[Jerr Conner]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...notoppose.html

Try that article. Very interesting.

That is totally and completely wrong. The Bible speaks many times on the issue of homosexuality, and it references women sleeping with women as well as men with men, so the rabbi's individual translation of a single line is not only inaccurate, but also irrelevant in comparison to the number of times the Bible calls homosexuality "unnatural" and an "abomination". I can't really go into this aspect of the discussion any further, as I've already crossed the line on the religious moratorium. So here is a link that mentions just a few of the verses in the Bible dealing with homosexuality - What does the Bible say about same-sex marriages

As far as interpretations from an old language go, are you saying that you know Hebrew better than a theologist who has studied it, probably most of his life?

Secondly, most of those verses 'mentioning' homosexuality don't actually mention it. They can be interpeted differently.

Thirdly, the Bible probably started off as an oral tradition until they discovered paper. I doubt it's original message was kept intact.

I can honostly say that I have the ability to control my desires. I also have the ability to choose whether or not I act on my desires. Just because I am attracted to women instead of men doesn't mean I am "morally pure". I find many women attractive, but I've made a commitment to only act on my desires with one woman in particular. I work in an environment that where the vast majority of the workforce are women. I'm sure that - if I chose too - I could pursue sexual relations with one or more of my coworkers, despite being married. While I firmly believe in the "nurture" side of the argument instead of the "nature" side, it doesn't matter which one is correct. We ALL have different desires and emotions that could be considered "wrong" or "unnacceptable" under certain circumstances. We all also have the ability to choose NOT to act on those desires if they are percieved as unacceptable. The link I provided above also addresses the issue of actions being justified on the basis of strong or deep emotions and illustrates why homosexuality is Biblically wrong far better than I can.

I also can honestly say I can control my actions. However, the fact still remains I am attracted to men and not women.

Why am I attracted to men? Anyways, my question wasn't can you control your desires, it was did you choose them.

I never said the Bible prohibits a man from marrying more than one wife. The Old Testament is full of men that had many wives AND mistresses...not the least of which was Abraham himself. I was talking about the current "Law of Man" that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The issue of gay marriage seeks to change this definition and to RE-define marriage to include same gender couples. My point is that if we do re-define marriage to accomodate gay couples, then the next logical step will be to re-define it again to accomodate bisexuals who don't want to choose between two mutually consenting partners. They would be the next group to claim they are the victims of discrimination, and they will have a stronger case since the "traditional" definition of marriage has already been changed to accomodate a minority group (statistically speaking, gays ARE a minority of the overall population, at least in the U.S.).

I never said you said that marriage was one-man, one-woman. I just pointed that out for anyone else who would make the claim.

Just to clear up something so you won't inadvertantly offend someome, bisexuality is when someone is attracted to both genders, not when they're in love with two people. If someone was in love with two people, that's Polyamorous.

And besides, I don't think more than one person marrying is immoral. Of course, I doon't think I could marry more than one person.

As for your ability to fall in love, I have never denied that. I've seen gay couples and know a few personally. There is no denying the depth of the feelings they have for each other. But is that depth of emotion a justifiable reason to change a long-standing tradition of all major societies throughout history. There have been many societies that may have condoned homosexuality at one time or another, but I do not know of any that condoned homosexual marriages. {Note-I'm not saying there haven't been societies in history that condoned gay marriages, just saying I don't know of any myself}.

Some traditions should be changed. Love is a good enough reason, if not then we've all been lied to our whole lives.

Is the label of "marriage" SO important, that our society should completely change the definition of the word, even though the majority of our citizens clearly do not wish for this change? The only REAL issue are the denial of certain legal benefits, as illustrated by Timber throughout this thread and others on the issue. However, as he also pointed out, these rights CAN be attained through "civil unions" or through the aid of an attorney. Yes, the latter option is expensive, but it is an available option.

And some people can't afford that option. So what're they to do?