Massitutsets will allow Gay Marriages Monday. if this is bot proof we are headed for civilisayions collapse, please tell me what it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-14-gay-marriages-mass_x.htm?csp=24

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 14, 2004

Answers

PRAY FOR US IN THIS CIVILISATION...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 14, 2004.

Click: here for zaroves'link !!

Well , in political terms , it's called: democracy !!

You can protest you're against it , that's freedom of speech , 100% !! __ But if the law allows such marriages , what you gonna do about it ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), May 15, 2004.

But if the law allows such marriages , what you gonna do about it ??

In a democracy, you work to change the law.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.

What if you've got homosexual kids , and they want to marry , what you gonna do about it ??

In a democracy, you work to change the law.

Agree , so , suppose the laws will be changed again , and so it's illegal for them to marry , what you gonna do with all the married ones ?? __ You gonna prosecute them all ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), May 17, 2004.

There would be no need to prosecute them since they would not really be married. The government can decree that from now on pigs will fly. But that won't make it happen.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 17, 2004.

The government can decree that from now on pigs will fly. But that won't make it happen.

How will you know that ??

---------------------------------------------------------

Back Serious:

There would be no need to prosecute them since they would not really be married.

Can you explain , why hitler did prosecute them ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), May 17, 2004.

Don't play th Hitler card. Hitler isnt invovled. Morals are.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 17, 2004.

ZAROVE , I know that too , and it's not my intention to go or play that way , but it was just the first idiot that came up in me , so !!

OK , morals: to me , discrimination is a bad thing !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), May 17, 2004.

This sint discrimination. We must all live a moral life, this i what we as a sociuety are called to do.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 17, 2004.

discrimination is a bad thing

No, discrimination against sin is a good thing (read the Bible)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 17, 2004.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

How many of the things considered sinful in the OT do you participate in every day?

Do you work on the Sabbath? Do you sacrifice your first born animals?

I know that many Christians across all denominations hold homosexuality to be morally wrong and you have a right to hold that view. What I find disappointing is the doom and gloom 'this is the end of society as we know it' scenario painted by Zarove.

I may be wrong, and if I am I apologise Zarove, but this attitude smacks of prejudice and the wrong kind of descrimination. I know many gay and lesbian people who have been turned off God for ever because of the attitudes towards them found in our churches.

We should be aiming to allow people to be who they are and love them for it. If then we see something that we need to change it can be done from a place of love and acceptance within the family of God.

God holds inestimable power and ability to look into a person and change them from deep within - if He wants to and if we allow Him to reign.

Spreading doom and gloom and making homosexuals feel like lepers will NOT save them (if they need saving) or society. It will simply mean that they are forced to the margins of society and disenfranchised. They then have no reason to invest in the society that excludes them and society will then go down the toilet.

Jesus is love to all people at all times. If He hasn't given up on people why do we?

-- Jesus Follower (Believer@ChristianityRocks.org), May 19, 2004.

In my line of work I met many people who were crack addicts and prostitutes, murderers, rapists and child molestors. I had a practice in a maximum-security prison in Pennsylvania. As individuals, these people were just regular folks..nice to talk with, some of them were quite well educated and enjoyable to converse with. I'll bet they made great neighbors. Nearly all of them had spouses and children, parents and friends. Not surprisingly, many of them complained that they too had been turned off from God because of the churches not understanding that they had a "need" for crack, violent sex, knocking their wife senseless, or fondling children, whatever. The crack-addicted hookers had zero understanding why anyone would want to take their children away from them. The child molestors had zero understanding why anyone would find their actions repulsive, since they felt they were motivated by a "love" of children. With rare exceptions, the folks who had murdered someone felt completely justified in doing so. If you sat and spoke with each of these people as individuals, you might come away saying to yourself, "they have a right to live as they please and do as they please because they are only answerable to God in the end." Well, you would if you took the stance that society has no right to demand that there are certain behaviors which for the common good of civilization are unacceptable. You would if you believed that the individual, not society, has the right to determine what is morally and legally sanctioned. To hold the position that ALL citizens of a country must be permitted to indulge themselves in any and ALL pursuits of any nature is to open the door to the eventual breakdown of orderly society in that country. There will always be those persons whose concept of what is moral or just is so detrimental to society at large that they cannot be permitted to implement them.

