You are right and I am sorry to call homosexuality abnormal I must repent before God because He called it an abominable behavior. Here are a few other words to describe it.

adjective
So objectionable as to elicit despisal or deserve condemnation: abhorrent, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, despisable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, infamous, loathsome, lousy, low, mean, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched.

Abomination is an English term used to translate the Biblical term תֹּועֵבָה tōʻēḇā or to'ba (noun) or ta'ab
(verb).

The term in English signifies that which is exceptionally loathsome, hateful...

You are right and I am sorry to call homosexuality abnormal I must repent before God because He called it an abominable behavior. Here are a few other words to describe it.

adjective
So objectionable as to elicit despisal or deserve condemnation: abhorrent, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, despisable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, infamous, loathsome, lousy, low, mean, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched.

Abomination is an English term used to translate the Biblical term תֹּועֵבָה tōʻēḇā or to'ba (noun) or ta'ab
(verb).

The term in English signifies that which is exceptionally loathsome, hateful, wicked, or vile. In Biblical terms to'ba does not carry the same sense of exceptionalism as the English
term. It simply signifies that which is forbidden or unclean according to the religion.

Linguistically it is therefore close in meaning to the Polynesian term taboo or tapu, signifying that which is forbidden, should be
left alone and not touched, or (for some items) brings death by the act of touching.
The word "abomination" is also used in Jewish (and Christian Old Testament) scriptures to refer to homosexual activity (Leviticus 18:22), Leviticus
20:13), idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy
13), cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5), cheating in the market by using rigged weights (Deuteronomy 25:13-19, Proverbs 11:1), and dishonesty (Proverbs 12:22).

Homosexuality is not abnormal. It has been observed in many, many species of animals, and has existed since before written history.

List these MANY MANY MANY animals for me. And I for one being a HUMAN being am not an animal. Of course certain animals eat their young and certain humans kill theirs so I guess in a way we are nothing more than mere animals. But of course those animals which have yet to be listed having same sex "SEX" they, like their human animal counterparts, are unable to procreate in such a manner. Of course being EVOLVED animals, we mere humans. we figured out how we can MANUFACTOR babies so that we can practice this ANIMALISTIC behavior being observed in MAN...

Homosexuality is not abnormal. It has been observed in many, many species of animals, and has existed since before written history.

List these MANY MANY MANY animals for me. And I for one being a HUMAN being am not an animal. Of course certain animals eat their young and certain humans kill theirs so I guess in a way we are nothing more than mere animals. But of course those animals which have yet to be listed having same sex "SEX" they, like their human animal counterparts, are unable to procreate in such a manner. Of course being EVOLVED animals, we mere humans. we figured out how we can MANUFACTOR babies so that we can practice this ANIMALISTIC behavior being observed in MANY MANY MANY MANY animals, which still have yet to be named.

So then apart from the HUMAN animal which other ANIMALS can we add to this list?

Between "I can't use a room at the library" and "I have to travel to a
different county if I want to get married", I know which one I think is
a bigger problem and a bigger restriction -- and it's not the library.

Here of course our poster gets off the topic. The topic was allowing the promotion of practices that are considered offensive by some portion of the population as long as it is promoting the greater good of espousing the HOMOSEXUAL agenda.

On the other hand they will forbid any promotion of religious practices for the same reason that it may offend some.

So on the one hand it is okay to offend the majority of people who view "homosexuality" as offensive but we "C...

Between "I can't use a room at the library" and "I have to travel to a
different county if I want to get married", I know which one I think is
a bigger problem and a bigger restriction -- and it's not the library.

Here of course our poster gets off the topic. The topic was allowing the promotion of practices that are considered offensive by some portion of the population as long as it is promoting the greater good of espousing the HOMOSEXUAL agenda.

On the other hand they will forbid any promotion of religious practices for the same reason that it may offend some.

So on the one hand it is okay to offend the majority of people who view "homosexuality" as offensive but we "CAN NOT" allow the promotion of Christianity which offends far less people.

You can however promote any other religion you may wish to espouse just not Christianity.

eaglewings said:

I for one being a HUMAN being am not an animal.

You're not an animal?

Huh.

Interesting.

I guess that means you're either a vegetable or a fungus, or maybe a protist or a monera?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_%28biology%29#Five_kingdoms

As far as "practices that are considered offensive by some portion of the population", once upon a time it was against the law in the US for black people and white people to marry. Many people were intensely uncomfortable with the idea of mixed-race couples and saw it as an offense in the sight of God. That was the law and the custom.

And you know what? The law was wrong. The custom was wrong. People's discomfort at seein...

eaglewings said:

I for one being a HUMAN being am not an animal.

You're not an animal?

Huh.

Interesting.

I guess that means you're either a vegetable or a fungus, or maybe a protist or a monera?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_%28biology%29#Five_kingdoms

As far as "practices that are considered offensive by some portion of the population", once upon a time it was against the law in the US for black people and white people to marry. Many people were intensely uncomfortable with the idea of mixed-race couples and saw it as an offense in the sight of God. That was the law and the custom.

