Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
The suffragettes were mostly bigots themselves and it`s arguable whether they had any effect on the vote being extended again and if so, whether they hastened or delayed it.
If you want some actual heroes, try the people who started the voting reform movement and achieved the main successes of it. Not the suffragettes, who jumped on the bandwagon at the end, threw masses of their sexism into it and had a policy of assaulting policemen in order to get arrested and play the victim.
As for the parades thing, I think that`s at best counter-productive and at worst bigoted. So they`re proud of not being straight. Fine. I`ll put them in with the people who are proud of not being black, or whatever.
"I`m not leaving because baseline buck passers have continued to fist this country into the ground."
This is typical old bitter man talk. What does that even mean. Who exactly are you talking about? Where are the stats to back this up. Continued to fist the country into the ground... what are you even talking about? This is random and typical rhetoric that is more preaching than it is real economical/political opinion...
For your information, I am an extremist. The Constitution is the basis for this nation and, in case you hadn`t noticed, I`m not leaving because baseline buck passers have continued to fist this country into the ground. You seem to think it`s right but I reserve the right to think it`s not. Deal with it.
Whatever the case, I still think you should get your facts straight before you have the audacity to attempt to challenge someone`s self concept.
To everyone else, sorry about the multiple posts....
Also you are wrong, most libertarians would not find issue with federal entitlement because of Constitutional issues, but simply because they believe that strong entitlement programs go against basic free market principles and will not produce greater utility than laissez faire. However saying that you aren`t a libertarian if you aren`t against federal entitlement shows a very narrow and grossly misunderstood view of libertarianism as a political theory.
I don`t think you correctly understand what libertarianism is, so here are some basic links so you don`t say something stupid next time:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian...http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/
Meaning the homos, I assume. Funny, same thing happened at the start of last century for votes for women, except we now call them suffragettes, and heroes. Their crime was because women didn`t have the vote, just as gay people don`t have equal rights now.
And stop having parades for Christ`s sake! I love the vag, but you don`t see me putting it on my bumper or marching down Main Street. Anyone ever think that maybe the gay community does just as much to hurt their cause as the religious right does to keep this issue alive? This may come as a surprise to many, but the rest of the world doesn`t really care about your life as we`re too busy living our own. Get over it, we have...
Just because I was working in Europe when I created this account, doesn`t mean I don`t pay taxes in the US.
As a moderate libertarian, I find uber libertarians like you border on very dangerous extremism. I get that you cry yourself to sleep when you tally up the taxes you pay each year, but get over it. Quit obsessing about all those people "abusing the system" and stealing your money. America is what it is, and though the budget is far from perfect, there will never be a time when some of our taxes won`t go to pay for some people who can`t afford to live by their own means. If it really bothers you to the point where you have to be a little b%!*% about it and write propesterous things like that you don`t want to "pay for the risky behavior of gay people" then have the balls to just get the f%$! out of here and go to a country where you won`t have to pay for
I did search for it. I found uncertainty, lack of supporting evidence and a lot of different but very clear biases.
In other words, par for the course for the web.
It`s a good website in general - 5 people with wildly different and often mutually exclusive religious views co-write hundreds of articles on religion, attempting to prevent any religious bias in the articles while explaining the various different viewpoints held by different theists.
WOW this is intense. Can we not just all get along if there wrong they suffer in afterlife. If your wrong you make people feel bad about themselves. Some people are Homosexual c`est la vie It`s interpretation Many passages in bible can be argued ppro or anti gay
There is a lot more to it than I`m saying but I really dont want to write a small book about it!
Please show me the gay gene.
Simple as that.
I think the causes are still unknown (and unimportant).--------------------------------------------------
Google it! C`mon man..I can post a hundred links and it`s still not enough for most people!
However...I`ll admit it`s not as simple as "there is a gay gene" but rather "genes"! Since we have not yet fully decrypted the human genome, any research could be considered false. However, research shows that identical twins, where one is gay and one is straight, there is a minor genetic diffrence!
Again..this means nothing without further research because there are minor diffrences between identical twins anyway (and just to point out..many of these diffrences CAN be traced back to enviromental influences..such as food source and lifestyle..i.e one fat twin and one skinny twin). That said,
I assume you`re shouting about Christians, as the OT still applies for Jews and never applied for anyone else.
It`s unclear what Christians are supposed to think about the OT.
But if you reject it utterly, you also reject almost all of the alleged prohibitions against homosexuality. The few in the NT are at best weak, if they refer to homosexuality at all.