Today it is same-sex marriages. Tomorrow it may be a court challenge of a marriage between an adult and a 12 year old with some judge ruling that to be Ok. Can you picture how many people would think that that scenario would be permissable? Soon, some state would allow adult/child marriages. It logically follows then if children can legally marry, someone would challenge child pornography laws. There are actually people out there who have sexual intercourse with animals and have expressed a desire to legally marry them. And so it would go. A slow but sure erasure of society's morality standards in the name of "individual rights". So yes, Zarove is correct.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 19, 2004.

I was in no way suggesting that certain behaviours be allowed just because they are committed by nice people.

What I am saying is that to disenfranchise people because of their race, creed, sexual preference is wrong.

The other behaviours you cited are all unlawful - homosexuality isn't in most of the western world. Are you really saying that you think two men who love each other in a committed and stable relationship are the same as a paedophile who rapes little girls? Ludicrous!

People - whoever they are and whatever they have done - should be held in love.

-- Jesus Follower (believer@ChristianityRocks.org), May 19, 2004.

The above posts were not made by me. Just to dispel any confusion.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

The Church does not disenfranchise or marginalize anyone. It is catholic - universal - reaching out to and embracing all people in all times, places and circumstances. However, when the Church reaches out in love and offers help to the suffering, it does so within the context of truth. Failure to offer the truth is not loving, even though a person may be desperately trying to live in untruth and is not receptive to truth. It is this personal resistance to truth which disenfranchises or marginalizes individuals.

No, men who desire other men and men who desire children are not "the same" any more than lung cancer and colon cancer are "the same". However, both suffer from serious psychosocial disorders which lead to destructive behaviors, and both are in need of help, not approval. You are certainly right in saying that "people - whoever they are and whatever they have done - should be held in love". And what could be less loving than to tell a suffering person "I approve of your disorder. Go off and enjoy it until it destroys you".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 19, 2004.

The Homosexual in the Church:

I say let them be taught. If they reject the teachings, let them go. Have a look at the Episcopalian Church. They should have let go of them a long tme ago.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Cancer was mentioned:

It is very difficult to cure cancer. Generally, cancer spreads until it destroys everything around it.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

{WE ARE NOT CONDEMNING THEM, WE ARE SIMPLEY DISCOURAGING THEIR DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR.}-Zarove How many of the things considered sinful in the OT do you participate in every day?

{Not a heck of a lot.}-Zarove Do you work on the Sabbath? Do you sacrifice your first born animals?

{No and no. Byut you really aren't illustrating the capablility of thought when you ask about sacrificing Animals. Jesus was the final Sacrifice. It is not so much that we now ignore the sacrificial laws, but that we have already had the sacrifice made for us.As a Christain you SHOULD know that.}-Zarove I know that many Christians across all denominations hold homosexuality to be morally wrong and you have a right to hold that view. What I find disappointing is the doom and gloom 'this is the end of society as we know it' scenario painted by Zarove.

{ If you read History, you will see that I am correct. This trend did not begin with Homosexuality, it began withhte permissiveness of the Sexual revolution in the 1960's. "Drugs, Sex, and Rock and Roll." Well, it was OK to have sex before you where married, and soon casual sex was OK. As aconcequence, Sex lost ts meanign and vlaue, and Adultery became common. So did Divorce. Crime rates also skyrocketed as peopel rebeled UNJUSTLY againt all manner of auhtority and began demanding "Individual rights" that superceeded the rights of the society as a whoile. Now, what was considered perverse in 1960 is common, and some men even dedmand ot of the women they are with. Such as oral and anal sex. Homosexuality is just one perversion tat we have begun to accept.

If we let this stand in the name of "to,lerence and diversity" and "Individual rights" we will soon see more, and more demand for "freedom." As they said, Paedophilia is jujst around the corner. did you knwo seversal academics now want to re-evaluate the effects of Paedophilia? They likewise want to re-evaluate the concept iof it as somehow nessisarily a sycological illness.

Indeed, we cme within an inch of it beign removed tformt he Diagnsotic Handbook used by the APA. RThat was the first step in legitimising Homosexuality. Had they removed it form the APA Manual, it wouidl soon have been demanded ot be seen as legiti ate. The reaosn it WASN'T was not because of the mroal outrage of the APA itsself, but because the public was notified before they vited and a major outcry was sent form all quarters of society. Quietly, the APA apologised forits researhc that soem adult-Child sex was not harmful, and ndeed coul be beneficial. They are still managing to fiule further reports ont he topic.

