House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage

[Menassa]

Also, I'd say that even Paul wasn't saying it was a sin. Given the fact that Paul made up the word arsenokoitai, instead of using the already existing Greek word for homosexuals.

He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.[/quote]
I believe Mit like Mitah is the word for bed... and Shakav means 'to lay.'

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You are indeed homophobic.

A homphobe is somebody who HATES gay people, I don't hate them. I just don't agree with it. Do you have a problem with that?

No, a homophobe is someone who is afraid of or has an aversion to homosexuals.

[Tmutarakhan]

He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.

I believe Mit like Mitah is the word for bed... and Shakav means 'to lay.'

sh-k-b like most Hebrew roots is not specifically either a noun nor a verb, but both, and is used both ways within the verse: "Do not sh-k-b a male in the sh-k-b of a woman" so the Greek preserves this by using the koit- root both as verb and as noun here, although in Greek it is less common to take a noun and "verb" it.

[Menassa]

He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.

I believe Mit like Mitah is the word for bed... and Shakav means 'to lay.'

sh-k-b like most Hebrew roots is not specifically either a noun nor a verb, but both, and is used both ways within the verse: "Do not sh-k-b a male in the sh-k-b of a woman" so the Greek preserves this by using the koit- root both as verb and as noun here, although in Greek it is less common to take a noun and "verb" it.[/quote]
Correct, my point is the verse wanted to say bed it would have used Mitah or Mit.

But that's nit-picking.

yeah....

[Curiosityness]

Although I don't live in the UK id like to see it pass

[Tmutarakhan]

sh-k-b like most Hebrew roots is not specifically either a noun nor a verb, but both, and is used both ways within the verse: "Do not sh-k-b a male in the sh-k-b of a woman" so the Greek preserves this by using the koit- root both as verb and as noun here, although in Greek it is less common to take a noun and "verb" it.

Correct, my point is the verse wanted to say bed it would have used Mitah or Mit.

No, the verse could have, and in fact DID, use shakav in the meaning of "bed". Yes, a different noun existed which did not have a correlative verb; but the author chose instead to use a verb and its derivative noun from the same root.

But that's nit-picking.

No, I don't really think it is. Grenartia is treating the Pauline usage as if it were a new coinage out of nothing, which might mean anything; in the context of the Biblical translations, it is clear that Paul's word is intended as a specific reference to the Leviticus verse.

[Menassa]

Correct, my point is the verse wanted to say bed it would have used Mitah or Mit.

No, the verse could have, and in fact DID, use shakav in the meaning of "bed". Yes, a different noun existed which did not have a correlative verb; but the author chose instead to use a verb and its derivative noun from the same root.

To in turn mean: lay.... 'The Author' which is what he wanted to portray... if he wanted to mean Bed... he would have said bed.

But that's nit-picking.

No, I don't really think it is. Grenartia is treating the Pauline usage as if it were a new coinage out of nothing, which might mean anything; in the context of the Biblical translations, it is clear that Paul's word is intended as a specific reference to the Leviticus verse.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me I was only talking about the verse in Leviticus.

[Internal Union]

From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

[Menassa]

From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

Where does God say that it's wrong?

[Internal Union]

what the fuk is other

[Internal Union]

From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

Where does God say that it's wrong?

In genesis a man shall not lay with another man nor shall he lay with an animal, God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease

[Tmutarakhan]

No, the verse could have, and in fact DID, use shakav in the meaning of "bed". Yes, a different noun existed which did not have a correlative verb; but the author chose instead to use a verb and its derivative noun from the same root.

To in turn mean: lay.... 'The Author' which is what he wanted to portray... if he wanted to mean Bed... he would have said bed.

No, I don't really think it is. Grenartia is treating the Pauline usage as if it were a new coinage out of nothing, which might mean anything; in the context of the Biblical translations, it is clear that Paul's word is intended as a specific reference to the Leviticus verse.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me I was only talking about the verse in Leviticus.

And I was explaining the structure of the verse in Leviticus, using the same root for the verb "to lay" and for the noun "bed", because that is why the Greek translation did the same thing, even though that is unusual in Greek, which is why Paul's word looks odd: it makes sense only because of how the Greeks were imitating the Hebrew usage.

[Menassa]

To in turn mean: lay.... 'The Author' which is what he wanted to portray... if he wanted to mean Bed... he would have said bed.


I'm sorry if you misunderstood me I was only talking about the verse in Leviticus.

And I was explaining the structure of the verse in Leviticus, using the same root for the verb "to lay" and for the noun "bed", because that is why the Greek translation did the same thing, even though that is unusual in Greek, which is why Paul's word looks odd: it makes sense only because of how the Greeks were imitating the Hebrew usage.

Right... so we agree?

Or at least realize we're talking about different things?

Where does God say that it's wrong?

