RE: Same-sex marriage

RE: Same-sex marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dark~angel sits down... tries to get everyone to hold hands and sings 'Kumbaya' [:D][sm=lol.gif][:D] Cute angel - but seriously, it's all good. Most of this has been quite amuzing for me, even though I know that the real life repercussions of intolerance aren't so amuzing. - LA

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:28:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dark~angel lengthy quote Strongs 3120: malakos Thayers Lexicon: effeminate: of one a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, 1 Co. vi. 9 Dictionary.com: effeminate: adj 1: having unsuitable feminine qualities [syn: emasculate, epicene, cissy, sissified, sissyish, sissy] Dictionary.com: catamite: A boy who has a sexual relationship with a man. Dictionary.com: lewdness: Obscene; indecent. Obsolete. Wicked I think this states My case pretty clearly, especially considering that the passage was aimed at those who were like the Roman emperors that were participating in homosexual sex and marriage.

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:30:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika As I said, you can sit there and tell me it's none of my business or be a man and educate us on the other virtues of a bisexual woman. - LA You are not worth it. If You were, You would have been a true woman and asked first before making bold, asinine assumptions in a pitiful attempt to discredit Me by attempting to paint Me out to look like a hypocrite. Essentially, the time has passed now and it is really none of Your business. If it were, I might tell You. Now.. Run along...

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:36:59 PM)
You see, You do not give a damn why I am attracted to bi-sexual women. I am no fool. You are merely looking for more meat to chew into. Something else for You to pretend how better You are than everyone else. You will rip My analysis to shreds and hang it out on the line like My laundry for all to see. As I have said already, You are not worth it. I am not going to give You the ammo You seek. It is kind of funny though. It is very much akin to dangling a treat in front of a dog. You can not help but sit back and wonder how long the dog will drool and do funny tricks until eventually he gets tired of it and walks away.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:40:29 PM)
Truer words were never spoken. quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin You will rip My analysis to shreds

LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Truer words were never spoken. quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin You will rip My analysis to shreds Exactly ;) - LA

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Truer words were never spoken. quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin You will rip My analysis to shreds Funny, were you not one of the ones citing tolerance? Maybe there are characteristics in bi-sexual women that I find overly compelling. Did you ever stop to think of that? Maybe Miss "I am so tolerant" can not live and let live, failing to assume that My interpretations and perceptions of these characteristics work for Me, even if they do not work for her? After all, has she not already sufficiently demonstrated such? She will tear them to shreds alright, just like She already attempted to do to My profile in a vain attempt to discredit Me, even if that means making another ass of herself. It is not about "live and let live" at all with her. If anyone is a phony, she is. It is "live and let live as long as I agree with Y/you. Otherwise I am going to go out of My way to try and paint You to look like the bad person". As it so happens, she has already agreed with that sentiment and I am not going to play her little game.

darkinshadows -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 4:58:37 PM)
A)I already gave the example of calamite - because these were essentally slave boys forced/born into prostitution which ties up with arsenokoitai - but I already offered that(see length post[;)]) Definitions from Strongs - quote: malakos mal-ak-os' of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite:--effeminate, soft. again with the malakos - I already gave you the history, people must remember that the bible is sooooooooooo old - written in times that now some of the words don't even exist and your using the modern translations (slaps forehead). Is all good though. quote: Greek to English dictionary - malakos biddable, limber, limp, soft, mild, smooth, penetrable, fine, flowing Your using the word effiminate when thats not really the issue, its what does the word malakos mean in direction of the bible. Effiminate does not mean homosexual - yikes, my brain hurts... Peace and MUCH love

Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:05:18 PM)
By the way, cuneiform wasn't invented in 5,000 B.C. either. That's STILL almost two thousand years off. Maybe you read something that said "5000 years ago"? Or maybe you just make this stuff up as you go along?