Their are also groups who wan tto legitimise Open mariages and Polygamy. These thigns thet claim under he banner of "Free and open Love" and " Personal freedom."

What we think of as repulsive thoug, in 20 years may become an accepted Norm, like Homosexuality.

Once you knock down one moral Barrier, ou have the ability to knock down another, then another, then another. If one was o[p [ressive to your freedom, why not the next?

Our personal freedom has social onsequences, and thr good of the many outweifht the need of the few, or the one.}-Zarove I may be wrong, and if I am I apologise Zarove, but this attitude smacks of prejudice and the wrong kind of descrimination.

{You are wrong. its not predjusdice, its simple logic. if we allow Immorality to grow, it will grow. Homosexality is immoral. You may think I just feel its mroslly wronmg, and that you yourself do not, but ask yourself, why is it NOT mroally wrong to misuse sex? The Binle even in the New Testement speaks againt Homosexuality. Speakign agaisn thte practicd is not so much Predjuydice as morality. One can speak out in love.}-Zarove

I know many gay and lesbian people who have been turned off God for ever because of the attitudes towards them found in our churches.

{I know many gays and lesbians period. They are still Christains for the most paet. some even acknowledge that what they do is wrong morally. However, I am responcible tot he truth. The truth is their behaviour is desructive, both personally and soially. Therefore, I must speak out agaisnt it.}-Zarove We should be aiming to allow people to be who they are and love them for it.

{Again, does htis mean Paedophiles? How abothe Polyamourous. Yes, they "Love" many women, or many men, but its just who they are. So why not let them fornicate all they want???

Had it azlso occured to you that the practice of Homosexuality is dstructive? }-Zarove

If then we see something that we need to change it can be done from a place of love and acceptance within the family of God.

{What makes yo think I don't love them? Do you honeslyty think that syain Homoseuxal marriage may lead ot he breakdown of societ means I am Predjudiced and incapable of Love?}-Zarove God holds inestimable power and ability to look into a person and change them from deep within - if He wants to and if we allow Him to reign.

{Homosexuals need this, and I agree. They do not, howver, need encoruagement to pursue their destrucive lifestyle.}-Zarove Spreading doom and gloom and making homosexuals feel like lepers will NOT save them (if they need saving) or society.

{ I am not spreadign doom and gloom. Likewise, Homosexuals liek us ll need saving. You may not think Homosexuality is morally objectionable, but hyou relaly hav to answer why its nto when the average Homosexual doesnt live to 65.

Likewise, in cultures hat do allow Homosexuality as a Normal pracitce, their communities are fallign apat. Look at europe, as a good example.}-Zarove

It will simply mean that they are forced to the margins of society and disenfranchised.

{No, it means we are takign a stand and not allowing perversion a palce in society. not allowing Gay Marriage means we don;t allow Homosexuality th elegitimasy it seeks. It does nto eman we are margionilising anyone, disinfranschising anyone, or failing to love anyone.}-Zarove

They then have no reason to invest in the society that excludes them and society will then go down the toilet.

{Uhm...you do realise society eas STRONGEST when it had anti-Sodomy laws, right?

Your argukent is that society ill become weaker and fail if we disallow Homosexal marriageds and discourage the practice, ebcause this portion of csociety will feel amrgionilised, is fidicukously easy to disprive since the USA once had a strong, stable society AND disallowed under pain of law the practivce of Sodomy.

Hiostry also tells us that societues that acceted Homosexuality wher eusually on thei last leg of life.}-Zarove Jesus is love to all people at all times. If He hasn't given up on people why do we?

{Who said we gav eup on anyone? You asusme I speak agsint Homosexality out of predjudice and not love, because you apparently see nohtign wrogn with Homosexuality. However, I didn't giv eup o them, they gav eup on themselves and indulge in sin that will eventually kill them, and take us with them.}-Zarove

I was in no way suggesting that certain behaviours be allowed just because they are committed by nice people.

{Actually, you where. You seem to not hink Homosexuality is wrong.You aslo don' tgink Gay Marriage will have social implications.}-Zarove What I am saying is that to disenfranchise people because of their race, creed, sexual preference is wrong.

