Homosexuals are being persecuted in many parts of the world. We need a Pride Day to show that we are different from those other parts of the world.

And if those countries would condemn Barbie dolls and start killing people for owning them, I would buy one.

It's called chutzpah.

Oh, brother!

Well then I can see how you can relate to the issue, still just because I am not gay or have never been gay does not make my opinions less valuable. Otherwise why would my vote count at all if I have little if any experience in politics? Why should I care or have an opinion about healthcare reform, infrastructure contsruction, wars and taxes if I have no medical degree or experience, am not a construction worker, have never been in the US Armed Forces and suck when it comes to my own finances? It seems unfair that you would deny me my opinion on any subject that is directly or indirectly part of my life and affects it in some way.

True, but in the end it was a majority that allowed this to go thru. Lets remember that majority is not always counting evrey individual American (I have learned that in the last 8 months), majority is also those in Congress and the Senate. The Civil Rights Movement was one of those things that fought against things that really went against what this country stood for. How could we have freedom and equality if we had slaves (during times we had slaves) and people who were not treated as equals under the law? Are you suggesting that gays are somehow being treated the same way Blacks were? I can see some problems but not to the extent of what Black people had to suffer.

They say respect is something that is earned not given. My take from what gay people do to get what they want is that they believe they deserve respect and should get it regardless of who or how they are. As you can see from previous post, I have no beef with gays for being gay. I have a beef with being forced to do something just because they want it as oppose to me wanting to do something because they earned it.

Imagine if teenagers in the US decided that it was unfair that they had to wait till they were 21 to legally purchase and drink alcohol and chose to do something about it because most countries around the world average 18 as the legal age to pruchase and drink alcohol and the US seems to be the only one (from what I could find) to be at 21 for legal puechasing and drinking age in most states. This considering Jewish people believe men come of age at 16 and 18 basically makes most teens adults and responsible for their own actions. Do you think we should just give them the ability to purchase and drink at a younger age just because they asked for it? Just because they believe it's unfair?

Sorry, I forgot to add it, thats what I get for being in a rush. Here it is, I like this one better.

I know, I know.

this leads me to ask you a question Leauki.  I haven't asked you before.  Are you gay? 

There's nothing in scripture that shows that David is gay.  Nothing.  He was a man after God's own heart afterall. He definitely had a thing for women and you know his son did as well having more than 1,000 wives.    Are you going to say that God is gay now as well? 

It's a rare thing but there is such a thing as a deep loving relationship had between two men that has nothing to do with any sort of sexual nature.  Usually it's born out of some sort of circumstances that unites them and brings them closer than even brothers.  You hear about this during war times or tragedies especially.  That's the bond Jonathan and Davd had.  Their common enemy was Saul, Jonathan's own father. 

my sentiments exactly. 

you mean sort of like buying a "bible" because in certain parts of the world, anyone caught with one meets instant death.   So how many bibles do you own? 

No. In fact I am slightly homophobic and probably wouldn't join a synagogue that allows homosexual marriage.

But I honestly don't care if other people are gay and whether they get "married" or what they do in their homes. I certainly don't judge them or condemn them. I have better things to do and if I want to make the world a better place there are better subjects on which to focus.

For example, I do not keep kosher. I don't eat forbidden foods, but I do not follow kashruth. If I were really worried about doing G-d's will, I'd start to keep kosher rather than worry about whether homosexuality is immoral or not.

Why? Do I come off as gay?

You are using the argument that David was  a good person as proof that he wasn't gay. But it doesn't work that way. The Bible only tells us that David was a good person, despite his failings.

To me the text is pretty clear about David loving a man more than any woman. If that's not gay I don't know what is.

That doesn't mean that I have a problem with David or his bisexuality. It just means that homosexuality does not stand in the way of greatness.

Yes, exactly.

I own as many Christian Bibles as are necessary to be executed in certain countries.

I try to be and do everything hateful people hate. It's part of my personality.

That is somewhat of a flawed idea because doesn't every individual deserve some basic level of respect? After that, sure, how much someone respects them depends upon their actions. Still though, do you automatically disrespect a stranger simply because they haven't earned it? Just as many diehard anti-ssm people have claimed that they're not being respect, so are homosexuals not being respected either.

Welcome to the real world Charles, we adults have to do things we don't always want to do. *shrugs* At its most basic level....setting aside the fringe....granting basic marriage rights (and subsequent rights/priviliges) is not forcing anything onto you. It's just a completely flawed premise to think that anything would be forced upon anyone. It's paranoia and stupid fear.

Besides, didn't out nation fight against religious based rule? (Anglican church anyone? Huguenots fleeing france?)

Grr, why won't we take a leaf out of Canada's book? Geesh, they pretty much settled the entire issue.

That's a flawed analogy because teenagers are not adults, they have no legal status (can't give consent generally, etc.) and are under their parents rule until they reach majority age. I'm not saying anything about teenage homosexuals -- this issue is for those individuals who are at least 18, and therefore supposed to be granted full franchise/rights. If you're homosexual, this isn't so.