I agree. The idea that "man" means "adult male person" is a *very* recent thing. For nearly all of the recorded history of English, `man` was sex-neutral. Hence, for example, middle and modern English `woman` from Old English `wifman`, a compound word formed by combining `wif` ("female") and `man` ("person", adulthood implied).
If anyone actually cares, they will have to look back at which was used in the original language for every time the word `man` or `men` is used in the translation. That`s the only way to tell whether it was sex-specific or sex-neutral.
It`s much easier to make politicised claims based on ignorance (real or feigned) of the fact that the meaning of a word can change over
Let`s go with your first assumption...that it doesn`t seem to have a risk toward your health or that only gay people are making money. Both of which are wrong. Should anyone engaging in activity that is going to have health risks (smoking, drinking, poor diet, homosexuality, etc) then they had better be making enough to afford the private insurance. If they`re not (as you assume they all do) then I shouldn`t have to pay for it.
Let`s address that second assumption...that I`m a "bible thumper." Another in the long line of falsehoods to come, I`m sure. I never quoted chapter and verse here and I don`t have any children that are costing you all the way over there in Europe so...kinda see where that went down in flames. Got something to protect, I see.
Wrong and irrelevant. Which tree did your computer grow on? Much of modern society is unnatural. But homosexuality isn`t. Not that it matters, as nature has nothing to do with what`s right and what isn`t. It`s natural for me to murder you and steal your resources, but that doesn`t mean it`s right.
"if "homosexuality" existed the thousands, or millions of years humans wouldn`t exist"
Homosexuality has certainly existed throughout recorded history and there`s no reason to think it didn`t exist before (just that nothing was recorded back then). Yet humans exist. This is because (a) most people aren`t homosexual and (b) homosexuals can have children anyway. Just not with each other.
You`re just plain wrong.
Please show me the gay gene.
I think the causes are still unknown (and unimportant).
Sadly, you can ask people to try and get along and understand each other till the sun goes dim but we will allways have self serving morons who will victimise people just because they are "diffrent"...and we all know where it stems from.
wow i guess i learned something today...
what an a*hole
"if homosexuality existed" - Uh it does exist, and guess what? That doesn`t mean it`s mandatory for everybody in the world to be homosexual. Accepting that homosexuality is harmful to nobody doesn`t make you gay. It`s okay.
So much ignorance in one post!
Wrong. We`d just be less populated.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A HOMOSEXUAL, OUI?
"... if animals were homosexual they`d be extinct."
Major studies and research into animal behaviour and their mating patterns have found that there`s plenty of homosexual behaviour in animals.
Some guy called Bruce Bagemihl wrote a book about it, you know. Ricky Gervais then understandably proceeded to rip him apart in his first stand-up.
Anyway; does anyone else think that sign is very well drawn? :3
(Note "Indirect Human Reasoning" has exactly 0 Google search results).
There is a difference between proof and evidence.
For example, there can be evidence for something, even if it is false. There cannot be proof for something that is false.
In turn, aside from mathematical proofs, very few things are provable. You can inductively suggest them, but prove? Doubtful. Suggesting that "by definition" (albeit your own personal definition) nobody, and no thing, exists.
So you lied to him and he was silent?
Existence, in both common usage and official definitions, has nothing to do with the weight of human evidence.
That`s how we can ask if things exist in an abstract sense, without contradicting any rules of language.
Free Dictionary.Dictionary.com.Merriam Webster
It`s not childish behavior, it`s pointing out the fact that people who use the bible to justify their opposition to homosexuality don`t have any moral ground to stand on. Some rules they ignore entirely- like not cutting your hair, or not eating pork. With others, they not only choose to follow them, they insist that the very laws of our nation should be based upon them.
Want to know why this debate will never end?
It`s not just because of bigotry on the side of those opposed to homosexuality.
It`s also because of people like this who just love to egg them on.
What`s one of the oldest rules on the internet? Don`t feed the trolls. Getting angry is understandable, but lashing back with (sometimes) equally childish behavior not only does not help the cause, it can hurt it.
Most homophobes and people who are against gay marriage will never change their stances on the subject. Doing things like this only adds fuel to the fires and makes them feel justified for their bigotry.
The Bible was not originally in English, so to talk about this sort of discrimination in syntax is a bit off topic.Issues like writing men vs mankind didn`t exist at the time the Bible was translated, so it`s a bit of an anachronism to apply current standards to the writing.Christianity IS sexist for many reasons, this just isn`t one of them...