And you know what? The law was wrong. The custom was wrong. People's discomfort at seeing mixed-race couples is irrelevant and does not change the fact that denying them the right to marry was a violation of their Constitutional rights.

I guess that means you're either a vegetable or a fungus, or maybe a protist or a monera?

The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animale, neuter of animalis, and is derived from anima, meaning vital breath or soul. In everyday colloquial usage, the word usually refers to non-human animals. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia. Therefore, when the word "animal" is used in a biological context, humans are included.[1]

Yes strictly biologically speaking I guess I could be classified as an animal thus is the problem with science only proponents. They see no difference between a lion and a lamb or a monkey and a man. However f...

I guess that means you're either a vegetable or a fungus, or maybe a protist or a monera?

The word "animal" comes from the Latin word animale, neuter of animalis, and is derived from anima, meaning vital breath or soul. In everyday colloquial usage, the word usually refers to non-human animals. The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the Kingdom Animalia. Therefore, when the word "animal" is used in a biological context, humans are included.[1]

Yes strictly biologically speaking I guess I could be classified as an animal thus is the problem with science only proponents. They see no difference between a lion and a lamb or a monkey and a man. However from a biblical and moralistic viewpoint I would argue there is a vast difference between an animal and a human being for I see human kind is superior to basic animal life.

Therefore we should be held to a higher moral code then lets say an ape would be. I do not expect apes to behave humanly anymore than I would expect a horse to behave in a manner not befitting a horse. On the other hand I would find it BASE for a moral person (human) to behave like a simple jack ass but alas I am seeing far too many jack asses masquerading as humankind therefore I can see how one can become confused between animal and human.

And you know what? The law was wrong. The custom was wrong. People's discomfort at seeing mixed-race couples is irrelevant and does not change the fact that denying them the right to marry was a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Just because something is lawful does not make it moral. It just makes it legal. It is legal to kill babies and no one seems to think their constitutional rights to LIFE are being violated.

It is not legal to have sex with underage children yet some would seem to think this custom is wrong and should be changed. Therefore let us just do away with all law and order and let everyone PURSUE their happiness in whatever way they see fit.

Pedophile...

And you know what? The law was wrong. The custom was wrong. People's discomfort at seeing mixed-race couples is irrelevant and does not change the fact that denying them the right to marry was a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Just because something is lawful does not make it moral. It just makes it legal. It is legal to kill babies and no one seems to think their constitutional rights to LIFE are being violated.

It is not legal to have sex with underage children yet some would seem to think this custom is wrong and should be changed. Therefore let us just do away with all law and order and let everyone PURSUE their happiness in whatever way they see fit.

Pedophiles, polygamists, nudists, rapists, homosexuals, bestiality, it is all within one's constitutional rights in their PURSUIT of happiness to pursue any and all deviate behavior they so choose.

So why stop at letting two of the same sex marry why not let a man marry his horse, or a gerbil or better yet let him marry his own daughter like some of these religious cults do. Oh wait I can not call them a cult because they are only engaging in an alternate lifestyle which must be protected by our constitution. MY BAD!!!

Beam me up for there is certainly no intelligent life left on this planet they all have become like animals, behaving without reason.

Or, would it make more sense to not worry so much about what the Bible says when we decide on what's right and wrong?

No I actually believe we would be far better off if we followed the instructions of the bible. At least then the judgments would be just and equal. Each person would receive the punishment as described in the law. If we would just uniformly enforce the laws we have in the US now I would be much happier. Which brings us back onto the topic of this post.

Inequalities of the current judicial system

Special interest groups are afforded certain protections under the CONSTITUTION that are then denied to another segment of society.

Those who press for...

Or, would it make more sense to not worry so much about what the Bible says when we decide on what's right and wrong?

No I actually believe we would be far better off if we followed the instructions of the bible. At least then the judgments would be just and equal. Each person would receive the punishment as described in the law. If we would just uniformly enforce the laws we have in the US now I would be much happier. Which brings us back onto the topic of this post.

Inequalities of the current judicial system

Special interest groups are afforded certain protections under the CONSTITUTION that are then denied to another segment of society.

Those who press for equal treatment under law are at the same time saying EXCEPT if you happen to believe in DIVINE LAW or Christianity then we will not afford you the same rights we are seeking for ourselves.

Therefore to make myself clear as a bell, (even though I am sure that someone will still find a way to misinterpret what I am clearly stating) by granting SPECIAL exceptions to a certain class of people is directly opposed to what the constitution of this great land states. Basically it states equal treatment under the law.

Therefore as long as you abide by the law of the land you should be treated equally. It is the extension of certain (EXCEPTIONS) from the law that is causing all this confusion and injustice to take place.

No one wants to be PUNISHED for anything so therefore we have to make every thing lawful. That is just asking for trouble.

Of course what the heck do I know I am only a bird brain who reads the "OLD BOOK".

No I actually believe we would be far better off if we followed the instructions of the bible. At least then the judgments would be just and equal. Each person would receive the punishment as described in the law.

