LetsSingIt databáze internetových textů
cs
0

homosexuals gain favor in Iowa

Následovat 0
Sdílet
Přidat téma
Vyhledávání
WH1
0
WH1 | 31-08-2007 11:56
An Iowa district court judge ruled against
the natural laws of nature and ok'ed lesbians
and homosexuals to dysfunctionally marry in
that now Sodom and Gomorrah state.

title of this thread has been changed -- PF
51 do 75 z 190 reakce
strana 3 z 8
Dagor
0
Dagor | 12-10-2007 18:48
no, we don't have an equivalent word for that at all.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 18:50
[i]I can tell you what fornication means in English. It means sex before marriage. So if you're unmarried and you have sex with someone else who isn't married, then it's fornication. If one of the two parties is married, it is adultery.

You have to look at the way Paul uses it. It means both. It covers a load of sexual sins. (sex before marriage, homosexuality, ect...)
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 18:53
Fornication isn't really that common in English either, I only know it because it was presented in the material we've covered in our religion course. My question about the root of fornication was hypothetical because I already know the answer. The word comes from the Latin word "fornicationis". It means "from the archway." And in Rome (which was around where Paul was situated when he wrote those letters Will quoted) the word was used as a nice term for "prostitute" because prostitutes typically waited underneath an arch for customers.

So the biggest stretch you could take with this is that fornication refers to prostitution in general, POSSIBLY homosexual in nature but again this is prostitution, not a consenting, loving, adult relationship.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 18:53
Although superman has a point...you don't need to have sex with a woman/man in order to know your sexual orientation.

For once I agree with you on something. (we're making progress to being frienemies. It's a word my friend coined because we're friends, but we always debate stuff like this, so she calls us frienemies. IDK I thought that was random, but I wanted to show that even though I disagree with a lot of what anyone says on here, I do respect ya'll.)
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 18:55
* offtopic :
Actually I don't really think you're that bad. I do disagree with you and I think you're a little uninformed but I do think you mean well. And I think if we spoke about other things besides the way to present the Gospel and homosexuality you'd find we agree on the same things. Probably for different reasons, though the same thing anyway. And I respect your opinion a little more than WH1 because he's just spiteful.
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 18:58
I think rather than fornication as describing sexual immorality in general, you're thinking of "porneia." Which is where the word pornography comes from, but I'm sure most people figured that out. It covers most sexual sins but the problem is whether or not homosexuality can be included in that. Most readings in the Bible would not suggest that. It's possible. But I don't think homosexuality counts unless it is in the same context as a heterosexual sin (so using the prostitutes in worship, etc)
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 19:02
So the biggest stretch you could take with this is that fornication refers to prostitution in general, POSSIBLY homosexual in nature but again this is prostitution, not a consenting, loving, adult relationship.

Well I have to say I dissagree. God created marriage, and sex for a man and a women. Paul addresses it somewhere I will look it up and check, and let you know.
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 19:03
Also, I noticed you're using the KJV version of the Bible. The translations in that Bible are...not wrong, but I would say translated in such a way that the writers were able to include some bias, especially against homosexuality in it. Again, they didn't CHANGE any words, they phrased it differently however to target homosexuality. I had the KJV of the bible for a long time because that's one of the more popular ones, which is why it was important for me to look at the original words. You have to, because they're translations are a little awry and I question it a little.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 19:05
Also, I noticed you're using the KJV version of the Bible. The translations in that Bible are...not wrong, but I would say translated in such a way that the writers were able to include some bias, especially against homosexuality in it. Again, they didn't CHANGE any words, they phrased it differently however to target homosexuality. I had the KJV of the bible for a long time because that's one of the more popular ones, which is why it was important for me to look at the original words. You have to, because they're translations are a little awry and I question it a little.

Well it's NKJV just to be precise, but I think I know what translation to look it up in so give me a sec
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 19:06
All I can think of is Corinthians 7:2-4 and Ephesians 5:25, 32-33. And he did say that there was a place for the man and a woman in the marriage (and at the time, that was suiting for society), but he did not specifically say that marriage was meant ONLY for men and woman. At least if those are the ones you mean.
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 19:11
Plus in those two, you have to remember that homosexual relationships in a loving and monogamous context were not very common at all in that time, because there was "womans work" and "mans work." The "man" in the family would work with the men and the "woman" in the family with the women. So they couldn't have gay relationships because there'd end up being a male amongst the females. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just that that's the way they thought at the time. So when men wanted their homosexual desires fulfilled they'd use a male prostitute, and I suppose the same applies for lesbians. But less frequently since sexually active females outside of their marriage could be stoned, but not necessarily a man.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 19:13
Romans 1:26 (the Message)
Worse followed. 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. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

1 Corinthians 7:2 (the Message)
Certainly—but only within a certain context. It's good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to "stand up for your rights." Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it's for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.

The Reason I did this one is too show that a marriage is for a man and woman (together)

Below I have listed the verses in the NKJV as well as the NIV, so that we have a viriaty of verses
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 19:18
For the Corinthians one, yes, but again it doesn't exclude a loving homosexual relationship. It is good for a straight woman to have a husband and for a straight man to have a husband because they have a strong marriage where they can satisfy each other and love each other, but who is to say that a homosexual marriage couldn't hold the same strength? Again we're assuming that homosexuality is wrong when quoting that passage, it does nothing to prove it is wrong in itself.

