Defending the Truth
Articles | Interviews | Politicians | Groups | Arcade | Experience | Donate
  Defending the Truth > Political Issues > Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage Debate and defend your political beliefs as to whether or not marriage should be only defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-24-2007, 07:00 AM   #141 (permalink)
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,797
Country:
Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Level up: 63%, 111 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 25%
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
Grace is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Romans 1:25-27 (Young's Literal Translation)

Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Public Domain




25who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; 27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
Sponsored Links
Old 11-24-2007, 07:01 AM   #142 (permalink)
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,797
Country:
Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Level up: 63%, 111 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 25%
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
Grace is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Romans 1:25-27 (Darby Translation)

Darby Translation (DARBY) Public Domain



25who changed the truth of God into falsehood, and honoured and served the creature more than him who had created [it], who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature; 27and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit.
Old 11-24-2007, 07:03 AM   #143 (permalink)
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,797
Country:
Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Level up: 63%, 111 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 25%
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
Grace is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Romans 1:25-27 (New Life Version)

New Life Version (NLV) Copyright © 1969 by Christian Literature International



25 They traded the truth of God for a lie. They worshiped and cared for what God made instead of worshiping the God Who made it. He is the One Who is to receive honor and thanks forever. Let it be so. 26 Because of this, God let them follow their sinful desires which lead to shame. Women used their bodies in ways God had not planned. 27 In the same way, men left the right use of women's bodies. They did sex sins with other men. They received for themselves the punishment that was coming to them for their sin.
Old 11-24-2007, 07:04 AM   #144 (permalink)
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,797
Country:
Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Level up: 63%, 111 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 25%
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
Grace is offline
Reply With Quote
 
There trist, 10 different versions that say the exact same thing. I guess all these wrong too hu?
Old 11-24-2007, 10:12 AM   #145 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,033
Country:
Points: 51,378, Level: 100
Points: 51,378, Level: 100 Points: 51,378, Level: 100 Points: 51,378, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 95%
Activity: 95% Activity: 95% Activity: 95%
Send a message via Yahoo to tristanrobin
tristanrobin is online now
Reply With Quote
 
The Bible was not written in English -- not even "King James English"! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read is not the original text, but other people's translations of the Bible. But why are there so many different English translations of the Bible? And why can't churches or scholars agree on just one translation?
  • No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
  • The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
  • Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
  • The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning.
  • Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
  • Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
  • All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
  • Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.
Thus, no translation is "perfect" (none of them can be completely "literal" or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no "best" translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks). In general, however, the most recent translations (1980's or 1990's) are better than the older ones (esp. the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, both about 400 years old), not only since the English language has changed significantly over the centuries, but more importantly because of the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in the last 50 to 150 years which are much older (and thus closer to the originals) than the manuscripts that were available to the translators of previous centuries.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Conservatism: Self-centered mean-spiritedness fueled by ignorance and misguided self-importance.

Bigotry is a social disease.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. - David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of "The Future of Marriage."
Old 11-24-2007, 11:06 AM   #146 (permalink)
SIMPLETON
Premium Member
 
fxashun's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my skin
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,919
Country:
Points: 25,648, Level: 96
Points: 25,648, Level: 96 Points: 25,648, Level: 96 Points: 25,648, Level: 96
Level up: 30%, 702 Points needed
Level up: 30% Level up: 30% Level up: 30%
Activity: 18%
Activity: 18% Activity: 18% Activity: 18%
fxashun is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katczinsky View Post
You've actually offered no such thing, but it is your habit to be ignorant of the substance of the debate (either that or consistently lie and insult, which you feel so liberally when labeling others unsubstantially).

What are you talking about I have offered nothing? I have clearly asked you for a biologic basis that separates homosexuality from pedo and zoo. You have not done anything but offer the admitted man made "consent" construct which has been broken in this country and many others. There is NO "natural" concept which can do that. Biology doesn't care about "consent". It's all instinct. And just as a dog will hump your leg or a stuffed toy, so will a human if he can't control himself.

Sooner or later we come to the point where we determine that we are humans with the intelligence to look at other humans doing the equivalent of humping each others leg and deeming them "normal" or "abnormal". You seem to want to think that a person that has the instinct to partner driving them in a direction that mandates them figuratively, and in some cases literally, humping each others leg is "normal". I don't.