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:09:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dark~angel A)I already gave the example of calamite - because these were essentally slave boys forced/born into prostitution which ties up with arsenokoitai - but I already offered that(see length post[;)]) Do you see the problem with that interpretation though? How are boys forced into prostitution suddenly sinners and condemned to hell? No, in the spirit of that verse, it is very clearly speaking about a choice to walk down that path. Further, it is more than obvious that malakos in that context is not referring to a textile. Further, I quoted you Thayer's Lexicon, which provides the precise definition of what that word means in that context. you might wish to go back and read it again. [:)]

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster By the way, cuneiform wasn't invented in 5,000 B.C. either. That's STILL almost two thousand years off. Maybe you read something that said "5000 years ago"? Or maybe you just make this stuff up as you go along? quote: If history had started with writing then the first page was written in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago! Sumerians started keeping record of their times in the form of pictograms on clay tablets, and around 3000 BC. a form of cuneiform writing and a full syllabic alphabet appeared. Peoples in the neighboring lands has adopted, amended and used this alphabet according to their needs. Writing started in 6000 BC. 3000 BC is when the full alphabet appeared.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:22:30 PM)
quote: She will tear them to shreds alright, just like She already attempted to do to My profile in a vain attempt to discredit Me, even if that means making another ass of herself. Drama!! Oh my. I tore your profile to shreds? I quoted one line from it which you have still not given us any explanation for. quote: It is not about "live and let live" at all with her. If anyone is a phony, she is. It is very much live and let live with me. I have very different views then many here and I respect their views. What I don't respect is intolerance. And as for calling me a phony, well, that is a low blow, even for you. I have never called you a phony, a hypocrite, sure. But you have yet to prove me different. quote: It is "live and let live as long as I agree with Y/you. Otherwise I am going to go out of My way to try and paint You to look like the bad person". As it so happens, she has already agreed with that sentiment and I am not going to play her little game. I'm not trying to make you look like a bad person. I'm simply pointing out a MAJOR FLAW in your argument that everyone sees but you. If you want to call being open and honest a game, sure, go ahead. I will fit nicely with all the other absurdities you have expressed. - LA

Ssilver -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Something else for You to pretend how better You are than everyone else. Hey, c'mon. No one in this thread thinks that they are better than everyone else. Better than you, that's a given, but not better than everyone...

Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:27:18 PM)
Kenin, you don't even understand your own quotes. "6000 years ago" is not the same thing as 6000 B.C. "6000 years ago" is 4000 B.C. And that date is still too early. Besides, cuneiform isn't an alphabet. Why don't you just concede this one? quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: If history had started with writing then the first page was written in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago! Sumerians started keeping record of their times in the form of pictograms on clay tablets, and around 3000 BC. a form of cuneiform writing and a full syllabic alphabet appeared. Peoples in the neighboring lands has adopted, amended and used this alphabet according to their needs. Writing started in 6000 BC. 3000 BC is when the full alphabet appeared.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:30:36 PM)
quote: Why don't you just concede this one? He is incapable of conceding. When I am wrong, I will admit it. For example, if Kenin comes along and gives me a legit reason for wanting a bisexual woman and I was wrong in my assumption, I will concede. But he doesn't have another reason, that is why he isn't saying anything. He keeps proving my point over and over again. Contrary to what Kenin thinks, I do not think I am better then anyone. People who know me well, know this. The fact is that instead of admiting fault, he lashes out at us with shallow insults based on no facts. It's kind of sad really. Gotta hand it to him, he's a fighter though! 11 pages later, he is still trying to defend his theory full of holes. - LA

darkinshadows -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 5:55:13 PM)
I have offered a number of varients - again I ask, please show me something other than Strong/Theyers - (strongs was written in 1890ish, give or take - not good for original meanings and definitions) quote: Thayers Lexicon: effeminate: of one a catamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness But that still doesn't mean homosexuality - it is lewdness? Dictionary.com: lewdness Preoccupied with sex and sexual desire; lustful. Obscene; indecent. Wicked. - the trait of behaving in an obscene manner quote: Quote:dark~angel Am I missing something here?