And for the Romans one this is referring to the orgies people would have as a means of worship. EVERYONE would have sex with everyone. Normally straight woman would have sex with other women, they'd have sex with their brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, as a means of beckoning the fertility god. Normally straight men would have sex with other men. So they're going against their nature, they're not doing it because they have a strong emotional attraction to other men, they're just doing it because they're ridiculously horny and think it would be kinky. Not because they're genuinly attracted to the opposite sex, since attraction is much more than physical. The orgies are purely of a physical nature and absolutely no love is involved, that is why it is wrong.
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 19:19
*not because they're genuinely attracted to the same sex.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 19:19
Please forgive my blunder of not including the entire reference of 1 Corinthians 7:2-6 above, as well as Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 7:2-6 (NKJV)
Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.

Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 19:21
Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 7:2-6 (NIV)
2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command.

KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 19:22
Okay let me refer as well to the first part of that then. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

This again doesn't explicitly exclude homosexual relationships. What's happening here is everyone is having sex with whoever they want, many people, this could refer to orgies or prostitution (sexual immorality). This isn't promoting heterosexuality, it is promoting monogamy.

* offtopic :
I wish my test was on this rather than on Judaism. Off I go.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 19:24
And for the Romans one this is referring to the orgies people would have as a means of worship. EVERYONE would have sex with everyone. Normally straight woman would have sex with other women, they'd have sex with their brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, as a means of beckoning the fertility god. Normally straight men would have sex with other men. So they're going against their nature, they're not doing it because they have a strong emotional attraction to other men, they're just doing it because they're ridiculously horny and think it would be kinky. Not because they're genuinly attracted to the opposite sex, since attraction is much more than physical. The orgies are purely of a physical nature and absolutely no love is involved, that is why it is wrong

You may be right about that, but Paul is saying that they were givin to sin.

Romans 1:26 (the Message)
Worse followed. 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. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.
superman14
0
superman14 | 12-10-2007 19:25
This again doesn't explicitly exclude homosexual relationships. What's happening here is everyone is having sex with whoever they want, many people, this could refer to orgies or prostitution (sexual immorality). This isn't promoting heterosexuality, it is promoting monogamy.

It's also saying that marriage is for one man and one women.
ClarkMKent
0
ClarkMKent | 12-10-2007 21:37

Yo, man14, you should check your theology. Angels do not have gender.

KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 21:45
Oh yeah, and I'm not denying that it mentions man and woman. But just because it doesn't mention gay people, doesn't mean they can't have a relationship as well, is what I'm trying to get at. I think they just wrote "man and woman" because it's simply what's most common. For one thing, Paul may not have been aware of the homosexual people who did want a genuine relationship. And if he was (and that could be possible too), it would have been weird if he wrote "Every man should have a wife...or a male lover, in a consensual monogamous homosexual relationship...but he can only have one depending on his personal preference...when he meets the right person he'll know" Haha.

I can see where you're coming from, but the way that I read it, it doesn't really say much about homosexuality. I think the point is monogamy, like I said before. Just because there was so much promiscuity, that no one was able to love one another. No one was able to value sex because it was no longer between two people, sex was just a THING they did as part of their rituals, rather than something that expresses love between two people.

Other parts of the Bible clearly express sex to be something much more than just something for procreation. Adam was given a partner, Eve (she was a woman, yes, but again that doesn't exclude gays) not because he wanted the earth to be populated but because it was "not good for man to be alone." Eve was created as a partner, and if homosexual people can find the same kind of partnership with someone of the same sex I don't see why it needs to be such a big deal, you know?

Heterosexual sex and the life that comes from it, the whole pregnancy process (though gross and painful in many respects) in itself is really a beautiful thing. I can't imagine how wonderful it must be to hold your newborn and know that it was created by the two of you. But I don't think that means that homosexual sex isn't as much of a beautiful expression. Life may not come from it, but you're still giving a part of yourself to the other person, you're exposing yourself, relaxing, letting your guard down completely. It may be "unconventional" (which is the better definition for the word "unnatural" that is presented in the Biblical text) but that doesn't mean there can't be love that is beautiful between two men, or two women.
KateKateKate
0
KateKateKate | 12-10-2007 21:50
Worse followed. 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. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

And I half agree half disagree with that message. I do think that in the context of this referring to mass orgies it's acceptable. Because those are about lust, not love of two people. The people involved aren't having sex for love, the other is just an object for your sexual fulfillment. And yes, you do pay for that. When you objectify others, especially for your own benefit, you don't see the beauty that lies within each person anymore, you can't love them as a human being anymore. When you don't see that, you don't see Christ within them either. That's a good reason to promote monogamy in my mind. Whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

So that interpretation, in my mind, is a bit of a half truth. They absolutely have a point but the way they phrase it seems to be targeting the homosexuality rather than the fact that they were being promiscuous, which is the biggest issue.
Awesomewassum
0
Awesomewassum | 12-10-2007 21:51
i think you to choke the chicken to get rid of some rage...

Come again?

thats right cum again to get rid of rage..
JDolla
0
JDolla | 12-10-2007 23:31
hehe. come again. i know i just did. . and i know the fornication train has sailed, but it totally means sex.
superman14
0
superman14 | 14-10-2007 20:19
Since the Bible says it is unatural, how can it be natural? How can it be a beautiful thing, when God says that a covenant relationship with a man and women, are natural.
host
host
VYSKOČIT ULOŽIT ukládání ...
Přečtěte si více: