The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[Mare Tranquillity]

The only reason the state regulates marriages is about breeding. Cultural reasons matter to the individual but not to the state. If gay people want to marry for love or any other cultural reason they can just stand up in front of the person of their choice and say whatever words they want to say.

Only a legal marriage with the government permit grants the legal privileges. According to the GAO there are more than 1049 of these privileges that you wish to deny to everyone--which I'm okay with--but until you accomplish that I think that gays should have equal standing under the law as required by the Constitution.

Then put it on the table because it is the right reason to change marriage laws. Or is the other option on the table because the only reason you want to change marriage laws really that you want official recognition and approval - you could really care less about being able to make medical decisions for your partner because if you really cared about that you would download a medical power of attorney from the internet and just sign it.

A personal attack on my character doesn't really add any credibility to your arguments. Ten million children, Who, and ALL those parents were just looking to get approval? Your accusations are ludicrous.

I hate to burst your bubble but a license from the state makes a relationship no more secure than one without such a license. What makes hetero marriages secure is commitment - and no one is denying you the right to make a commitment.

I hate to burst your bubble, but a legal marriage provides a lot of security that is denied to those who are not legally married. Read the laws.

You have to remember that ALL rights are endowed by your creator before the state gets involved. If you want to get married just perform whatever ceremony you want to. As soon as the state gets involved you will have no more rights than before you will have less. that's all the state does - it does not give one more rights- it restricts the rights one already has. That is what all laws do. It says so right in the declaration of independence and the constitution.

Feeble argument in light of the 1049 laws granting specific rights, responsibilities, and privileges to LEGALLY married people.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Uh, yea, I've seen your evidence for this before and it is really one of the flimsiest things you have ever posted. Even more flimsy than your statement that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.

How is it that when I repeat mainstream christian thinking you claim it isn't proven but you will believe the craziest and most bizzarre claptrap and proclaim it as if it were the God's honest truth? How convenient it is for you that everything you like is truth and everything that you don't like is wrong.

Well, I cited a book in which the author quoted Catholic documents, you have provided nothing but a "no sir, no sir!" response.

Mainstream Christian thinking? I am the only one quoting the actual words of the Bible, you are quoting the "interpretations" that are currently popular. I rest my case on the words in the Bible, not on how one or another of the 4000 competing sects decides to "interpret" them.

So David and Jonathon weren't gay? When was the last time you stripped naked and swore your love to a male friend? When was the last time you laid on the ground with that friend and kissed until he 'exceeded'? Again, anyone who wants to know what the Bible actually says instead of your interpretation should go and read the scriptures I have quoted faithfully.

 

[Dr.Who]

Only a legal marriage with the government permit grants the legal privileges. According to the GAO there are more than 1049 of these privileges that you wish to deny to everyone--which I'm okay with--but until you accomplish that I think that gays should have equal standing under the law as required by the Constitution.


A personal attack on my character doesn't really add any credibility to your arguments. Ten million children, Who, and ALL those parents were just looking to get approval? Your accusations are ludicrous.


I hate to burst your bubble, but a legal marriage provides a lot of security that is denied to those who are not legally married. Read the laws.


Feeble argument in light of the 1049 laws granting specific rights, responsibilities, and privileges to LEGALLY married people.

I think you should start with number 1 of the so called 1049 and start discussing them individually.

I bet a number of them are bs.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, I cited a book in which the author quoted Catholic documents, you have provided nothing but a "no sir, no sir!" response.

I can rehash it again. Start a thread and show us all how silly this stuff is.

There was a catholic picture showing two guys standing next to each other and the style of the pic was similar to the style used to show married people. Big deal. the author could have as easily been showing that the bonds of fraternity is as strong as the bonds of marriage.

 

[Dr.Who]

Mainstream Christian thinking? I am the only one quoting the actual words of the Bible, you are quoting the "interpretations" that are currently popular. I rest my case on the words in the Bible, not on how one or another of the 4000 competing sects decides to "interpret" them.

Sorry but the way you read those actual words is your interpretation and it is mostly nuts.

 

[Dr.Who]

So David and Jonathon weren't gay? When was the last time you stripped naked and swore your love to a male friend? When was the last time you laid on the ground with that friend and kissed until he 'exceeded'? Again, anyone who wants to know what the Bible actually says instead of your interpretation should go and read the scriptures I have quoted faithfully.

You make it sound as if they are naked together, lying on the ground, and that David has an orgasm. We will see why that is nuts.

You didn't put in any actual citations so I can only assume you are referring to 1 Samuel 18:1-4

"Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt."

Jonathan took off his clothes not because he wanted to be nude with David but because he wanted to give him his military equipment as David was about to go into hiding and start defending himself in battle.

