34 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

Maybe you should read up on laws. Polygamy is illegal in virtually all countries

So is marrying dogs which is another of the many specious arguments from homophobes opposing marriage equality.

6 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

Mankind steadily on its way to  doom...  

 

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22

.

Sometimes, if you take a statement out of context or trust what a translation says instead of the original, you will wind up with an incorrect understanding.

 

https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/

 

"In sum, traditional English translations of Leviticus 18:22 are known as “clobber passages” that condemn homosexuality. Lings’ philological, literary analysis undermines the inclusion of Lev. 18:22 among those texts. He legitimizes a reading of Lev. 18:22 that condemns incestuous, same-sex rape. Therefore, the use of Leviticus 18:22 as a weapon against all same-sex relationships is not only unjust, but linguistically misguided."

 

"...condemns incestuous same-sex rape."

 

Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of same-sex rape by a family member. It is NOT a condemnation of same-sex relationships/ activities in general.

 

 

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

.

Sometimes, if you take a statement out of context or trust what a translation says instead of the original, you will wind up with an incorrect understanding.

 

https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/

 

"In sum, traditional English translations of Leviticus 18:22 are known as “clobber passages” that condemn homosexuality. Lings’ philological, literary analysis undermines the inclusion of Lev. 18:22 among those texts. He legitimizes a reading of Lev. 18:22 that condemns incestuous, same-sex rape. Therefore, the use of Leviticus 18:22 as a weapon against all same-sex relationships is not only unjust, but linguistically misguided."

 

"...condemns incestuous same-sex rape."

 

Leviticus 18:22 is a condemnation of same-sex rape by a family member. It is NOT a condemnation of same-sex relationships/ activities in general.

 

Sure , now what other hilarious nonsense have got got on Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

2 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

 

Sure , now what other hilarious nonsense have got got on Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

.

Once again, relying on a translation, rather than understanding what the original says, and the subtleties contained therein.

 

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/

 

"Looking at the precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually see and what is not there. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.”

 

This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man>woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digress and use “man>male” rather than “man>man,” which is how we have been taught to read the text.

 

[snip]

 

These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law."

 

**************

 

The Hebrew goes out of its way to distinguish "men" from "males," and this is reflected in the translation you quoted. (Other translations say "men"/"men," which is one example of why translations are not always the best sources.)

 

This prohibition is not against "men" being with other "men." (Adult men, in other words, since only adults were called "men.")

 

It is against "men" (adult males) being with "males" ("males" being how the UNDERAGED were described.)

 

3 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

.

Once again, relying on a translation, rather than understanding what the original says, and the subtleties contained therein.

 

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/

 

"Looking at the precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually see and what is not there. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.”

 

This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man>woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digress and use “man>male” rather than “man>man,” which is how we have been taught to read the text.

 

[snip]

 

These specific words – “men” and “males” – were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law."

 

**************

 

The Hebrew goes out of its way to distinguish "men" from "males," and this is reflected in the translation you quoted. (Other translations say "men"/"men," which is one example of why translations are not always the best sources.)

 

This prohibition is not against "men" being with other "men." (Adult men, in other words, since only adults were called "men.")

 

It is against "men" (adult males) being with "males" ("males" being how the UNDERAGED were described.)

 

Ok , you win, I won't go through the dozens of pertinent references  in the Book. But how about "the Earth is flat" ?

The beginning of the end.... 

Next thing is, they'll want to be prime ministers.

 

15 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

Ok , you win, I won't go through the dozens of pertinent references  in the Book. But how about "the Earth is flat" ?

.

No, what I'd suggest instead is you look at the dozens...... nay, HUNDREDS!...... of things that book tells us we are supposed to do and think........ that we DON'T do or think any longer....... because we've gotten smarter than that!

 

...And then apply that awareness to these archaic ideas of homosexuality being an "abomination."

 

(By the way....... as you toss around these accusations of gays being "abominations"... are you prepared to honor THE REST OF what Lev. 20:13 says: "...they shall surely be put to death?"

 

If we're supposed to honor and respect the first half of Lev 20:13........ aren't we honor-bound, therefore, to also follow the second half?

 

Answer: No! ------- 

 

Because we've gotten smarter than that!)

 

My guess is...

 

You're not interested in pursuing the second half of Lev 20:13 because you find the idea reprehensible. So why would you still lend any credence---any credence whatsoever---to the first half?

 

Because we've gotten smarter than that....... should be all the reason one needs to let such archaic ideas go. That, or God forbid you "bear false witness" or show disrespect to your parents, not let your slave rest on "the seventh day" or covet your neighbor's Audi........ because........ the penalty for those, too....... is DEATH!

 

**************

 

Why should Thailand get rid of laws that prohibit same-sex marriage?

 

Because we've gotten smarter than that!

 

 

 

On 11/25/2023 at 3:14 PM, digger70 said:

What's wrong with you  can't you read ? .I never said .that don't make up stories

If you can't read properly Don't Reply.

 

Aww bless, and I literally don't know what you are dribbling about now.