That my good sir is what I offer. When you can counter that with something from a "publication" or from your own lying weakly philosophical mind holla at ya boy.

You insist on calling me a liar without pointing out any lies, making YOURSELF a liar. Liar.



But now that you're specifically showing interest in me listing some publications, I should leave the debate over to Doris Y. Wilkinson who wrote an article that I recommend as a good starting point. Read "Sexual Identity: Western Imperialism?" to dispel some outright fallacious misconceptions that you hold.

If I wanted to read a book, I would. Just give a synopsis or a link to a blog that discusses it. I'd be willing to bet though that it's another justification of homosexuality by starting at the abnormality and working backward. That's just another rationalization. Why don't we take a baby born with cleft palate and just say that makes it easier for it to whistle or some bullshit like that?


Once you're cured of your ignorance and no longer have an interest in mindless unsubstantiated ad hominem, perhaps then I will continue on the debate of gay marriage.
So far you have shown yourself to be the ignorant one. So if you'd want to START debating. I again say...holla at me. You have again managed to craft a post that gave not one damn iota of information about the subject at hand.
But you have AGAIN given many little jabs at "me". How cute.

Gday sir.

Last edited by fxashun; 11-24-2007 at 12:28 PM.
Old 11-24-2007, 11:25 AM   #147 (permalink)
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,797
Country:
Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Level up: 63%, 111 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 25%
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
Grace is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
The Bible was not written in English -- not even "King James English"! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read is not the original text, but other people's translations of the Bible. But why are there so many different English translations of the Bible? And why can't churches or scholars agree on just one translation?
  • No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
  • The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
  • Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
  • The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning.
  • Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
  • Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
  • All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
  • Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.
Thus, no translation is "perfect" (none of them can be completely "literal" or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no "best" translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks). In general, however, the most recent translations (1980's or 1990's) are better than the older ones (esp. the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, both about 400 years old), not only since the English language has changed significantly over the centuries, but more importantly because of the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in the last 50 to 150 years which are much older (and thus closer to the originals) than the manuscripts that were available to the translators of previous centuries.


Ah, going with the, the whole bible is a big translation lie hu? Why didnt you just say you dont believe a word written in it? And just admit that you arent a Christian at all. If you dont base any of your beliefs on the bible, how is it that you can call yourself a Christian? According to you, you dont even know a single word he ever spoke.
Old 11-24-2007, 11:26 AM   #148 (permalink)
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,797
Country:
Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Level up: 63%, 111 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 25%
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
Grace is offline
Reply With Quote
 
BTW where did you copy that from?? I hate anyone who believes in the bible. com?
Old 11-24-2007, 11:51 AM   #149 (permalink)
Council Member
 
KnightOfSappho's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NY
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,357
Country:
Points: 4,566, Level: 43
Points: 4,566, Level: 43 Points: 4,566, Level: 43 Points: 4,566, Level: 43
Level up: 8%, 184 Points needed
Level up: 8% Level up: 8% Level up: 8%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
KnightOfSappho is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace View Post
Yea, you better read it again, I dont see the word "use" anywhere.
Quote:
Romans 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain


25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And 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 of their error which was meet.
BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Romans 1:25-27


Just an FYI... I will almost never reference Bible versions that are newer than the KJV.

Last edited by KnightOfSappho; 11-24-2007 at 11:55 AM.
Old 11-24-2007, 11:59 AM   #150 (permalink)
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,797
Country:
Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64 Points: 9,239, Level: 64
Level up: 63%, 111 Points needed
Level up: 63% Level up: 63% Level up: 63%
Activity: 25%
Activity: 25% Activity: 25% Activity: 25%
Grace is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho View Post
BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Romans 1:25-27


Just an FYI... I will almost never reference Bible versions that are newer than the KJV.

Sorry Knight, but its been told to me, by nearly everyone here, that the king James Cannot be used under any circumstance, for it is the most flawed in translation.

Even still, looking at it, it still says the exact same thing the others are saying.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 PM.


 Top Political Sites
Poltical Topsites