with political and financial purposes in mind which itself was retranslated from a previous mistranslation, I guess I won't stop you.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.

40kFSU wrote:OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Dogma found the chart!! Everyone is gonna see!! Christianity is finished!!! Quick!! Lock the thread! Lock the thread!

Wait, wait, be cool, man. Stay cool, breathe. Ok.

Dogma, my friend, the bible is a historical document as well as a holy book. It talks about things that occurred in that time. Being the open minded person you are, I suggest you read the passages in the bible. You may better understand. In the meantime, you may want to try researching beyond whatever little brain anti christian bigot website you got that from.

Mellssia- What are you talking about? Do you have any idea what year it is? Have you walked down the street? Are you actually going to tell me gays are treated as blacks before civil rights? And again, my objections have nothing to do with hate. If thats all you see, its a sign of your own narrow minded thinking and squarely a you problem.

You're a lunatic, you know that? You only choose to 'believe' in the parts of the bible that support your dark age prejudices, while disregarding everything else. Essentially, you'd fit in quite well at the Westboro Baptist Church.

People like you are the reason gay teenagers have the highest suicide rate of all demographics.

I hope you're happy with yourself.

40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.

Except in the modern day marriage doesn't have to be blessed by the Gman as their are numerous secular marriages...

40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Prove it.

40kFSU wrote:Blessed by God.

There are numerous churches who believe that god blesses marriages between members of the same sex. The bible has an example of this, in fact, as mentioned by AustinT.

40kFSU wrote:Words mean things.

Can you tell me what arsenokoite means without looking it up on the internet?

40kFSU wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Blessed by God. If someone of the same sex wants to have a civil union, fine. If they then want to tell people they are married, who cares. Words mean things. If you and the PK cant understand that, I got nothing more for you.

Yeah, totally, the guy with the degree in philosophy and political science (who also speaks 5 languages) isn't at all a stickler about the meaning of words.

Lonelictor WTF are you talking about? Grow up man.

Mellssia- Have a nice day.

Dogma- Oh? and who is that?

40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Have a nice day.

So you admit defeat? I'm glad you have seen the light, that Jesus commanded of us but two things-- to love God with all our heart and all our mind and all our soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves; to be a neighbor to every one, much as the Good Samaritan was.

Or are you backing off because you do not want to question your beleifs?

40kFSU wrote:Oh? and who is that?

John Stamos.

Mellssia- Look pal, I enjoy a good debate. Especially with, I am assuming, lefties like yall. But Im not going to get into some school yard "you hate this" "no I dont" "yes you do" back and forth nonsense. Thank you for for the testimonial.

Dogma- Hahahaha

Melissia wrote:

40kFSU wrote:My opinions and reasons are clearly spelled out above.

As clear as a brick.

Had to.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Look pal, I enjoy a good debate. Especially with, I am assuming, lefties like yall. But Im not going to get into some school yard "you hate this" "no I dont" "yes you do" back and forth nonsense. Thank you for for the testimonial.

Look Mel, that's so cute he thinks I'm a leftie. They're so awkward at this age.

AustonT- Wasnt talking about you sweet heart

40kFSU wrote:AustonT- Wasnt talking about you sweet heart

Believe it or not 'Lefties' is a plural...

I was talking about Mellssia and Dogma professor.

I'm sure you were.

I know you are but what am I

40kFSU wrote:Mellssia- Look pal, I enjoy a good debate.

Not as much as I do.

40kFSU wrote:Especially with, I am assuming, lefties like yall.

I'm a moderate right wing person (not an extremist laissez faire capitalista, mind you, but I do believe a properly regulated free market is the best thing for the economy that we humans have). Calling me a "lefty" is amusing ,but false. Or perhaps you were defining "lefty" as "someone who values the freedoms of others"? In which case, would that make you an authoritarian who values tyranny or somesuch? And wouldn't that make Jesus a lefty (in both ways)?

40kFSU wrote:But Im not going to get into some school yard "you hate this" "no I dont" "yes you do" back and forth nonsense.

So you're backing off because you refuse to question your beliefs? Hell I don't even know what they are at this point, I just have to guess based off of the loose, general statements you've made-- you haven't actually said anything concrete.

AustonT wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.

You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.

Did we learn anything from the fall of the Eldar?

40kFSU wrote:I know you are but what am I

You don't want to know what I think of you...

Mellssia we aren't debating we are arguing. We are spending more time going back and forth than talking about the issue. I have stated my opinion and why. You have told me my beliefs are based in hate and reject them. Then you say I haven't stated my beliefs. We are stuck because you refuse to accept someones moral beliefs as legitimate. Which is a you problem. I look forward to debating you on another thread in the future.

I kinda dont buy the right wing thing, but if you say so, who am I to disagree.

Purplefood- I know you are but what am I?

40kFSU wrote:AustonT- Wasnt talking about you sweet heart

Don't call me sweetheart unless you intend to marry me.