{ Race and creed you may have a point, but not relaly. ( We DO disonfranchise peope,, asyou cal it, who hold certain creeds. IE, NBeoNzi's are repelld by society.) But sexual preference? OK, again, what if my sexual preference was 10 year odl Girls? Thast MY sexual preferenced, why does soeiety disoenranchise me by putting me in Jail?}-Zarove The other behaviours you cited are all unlawful - homosexuality isn't in most of the western world.

{Homosexuality was at oen time Unlawful. Likewise, in most of the swestern world now, Prostitution is lawful. Jujst go to amsterdam, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norwih,ect...

Just because its legal doesnt make it no sinful, likewise, legal doesnt mean not destructive. Legal recognition doesnt mean God sanctions it. The laws, made by men, can go agasont God's will.Governmens sin just as people do.For Govenmets are by people.}- Zarove

Are you really saying that you think two men who love each other in a committed and stable relationship are the same as a paedophile who rapes little girls? Ludicrous!

{ Probelem is that the "Twpo men who live each other and ar ein a stable relaitonhsip" Is the minority. Homosexual men are prone to excess in sexual appitite, takign on average mroe sex partners than heterosexuals. Their are few, and I mean few, that are actually faithful to their single partner.

Likewise, all sin is equel, and yes, they are the same as peopel who rape little girls. They abuse theirown bodies with unnatural list ( And it is unnatural, dispite the propoganda.) and destory society form within.

If they truely loved theur sex partner, they woulnt subjec them to a shorter lifespan, greate risk of disease, mental stresses unique to Homosexuals and NOT caused soley by social rejection, and in the end damnatio fr their sins. Love? I think you need ot learnt hat love is not equated with allowance.}-Zarove People - whoever they are and whatever they have done - should be held in love.

{Yes, this inclusdes men who rape lkittle girls. That does not mean they shoudl be allowed tor ape litle girls. Likewise, holding a Homosexual in love is not the same as accpeitng that he is gay and lettign him be gay .}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 19, 2004.

Jesus follower said: I know many gay and lesbian people who have been turned off God for ever because of the attitudes towards them found in our churches

There are homophobes, to be sure. But IMHO, most gays and lesbians are turned off because of the Truth about homosexuality spoken in our churches (at least most churches, I hope). They define themselves by their sexuality primarily, rather than by their faith, job, nationality etc. So that when someone says that their sexuality is disordered, or wrong, this is especially hard for them to take. Their sexuality is who they are. An old saying goes "Give em Hell, so that they don't go to Hell." Or as Harry Truman said: People say to me "'Give em hell Harry,' but I don't give em hell, I give them the truth and they think its hell."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 19, 2004.

" two men who love each other in a committed and stable relationship are the same as a paedophile who rapes little girls? Ludicrous! "

This concept of "love" is the key problem: two men who do things with each other's body which ALWAYS involves grave biological risk of pathogens and physical harm, can't be considered to be "in love"!

Not every two people who claim to be "in love" actually are expressing true love! And not everyone who claims "friendship" are in fact friends - seeking only the good for the other!

Mutual masturbation, sodomy, and feeling really great about oneself, isn't the same thing as "agape" love. It doesn't bring life, it doesn't promote healthy emotions and stable psychological states... the homosexual attraction doesn't INCREASE "love" but rather seriously subjective parallel universes in their minds: thus they are incapable of noticing the vast difference between their actions and their persons.

