I want one good reason that being gay is ok

Really? That's good to know. Guess I can dust off ol' Smokey McPipe now.

You can do that, but it is still not the original language that it is written in. I think even if you did learn the original language, it still wouldn't be enough, because they had a lot of different ways of expressing themselves back then, based on the society of the times.I believe the word of God is in the bible, NIV and KJV.There are some versions with some translations that I do not agree with, but thats just me. Maybe it has to be that way for others to recieve the word, or maybe its the devil trying to make people like rhain hate the bible for all its inaccuracies. What do I know, I am just a servant.

Comitting suicide IS illegal, don't believe everything you hear.
It has to be, to deny the rights of benificiaries of insurance policies.

It doesn't always, though. Any why should it? Suicide is generally indicative of a mental disorder. Why wouldn't you recieve survivorship benefits if the death was caused by a physiological condition?The reason that we try to stop people from commiting suicide is that, in most cases, the person has a mental disorder and therefore, can't consent to suicide.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Stop taking things out of context to make yourself appear smart.

---

Where have I taken anything out of context?You're the one that brought up suicide, making bombs, murder, theft, rape, etc., etc. How can you possibly claim that you weren't trying to display a connection between gays and those who kill themselves, make bombs, murder, steal, or rape?If there weren't any connection, [I][B]YOU[/i][/b] wouldn't have brought them up. Since [I][B]YOU[/i][/b] brought them up, [I][B]YOU[/i][/b] think something about being gay is equivalent to those things and since we don't allow those things, we shouldn't allow homosexuality.

quote:

---

You cannot say it doesn't hurt anyone so its ok.

---

I most certainly can. After all, the only reason to stop somebody from doing something is because it causes harm.If it doesn't cause anybody any harm, what possible reason could there be to be against it?

quote:

---

There are lots of things that don't hurt anyone, but they are illegal, and not accepted by todays society.

---

That doesn't mean they're right.Did it never occur to you that the legal system might be mistaken? Up until last year, it was perfectly legal for the law to criminalize gay sex. Does that mean it was right to do so?Of course not. There is no possible justification for the criminalization of same-sex sexual activity. It doesn't matter how often people have done it. It is simply wrong.For someone who argues so passionately against moral relativism, it's amazing how quick you jump to its defense when it suits you.

quote:

---

When you re-word my statements

---

Liar.Show me once where I have reworded anything you have ever written. Since I quote you verbatim, how could I possibly be changing your words? I want chapter and verse. Show me the precise post where I reworded a direct quote of yours.

quote:

---

And it wasn't my analogy.

---

Yes, it was.Nobody mentioned suicide until you brought it up.

quote:

---

You see someone said to me, its ok because it doesn't hurt anyone.
I said commiting suicide doesn't hurt anyone either.

---

But your point was that committing suicide does hurt someone.Ergo, homosexuality does hurt someone.Ergo, we should disapprove of homosexuality just as we disapprove of suicide.Ergo, homosexuality and suicide have something in common.What on earth made you think that suicide was the best example to compare to homosexuality?

quote:

---

No rhain here has to say that I am comparing suicide to being gay.

---

Because you are.Nobody mentioned suicide until you did.Why did you think to mention suicide in a discussion about homosexuality?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then why have you never used one?

---

​

Because I am asking you, duh!

---

But you're the one making the comparisons!Therefore, it is your responsibility to come up with the comparative.So why is it that you have never, ever compared gay people to loving, mutually caring, respectful people? Why is it that the only comparatives you have ever made are things like murderers, rapists, and thieves?

quote:

---

Which you fail to answer.

---

Um, I'm the one who keeps referring to gay people as loving, mutually-caring, respectful people. How is that not a comparison to loving, mutually-caring, respectful people?

quote:

---

Come on oh great one, you got an answer don't you?

---

I've told you at least three times. Weren't you paying attention?It's the right thing to do.What more do you need?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's what people who are in love do.

​

Aren't we all in favor of people falling in love, being in love, finding someone who loves them back? How could anybody be against them expressing their love for each other through pleasure?

---

​

eeeeeehhhhhhh, almost, but not quite.

---

You mean people in love don't express their love physically through the act of sex?

quote:

---

Many people have gay sex , and straight sex who are not in Love.

---

So now gay people don't love?You don't seem to be criticizing straight sex because of the existence of individuals who engage in mixed-sex sex without loving each other. Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about same-sex sex, then?Are you incapable of comparing gay people to loving, mutually-caring, respectful people?If two people are in love, wouldn't we be happy that they had a pleasurable sex life with each other?So why do we care if they're of the same sex rather than of opposite sex?No, you have to assume that gay people are all about lust, all about rubbing genitals for a brief, pathetic orgasmic rush, absolutely no emotion involved at all.Is there no negative stereotype you won't use to compare to gay people?Try looking at it from the other way: Why would you stop a loving couple from having sex?

quote:

---

I Love my dog too, but I don't get anal from him.

---

So now gay people are like those who have sex with animals?

quote:

---

I am not comparing gays with dogs.

---

No, you're comparing gays with those who would have sex with dogs.Is there no negative stereotype you won't use to compare to gay people?Are you physically incapable of referring to gay people as loving, mutually-caring and respectful people?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What????????????????????????????????????????????????Have you even read an insurance policy? Where did you get the idea that suicide voids a policy? The closest you can get to that is that most life insurance policies will have a time limit that says suicide within the first six months or year voids the policy. But that is based on fraud and no other reason.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Animals also rape steal and murder. All natural things.