DoctorZombie wrote:

AustonT wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:I once read an article written by gay men that argued that polygamy is the next step.
But he also said is gays got married divorce rates would sky rocket because gy men re used to being alone.
But no, Polygamy is a different ball game. It relegates women to nothing more then breeding machines that live to serve the husband. IF the man gets bored sexually, then he just gets another wife.

You are assuming that polygamy in this day and age would only be one man and plural wives; rather than one woman and plural husbands or plural husbands and wives. You know since we are talking about same sex marriage why not 6 husbands? or 4 husbands and 2 wives where the husbands are also married to each other...open thine horizons.

Did we learn anything from the fall of the Eldar?

They look stellar in Purple and Pink?

AustonT- Hahahaha very good!

40kFSU wrote:Lonelictor WTF are you talking about? Grow up man.

What a great comeback. You couldn't think of anything to counter what I said, so you chose to just insult me. Your irrational and homophobic have no place in the 21st century, sweetheart. You'd have done great in the Dark Ages though.

Lonelictor- Really? I insulted you, huh. How old are you anyway? Is that it? Im sorry if I hurt your feelings kid.

Came here to see what interesting people would crawl out of the woodwork.

Did not leave disappointed.

I truly can't fathom why people still have problems against gay marriage. It just baffles the mind.

I understand people are entitled to their opinions and all that free speech jazz Americans get so rattled about, but opponents of gay marriage have unhealthy opinions that harm others.

But you know, that's just,like, my opinion man.

I believe Melissia has voiced exactly how I feel, and why I feel it.

40kFSU wrote:Lonelictor- Really? I insulted you, huh. How old are you anyway? Is that it? Im sorry if I hurt your feelings kid.

Don't worry, you didn't hurt my feelings. I've been in so many pointless arguments with nutters on the Internet that they don't really matter to me anymore. As Sayid said in Lost, "I feel nothing." And then he killed some people for no reason. Great writing there.

What I was doing was point out that you couldn't counter any of my points. Evidently I hit a nerve when I pointed out that you only choose to 'believe' the parts of the Bible that reinforce your discriminatory beliefs. So, instead of trying to counter my point (like a normal person in a normal debate would) you got angry and insulted me. And now you're calling me 'kid'. If I had to guess who you were, I'd say you were a 14 year old punk indoctrinated in some crazy ass beliefs by redneck parents. I don't know you, so I can't say for sure, but that's what I'd guess.

LoneLictor- Have a nice day, I hope Santa is good to you this year.

40kFSU wrote:LoneLictor- Have a nice day, I hope Santa is good to you this year.

You don't even know how to argue with people. That's such a basic skill; how could you not have it? That's like never learning how to tie a knot or ride a bike.

40kFSU wrote:Mellssia we aren't debating we are arguing.

I'm debating.

40kFSU wrote:I have stated my opinion and why.

when?

40kFSU wrote:You have told me my beliefs are based in hate and reject them.

If they're based on the modern bible, which was translated, mistranslated retranslated, mistranslated, and then retranslated again for good measure? Yes. Want to know something amusing? The sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality. It was a lack of hospitality shown to the he guests-- the angels. This was a rather common theme amongst religions at the time, and Christianity was no different (take another look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan). Later translations continued the trend, even to the point where modern translations often have misstatements like saying that the women also felt homosexual desire towards the angels-- even though the angels were stated to be men in earlier paragraphs.

The first time people really began to use "Sodomy" or "the sin of Sodom" to refer to homosexuality was later on during the reign of Emperor Justinian, whom argued for the change to attack his political rivals. Same with many other things, such as the definitions of "Eunouchos" and "arsenokoites"-- what are these people that are labeled such? Originally, "eunouchos" referred to those who watch the wives when the husband was away (wives, plural), and they could only be trusted if they wee not interested in women to begin with, but it was also used as a slang term for homosexual, as "eunouchos" were associated with male femininity and other such things that were (and to some extent, still are) associated with gay men. Meanwhile "arsenokoites" was a word coined by Paul, and was used less than 100 times in the one thousand years since he created the word. We have no clue what it means, but given the contexts of its uses at the time, it definitely did not refer to homosexuality (one such use, if "arsenokoites" was translated to homosexuality, would result in a sentence of "many men even commit the sin of homosexuality with their wives"). For a long time, people thought it meant masturbation, in fact, as arsen is singular. At the time of Paul's writing, it probably meant prostitution in temples; to refer to homosexuality, Paul would probably have used "androkoites" or something similar*.

But later translations changed the meanings of these words, referring only to those who have been castrated for Eunouchos and to homosexuals (somehow also including women, even though arsenokoites itself only refers to men) for Arsenokoites. And so modern translations have silly things like "those who are born eunuchs".

*(And if we took "koites" to always mean sex, then "enotokoites" would be a ratherconfusing word involving someone having sex with their ears, rather than saying "they have big ears"... if you want to translate it literally, arsenokoites could just as easily mean couch potato The few uses found of the word could also refer to incest, rape of slaves, or simply rape in general, but it is mostly agreed that it refers to temple prostitution.)

Are you having fun yet? Although I worry now if I've left you behind. Hopefully the debate isn't too detailed for you