There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.
As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.
Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?
Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.
Moderator: Moderators
-
99percentatheism
- Banned
- Posts: 3083
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am
Post #1031
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
2 Tim 2:15
Post #1032
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
2 Tim 2:15
Post #1033
Pseudocopulation describes behaviors similar to copulation that serve a reproductive function for one or both participants but do not involve actual sexual union between the individuals. The use of 'pseudo' in this compound word, should clearly indicate it is not ACTUAL copulation. Hence it is NOT a homosexual activity. HOMO relates to humans. Don't really see how this is so hard to comprehend?McCulloch wrote: Certain species of these lizards have all-female or nearly all-female populations. This is a huge difference from being asexual as implied. Their pseudocopulation behavior is clearly a homosexual activity.
Last edited by Stan on Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
2 Tim 2:15
Post #1034
[Replying to post 1028 by Clownboat]
Sorry but that is NOT factual. Avoidance does NOT deal with the issue.
The fact is HOMO is relating to man, NOT animals and whatever animal behavior is cannot be construed as HOMO sexual in nature despite the prevarication.
Read my response to McCulloch.
Sorry but that is NOT factual. Avoidance does NOT deal with the issue.
The fact is HOMO is relating to man, NOT animals and whatever animal behavior is cannot be construed as HOMO sexual in nature despite the prevarication.
Read my response to McCulloch.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
2 Tim 2:15
-
Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1228 times
- Been thanked: 1621 times
Post #1035
Really Stan... really?Stan wrote: [Replying to post 1028 by Clownboat]
Sorry but that is NOT factual. Avoidance does NOT deal with the issue.
The fact is HOMO is relating to man, NOT animals and whatever animal behavior is cannot be construed as HOMO sexual in nature despite the prevarication.
Read my response to McCulloch.
What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?
Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.
First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.
When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
Post #1036
It's not surprising that neither Stan nor 99percentatheism have responded to my post #1004. Since both appear to be obsessed with the sexual aspect of gay marriage, however, I ask a simple question for either or both. While God would have designed sex for procreation and made it pleasurable to ensure that people DO procreate, recreational sex, i.e. sex for pleasure, is the norm today for straight married people. Note: sex for pleasure and for no other reason. Neither Stan nor 99percentatheism appear to have a problem with non-procreation intimacy for straight people. But, they would prohibit the very same non-procreation intimacy for gay married people.
Why?
BTW, if the above question is too difficult for you to answer/if my post #1004 is equally too difficult for either of you to offer a response would you just say so? Thanks.
Why?
BTW, if the above question is too difficult for you to answer/if my post #1004 is equally too difficult for either of you to offer a response would you just say so? Thanks.
Post #1037
Yes Clownboat, REALLY.Clownboat wrote:
Really Stan... really?
What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?
Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.
First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.
When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?
Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.
"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)
I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15
2 Tim 2:15
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1038
Not true again Stan. You have put users who are too clever for you on 'ignore.' Pretty soon you will have the entire membership on 'ignore.'Stan wrote:Yes Clownboat, REALLY.Clownboat wrote:
Really Stan... really?
What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?
Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.
First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.
When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?
Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.
"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)
I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #1039
[Replying to post 1035 by Stan]
Stan, consider:
Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... omosexuals
and...
When compared to those with more favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, these studies have found that persons with negative attitudes:
....
are likely to be older and less well educated....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rview.html
Stan, consider:
Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... omosexuals
and...
When compared to those with more favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, these studies have found that persons with negative attitudes:
....
are likely to be older and less well educated....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rview.html
Post #1040
Plus, when coupled with religious piety ...likely to be obnoxious . . .?Danmark wrote: [Replying to post 1035 by Stan]
Stan, consider:
Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... omosexuals
and...
When compared to those with more favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, these studies have found that persons with negative attitudes:
....
are likely to be older and less well educated....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rview.html
Just asking . . .