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 7:49:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Kenin, you don't even understand your own quotes. "6000 years ago" is not the same thing as 6000 B.C. "6000 years ago" is 4000 B.C. And that date is still too early. Besides, cuneiform isn't an alphabet. Why don't you just concede this one? quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: If history had started with writing then the first page was written in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago! Sumerians started keeping record of their times in the form of pictograms on clay tablets, and around 3000 BC. a form of cuneiform writing and a full syllabic alphabet appeared. Peoples in the neighboring lands has adopted, amended and used this alphabet according to their needs. Writing started in 6000 BC. 3000 BC is when the full alphabet appeared. Ok, I will grant you that one.. I missed something by not seeing the obvious. You are absolutely right about 6000 years ago not equating to 6000 BC. I concede.

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 7:52:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dark~angel I have offered a number of varients - again I ask, please show me something other than Strong/Theyers - (strongs was written in 1890ish, give or take - not good for original meanings and definitions) you can not discredit Strong's in that fashion, I am afraid. If you want to discredit Strong's and Thayers, you will have to do a lot better than that. Thayer's is not perfect, but it is the best online version and coincides with others on this point. you will have to give Me definitive proof in order for Me to vary from My POV. Anyways, I have to bow out of this for the simple fact that I have helped to hijack this thread and drag it wayyyy off topic. Points are granted where due and the rest are just going to have to be chalked up to agreeing to disagree. Sir Kenin puts the doggie treat back in His pocket and walks away. Obviously I wore out before the doggie.

MzBerlin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 9:51:11 PM)
Wow. I've been super busy lately and just got the time this evening to sit down and read over this whole thread. I wish I had seen it sooner. It's been a lively debate. As for the OP's question- I believe that marriage between two people of the same sex should be legalized. It doesn't make sense to me that two people who love each other and want to make a commitment aren't allowed to. I do not think that religious beliefs should affect how the state makes laws governing individuals. It's a civil rights issue. Kenin- I am aghast at your behavior on this thread. I have read this whole thread objectively and just don't get your point of view. I do not understand your reluctance to discuss your preference for bisexual women, but whatever. We are all entitled to privacy, but you've made it clear in previous threads that it's not really an issue for you. You have been very attacking of EVERYONE on this thread and it really wasn't called for. My point of this section of my post is to tell you that you did, in fact, come out of this debate looking like a hypocritical ass. I would urge you to re-read the entire thing and try to see why it would look that way. You have obviously engaged in pre-marital sex, and I'm going to make the assumption (ad LadyA did) that you've engaged in sodomy, in the true sense (using seed for non procreation purposes). So, why would you be judgemental of people who do the same thing and are simply asking for rights that you yourself have previously enjoyed. (You did say that you'd been married before.) Also, it really peeved me that you ragged on angel for her posting style. I've always loved her elegant and visually appealing posts. I find your 'crazee caps' silly. Putting a capital m on My and so on and so forth does not make you seem 'more' dominant. It makes you look like a HNG. In short, you have indeed 'lost' the debate and it was NOT your point of view, it was the way you presented it. Sincerely, B

perverseangelic -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/31/2005 11:36:01 PM)
We continue to dwell on interpretations of the christian bible. That leads me to ask this. There are literally hundereds of holy books. Most of which claim to be the only one you need to live, and the one on which everything should be based. Why is the christian bible given such precident? Simply because of the number of christians around? (Not a bad thing, mind) What gives the christian bible any more validity that any other holy book that's out there? Debate tends to center around biblical law. Why? I ask "which god" when really I should be asking "Which holy book, and why is that one so special?" What gives one holy book, which makes the same claims of "truth" as hundereds of others, special recognition. One could say "because it's true." Everyone says that of the book of their faith. One who believes in the bible has no more justification for it's truth than one who follows the Qua'ran or the teachings of Gardener. What I'm asking is that people consider that your holy book is only holy for you. While I respect your right to rever it as holy, I also except that you will respect my right to follow my own god. I tend to think that your books are as misguided as you think mine are. Shouldn't that fact remove the possibility of any religion in law? One religion finds another to be blasphemous. Thus, it's the laws job to keep religion out of it all together. Unless, of course, you'd prefer politicians to begin passing laws based on Wiccan doctrine. Christian-based laws are as distasteful to me as neo-pagan based ones would be to many.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875