Yehoodi.com

Frim Fram Jam, NY     Yehoodi Radio - Listen 24 hours a day! Listen 24 hours a day! Weekly updated shows     Frim Fram Jam - NYC's Lindy Hop Thursdays!    

  Everyone is gay

According to cnn.com: " Massachusetts' highest court reiterated today that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional. The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages. ".…

Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 57 58 Next > (1726 items total)

 
  • Joined 11/29/00
  • 3887
  • Post #181
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Crap, I can t believe I am posting here.

It is true the bible, Old Testament, doesn t say anything about lesbians. However, the reason for that (one of few reasons) is because there is no penetration with a sexual organ. The Jewish oral law states clearly that lesbianism (that s not a real word, is it?) is wrong. No one reason for the ban on lesbianism is the absolute one, since no absolute reason was given. (And I have never heard of your reason, shorty dave)

If you believe in bible, and that it was divinely written, then the argument stops there. If G-d said that homosexuality is wrong then there is nothing really you could do about. The wording that the bible uses is pretty clear and straightforward.

As far as mixing the wool and linen; it s one of few laws for which no reason was given, like kosher laws.

p.s.

eff and shorty dave; there is no picking and choosing with regard to bible in Christianity. They have an oral tradition that explains why certain laws no longer apply. Please be respectful of other people believes.

  • Joined 11/29/00
  • 3887
  • Post #182
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

I do, however, not agree with Dan s opinion. I believe that marriage is not a religious monopoly. I fully support gay marriages. My reasons do not differ from the ones posted by others, so I won t go trough them.

  • Joined 11/20/00
  • 16167
  • Post #183
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "Mugsy Malone"
Quoted from "c1950sboy"
Dan seems to only respond to straight people so I hereby declare him an alias!
Of course he ignores gay people, dude.

He doesn't ignore people of homosexual orientation; only people who commit homosexual acts.

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13233
  • Post #184
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Jake,

I don't remember the details, but I do remember reading in Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, that archeological evidence demonstrates that there have been only the tiniest changes in the Torah.

This is due to the painstaking and precise ritual required in copying a Torah scroll. My copy of the book is at home; when I get home I'll look up the relevent part and post in greater detail than my fuzzy memory can provide.

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

  • Joined 2/25/00
  • 13233
  • Post #185
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "RubyMae"
He doesn't ignore people of homosexual orientation; only people who commit homosexual acts.

That explains why he's ignoring me then.

We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!

  • Joined 7/25/99
  • 8826
  • Post #186
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

I wanna be the best man at Mugsy and Dallas' wedding! :lol:

  • Joined 7/22/99
  • 2622
  • Post #187
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "c1950sboy"
I wanna be the best man at Mugsy and Dallas' wedding! :lol:

well, it sure as hell won't be mugsy or dallas!

:D

(sorry, i couldn't help myself)

by the way, gay marraige = yay! closed-minded people = boo! that's all i have to say.

  • Joined 4/14/01
  • 2277
  • Post #188
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "Sublindy"
Um, some of us, take that seriously, with the interpretation of the Oral Law. I for one don't eat cheeseburgers, do not wear wool and linen together, and have my clothes checked to make sure they don't contain this combination.

Sublindy, I may disagree with you on, well, just about everything, but I do respect your efforts to follow the Law. Having had a number of practicing Jewish friends, I have some small idea how difficult that can be in modern society.

  • Joined 2/7/01
  • 13635
  • Post #189
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "mity"
The Jewish oral law states clearly that lesbianism (that s not a real word, is it?) is wrong.

No offense, but am I the only one who ironicly (and a bit perversly) chuckle when I see the words "Oral Law" and "Lesbianism" in the same sentance?

The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...

  • Joined 4/14/01
  • 2277
  • Post #190
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "SwingKid570"
No offense, but am I the only one who ironicly (and a bit perversly) chuckle when I see the words "Oral Law" and "Lesbianism" in the same sentance?

It's not just you, my inner-juvenille-delinquent piped up with a Beavis and Butthead impression, "Heh, heh, he said 'oral' heh, heh."

  • Joined 9/6/01
  • 2346
  • Post #191
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "dennisrodman"
Quoted from "Mugsy Malone"
Quoted from "Dan2513"
I believe homosexual sex acts are sinful but that it is no sin to have a homosexual orientation.
Gotcha. So it's okay to be a guy who digs on other guys, but you'd best not do anything about it! So all you poor wretches born as homosexuals...Dan thinks you're fine, as long as you live a solitary, loveless life with no pleasure. What a kindhearted man you are, Dan! Kudos!
yeah...so basically...it's ok to like/lust/fantasize/whatever for a member of the same gender...but to act upon it is a no-no?

The lust is not ok either in the Jewish faith, but it's a lesser sin than the actual act. And does that make it easy for people who are attracted to the same sex to be Torah observant Jews? No, it does not. Course there are a lot of things difficult in being a Torah observant Jew that many people find difficult--doesn't mean anyone thinks it's not worthwhile though.

  • Joined 9/6/01
  • 2346
  • Post #192
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "Miss Behave"
Wow, fun stuff! So if you base the wrongness on homosexuality based on this then there are a whole lotta other stuff you better get your panties in a wad about. No more sex with the menstruating. Gather those stones folks, your going to need them!

In Judaism, it's not just sex--it's no touching when women have their period, and for 7 days after. But 100,000s of people do it, and though such restraint may sound extreme to you, it isn't to the practioners (it might be tough sometimes. . . .) . But you may be confusing Islam with Judaism--we don't stone people to death. In earlier times that may have been a proscribed punishment, but I don't think it was used often if ever.

  • Joined 9/6/01
  • 2346
  • Post #193
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "SwingKid570"
Quoted from "Sublindy"
Um, some of us, take that seriously, with the interpretation of the Oral Law. I for one don't eat cheeseburgers, do not wear wool and linen together, and have my clothes checked to make sure they don't contain this combination. Not sure where you get that other stuff.
Just wondering. What's the reasoning for not mixing fabrics?

There are a group of laws in the Torah, called "chukim" for which there is no reason given. The prohibition of Shatnez (mixing wool and linen) is one; the kosher laws are another (contrary to popular belief, they are not health related). Contrast that with laws against murder, or monetary damages--those are easily understandable, and explainable to man.

  • Joined 9/6/01
  • 2346
  • Post #194
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "Jake"
In addition to the questions Dave (and others) brought up, I'm also curious, just how many revisions and translations has the Bible gone through since first inscribed?

Judaism says that the Jewish, Hebrew, handwritten Torahs that we read in synagogue have never changed from when Moses wrote it. There have been numerous translations into English, and I'm sure other languages, and these change each time.

  • Joined 8/25/02
  • 4633
  • Post #195
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Aaaaand there goes the conversation.

-- M

  • Joined 9/23/99
  • 22695
  • Post #196
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

"Massachusetts' highest court reiterated today that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional. The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages."

Whadda ya mean?

-Eff

  • Joined 12/31/69
  • 2788
  • Post #197
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

I was also under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, gently please, that we know the Torah's original form has never been edited to a significant degree is because it was an oral tradition long before it was ever written down. Meaning, that so many people had it memorized that if someone came along and tried to change it, everyone else immediately would know and correct him. The Torah has never had a monastic tradition associated with it, and was therefore never sequestered away and edited for political reasons.

  • Joined 11/20/00
  • 16167
  • Post #198
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Which is all fine and dandy but can we please start a new thread for Hebrew school.

The topic of this thread is gay marriage. I think those of us participating in that discussion would prefer not to have so many detours.

Back to the topic:

Dan, I don't believe you have told us if you would have a problem with government (at any level) granting the same rights to people in lifetime gay unions that government (at any level) confers upon married couples.

  • Joined 7/25/99
  • 8826
  • Post #199
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Which reminds me if we're gonna stay on topic, we'd have to STOP responding to Dan.

--c50s...packing for my move to Massachusetts!

mrz mrz
  • Joined 6/7/01
  • 2772
  • Post #200
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Dan was asked:

Quote
-What religion are you? -Do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior?

To which Dan replied:

Quote
1. Christian. I don't agree 100 with any particular denomination. 2. Yes.

To which the following was replied:

Quote
4. Since you "try" to live life in accordance with the bible, do you: 4a: Ever (romantically) kiss someone even though you're not married to that person? 4b: Eat cheeseburgers? Shellfish? 4c: Wear clothing that's made from two different pieces of fabric? 5. Do you think all NFL football players will go to Hell because they are touching the carcass of a dead pig? 6. Is it ok to stone someone to death if the penalty they committ calls for it? (it's late and I don't remember the penalties off the top of my head, although I'm pretty sure it's adultery)

This line of argument makes no sense in light of the fact that Dan said he was Christian. Questioning him about shellfish consumption makes no sense because it is Old Testament Law. Christians believe they are not bound by the "ceremonial" laws spelled out in the Torah because they believe Christ is the fulfillment of that law. Additionally, Paul had a great deal to say about it not being necessary for gentile Christians to follow dietary laws or to be circumcised.

More well read Christians who have problems with gays base their ideas on Romans where Paul mentioned gentile behavior that shouldn't be condoned. Amongst that behavior is homosexual sex between men, and lesbian relationships.

If you are going to argue with a Christian about homosexual marriage, you might want to read up on this and argue with them on issues relevant to their/your faith.

Can we please never see this argument ever again? Please?

As for the topic at hand... Since the government has to be "religion blind", from the government's point of view marriage is really just about contract arbitration and granting benefits to people who raise new citizens. Since homosexuals are citizens, can enter into contracts, and can bear and/or raise children, I don't see why the government should go out of its way to stop them from getting married and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.

Religious objections are a red-herring. You can argue whether gays should be able to marry in the religion you subscribe to but that really should have no impact on the secular government and vice-a-versa.

  • Joined 11/20/00
  • 16167
  • Post #201
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Yes, but when we phrase the issue in those terms, Dan justs ignores us and doesn't address our queries.

We only get his attention if we're thumping a bible (be it old or new testament, regardless of edition)

mrz mrz
  • Joined 6/7/01
  • 2772
  • Post #202
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "c1950sboy"
--c50s...packing for my move to Massachusetts!

I wouldn't be so hasty. The Massachusetts legislature has a nasty habit of ignoring the courts.

It already sounds like the legislature is ready to do everything it can to stymie gay marriage licenses for the 6 months it will take to put up a ballot initiative. The ballot initiative ammendment is probably going to be phrased along the lines of: "If you don't want to kill puppies, and you want to ammend the state constitution to declare marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and you really, really don't want to kill young, innocent, sweet, puppies, vote yes here ----&gt; []" :-?

Besides, if this is something you want you should work in your own state to affect change. It's still a democracy. Even if an ammendment is passed, ammendments can be repealed. Look at the 18th/21st ammendments.

mrz mrz
  • Joined 6/7/01
  • 2772
  • Post #203
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "RubyMae"
Yes, but when we phrase the issue in those terms, Dan justs ignores us and doesn't address our queries. We only get his attention if we're thumping a bible (be it old or new testament, regardless of edition)

Then that's his problem :)

  • Joined 10/5/99
  • 1770
  • Post #204
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Ok, Ok, I plead guilty. I'm sorry for causing this past tangent. I have a lot more to say, but I don't know what got into me bringing up the bible, so I'll quite down...Silly Shorty Dave...

Back to the conversation...

I agree wholeheartedly with Jodie:

gay marriage = yay! close-minded people = boo!

And straight Shorty Dave is still gonna kiss as many guys as he can ;)

And while we're at it, did you all hear about the gay midget? Yeah, he came out of the cupboard (sorry, sorry...)

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #205
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "FoolsRun"
My point is this. If no establishment, public or private were required to acknowledge the commitment of a couple to share their lives and finances, then The People would find themselves relocating based on whether or not the local government, or their employer, gives them benefits based on their union.

That's actually a great argument for allowing local governments and employers discretion. If people don't like it, they can vote with their feet. That is what is so great about states' rights. They can experiment and see what people like. If you don't like what your state is doing, you can move next door. So likeminded people can live in the same area rather than forcing the same laws on everyone. If this means that good people are leaving a state because of these laws, then that's their loss.

Quoted from "FoolsRun"
If this came to pass, what would be the point of having a United States if all men were not necessarily equal depending on where they lived?

This has nothing to do with men not being equal.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #206
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
Stop posting. If you don't have a position to advocate, don't waste our time trying to convince us of your non-existant position, especially if the only thing you're going to say is that we're missing your point, and when we ask you what your point is, you say you don't really have one. If you don't have a formulated position, why are you spending so much time arguing with people in this thread?

LOL! Others are complaining because I DON'T respond to their posts. Now you're complaining because I DO. Which is it?

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #207
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
But his position is NOT a commonly held one. The commonly held one is the person who is moderately religious, who doesn't hate gays, who doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, who believes in Social Security, but still has problems with the idea of gay marriage. Being anti-gay marriage is not the realm of the hateful Bible thumper. There are plenty of decent people who have problems with it, and it is THOSE people who will sway policy, not the fundamentalist fringe.

You forgot that I also club baby seals for fun, sell rat milk to school cafeterias and burn styrofoam in an effort to cause more global warming.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #208
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Yes, this has already gone WAY off topic, but just to correct the falsehoods being put forth, the Bible DOES talk about female homosexuality.

In the first chapter of Romans, "Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either--women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men--all lust, no love."

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #209
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)
Quoted from "RubyMae"
Dan, I don't believe you have told us if you would have a problem with government (at any level) granting the same rights to people in lifetime gay unions that government (at any level) confers upon married couples.

I am certainly willing to entertain the notion, provided that the list of these entitlements (not natural rights) is reduced. But on the contrary, it seems that government is more interested these days in inventing new rights, such as a supposed right to have someone else pay for your health care. Reducing the number of these entitlements should be the priority consideration before we worry about making sure everyone receives them.

If we are just talking about placing whomever you want in your will and allowing whomever you want to visit you in the hospital, I have no objection to these being implemented immediately.

  • Joined 7/20/03
  • 4033
  • Post #210
  • Originally posted Monday, February 9, 2004 (Over 10 years ago)

Mr. Z is right. I'm not even going to bother to respond to these arguments about why Christians don't follow all of the theocratic ceremonial laws of Leviticus. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Christianity knows why. Even asking the question in this format shows that one hasn't bothered to understand it.

And that's right, RubyMae, everyone who disagrees with you is a Bible-thumper since you can't seem to think outside of that box. Just keep on believing that.

Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 57 58 Next > (1726 items total)