pajarito

I'm 34, been married for 8 years, have three kids, and served 17 years in the Army (Special Forces). I'm very secure in my masculinity. Your comments, in person, might lead to some aggression. In any case, I think yours was a "personal attack" in the context of this forum. I was censored the other day for calling a person a spineless, jellyfish, freeloader for their lack of patriotism and sense of duty to their country. I think I can tell from your comment, however, that there is probably a vast lack of experience in life and maturity.

> In reference to: > The Bible never addresses the issue of > homosexual love, but has several examples of > same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said > to exceed his love for women. Ruth's relationship > with Naomi is certainly an example of a deep, > bonding love. The Bible does value love between > persons of the same sex. There are also different kinds of love. They are obviously referring to spiritual love. Not with homosexual connotation. I love my Dad. I love my two best friends from childhood. I love their Dad too. I'm not homosexual. There's a difference.

See from my previous statement to you how I describe the various laws of the Old Testament and give explanation of why they wouldn’t be accepted today. I’m not disputing anything your repeating back to me in your first paragraph. It’s kind of what I was referring to before. New Testament Romans 1 26-27 (Paul) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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.

We don’t and I’m glad that we don’t live in a country where a particular religion is mandatory or that they make the rules. We live in a Democracy where all religions or lack there of are tolerated. However, the vast majority of people in this country believe one God in one form or another. Therefore, people of “faith” get to be in political office and “make some of the rules.” The founding fathers never intended to take God or religion out of government. That’s misinterpretation of “Separation of Church and State.” I can’t nor do I want to try and FORCE you to do or believe anything. You have as much right to believe the way you do as I do. I hope that these discussions, however, prompt people to think about these topics and take them seriously. They are that important. One more comment about the morals thing. Lots of people derive their morals from themselves. Therefore, everybody lives according to their own standards of what they feel is right or wrong. Others derive theirs from a higher source “Faith Based” and, therefore, there is common ground.

The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation. The argument about gay marriage is a deep, dark hole in the ground from which there is no escape until there is some common ground from which the discussions can spring. I can agree that we're not going to stone homosexuals, just as Jesus didn't pick up a stone and start stoning the woman caught in adultry. Jesus didn't condone her conduct (in fact, he said to her "Go and sin no more"); it's simply that everyone in the crowd (other than Jesus) was also guilty under Jesus' standard (if you've looked at a woman and lusted after her in your heart, you've committed adultry). Interestingly, stoning for adultry was not acceptable under Roman law at that time and Jesus would have actually violated the civil law if he agreed to the stoning. If one doe not agree that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, then an argument about whether society should accept homosexual marriage is pretty much going to have to sit on the shifting sands of whatever is "acceptable" to society. I think the past 30 or 40 years have demonstrated exactly how quickly society will slide down that slippery slope - e.g., euthanasia, child abuse, pedophilia, pornography, divorce, abortion, spousal abuse, murder, assault, etc. Depending on the topic, most folks, when confronted with the ugly statistics, will agree that we need to draw some fast and hard lines as to what conduct is criminal. Unfortunately, without a biblical basis, we're stuck with the "whatever society wants" standard. Bottom line is the goal of the homosexual community isn’t just marriage and state benefits. It’s the normalization of an obscene practice. Define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and be done with it.

Debating the reliability of the Bible text is a HUGE topic of conversation. Probably better start a new one, this one is already way off track.

Good grief! I was gone for a while and need to catch up. Gotta go again but I’ll catch up with more replies in a bit. > In response to Benny: > Just for clarification, who wrote Genesis 2 18-25? It’s generally accepted that Moses wrote Genesis. However, Moses could have had access to records kept by the long family line that the book records. So, it could have been compiled from a collection of records passed down over the years each describing what took place during their lifetimes.

I don't believe it was against the constitution to display the 10 Commandments like they were. However, the law was broken when the Judge defied the higher court ruling to remove them. That was not ok and it was right to remove him.