But what is so amazing about this? Addicts are unable to reason with their addiction - we see this all the time with alcohol, tobacco, and other forms of addiction.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Was I implying that a relationship between two men is the same thing as a man molesting a child (or something to that effect)? Yes, as far as sin goes. People do not like to hear that in this day and age of course because it is the ultimate in political incorrectness. Besides, most people, at least to their knowledge, have never met a child molestor and had any kind of discussion with them. They have this mental image of some drooling animal-like predator who, at best looks either like a dirty old man or a nerd in polyester. Having met many myself, I can assure you, like the rest of us, they come in all shapes and sizes and from all educational backgrounds. Like homosexuals, many of them will be happy to tell you that they were born the way they are, that there is nothing at all wrong with their sexual "orientation" and that it is society which has the "hang up" and not them. They consider themselves the victims of a Puritanical mentality and cannot wait for the day to come when, as one man told me, "the world wakes up and learns to mind it's own business about sex". So yes,once again, I certainly do equate homosexual "marriages" becoming legal with all of these other immoral and sinful behaviors, because it IS sinful and immoral and, once a society legalizes one sinful and immoral behavior it opens wide the door for the rest to march through. Active homosexuals are nice folks; and so are adulterers and thieves and so are bunches of people who are living in mortal sin on a daily basis for whatever reason. When I was, I sure considered myself a really nice person too. That's not the point. Sin is sin is sin is sin is sin. That's the point. You can sugar coat it and try to justify it and tell other folks we are discriminating hard nosed bigots and it doesn't change anything. Today's sexual preference menu that's politically and socially Ok with you apparently is adults of any gender. Trust me that there are many other folks out there who want to expand that to include adults and children and humans and non-humans. Where will you stand when they call you a bigot? Where is your line in the sand and when will it be too late to draw it?

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 19, 2004.

There is no greater moment in U.S. history's civil rights cause than Mondays Massachusetts legal same-sex marriages.Since last reading Zorave's posts I made the decision to become a political activist in the cause of gays,lesbians,and transgendered people.Zorave never was able to provide the definitive, chronicled, "recipe" of psychological factors that result in homosexual adults.I of course am of the opinion that there is no one psycological recipe because homosexuality has an underlying BIOLOGICAL cause.Now that this important rubicon has been passed the floodgates for homosexual equality are opened.As part of my activism activity #2 gay and lesbian friends of mine would congregate outside of Pentecostal churches and engage in "Stonewalling" kissing hugging,and other tasteful but overtly obvious acts of homosexual affection.We timed oue "Stonewalling" in time for the church congregation's children could see the activity.It is our fondest hope to desensitize and immure impressionable children from bigoted beliefs about us by flaunting our sexuality as much as possible.Thank you Zorave for the inspiration.incidently how was your Easter?

-- R.L.Pena (becalee75@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.

There is no greater moment in U.S. history's civil rights cause than Mondays Massachusetts legal same-sex marriages.

{You have got to be either kididng or incredibaley concieted tot hink this was the greatest moments in Civil rights in US Hisotry. Blakcs whre literally enslaved. Yet this is better? You can't even prove it was a civil rights issue.}-Zarove

Since last reading Zorave's posts I made the decision to become a political activist in the cause of gays,lesbians,and transgendered people.

{You had decided that anyway. }-Zarove

Zorave never was able to provide the definitive, chronicled, "recipe" of psychological factors that result in homosexual adults.

{Actually I just lost your email address and forgot about you. Sorry, it was an accedent, but I do have other things to do than just talk to you.}-Zarove

I of course am of the opinion that there is no one psycological recipe because homosexuality has an underlying BIOLOGICAL cause.

{which you prove with off beat references to variosu studies that often don't confrm what you are talkign about and many of which where discredited. I really don't care about your opinion, science has revealed no innate biological cause. The only two peices of evidnece gay supporters ever sued where discredited, yet still used.

As for a Phsycological recipe, what exacly do you eant? Theri is no single psycolgucal recipe for depresison, anger displacement, or any host of common disorders. This does not negate them as menal disorders, but rather recognises each case is different.

As I recall, yuo where called gay since you where an impressionable child. That more than likely triggered it. You conformed to the expectatopn.But thats just you. }-Zarove

Now that this important rubicon has been passed the floodgates for homosexual equality are opened.

{Homosexuals where considered equel, and this wasnt a reudecon to cross. Rather, what you call a denial of ewuel rights was actually enforcign the same rights. Twp streoght men, thpugh with no desire to marry int h first place, coudltn mary even if they wantes to. Thwe law was alreayd universal.}-Zarove

As part of my activism activity #2 gay and lesbian friends of mine would congregate outside of Pentecostal churches and engage in "Stonewalling" kissing hugging,and other tasteful but overtly obvious acts of homosexual affection.We timed oue "Stonewalling" in time for the church congregation's children could see the activity.It is our fondest hope to desensitize and immure impressionable children from bigoted beliefs about us by flaunting our sexuality as much as possible.

