Levi's sports white knots in support of gay marriage (Page 6/31) Jake_Dragon MAY 29, 06:06 PM quote Originally posted by Boondawg: How you can tell God loves you: He hasn't killed you called you home yet! Faith Phranc MAY 29, 06:34 PM quote Originally posted by Carver1: Prove it. Obviously you can't. You had better pray that you are right. Proving it is easy. There isn't a single direct quote of god in the bible. Phranc MAY 29, 06:35 PM quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: And yet he still loves you. He? Would that be the fake god of the bible? Jake_Dragon MAY 29, 06:40 PM quote Originally posted by Phranc: He? Would that be the fake god of the bible? Nope the God of man. I said he loves you, vote is still out for the rest of us Phranc MAY 29, 06:44 PM quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I'm going to try again, Phranc, but you just need to know I'm not trying to win any debate or to prove any point. Certain men wrote or authored the bible. The men wrote about a certain God with certain characteristics. I decided to call the God as these men portrayed Him in the bible as "the God of the bible". I did that to differentiate what other people call gods because many people have their own opinion. I then stated specifically that this, as I called it, "the God of the bible" (as portrayed by these men) says that homosexuality is unnatural and is wrong. What is said that you said was wrong, or incorrect, was when you said, "The God of the bible said nothing." Well, Phranc. I'm not trying to nitpick at all. Nor am I trying to make you look bad. Maybe it would have been more acceptables to say you misinterpreted what I said. But "The God of the bible" DOES say lots of things. In the bible. Whether you view him as a fictional character or the genuine God wasn't my point. Just as in other books, so and so said. Pick someone. Tom Sawyer said... Well, no, Mark Twain said it. Well, of course. But that is the context I was speaking in. I'm just trying to help you understand what I was saying. This is NOT some contest I'm trying to win so again, I'm not discussing it in that manner. I'm just trying to clarify. Clarify this for me. Is the god in the bible real or not? Why would you use the god in the bible as a justification for gay love to be unnatural? Can you quote exactly where god said this? I understand what you are saying. You saying that you value the god in the bible to dictate what is and isn't unnatural for despite what actual nature tells you. Thats fine but you better be willing to accept confrontation when you use such statements . You obviously aren't. You really can't defend your position. But when you ride on faith you don't have to. And I'm not wrong when I say the god in the bible said nothing. Phranc MAY 29, 06:45 PM quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: Nope the God of man. I said he loves you, vote is still out for the rest of us There is no god of man to love me. Gods aren't real. frontal lobe MAY 29, 06:45 PM quote Originally posted by avengador1: If you are so hung up on the use of a word you need to get over it. Many other cultures and religions have used the word "marriage" for millenia. Their definiton may not be the same as your definiton of it. I guess they are all wrong too. The word "marriage" is not exclusive to the Catholic church or it's members. If you think this is so your are wrong. Would you be satisfied if gay couple use any of these other words instead? Matrimony, wedding, nuptials. These are terms for the ceremony uniting couples in wedlock, or would these still not satisfy you? Well, I'll admit I am "old fashioned" in SOME ways. But that really isn't the issue in this case. Just like some people don't accept the Bible as being the authority for defining things, I don't necessarily accept Webster's definitions as the authority for defining things. I'm not upset with Webster. They are trying to reflect what possible meanings people put on a certain word. Look. I'm being up front with people. I'm using the BIBLE definition of marriage. Not the catholic definition. I'm not catholic. I have never really checked to see precisely how they define it. Society for THOUSANDS of years have used the man-and-woman definition, regardless of belief in the bible, or being religious, etc. I am against homosexuals using ANY terms related to marriage to define their relationship. Matrimony. Wedding. Nuptials. Stop trying to equate your relationship with marriage. They are DIFFERENT. In a biblical marriage, there are DEFINED roles that go along with the marriage. It isn't a superior/inferior thing. It is an assignment of certain roles in the marriage to certain members of it. A lot of heterosexuals reject those roles. Whatever. That's their business. But there ARE defined roles. Some assigned to the man. Some assigned to the woman. That doesn't apply to couples who are of the same sex. It is a different relationship. I NEVER SAID it couldn't be a loving relationship. I never said it couldn't be a devoted, committed relationship. I never said it couldn't be very valuable and meaningful to them. It just isn't a marriage. Regarding the exact quote in the Bible, here it is: Romans 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Regarding being hypocritical, NOT AT ALL. I find the thought of me having sex with another man personally as disgusting. I don't find the thought of me having sex with another woman personally disgusting. But I DO find it wrong since I am married and part of the commitment that goes with that is to exclusively reserve sexual activity solely to my wife. But I'm not having SEX with my homosexual friends. I can deliver a hug in a certain way with NO sexual connotation communicated or delivered. I can deliver kisses that way. Same with my heterosexual friends, male or female. I have to be careful so I don't accidentally communicate the wrong thing. But I am telling you people, on an individual person and couple basis, I am as kind and helpful to homosexual people as anyone else. But if you are asking me if I am for them laying claim to the words surrounding marriage, my answer is NO. If you ask me if I will fight for equal civil rights for them, my answer is YES. If you ask me is what they are doing a right and ok alternative life, I will say NO. Do I feel obligated to interfere with them or to initiate criticism of them? NO. I agree with htexans1 in the sense that this is not a big deal to me, and doesn't have big impact on my happiness. I'm just giving all this in the context of my opinion. I'm not calling my congressmen on this one. I'm not marching. I'm not attending rallies. I AM saying that words have meanings. Meanings are important. Just because one group wants to change a definition doesn't mean we all have to roll over and accept it when we feel there are signficant distinctions that don't merit the change in the word's definition. (forgot to mention to a previous post. I find cigarette smoking disgusting as well. Yet I TOTALLY support smoker's rights, and have fought against the U.S. government taking away business owner's rights to decide what to do with their establishments, and have fought against taxing these people to death. That's not hypocritical, either.) Also with you, avengador, I'm just discussing this. I'm not arguing with you, or trying to prove some point. I'm just trying to clarify to you where I am really coming from. Jake_Dragon MAY 29, 06:49 PM quote Originally posted by Phranc: There is no god of man to love me. Gods aren't real. I don't know that you are real. I have never seen you only some digital representations of you. I will keep the faith that you are real. blackrams MAY 29, 06:54 PM quote Originally posted by Cheever3000: This is nothing new. I stopped buying their stuff a very long time ago, when Levi-Strauss cut off funding to the Boy Scouts. The power of the almighty dollar can send a message also. Ron Phranc MAY 29, 06:57 PM quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: I don't know that you are real. I have never seen you only some digital representations of you. I will keep the faith that you are real. If that is the failure of an argument you want to use go right ahead.