drove him to drink? ROFLAYou!
to Not put other people at risk of injury and death because you have chosen to Drive Drunk, even in a boat.
And Anti-Gay people always are claiming that Gays are Immoral. They campaign on issues of Morality. Hence the connection between the two.
Clearly you are not merely deficient in understanding moral issues, but can't understand 1+1=2. So much for your previous post regarding "Liberals" and Math.
It would seem that gay blog site must think they drove him to drink. I guess they want to share in the blame? I don't think gays drove him to drink, so surprised so many others seem to. How odd is that?!
He got drunk, wrecked a boat, hurt other people. I doubt his stance on any political issue had a thing to do with it.
of homosexuality in the Bible is in Leviticus? If so, your Bible study is profoundly deficient. There is no mention of homosexuality in the New Testament as I understand it, despite Paul's antipathy to gay men.
I have a lot of trouble with the Pauline sections of the Bible's New Testament. I don't feel it is either the word of God, nor is it much more than a very nasty man's accounts of his travels and his prejudices and his opinions. I am somewhat puzzled that it passed the Council of Nicea and was made canonical.
Assuming you at least peruse the Wikipedia article on the Development of the New Testament canon, you can see that there was a great deal of disputation over what was and was not the revealed Word. The early Church Councils struggled with both validity of writings and their interpretation. The Coptic Church uses a very different canon, as do Gnostic Christians. Prior to Paul, it was believed that only Jews could become Christians. It was one of Paul's innovations that the Gospels should be spread wider than that, though they did find acceptance most readily among the Diaspora of Jews throughout the Roman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity -- lists a few of the Councils, the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus (whose inhabitants were called Ephesians hence the Letters of Paul to the Ephesians) but there were Councils at Antioch, Alexandria, Hippo Regius, and Rome and other places. Initially each of the centres of study tended to develop independently, the Councils were intended to impose order and to hammer out a consistent interpretation of the texts. In this striving for a unified approach, Christianity is quite different from Islam which still maintains the fragmented schools based in various religious centres and places throughout the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia. Virtually every mosque is its own independent "church" selecting and interpreting independently of each other to an extent. Most Muslims detest and abhor the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both of whom violate many of the precepts of the Quran (or Q'ran if you prefer).
The Church remained reasonably united until the 15th Century, at which point Roman Catholicism had been pushing itself forward as the leader and bully of the Christian world which was composed of interdependent centres for a couple of centuries. In attempting to convert the Spanish, a priest messed with the Nicene Creed, adding the word filioque ("and the Son") to the Nicene Creed. This ultimately fractured the church into Roman Catholicism (the word catholic means "broad" or "wide ranging") and The Orthodox Church. I tend to pay closer attention to Orthodox thought than to the Roman Church about which I know too many bad things.
Part of the Nicene Creed in its Catholic iteration showing the filioque change.
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,"
"Many evangelical Protestants reject creeds as definitive statements of faith, even while agreeing with some or all of the substance of the creeds. The Baptists have been non-creedal "in that they have not sought to establish binding authoritative confessions of faith on one another.".111 Also rejecting creeds are groups with roots in the Restoration Movement, such as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Evangelical Christian Church in Canada and the Churches of Christ." Wikipedia, English translations of the Nicene Creed.
Evangelism in the modern sense dates back only to John Wesley and 1730
and so is a very late comer to the field and, as an historian, I tend to
look for the early texts and interpretations rather than the later
"Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement. It began in the 17th century and became an organized movement with the emergence around 1730 of the Methodists in England and the Pietists among Lutherans in Germany and Scandinavia. The movement became even more important—drawing far more members than in Europe—in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries. It continues to draw adherents globally in the 21st century, especially in the developing world." Wikipedia entry on Evangelicalism.
or to be recognized as such nation wide or recognized as next of kin as most married people are. They don't have the right to spousal benefits or pensions. I'm not gay so I'm not that familiar with all the ramifications of their exclusion from the normal benefits for heterosexuals and couples. But that's not a special right, it's just asking to be treated the way other partnerships are treated whether married under Muslim, Hindu, Orthodox or any number of other faiths.
And those are not "Special Rights", they are merely the conventional rights of married and Common Law spouses. What "special rights" do you think that they want?
Additionally, I thought the Christian precept was to Love the Sinner even while hating the Sin. You're clearly not exactly overflowing with the milk of Christian charity here. More like venom, a la Bill Frist and endless TV Evangelists. Pat Robertson used to say the most disgusting things in his smooth charming avuncular fashion.
doesn't mean they should have the same legal concepts and rights under law as for marriage. If so, then what about when a parent and a child live together? Is it "sexual encounters" which make the difference?! No, it's not. Just because a couple of sexual perverts might live together certainly doesn't mean they are married or should ever be considered married.
and happen to be a man and a woman? Does that mean they should be allowed to be married either?
You still haven't given me a reason outside of religion that they shouldn't be married. Last time I asked, you just said that you've given me lots of reasons and go look it up. I figured you couldn't think of any.
It's almost funny gays would try and apply that term to drunkeness, which term is more appropriate in application to their activities.
Definition - Noun
1 : an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community
2 : a quality of dishonesty or other immorality that is determined by a court to be present in the commission of a criminal offense <a crime involving moral turpitude>
compare malum in se
Whether a criminal offense involves moral turpitude is an important determination in deportation, disbarment, and other disciplinary hearings. Past crimes involving moral turpitude usu. may also be introduced as evidence to impeach testimony. Theft, perjury, vice crimes, bigamy, and rape have generally been found to involve moral turpitude, while liquor law violations and disorderly conduct generally have not.