Is it wrong that I`m the friendly guy who tries to honestly compliment at least 20 people a day? Is it wrong that I stop to help animals and people on the road? Is it wrong that I try so hard to be the nicest guy wherever I go?
I don`t feel we should fight over religions or try to push our theological beliefs onto others that don`t want them. I`m sorry to be voicing so many of my own, in fact, because I feel it is very inappropriate of me.
And, given the time it was written/edited, it probably DOES just mean men.
What about women? Oh right, the bible doesn`t care about them, my bad."
All men= All mankind = All homo Sapiens = Men and Women.
It`s just easier to write all men....
What about women? Oh right, the bible doesn`t care about them, my bad.
If you study christian eschatology, you will understand that according to it salvation can occur for ALL men and that the righteous will be granted entry into heaven, not simply the believers.
This assumption is based on two things:1)Historical events in which churches, namely the Roman Catholic church, have persecuted non christians.2)A very loose and out of context interpretation of Mark 16:16 and John 14:6.
However MANY passages of the bible point towards salvation and a place in heaven for ALL righteous, including non-christians:1)The most important is te Parable of the Sheep and Goats Matthew (25:31-46); Which specifically states that the condition for entry into heaven is righteousness towards man.2)The following verses clearly state that the "one law" is to love your fellow man: Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8; Romans 13:10; James 2:8; Proverbs 10:12; 1 Peter 4:8.
I`m not making this up. A mayoral candidate for Minneapolis believes Laura Ingalls Wilder is god. Yay for religion!
For some reason I-A-B`s search engine is only smart enough to scan for keywords [exact, I might add] from the TITLE, not the subheading.
And it was Deuteronomy that time (I checked it out too, it`s legit.)
you may proceed to argue. but hopefully not.
Have you ever turned down a blowjob? (or ..eating out? whatever)
I thought not.
Do you forego protection in every sexual encounter since you would then be having sex FOR NO PURPOSE?
I thought not.
You`re (mostly) all douchebags, and most of you doing all the condemning will be rotting in hell before any of the icky gayz.
Something from deut about killing non-virgin wives...I really wants it!
Can someone link it?
I mean mutual respect, I hope.
You keep digging, dude. I lost many friends that way, many of which are now zombies to me. Just remember as you dig, that there`s a surface above you. There`s nothing wrong with challenging your beliefs. Any God that demands you keep digging without looking up every now and again, is by my definition, a dick.
And therefore not worth worshipping.
I`m calling fence-sitting bullsh*t. If you`re a true Christian, then the only way to heaven is through our Lord Jesus Christ blah blah blah. Which means anyone not in the team is going to Hell. Not just not making it to heaven, that would be bad enough, but instead suffering in eternal damnation. That`s pretty harsh.
Christianity makes me feel slightly nauseous. According to Christian doctrine, anyone who is Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Shintoist, Traditional Chinese Animist, Pagan, etc, etc, are all going to burn in hell for eternity. No matter if they`ve been a good person all their life. Sorry, tough love, you didn`t accept Jesus as the One True Saviour.
Meanwhile, the Christian priest kiddie-fiddler is OK, for he is saved in the eyes of the LORD blah blah blah.
Well, egg, here`s a starter.
Your Book, dude.
And by the way, I used to be hardcore Christian back when I was a teen. I know the Bible inside out, so please don`t do me the disservice of "ah, but you`re missing the point".
It is to tell people about God. Not to force it upon them.
I have many good friends that are of completly different religions that conflict my own. I tell them about my religion and keep an open mind to theirs.
Check it out guys, i`m not forcing my religion on you. My religion tells me to spread the word of God and that he`ll handle it.
If you don`t agree with me, thats cool, all i`m saying is do a little research and studies before you bash another religion.
whtever, the bible still has a lot of stupid s#it to make fun of.
Research before you slander.
but homosexuality was one of the reasons. look, as long as they stay at arm`s lenght, they can do whatever they want withtheir butts.live and let live, right?
but i agree on something, i`ll be damned if i cut my hair shorter than shoulder lenght anytime soon
Not the reason I`m atheist but it`s certainly one of the reasons why i`ll stand up and speak out against a religion!
Also it`s not that sheperds don`t tend their flock during winter, it`s that they only tend them during the night during lambing period... which is in mid spring...