They did so kicking and screaming - a vast majority of people didn't agree with it.

That may be so, but remember it takes a majority to deem something "right." That's one of the basic thing in our democracy: the majority rules.

Let me ask you this -- how can we have freedom and equality, and call ourselves a nation where everyone is treated equally under the law, can pursue life, liberty, happiness, etc. -- when clearly that isn't so. I hear a lot of people claim that homosexuals do have the same rights, but they're full of it because when it comes down to the principle of the matter - they're don't.

Heck, personally, I'm all for allowing a law to let a heterosexual man or woman marry someone of the same sex, if that is what will garner homosexuals the right to marry and subsequent entitlements that come with it. (I think it's ironic though that a straight individual would want to marry someone of the same sex....but, whatever, to each their own.)

By no means do I intend to imply that the CRM was less of struggle than this movement; it was a huge struggle. But, this movementt, in my opinion at least, is based on very very similar principles. It's why I think it should move to non-violence as its means/action. I think that would bring the results of rights about much faster.

Not denying your opinion; I can't exactly keep you from speaking and I wouldn't want to. What I am saying though is that you, as a straight male just have never been in their shoes. You can try to empathize all you want, but it just is not the same as being the person, or whatever.

Here's an attempt at an analogy: Say my mother died; now obviously, I would be stricken with grief because - well - she's my mum and I love her to death. You can say, and I would agree that you do empathize, that you feel sorry for me and that you can understan where I'm at. But, but...you only empathize to the extent that your experience and understanding lets you (primarily the former).

See? Am I'm not explaining it clearly?

Yes?

Nope, actually it would be: "Oh, man!" Haha, sorry, I couldn't resist.

~AJ

I would feel the same way and actually do when it comes from the Christian perspective. 

I feel pretty much the same with the exception of making laws condoning certain behaviors. 

no, not especially... just quick to excuse it and condone it.  If you think you're an underdog or politically incorrect, I guess I've got you beat here. 

No, I'm not saying that.  David was a sinner.  There is NONE good.  His greatest sin started with adultery; a sexual liason with a woman and ended with murder but he had other faults as well.  There's nothing in scripture to even hint that this happened with Jonathan.  They loved each other like brothers; more so. 

If you wish, I could really get into expositing that scripture you gave me and show you exactly what the whole thing meant. 

why can't a man love another man without sex being involved?  I love other woman.  I see David as a very sensitive soul, but he was also a mighty warrior.  So he wasn't afraid to show his emotional poetic side alongside his masculine Kingly side.  David loved Bathsheba more than he did Jonathan.  He also loved Abigail. 

hang onto them, they might come in handy some day.   

so you want to be the underdog? 

For me this is not about faith but simply about my being fairly conservative. I know very religious people who are gay.

Gay marriage does not condone anything, it just organises it.

I don't want homosexuals to meander from one "relationship" to another.

David and Jonathan loved each other so much, they entered a covenant with each other. Whatever G-d's opinion was of David, He did never condemn Him for that.

I have been through it.

Men cannot commit adultery, only women can. So I guess we can forget about David commiting adultery as a sin.

He loved a man more than he loved a woman. If it had been two different types of love, I am sure that could have been pointed it. As it is, the text looks like a polite description of David's homosexuality.

You love other women. That's good. But do you love them more than your husband? Do you enjoy their company more than you enjoy your husband's?

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

There more underdogs there are, the fewer underdogs there will be.

There is this story about the Nazis invading Denmark and making it law that all Danish Jews should wear a Star of David on their cloths. The story tells how most Danish including the king wore those stars. The story is not true.

But it would have worked if everyone had done it.

Again, respect is earned not given. You can get the benefit of the doubt, that does not mean I trust or respect you. But I see what you mean.

There is nothing for me to excuse. It is always between the individual and G-d, not between the individual and me. Nobody owes me a specific sexual preference and it is not in my power to excuse or not excuse what isn't owed to me.

It is also not for me to condone or not condone. Again, it is between an individual and G-d. I can only condone or not condone those activities that I am party or object to. If someone does something to me or to the public, I can condone or not condone it. If someone does something to himself or other willing parties, I cannot condone or condone it.

If you were a secret model railroad enthusiast it wouldn't be up to me to condone or not condone that either. It's none of my concern.

And when it comes to sexuality this goes double. I do not even want to know anything about anybody else's sex life, let alone be asked for my opinion about it.

you can be religous but lost.  There are many religions out there who do not honor the God of the Scriptures. 

exactly because it had nothing to do with a sexual nature.  If it had, you would have heard much condemnation from God thru probably the prophet Nathan. 

Then what about this?    Moses said

"And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."  Lev 20:10

it goes on and on about the man's role in engaging in sex outside of marriage in all sorts of diff situations.  It's all quite clear.  That's why it was so hypocritical when the Pharisees threw a woman on the ground infront of Jesus demanding she be stoned.   The woman didn't commit adultery alone.  There was a man involved...where was he?  Both were to be put to death. 