"Then (D)Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. "

Loving another "as himself" does not refer to romantic love. The emphasis is clearly on the equality of it. Unless you want to make the case that Jonathan loved himself romantically and therefore must have loved David romantically.

Now in a whole new chapter a whole new event is described:

1 Samuel 20

This time they are both dressed. They are saying good by and they kiss each other, a common middle eastern event that usually was a kiss on the cheek or the neck.

Here is the passage:

"When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and (AD)bowed three times And they kissed each other and wept together, but (AE)David wept the more. "

Is there any justification for the word translated as "wept the more" to be translated as "exceeded" in any way that would imply an orgasm?

Here is the passage in the Hebrew. Every word is shown both in Hebrew and in English and for each word there is a number which will lead you to a dictionary meaning of each word.
http://interlinearbible.org/1_samuel/20.htm

Not a single word in the passage could in any way ever be logically interpreted to mean "orgasm". But one of the words "gadal" could be interpreted to mean "the more" which is why intepreters take it to mean that David cried more or exceeded Jonathan.

Are you really going to combine words from two completely different chapters and stories and then fudge the meaning of exceeded to imply a sexual orgasm and claim that you take the actual words of the bible and don't add your own interpretation?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think you should start with number 1 of the so called 1049 and start discussing them individually.

I bet a number of them are bs.

Are you actually stating that you believe that the Government Accounting Office was lying when they made the list of US laws that grant rights or privileges to US citizens? Do you see the GAO as being a gay front organization? The Legislature asked the GAO to produce a list of US laws in which legal marriage confered some right or privilege that was not available to non-legally married people. From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status, by Category

There you go, don't take my word for it, go to the GAO website and read it for yourself.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I can rehash it again. Start a thread and show us all how silly this stuff is.

There was a catholic picture showing two guys standing next to each other and the style of the pic was similar to the style used to show married people. Big deal. the author could have as easily been showing that the bonds of fraternity is as strong as the bonds of marriage.

Nope, he also quoted the ceremony called the "Marriage of Likeness" that was used to marry gay couples.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry but the way you read those actual words is your interpretation and it is mostly nuts.

I have challenged you again and again to show me how I am wrong word by word, but the only time you tried was when you argued that only Ezekiel was to eat the polluted bread and I quoted the scripture that proved you to be wrong. It's easy to shout "No sir, no sir!" but it's difficult to actually make a valid case. Please note that you have been trying to make a case against gay marriage for quite a while now and you have yet to come up with any substantive argument except that NO ONE should get benefits from the government.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You make it sound as if they are naked together, lying on the ground, and that David has an orgasm. We will see why that is nuts.
You didn't put in any actual citations so I can only assume you are referring to 1 Samuel 18:1-4
"Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt."
Jonathan took off his clothes not because he wanted to be nude with David but because he wanted to give him his military equipment as David was about to go into hiding and start defending himself in battle.
"Then (D)Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
Loving another "as himself" does not refer to romantic love. The emphasis is clearly on the equality of it. Unless you want to make the case that Jonathan loved himself romantically and therefore must have loved David romantically.
Now in a whole new chapter a whole new event is described:
1 Samuel 20
This time they are both dressed. They are saying good by and they kiss each other, a common middle eastern event that usually was a kiss on the cheek or the neck.
Here is the passage:
"When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and (AD)bowed three times And they kissed each other and wept together, but (AE)David wept the more. "
Is there any justification for the word translated as "wept the more" to be translated as "exceeded" in any way that would imply an orgasm?
Here is the passage in the Hebrew. Every word is shown both in Hebrew and in English and for each word there is a number which will lead you to a dictionary meaning of each word.
http://interlinearbible.org/1_samuel/20.htm
Not a single word in the passage could in any way ever be logically interpreted to mean "orgasm". But one of the words "gadal" could be interpreted to mean "the more" which is why intepreters take it to mean that David cried more or exceeded Jonathan. Are you really going to combine words from two completely different chapters and stories and then fudge the meaning of exceeded to imply a sexual orgasm and claim that you take the actual words of the bible and don't add your own interpretation?

Part of the problem is that there are 20-11 different Bibles and translations, I have been using the most popular Bible in history: the King James. All of the things I have said are based on complete scriptures in I Samuel and II Samuel. Nothing has been taken out of context and coupled with some other scripture, as you imply.

I Samuel 18:1-4
1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

4And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

And so we have here two souls knit together just as is done in a marriage, David was taken into the house of his "friend" and not allowed to go home, just as was done with a wife. Jonathon stripped off everything, robe, garments, and even his weapons. He was naked.

In I Samuel 19:1-7 Jonathon risks angering his father Saul to try to talk Saul out of killing David, and he succeeds.