As for the pagan holliday, that has been up for debate. One other explanation of the date is the following: Roman scholars believed that God had begun creation on Spring Equinox. He created light four days later. Add nine months and you get Dec 25th..
of course he`s dead, the jews killed him.
yet every religion is in conflict with the others because somehow they disagree, even though the basically branched out of the same one
In shunpo`s defense:Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13; Deut. 23:17; Rom.1:26 and 27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:8 -10....
However we need to remember that the Bible is a book, written by men between 1900 and 3500 years ago, and compiled by other men 1600 years ago... It probably shouldn`t be taken too seriously....
Neither was Jesus. The Bible says Jesus was born when shepherds were tending to their flocks; something that does not occur in winter. Scholars, upon studying the Bible, estimate he was born in mid-spring.
Which makes perfect sense considering Christmas is a holiday that was adopted from European pagans when they ignored the Pope`s orders to stop celebrating the holiday.
Long story short: Jesus wasn`t born on Christmas.
altough just to be clear, god did destroy two whole cities just because they were full of gay men. supposedly.
btw nice one solvent, couldnt be more true "
Leviticus 20:13 is the verse that is used.""If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.""
Horus was not born on Dec 25th, nor of Virgin birth.... The places that have talked about this are completely unsourced and are basically using to public`s ignorance of egyptology to just make stuff up...
For a more complete rebutal:http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/ze...
btw nice one solvent, couldnt be more true
funny to see their reaction
He was silent.
oh really? um...okay. you go right ahead and think that.
one of my favorite things to do is tear apart bible verses... with other bible verses. there is so much conflict within that book, its amusing.
Thank you for playing, please come again!
Hmmmm... I didn`t realize that cigarettes were sexually perverted. Thank you for opening my eyes.
"Either way, I don`t blame a person if they are attracted to the same sex. What I blame them for is having sex with the same sex."On simple moral grounds, that is sick. You expect people to just repress their sexual orientations?
@Cobrakiller: I agree with you that culture and society are more responsible for rascism/homophobia etc, but I still believe that past a certain age personal responsibility kicks in and you become as much to blame as your upbringings...
btw, I`m at 18 months w/o a hair cut, I`m planning on going more than 36 months, but we`ll see how that goes as my hair is past my shoulder blades already
Also, Mindfreak111, I agree with you. I don`t think God would condemn a man if he were to be born attracted to men. I am still unsure if men are born attracted to other men or if it is an "aquired taste." Either way, I don`t blame a person if they are attracted to the same sex. What I blame them for is having sex with the same sex. That is just wrong and it violates the laws of Christianity.
I think that every person that calls themselves a Christian needs to define his relationship with what is his holy text.
The fact of the matter is that it is almost impossible to live life exactly how the bible dictates if taken literally. Most Christians don`t. However some of these Christians still take certain parts of the bible to fit their needs, which reeks of hypocrisy. Especially given that the overarching themes of the bible tend to be of acceptance and neighborly love, as well as not judging others.
It is incorrect to say that in the Bible Jesus said to ignore the OT. There is debate concerning phrasing in the Gospels, particularly in Matthew 5-7 about how Christians should now interpret the laws that were in place before Jesus came.
When the Bible was put together several hundred years after JC, during the first ecumenical councils, there were deliberate choices made about which books to include in the OT. It is inconceivable that the early Christians would have included books they believed were worthless or no longer applied.
Stupid Jews, controlling IAB.
He filed for sexual harassment.
As Overmann said a few pages back, if homosexuality is such a sin, why didn`t Jesus mention it? A single thing about it? Not so much as a throwaway one-liner?
Again, excuse me if I enjoy the irony of your statement [quote]To all of you people say that Christians pick and choose their laws, while you state OLD TESTAMENT LAWS...[/quote]
To all of you people say that Christians pick and choose their laws, while you state OLD TESTAMENT LAWS. You are being just as mentally stunted as the bigots. More then likely you have little to know actually personal understanding of the bible or how it fits together.
With Jesus a large number of those extreme laws were voided, the stoning of non virgins etc. He also removed the ritualistic need for "pure" meat. The 10 commandments obviously stayed, as have the morals of the stories.
The new testament contains how to live a Christian life, while the Old testament taught how to live the traditional Jewish life.
The Old Testament (mostly Leviticus) has 3 types of laws that were given to the nation of Israel. NOT Christians.
These 3 types of laws are:
-Moral law. (Ten Commandments etc)-Sacrificial Law (Basically told the Israelites how to sacrifice properly and worship God properly.)-The Laws to help keep the Israelites seperate from other nations (Haircuts, Clothing etc)
When Jesus died on the Cross, he fulfilled these laws. We are now under the law of Christ which is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And to love your neighbor as yourself”
The Old Testament law was never intended to be universal for all people, for all of time. Christians today are to love God and love our neighbors. This is all that God requires of us now.