{In other words, you subjected peopel to a disgusting , overt dispaly of affection witht he intent of indoctornating chuldren and forcign your self appoitned morality upon others who may not share this veiw.

Doe soemone who denies psycological impact oin choldren, you certainly boast npw of emloyong it.

Also, why was this right? because YOU have decided Homosexuals neec t be acepted and chidlren need ot be FORCED to accept your brand of bigotry gaiant traditional values?

Why woudl youy harrass Chruchgoers? Are we to applaud that? is anyone in their right mind to applud your disrespect and arrogance?}- Zarove

Thank you Zorave for the inspiration.incidently how was your Easter?

{I didnt inspire this, your own ego did. And fine. As I said, i los your address and simpley forgot about you, why take that out on children? Are you that vain and conceited?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 20, 2004.

Well , about transgendered people , maybe crazy to ask , but ....:

Suppose a hetero couple marries (Law & church) , after their marriage , the guy wants to become a woman and goes on with this , is this marriage still legal for the church ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), May 20, 2004.

This discussion would be more fruitful without the personal slurs from all parties. Zarove why can't you put your argument across without calling people demented? Yes this person does sound in need of some psychological help but it is not nice to call names!

If he is ill or disturbed then he is in need of treatment not personal attacks.

Zarove - you speak a lot about studies of homosexuality and stuff, may I respectfully ask what qualifies you to dismiss psychological studies?

I am a psychology graduate and am aware of both sides of the debate, also that while nothing is yet 'proven' there have been some studies that strongly suggest a biological basis for homosexuality. I don't say this to give an excuse for behaviour which you find abhorrent. As yet this research has a long way to go before it can be considered 'proof'. Remember though that Gallileo was considered a heretic for suggesting that the earth revolved around the sun until science bore him out.

'Truth' is an absolute but it isn't always recognised first time round.

I am still surprised that homosexuality can be equated with paedophillia. And no I don't see them as drooling old man in raincoats. I was abused my by Father who justified his action by saying I was provocative - I was six. Yes gays and peadophiles may use the same excuses but it is not the same. One involves consenting adults the other involves innocent children.

Even if I subscribed 100% to your argument (personal comments removed) I would still find it difficult to accept the way in which the message is delivered. In my humble opinion it is always better to meet people where they are and bring them forward in love not make personal comments and decry them as being ruinous to society.

When Jesus came upon the stoning of Mary of Magdalene He didn't join in, He didn't stand there and tell her she was immoral and a threat to society. he stopped the stoning, set her on her feet and gently asked of her that she go and sin no more. What a difference to what I find in this thread.

And she that had been forgiven much - loved much. She was transformed by the love of God - not the moralistic stones of the church.

-- Jesus Follower - not Emily (Believer@ChristianityRocks.org), May 21, 2004.

Zarove - I am sorry I was not clear - you have misunderstood me. y opening comments were to all parties - The named bit was to you. Most of the rest was general.

R L Pena is wrong to personalise the argument and to make statements about you that cannot be verified. I should have gone back and checked the name so as to include him/her more obviously.

I may not agree with you Zarove but Personal attacks are always out of place.

I guess that is why I find the whole debate upsetting. Too often we fail to seperate the person from the behaviour. It is possible to love the sinner while hating the sin.

RL Pena - please stick to debating the issue not making personal attacks on other contributors. However wrong you think Zarove is he has every right to hold and defend his viewpoint. Adults allow intelligent debate without resorting to personal insult and unfounded accusation.

Zarove - why does it matter if it was or was not Magdalene at the stoning. The point remains that Jesus responded to the person with love while gently demanding an end to the sin.

-- Jesus Follower (Believer@ChristianityRocks.org), May 21, 2004.

a great day has come and gone and now is being overshadowed by worse things. the day was great and many people felt liberated and free. to finally feel free in a country that was meant for security and freedom is sad. to think that someone in their own country didn't feel safe and free here is absolutely disheartening. many of my own friends are happier than ever and that day caused it the movement forward caused it. they don't feel free because their "addiction" is leagal in a state. it isn't an addiction and irrmoral it just is.

question; how many quotes from jesus are there that deal with homosexuality? I already know every single one i have looked them up myself and interpreted them in a hundred ways. give me the answer and no quotes please i jst want a nuber. how may?

-- Sherae (cerulean42@msn.com), June 01, 2004.