In genesis a man shall not lay with another man nor shall he lay with an animal, God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease

So... there are 50 chapters in Genesis... I'm going to need a chapter and a verse.... also I'll give you a hint... it's not in Genesis.

Edit: Are you Jewish?

[Tmutarakhan]

And I was explaining the structure of the verse in Leviticus, using the same root for the verb "to lay" and for the noun "bed", because that is why the Greek translation did the same thing, even though that is unusual in Greek, which is why Paul's word looks odd: it makes sense only because of how the Greeks were imitating the Hebrew usage.

Right... so we agree?

Or at least realize we're talking about different things?

No, we're talking about the same thing. You were saying the noun form of sh-k-b couldn't mean "bed" because there exists a different word for that; there are often multiple synonyms.

[Transhuman Proteus]

From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

Curious to see proof of either. Mainly which biologists say it is wrong and how they are a threat to mankind - you do know that there have been homosexual relationships for practically as long as there has been humanity right? Yep, they are such a deadly threat to humanity as to warrant death yet they have had no discernable impact on the spread and progress of "mankind" in 90,000+ years.

Where does God say that it's wrong?

In genesis a man shall not lay with another man nor shall he lay with an animal, God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease

Yeah, your argument isn't off to a good start if you know the bible so poorly that you think that is in Genisis.

And what happens when God gets pissed? Care to identify something that is proven to have been a literal act of God?

Oh, and it is worth pointing out medicine disagrees with you claim it is a disease.

[Tmutarakhan]

you do know that there have been homosexual relationships for practically as long as there has been humanity right?

For considerably longer than there has been humanity, you mean.

[Grenartia]

Also, I'd say that even Paul wasn't saying it was a sin. Given the fact that Paul made up the word arsenokoitai, instead of using the already existing Greek word for homosexuals.

He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.

So basically, what you're saying is, it is still debunked by my point about Leviticus itself.

From a morale stand point God says it is wrong from a biologists standpoint they are a threat to mankind and must be killed

God doesn't say its wrong. And no reputable biologist says that. And you've obviously never even heard of the Gay Uncle Theory, which holds that homosexuality, if genetic, is actually beneficial.

Where does God say that it's wrong?

1. In genesis a man shall not lay with another man 2. nor shall he lay with an animal, 3. God sees all sin as equal but a nation allowing same sex marriage is endorsing sin and 4. pissing God off look what happens when God gets pissed, 5. homosexuality is a disease and must be treated as such not as a way of life or gift but as a disease

1. Your misinterpreted passage isn't in Genesis (and unless you're referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a condemnation of RAPE, and not consensual sex).

2. Of what relevance is beastiality to this discussion? They're two different things. In one instance, you have two adults performing a consensual act, and in the other, you have a person raping an animal, which can't give consent.

3. Assuming, of course, that God sees homosexuality as a sin. And assuming that one religious group's views should be enforced over the ones of everybody else. Such is a gross violation of religious freedom.

4. If you're referencing Sodom and Gomorrah, see the above. Unless you're going to try to convince us that the angels actually WANTED to have sex with the men of Sodom. Which would then be saying that God allows homosexuality, as He has homosexual angels in His service. And I doubt you'd actually argue that, because then your argument becomes self-defeating.

5. Every reputable psychological and medical association disagrees with that assertion.

[Oneracon]

Wow this place has gone off-topic.

Though who am I kidding, any thread about LGBT issues always descends into this.

[Nadkor]

Wow this place has gone off-topic.

Though who am I kidding, any thread about LGBT issues always descends into this.

Of course it does.

People are so determined to show that the debate shouldn't be governed by religious beliefs that they can't help but turn it into a debate about religious beliefs.

[Kvatchdom]

Finland is still so far away from this, but good going UK!

[Betalia]

Personally as a Bi/Gay person as long as civil unions provide the exact same legal guarantees as a marriage and the difference is in name only, it wouldn't bother me at all to not have gay marriage, if full civil unions are provided. I know a lot of people on the right who just want the government out of marriage altogether as well who aren't specifically against gays being married, just the idea of government marriage altogether.

[Oneracon]

Personally as a Bi/Gay person as long as civil unions provide the exact same legal guarantees as a marriage and the difference is in name only, it wouldn't bother me at all to not have gay marriage, if full civil unions are provided. I know a lot of people on the right who just want the government out of marriage altogether as well who aren't specifically against gays being married, just the idea of government marriage altogether.

My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.

[Betalia]

Personally as a Bi/Gay person as long as civil unions provide the exact same legal guarantees as a marriage and the difference is in name only, it wouldn't bother me at all to not have gay marriage, if full civil unions are provided. I know a lot of people on the right who just want the government out of marriage altogether as well who aren't specifically against gays being married, just the idea of government marriage altogether.

My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.

My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

[Ovisterra]

My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.

My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

Why? They didn't invent it.

[Divair]

My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

Marriage is not an exclusively religious concept, didn't even start as one. So no.