Not really. Exodus 21:20-21 says its OK to lethally hit your slave, so long as they take a couple of days to die:

Exodus 21:20-21 said:

20 And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.

Exodus 21:23-25 gives the old "eye for an eye" line, but Exodus 21:26-27 makes an exception for people ...

No I actually believe we would be far better off if we followed the instructions of the bible. At least then the judgments would be just and equal. Each person would receive the punishment as described in the law.

Not really. Exodus 21:20-21 says its OK to lethally hit your slave, so long as they take a couple of days to die:

Exodus 21:20-21 said:

20 And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.

Exodus 21:23-25 gives the old "eye for an eye" line, but Exodus 21:26-27 makes an exception for people who injure slaves:

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. 26 And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondwoman, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his bondman's tooth, or his bondwoman's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

That seems like the farther thing from a "just and equal" judgment.

That seems like the farther thing from a "just and equal" judgment.

Thus we see the inadequecies in every man made attempt to enforce justice. We being faulty are not just in and of ourselves therefore it is impossible to render just judgements upon anyone.

So then with each new law and exception comes even more injustice and confusion. Each judge wishes to interpret the meaning and intent of the law according to their own biases and thus rendering man unable to mete out even the simpliest forms of justice. This post is not the forum for debating the actual intent of the scriptures you quoted but it surely does serve well the original intent of this post. UNJUST judgements j...

That seems like the farther thing from a "just and equal" judgment.

Thus we see the inadequecies in every man made attempt to enforce justice. We being faulty are not just in and of ourselves therefore it is impossible to render just judgements upon anyone.

So then with each new law and exception comes even more injustice and confusion. Each judge wishes to interpret the meaning and intent of the law according to their own biases and thus rendering man unable to mete out even the simpliest forms of justice. This post is not the forum for debating the actual intent of the scriptures you quoted but it surely does serve well the original intent of this post. UNJUST judgements just keep getting worse as we attempt to break the law at every opportunity we can find. Proving once again that man's inate nature is to be lawless.

The grandest of all laws is DO Unto others as you wish they would do unto you. Therefore do no harm to your neighbor and they should in turn do no harm to you. Try enforcing that one law shall we?

Thus we see the inadequecies in every man made attempt to enforce justice. We being faulty are not just in and of ourselves therefore it is impossible to render just judgements upon anyone.

I agree that the laws I quoted are man-made, but the problem is that there are people who think they were passed down to us by God. Yet this alleged "God-made" law is clearly unjust and unequal by any definitions of those words.

The grandest of all laws is DO Unto others as you wish they would do unto you. Therefore do no harm to your neighbor and they should in turn do no harm to you. Try enforcing that one law shall we?

I have a hard time understanding how that justif...

Thus we see the inadequecies in every man made attempt to enforce justice. We being faulty are not just in and of ourselves therefore it is impossible to render just judgements upon anyone.

I agree that the laws I quoted are man-made, but the problem is that there are people who think they were passed down to us by God. Yet this alleged "God-made" law is clearly unjust and unequal by any definitions of those words.

The grandest of all laws is DO Unto others as you wish they would do unto you. Therefore do no harm to your neighbor and they should in turn do no harm to you. Try enforcing that one law shall we?

I have a hard time understanding how that justifies treating gays as an "abomination" or as "taboo". The fundamentalists want their heterosexual couplings validated and respected by society and state, which is what they get, but they resist extending the same rights and courtesy to gays.

I have a hard time understanding how that justifies treating gays as an
"abomination" or as "taboo". The fundamentalists want their
heterosexual couplings validated and respected by society and state,
which is what they get, but they resist extending the same rights and
courtesy to gays.

Marriage, prior to our current 'Politically correctness' was between a man and a women which makes sense considering it was for the purpose of procreation. No matter how you want to slice up the pie you still need a man and a woman in order to procreate.

Now then because we no longer value 'children' and we have turned the whole relationship thing on it's head it has now become taboo to tal...

I have a hard time understanding how that justifies treating gays as an
"abomination" or as "taboo". The fundamentalists want their
heterosexual couplings validated and respected by society and state,
which is what they get, but they resist extending the same rights and
courtesy to gays.

Marriage, prior to our current 'Politically correctness' was between a man and a women which makes sense considering it was for the purpose of procreation. No matter how you want to slice up the pie you still need a man and a woman in order to procreate.

Now then because we no longer value 'children' and we have turned the whole relationship thing on it's head it has now become taboo to talk about marriage in a traditional sense. Today if you mention that marriage should remain as it was first established, you are labeled as gay bashers or hate mongers.

I would like to postulate that those who denigrate marriage into just a legal union between two consenting sexual beings denigrates the institution of marriage entirely, therefore if we are just going to legalize all manner of sexual behavior and state sanction it well then go for it. We have to then also acknowledge that sexual relations between animals and humans as well as children and adults should also be recognized because marriage is after all primarily a sexual preference union. There are those who prefer sexual unions with same sex partners and there are those who prefer sexual unions with differing species and there are those who prefer sexual unions with younger spouses, as well as those who prefer multiple sexual unions.

If we remove the 'procreation' portion of marriage then anything goes right?

I DO NOT THINK SO!!