---

And again, you miss the point.Yes, those things are perfectly natural.That doesn't make them moral. Those of us who don't have a problem with homosexuality do not bring up the fact that it is natural to show that it is good. Instead, we do it as a counter to those who think that natural is equivalent to good. You've seen them: If god had wanted gay sex, then animals would do it because animals wouldn't do anything sinful.Well, animals do engage in homosexuality. All the time. Without any interference from a human.Do you not see the point? It isn't that we are saying, "It happens in nature, therefore it is good." We are directly responding to those who make that claim.

quote:

---

Should we then allow raping, stealing and murdering based on the fact that animals do it and it is natural?

---

No, because as I directly said in my post...and you did read my post, didn't you?...just because something is natural doesn't make it moral, right, or just.Hmmm...let's take a look at what I said in that post you responded to, shall we? Hmmm...how much more direct can you get? "Nobody is arguing that we should define morality based upon the behaviour of anything else." How can that possibly be interpreted to mean that we should define morality based upon the natural actions of other animals?

quote:

---

No, that is why if animals have gay sex, it is not a good reason either.
We are different than animals.

---

Animals breathe, too.Should we stop people from breathing so that we can be different from them?Oh, there's another reason to be fully accepting of gay sex: Trying to stop it leads to mental illness in those who are gay. Being anything except absolutely accepting of homosexuality is actually harmful to people.But, that is enveloped in the reason that I've been repeating to you for quite a number of posts:It's the right thing to do.What more do you need?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Can you answer the questions posed in Message 3 and Message 77?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because it's the right thing to do.

---

​

Thats it? Thats the best you got?
The great mighty rhain god came up with , because its the right thing to do?

---

You need more?You need more reason to do the right thing other than it is the right thing?What possible justification could there be that would be sufficient for you if "It's the right thing to do" is insufficient?I get the feeling that the only thing that would suit you would be for god to come down and directly tell you, "It's ok. I don't have a problem with it."

quote:

---

Who says its right? You? Well I say its wrong. Tit for tat.

---

Strange...that's the argument I've been giving to you. You say it's wrong. Why should anybody believe you?If it's insufficient when I do it to you, why is it sufficient when you do it to me?Tell us: What would it take? What would be a sufficient reason for you to say it was ok?God? God tends not to say anything where anybody can hear. Besides, there are plenty of people who claim to speak for god (many of them Christian) who say that god doesn't have any problem with homosexuality.Why should we believe your insistence that god does?

quote:

---

You know how many people died after that same statement was spoken?

---

Yep...a great many of them were gay.So if stupidly killing someone is indicative that the foundational justification for the act of murder is invalid, that would seem to be a justification for approval of homosexuality:Gay people don't go around killing straight people because they're straight.Straight people, on the other hand, do go around killing people because they're gay.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

do what, learn hebrew? especially ancient hebrew (i should have been more clear there...)that is the language it was written in, at least torah and tanakh. i do not believe the bible to be the inerrent word of god.did you know that the apostle paul wrote that the only way a woman can be saved is by child-brith? it's in first timothy chapter two. and it's not the translation, i checked the original greek on this one, because i couldn't believe it. the translation actually tones it down.paul literally says, in greek, that women should shut up and stay at home (with the connotation of doing housework) and that they can only be saved by giving birth.is that the word of god?

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us

---

​

"Us" being the trinity. The three who are one true God.

---

Which only goes to prove my point:Humans are as the one true god. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and that's it. They were as gods. The actual god, big "g."So yes, god directly states that humans are gods.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We are as gods.

---

​

Your quote of the NIV from my quote.

---

Incorrect. I was not quoting the NIV. I was quoting the Bible. As I pointed out, the NIV's phrasing is not in contradiction to the actual biblical passage:

quote:

---

and you will be like God

---

How is that not equivalent to "you will be as gods"?

quote:

---

The actual quote from my quote of the NIV.

---

I don't deny it.But it means the same thing as what the Bible actually says:Adam and Eve achieved the same level as god. The only thing that separated the two was immortality. And in a panic, god kicks them out of Eden before they have a chance to eat from the tree of life and attain it.

quote:

---

Whats wrong with this picture?

---

Your ability to read for content?

quote:

---

I think you are not worthy of my time.

---

Then why do you spend so much time on me? You made this complaint in the last thread. Haven't you learned anything?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Or maybe its just corrected in the same way that science keeps correcting itself for thousands of years.

---

Um, if the original text says one thing and your "translation" says the opposite, then it isn't a "correction" but rather a "revision."

quote:

---

But I still Love him. Can we have sex now?

---

What kind of sex were you interested in? You going to take me up on that experiment I suggested of counting the number of times you would need to fellate me before you grew to like it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

lmao. that has to be the best phrasing i've ever heard of "suck my dick!"This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-03-2004 01:13 AM

Rrhain, you seriously need to lighten up a little. IT WAS A JOKE!! Geez, not everything has to be encompassed by logic. Especially some things I say; by now you ought to have figured that out.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

Arachnophilia:

quote:

---

that has to be the best phrasing i've ever heard of "suck my dick!"

---

Well, I didn't want to be crass about it.And the other reason was to point out that if riVeRraT were to proposition me for sexual activity, he wouldn't necessarily get to be the top. Since he says that a person could grow to like it, then let's see how that works. No need to go to the "scary" anal sex...we'll just do the simple oral...with him giving the oral. And since he's the one claiming that it's possible to grow to like it, the test continues until he grows to like it, not me.