You obviously don`t know anything about Bonobos...
Those jackasses wouldn`t go away, but at least we`d be able to call them out for the disgusting intolerant bigots that they are.
- Someone thinks black people shouldn`t have the same rights as the rest of us, we call them a racist bigot.
- Someone thinks women shouldn`t have the same rights as the rest of us, we call them a sexist bigot.
- Someone thinks homosexuals shouldn`t have the same rights as the rest of us, we tiptoe around them, nod sagely and say "ah, but that`s their religious belief, and we must respect that".
Yeah, there are lots of stupid people in the world, both christian and atheist. I never said otherwise.
If it`s the mentally unwell and people who need fear to be moral, I`m afraid that religion has run its course.
Any and all, I`d say that the bible is a decent book, though a boring read, and the picture just shows how un-positive the bible can be. Things that are "abominations toward God" in the book of Leviticus: Cheeseburgers, sushi, shaving, tattoos, shrimp roostertail, bunnies, wearing a poly-cotton blend, vegetable gardens, etc. Why gay marriage is an issue is beyond me.
Oh, and hey, Overman, I remember you from the JREF.
The Harm argument
The "Unnaturalness" argument
Go back to your caves heterosexist troglodytes, and stop trying to pass the buck to your god for your hatred.
Keep it up you`re an inspiration to us all.
"Christ doesn`t have to say anything about it. It`s actually quite clear. Sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex is not natural."
Don`t give me that sh*t. What the f*ck do you care about nature? The `laws` of nature as we have established them doesn`t currently point to any deity. Ah, but that`s right, you`re of the type to pick and sift through the bones of any popular ideology so long as it fits your preconceived notions of the world. Don`t f*cking pretend to give a sh*t about nature (which you don`t seem to have a clue about, anyway) when all you`re really doing is whoring it out to your bigotry. Piss off.
If more people decided to stop living for the "next" world, and began living for this one, the world would be a better place.
Yes it does. I have never denied nor hinted at denying that religious people are the only bugnuts stupid people we have on the planet. For the record, I`ve known some rather idiotic atheists.
"Why do people think that if we got rid of religion, those jackasses would go away?"
I don`t, and it won`t. People are naturally less inclined to be educated, or, more accurately, less inclined to be educated beyond what is necessary to transmit their genes. Why? Because that takes effort and energy. Abandoning religion is *necessary* for the enlightenment of the species but it is not *sufficient*. The hole we generate by religion`s removal must be filled with education and critical thinking. This might be unattainable, but that is the goal I set for my life. I happen to think it is noble.
Not only that, but those rules have been discarded, except for the one of homosexuality, which is mentioned again in 1st corinthians 6:9-10.
I agree that christians should treat homosexuals equal to heterosexuals, even based on the christian doctrine. All sins are equal, ACTING*** on homosexuality is a sin, and we are all sinners. Why do we look down on them? Who knows. But either way, the bible says what it says.The bible does not hate homosexuals, it treats acting on it as a sin, and that`s it.
Having said that, Leviticus also bans getting memorial tattoos, which christians do actually do quite often.
I`m an atheist, and I firmly believe that if more people actually read the Bible, there`d be more atheists.
Let`s assume that homosexuality does lead to poorer health. Most studies have shown that statistically gay people make good money and tend to be at least middle/ upper middle class. These tend to be the sort of people that have private health insurance and have money in case they get sick. So how is this costing you money?
In fact, what I want to know is why you bible thumpers have 300 kids that you can`t afford. If I take the average gay person and I take the average homophobic simpleton in the US, I guarantee that the gay person will be making a higher salary, not be on welfare, be paying more taxes etc. So if anything I think most gay people are wondering why they are paying taxes for idiots in Alabama who have 3 kids at 17...
PS- to all you apple addicts, I don`t really hate you, this was just an example to show Startech that he is an idiot.
Actually no it really isn`t. What you are saying is completely your own twisted logic and has nothing to do with any existing serious psychological studies or any science for that matter.
Homosexuality has not been considered a sexual deviance for years, and though it once was, science has completely recanted in the same way as it has that the earth was once flat.
Homosexuality is not a choice in the same way that liking or not liking apples is not really a choice. Having consensual gay sex is about as harmful to society as eating an apple. Being a pedophile may also not be a choice, but it is harmful to society, as is murder, rape, etc.