In I Samuel 20:30 30Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
This scripture suggests that Saul discovered Jonathon's attraction to David and was very angry. The reference to having chosen in confusion, unto confusion of thy mother's nakedness, again suggests an inappropriate sexual interest, does it not?

I Samuel 20:31-34 31For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.

32And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?

33And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.

34So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
Saul throws a spear at his own son, why? Because he was as angry about his gay son as many Christian father's are today. And Jonathon grieved for the man whose soul is knit with his own, the man condemned to death by Jonathon's own father.

I Samuel 20:41 41And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

Please note that my quote was faithful to the very letter of the wording in the Bible and not twisted nor quoted out of context in any way.

David's own comment about their relationship is perhaps the most telling of all in II Samuel 1:25-26 25How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.

26I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

 

[always]

This is gonna drive our local-"moralists" NUTZ!!!

It appears this is "The Good Book"; pre-cherry-picking days.


Maybe our "moralists" need to spend a little-more-time with this, before they continue to tell others how to live their lives.....and, who to vote-for. ​

You know ,, it does not matter to me how many Books, Copies , Fakes , are dug up , made up , or screwed up by man . I have the words I treasure the most . " Jesus Christ , is my Savior , My REDEEMER.Those whom believe in HIM and faithfully try to follow HIS teachings will be FORGIVEN of their SINS and have ETERNAL LIFE with GOD."
So , I am not concerned what was found in an ancient Starbucks 160 years ago. BE a BELIEVER not a DECEIVER! THINK!

 

[always]

I thought AlGore said back in the 70s or 80s that we would already have melted the ice caps and flooded Florida and world wide destruction.

Was that someone else I am remembering?

No, your memory is pefect it is ALGORES mind that is shaky . You see ALGORE wanted us to think we were going to freeze to death by 1980. Which if he had become President when he wanted would have been a good early move if he were directing the shots . So, ole algore had to change his scam if he were to continue to raise huge amounts of money by telling us how NOT to FREEZE to DEATH . He now says, we will BURN to death, we must drive little cars , while he flys huge Jets. We must live in smaller homes while he lives in MANSIONS.We must eat and live healthy but Ole Al he can gain weight and compete with Whales in a beauty contest . Do I need to tell you ALGORE and Barack drink from the same CRYSTAL. I think the American People have caught on to AL and seem to have discovered what Barack is all about too. We may SAVE this NATION yet.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You know ,, it does not matter to me how many Books, Copies , Fakes , are dug up , made up , or screwed up by man . I have the words I treasure the most . " Jesus Christ , is my Savior , My REDEEMER.Those whom believe in HIM and faithfully try to follow HIS teachings will be FORGIVEN of their SINS and have ETERNAL LIFE with GOD."
So , I am not concerned what was found in an ancient Starbucks 160 years ago. BE a BELIEVER not a DECEIVER! THINK!

So, do you advocate and practice the two commandments that Jesus said were the most important ones in the Bible?

 

[Dr.Who]

Are you actually stating that you believe that the Government Accounting Office was lying when they made the list of US laws that grant rights or privileges to US citizens? Do you see the GAO as being a gay front organization? The Legislature asked the GAO to produce a list of US laws in which legal marriage confered some right or privilege that was not available to non-legally married people. From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status, by Category

There you go, don't take my word for it, go to the GAO website and read it for yourself.

the first thing I noticed is that you claim there are 1049 laws in which special privileges are granted to heterosexual couples and the site you linked says something very different. the site you linked says there are 1049 laws in which marital status is a factor.

The second obvious thing to notice is that the site you linked did not provide any list of the 1049 laws. It did have a list of the 13 categories and then a discussion.

According to the methodology they arrived at their number by doing a word search of the legal code using the term "marr"

Then right there in page 2 in the 5th paragraph they state that no conclusion can be drawn about the effect that the laws on married people versus single people. Wait! It is not even a study of the effect of laws on gay people. Gay people happen to be single but so are all the rest of the single people. According to that study they may be treated just as well as all the rest of the single people in the world.

You are still welcome to start a thread and to list a specific law to discuss favors married people and harms gays in a discriminatory way. I bet there are some. I bet there are not 1049 legitimate ones.

 

[Dr.Who]

Nope, he also quoted the ceremony called the "Marriage of Likeness" that was used to marry gay couples.

Boswell was both biased and wrong:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=10381.0

I read one of the actual "ceromonies" that he himself used as evidence and within it is the clear evidence that is is not a sexual union.

"That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal"

The word love here "agape" never us used to describe either a romanitic or a sexual love - only a self-sacrificing love.

And another of his "proofs":

bless also these thy

servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of

nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou

desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos

tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape]

and oneness of mind.