R
Reilly
Guest
Oops. I forgot to tell you that I was using the New International Version.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Reilly
Matthew 14:12-19 - the Passover meal; 15:1 - Jesus before Pilate in the morning (and later in the book he is crucified)
It is taking me too long to find the cites for the second example, and it is not that important. Any analysis of any of any apparent inconsistency is all I seek.
Maybe it is because it is late or maybe the meds are affecting me, but I still do not get your point here. Are you saying that the Bible appears to have no references to homosexuality unless documented AFTER original writings and therefore corrupt the Bible?Originally posted by Reilly
New Guy,
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I only meant that I have never heard it stated that any references to homosexuality in the bible were placed there (or altered) subsequent to the initial writing.
Originally posted by acludem
Very nice, Matt. And Jimmy, men who perform these acts can get married, just not to each other.
I really lose patience with the argument that gay relationships are based solely on sex. I have never been married, but I would assume a marriage should be based upon love and trust, not just whether the sex is good. Why when we assume heterosexual marriages are based upon love and trust, do we assume that the only thing that binds gay couples is sex?
acludem
Originally posted by mattskramer
jimnyc said "It's not erroneous".
The premise: "If a gay individual is married to another gay individual,then you must associate with him" is erroneous. You do not have to associate with a gay individual regardless of his marital status. Therefore your argument that people should oppose gay marriage because people don't want to be associated with gays is erroneous.
jimnyc said "...we don't want our marriages put on the same level as those that think it's ok to have another mans penis jammed in their ass".
You, jimnyc, are moving to a different argument now. The new argument is a clear example of two classic fallacies: "the appeal to the masses" and "the appeal to emotion". You appeal to the masses with the word "we" and you appeal to emotion with the word "want".
(1) "The appeal to the masses" - Someone tries to justify something based on the amount of popular support he has behind it. Yet masses have been wrong. Consider the "Jewish Holocaust". Popular feelings that oppose a policy do not necessarily make the policy wrong.
(2) "The appeal to emotion" - People try to influence other peoples' emotions rather than reason in order to get them to accept a policy. If people could inspire strong hatred, in other people, for the claim that 1+1 = 2 and get them to love the idea that 1+1 = 3, the claim that 1+1 = 3 would still be mathematically false.
Originally posted by acludem
Matt, I was a debater in high school and know all of these rules very well. Unfortunately, some on this board would rather call people names than actually engage in intelligent discussion.
I support allowing gay couples to be married. If we really want to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage, then why don't we outlaw divorce? I'd say the skyrocketing divorce rate is the primary threat to the "sanctity of marriage".
acludem
Originally posted by Big D
Big D 2004:
Thou shall not porkith thy friend in thy cornholith
Originally posted by Reilly
I appreciate your efforts in indulging me in this. Thanks.
Originally posted by acludem
I support allowing gay couples to be married. If we really want to protect the so-called sanctity of marriage, then why don't we outlaw divorce? I'd say the skyrocketing divorce rate is the primary threat to the "sanctity of marriage".
acludem [/B]