I`m going to use your logic and say that liking apples is not a choice, it`s a conscious decision based on what I (an apple hater) consider a perverted oral addiction. Sorry to say
It`s more of a health issue than anything but, being that these are grown adults, I`m sure they`ve considered the risk of the activity in which they`re engaging. If you know the risks and you do it anyway that is your right to do it.
I, however, also reserve the right to not be compelled by government to pay for the mistakes that were made for thinking with the wrong part of your body.
Look, it`s really simple. If I smoke though I know the risks involved, should you have to pay for my hospital bills if I develop small cell carcinoma of the lung? Should you HAVE to pay for my long-term care? No, we live in a free society with rights protected by the Constitution.
If you know the risks involved and you choose to do it anyway, then I`m willing to stay the hell out of it. Just don`t expect me to pay for your mistakes.
It is funny though, because wasn`t it just last week that some church put out a list of all the sins of various sports players, including one who had long hair, which was "against the Bible?"
It`s sad that most bible thumpers can`t differentiate between these postive themes and specific culture related passages that our society can no longer relate to.
To quote the bible to attempt to influence our current society is akin to saying that because african americans were slaves 250 years ago they should be treated with contempt today.
The fact of the matter is that the part of Leviticus or Romans that expresses homophobia is simply a reflection of the public opinion at the time and places these texts were written.
People who quote these texts are simply trying to find some explanation and justification for their own homophobia.
Homosexuality is being treated, especially by certain sects, as literally worse than any of the ten commandments.
How does this make sense with any biblical interpretation?
whilst I agree the specific example in the picture is an out of context summary, it is a poster. You can easily construct a consistent argument.
why the pick and choosing, what gives the weighting, why can we ignore one law but not another, why those laws, etc.
This is an extremely heavily debatable issue. Though there is a very loose phrasing during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) that might be interpreted in this light, many more passages point to simply an augmentation of the pre-existing laws:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."(Matthew 5:17)
If you read the Epistles, there is never a rejection of the Old Testament but rather a redefiniton of it, for example when Paul talks about the Covenant in Romans and whether or not there is a necessity of circumcision within Christianity.
Anyway I agree that many of the strict codes of the old testament were done away with or were eased under Jesus` teachings (Working on the Sabbath in Matthew 12) and subsequently through the Letters of Paul, but there was never a rejection of the teachings of the Old Testament. For example Christians still believe the 10 Commandments to be Sacrosanct.
Give the newbie a chance newbie. :P
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
This was written by Paul after visiting Greece and seeing things like Bacchanals where orgies and "sexual depravity" ran wild in the streets. I really don`t think it condemns same-sex lifestyles, just "unnatural" sexual behavior.
What he`s referring to, is the idea of Jesus "doing away with the law of Moses". Basically if you agree with Paul`s teachings, you almost certainly agree with the concept of Mosaic law abrogation.
Crudely put together, but this captures the sentiment: Link.
Whilst there are various sects of Christianity that do not hold this view, (and the link only gives one example), the majority view amongst Christians is that abrogation does occur at least in part.
Click here for the Wikipedia entry.
Incidentally, this should also answer your question Cheese. The OT is not "Obsolete" it is merely looked at through the lens of the NT.
I`m not sure that you understand christianity...I`m going to make it simple: If Christians didn`t believe in the old testament, why would there even be an old testament in the Christian bible?????
Overmann says: There is that whole Jesus-said-nothing-about-gays argument, too.
Ohthedrama says: Christ doesn`t have to say anything about it. It`s actually quite clear.
1) No it isn`t "quite clear" at all. 2) Various churches have declared homosexuality the only irredeemable sin, something not even reserved for the ten commandments, even though homosexuality is mentioned about as often (and in the same section) as not eating shellfish. 3) All those "OT laws" were done away with when Christ came, (why not homosexuality along with them?).
So far Overmann`s point thrashes Ohthedrama`s point all to hell.
However, where we differ, is this:
4) Doesn`t this show that the problem is retards, and not religion? People using religion to say something they want it to say, irrespective of what it does say.
5) Why do people think that if we got rid of religion, those jackasses would go away?
Christ doesn`t have to say anything about it. It`s actually quite clear. Sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex is not natural. There is nothing wrong in actually having "love" for someone of the same sex but once you start having "sexual" feelings we cross into terrority that goes against nature. A dick in the ass doesn`t make a kid, it just makes two guys moan.