Besides all this..you said you've read this right?  What do you think Nathan was saying to David in 2 Samuel 12? 

where did you get this? 

You're still not understanding this whole scene.  This is a friendship of the once in a lifetime kind.  The Spirit of God cements two people together as part of his plan.  David was very important in the whole plan of God as he would be the future King of Israel and the one whom the Messiah's lineage would be connected.  God sustained David during this very difficult time with Saul trying to kill him by using Jonathan as a protector and friend.  God sent Jonathan to be part of David's life when he was alone and running, hiding out in caves. 

The friendship of Jonathan and David was far more than common.  They shared a common goal; the will of God.  They were bonded by this. 

That's what you say. But the text doesn't say it.

You argue that since you believe X the text must be understood as meaning X. But that is not sound.

That's about relations with a married woman. It is adultery because she is married. It has nothing to do with the man.

Was David doing anything with a married woman? If not, he wasn't committing adultery.

Where in the text does it say that they were not gay?

You just assume that David wasn't gay and try to confirm that reading by pointing out how anything in the text could be understood as not referring to homosexuality. But the text is quite clear: it describes a homosexual relationship. That's what it is when a man loves another man more than he loves women.

Yes. And they were as gay as the day is long.

The text simply uses polite words to describe the situation.

But I guarantee you that if you would write a news paper article about a man using those words, he will think that you just outed him.

but you said this: 

I just showed you where Moses made it quite clear (in the whole chapter) that man was to blame.  Not the women.  Man.  Read Lev 20 and tell me that's not what it says.    You say it has NOTHING to do with the man yet Moses is quite clear and I even underlined it for you.  Read this again carefully. 

"And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."  Lev 20:10

you just told me (notice bold in your response) that men cannot commit adultery when Moses says men can (notice underlined in verse) so whom am I to believe?  You or Moses?  Not only that but the man was to die for punishment.  I would say that was sin.  "The wages of sin is death." 

I thought you said you read this?  How can you make all these assertions Leauki when you don't know the full context?   You don't know who Bathsheba is?    She was married btw. 

that's exactly right so stop saying it. 

no, I'm reading it literally and taking the whole story in context.  You're arguing a point with non-evidence over one line.   

why should it?  Everytime there's a friendship relationship between two men is it supposed to qualify it with a "we're not gay" statement?  What about Jesus and John?  We read about John laying on the breast of Jesus at dinner and that John was the apostle that Christ loved.  Does that mean John and Jesus were gay as well? 

You're getting this from somwhere so fess up.  This sounds like someone with an ax to grind against the scriptures probably someone with homosexual tendencies looking for something that's not there.  So not sure why you're grabbing ahold of such nonesense. 

and you're making a HUGE assumption that he was.  Why would David commit  something that is an outright abomination to God?  Especially after he was so broken up over the fact he sinned against God by taking another man's wife? 

what the text is showing us is their devotion to each other yes, but not sexual devotion and you're looking for something that's not there.  Jonathan showed selfless commitment to David even tho he recognized that David would succeed his father as King.  He was very loyal and committed to David much like we see in marital love.  But one can be loyal and committed to another being even of one's own sex without it being sexual. 

Right, I thought you were talking about a different woman of David's.

But it doesn't matter. It is still true that a man cannot commit adultery, only a woman can. A man can be party to the crime (and that's what Moses meant). But since Jewish law allows a man to marry more than one woman, there is simply no way a man could commit adultery. He can only be party to an adultery committed by a wife against her husband. But he himself CANNOT commit the crime.

That's why the commandments specifically mention the bit about coveting another's wife (but not, for women, coveting another's husband).

The assumption that he wasn't is as huge as the assumption that he was.

But my assumption is based on the text clearly saying that he loved Jonathan more than he loved women and that they made a covenant and otherwise engaged in a homosexual relationship like millions of gay people want them today.

Because without using your assumption that he wasn't gay, we have no indication that it was an outright abomination to G-d.

For all we know homosexual activity is as forbidden for Jews as eating bacon is. And none of it carries any penalty unless done in front of two reliable and honorable witnesses. Furthermore those witnesses would have to tell the two men to stop doping what they are doing and only if they continued anyway, would there be a penalty.

In all of Israel's ancient history there has not been one recorded case of an execution for homosexual activity.

So I don't see the point.

If you want to worry about people doing the wrong thing, worry about economic injustice. That's also an abomination to G-d.

But unfortunately it is something we are all engaged in and it is thus more difficult to condemn because it would mean that we ourselves have to change instead of simply pointing at others, at the sinners.

I for one recognise that I should keep kosher and that by not doing it I commit a crime against G-d. That I am not also engaged in homosexual activities doesn't really count for me (because I don't want to anyway). Currently, when I spend time worrying about abominations, it always comes down to why the heck I don't keep kosher as I should. There is rarely time to worry about other people's crimes against G-d.

But when will I be so perfect that I have time to worry about other people's crimes against G-d? That'll be the day when I start worrying about other people's crimes against the lord. That'll be the day...