* Every long-standing society has viewed marriage as a union of male and female. * The physics of it is obvious. Men and women are made differently for a reason. * The optimal environment to raising children is with a father and mother who are married. * All of the major religions of the world accept marriage as between a man and woman and also teach that homosexual behavior is wrong. * Marriage is the first institution ordained by God himself and has served from the beginning as the foundation for continuation of the human race. It supersedes modern laws. It is basic and fundamental. * Love is not the only consideration for marriage. You don’t necessarily marry someone or something just because you love them or it.

You can't derive that from my entire statement? God, of course. Why do you think it's primarily a religious institution? Genesis 2 18-25

Oh crap! I said you in that statement.

You're right. Not all see marriage the same way but, I dare say, the vast majority do. If it were put to a vote, this thing would probably be settled. That is, instead of Judges imposing law on the people. It's a shame you don't respect the institution of marriage for any reason other than money. It is more so a religious union than it is for State financial gain. The institution of marriage wasn't invented by people. It is, in fact, the “religious union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.” Do the math and try and put the square block in the round hole. It doesn’t make logical sense. I know you say that it’s all about money. It is, however, yet another way to gradually take God out of every institution we have in this country. As that happens, we will eventually cease to be the great country that we are. I know you’re going to say, “That’s a slippery slope” kind of reasoning but that’s what I sincerely believe.

Very...very nice!!! - Alabama Gang

Are the words (freakin', incompetent, lying, retard) used to describe Bush in the response based on anything provable or are they just the rant and ravings of yet another Democrat who... "just...really...hates...Bush?"

Right on, my brother! Ted es el hombre!

Ok, I'll buy that.

Where'd that picture come from? I'm not saying Bush didn't do it but how do you know that's really him? Doctored up pictures are all over the internet. That kind of looks like the back of Clinton's head.

U.S. Army National Guard. 18C40 (SF engineer) 17 years, A 1/20 SFG(A)

That sounds like some of my friends! He..he!

Let me rephrase. Because of my lack of knowledge on the subject of birth control (My wife helped me out on that one), I believe I misstated myself. I'm ok with preventing conception. I'm not ok with prevention of implantation and, therefore, killing living human organism. After conception, there is a "living human organism." A sperm or egg by themselves don't fit the criteria for human life. You put the parts together and they do.

> In response to: > No, but I wouldn't personally support it (or do it) and I'd argue against it as much > as I could. Before that point, to me, it's not really a moral issue. After that point > it's very much a moral issue; I think it's killing. I just don't think that everyone > > else has to accept my morals. I don’t think everybody has to accept my morals. It does influence who I vote for, however, and they, in turn, affect what gets made legal or illegal (Democracy). I do think morals are important. I’m just saying that nobody really knows when life begins and, therefore, how can you make the assumption to kill at any stage of development when potentially a human life is at stake? You personally think that there must be brain activity but you really don’t know when it becomes a human being. It’s just your guess. Neither does any doctor or scientist know for sure in the world. > In response to: > Organ donors who are brain dead are operated on to remove their organs; the > operation kills them. It's not murder since their mind is gone. Organ donors agree to be put themselves in that status. They had the choice. > After they're born? I'd expect a neurologist to make a determination if there was > (or ever could be) higher brain function. If not, then termination by withholding > feeding, or even organ donation, should be an option for the parents. There is no > human where there is no mind. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, if left alone, will most likely result in a human being “with brain activity.”

Sperm entering a vagina without an egg being there to fertilize won't do a damn thing but swim around and die just like in a Petri dish. Like elfanie said, it fulfills the requirements for life. Therefore, “life occurs at conception.” If that is true, then it isn’t justifiable to kill it out of convenience or scientific research. As for moral superiority, I don’t claim that at all. I do have to stand up for what I feel is right, though.

But at the point where the egg & sperm meet and interact and a blastocyst is formed, (of course, under the right conditions) it will grow. Therefore, the potential for a human being is there. The question is where does physical human life begin? Before the joining, there are just the parts that make it possible. Your killing me!

A sperm in a dish won’t grow into anything. It will just swim around and die. You’ve got to mix the ingredients in the first place to have a starting place.

Damn, you're good. I was thinking about that one for a few minutes. Yours sounds better. I salute you.