Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?

Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?


  • Total voters
    344

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
HappyMess said:
There's no way Im going there dude. Maybe if you knew heterosexuality and how I know it you'd have some understanding. Maybe if you got to know a woman....




If thats an insinuation that people do gay things when they're drunk then you are definitely not hetero. Ive been drunk plenty of times, done plenty of things that I regret, woken up with some people that I shouldn't have- not particularly proud of it but they've all had the right bits somewhere near the right places. Not once have I ever gone anyway where you seem to think people go when under the influence. If this is the case of yourself then sorry dude but drinking only removes your inhibitions, you dont do stuff that is completely opposed to your nature.

Time to come clean, you sometimes think of men sexually don't you.
:shut:
 

Evee

New member
Lighthouse said:
Did I say naive about being homo or hetero? No! Fag.
Oh goodness I have to spread some reputation around before giving to lighthouse again...lol
Hi my little love bug!!! :chew:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
HappyMess said:
Yeah, thats a gay response to "get a woman" and "do you think of men".

Gay.
I was going to lay out the truth for you, but I realize that you are not worth my time. You are a troll.:loser:

This is the end of our discourse.
 

Evee

New member
Light house you said....
We can't save their souls. And if they are not willing to repent before they die, send them to God. Maybe He'll give them one last chance.

And isn;t one more likely to repent when they know how much time they have left? Especially if they have less than a day?





Evee says.....
Send them to God dead after you killed them.
I thought you believed once your dead it is to late. :chuckle:
Seriously, all we can do for the homosexual is pray for them.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
eisenreich said:
Before I answer the questions, which translation are you using..?
The translation I used when it said "sodomites" is the Young's Literal Translation (YLT).

The first question hinges upon the translation of the word you used for "sodomites." As we can see from Strong's, the Greek word, "arsenokoites," is translated "them that defile themselves with mankind." If you asked someone what the latter phrase meant, they would scratch their heads; if you asked a Christian, he would immediately connect the term to homosexuals. Why is that? From a side-by-side comparison, other translations of the bible did not have a clear-cut definition of what "arsenokoites" meant, either.

The Jerusalem Bible, German 1968 translated "arsenokoitai" as "child molesters". Of course, fundamentalists ignore that bible translation [as well as Phillips (1958), Jerusalem Bible (French -1955), The Latin Vulgate, (405), etc., of which reject the homosexual interpretation] while accepting the NIV (which is unclear since it has the translation "homosexual offenders").

Robbin Scroggs feels that arsenokoitai refers to a man who uses the services of "call-boys", and that malakoi refers to those "call-boys". In his book, "The New Testament and Homosexuality", Scroggs writes, "If the malakos points to the effeminate call-boy, then the arsenokoites in this context must be the active partner who keeps the malakos as a 'mistress' or who hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desires. No more than molakos is to be equated with the youth in general, the eromenos, can arsenokoites be equated with the adult in general, the erastes" (pg. 108). - source

A way to get at the meaning of arsenokoites is to look at other contexts in which the Greek word appeared independently of Paul. These other occurrences (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum) suggest that the word refers to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex). Perhaps the more important question is why some scholars are certain the word refers to male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary. Perhaps ideology has been more important than philology. - source
I've seen this before. There are rationalizations for just about every reference in the bible that is against homosexuality. In the OT people say it was about pagan religious rites where priests would have gay sex. In the NT they argue against the meaning of the original language or in a couple passages say it is talking about homosexual sex in idolatry, similar to what is said in the OT.

As far as "arsenokoites", it is interesting that prior to Paul the term is never used in greek literature, and after Paul it is used but the exact meaning is still not 100% clear. In your research you've probably seen this too but....the root words are "arsen", meaning "male", and "koites", meaning "bed". Koites is often used to in the context of sexual intercourse of some kind. If you put the two together homosexual sex is far from being out of the quesiton. It could possibly mean a man who is "easy", but that seems to have been covered in "pornos" which was used previously in the verses. Although "pornos" seems to mean a practice more similar to prostitution so maybe "arsenokoites" is just talking about a man who sleeps around but it isn't for money. "malakos" can be used in the context of pederasty, but I'm not sure if you can connect "arsenokoites" to it and say one means the boy and one means the man.

So yes, it is possible to call into question the meaning of "arsenokoites", but do you at least admit that homosexuality is a possibility?

Getting back to question 1, the word, homosexual, wasn't even coined until the 19th century, so, no homosexuality, as we understand the word today is not included in the verse you supplied as the author had originally intended for it to.
I understand that the term "homosexuality" wasn't in use back then, but we're just talking about the act of same-sex sex, which definitely would have been happening back then. The actual wording isn't as important as knowing what the author intended.

For the second question as to whether there should be a law if homosexuality was included on that list; this is something that has always confused me, and I hope that someone could help me see the Christian perspective.

Assume homosexuality was on "the list," Timothy's list includes liars and perjurers; Paul's list in 1 Corinthians includes adulterers, thieves, and the greedy (K$, this last one may apply "I'm made of money and want more. :greedy: " ;)

My honest question is, why the double-standard, especially when these behaviors are spelled out so plainly and the true meaning of "arsenokoites" is unknown? In our society today, liars, perjurers, adulterers, thieves, and the greedy are frowned upon, but they are ultimately accepted. The same cannot be said of homosexuals.

To answer the second question, if there should be a law against homosexuality by accordance to this list, then the punishment should be equal for all who are guilty. And before you jump on the bandwagon and say, "Fine!" you need to explain how little 6 year olds are going to be punished or put to death if they're caught telling white lies.
Well first, I think you were joking, but just in case....I was kidding about the wanting more money thing.

And as far as the double standard, there are laws against perjury and theft. As far as adultery, I understand that talk of homosexuality does overshadow much on TOL, but many on here will argue that adultery should be a crime as well, so there isn't a double standard. And for lying, lying isn't always a sin. Rahab in the bible lied to save some Israelites. A more modern example would be to lie to save Jews during the Holocaust. So I do not think you can make a law against "lying". You may still see that as a double standard, but I don't really see it that way.


I'll end with this: Even if those verses do not mean homosexuality I still think you can call homosexuality a sin. You have to look at the bigger picture. God created men and women for each other. Sex is for marriage and marriage is for a man and a woman. So at best I would put homosexuality with fornication.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Evee said:
Light house you said....
We can't save their souls. And if they are not willing to repent before they die, send them to God. Maybe He'll give them one last chance.

And isn;t one more likely to repent when they know how much time they have left? Especially if they have less than a day?





Evee says.....
Send them to God dead after you killed them.
I thought you believed once your dead it is to late. :chuckle:
Seriously, all we can do for the homosexual is pray for them.
When have I said it was too late once they're dead?
 

Army of One

New member
eisenreich said:
I'm not expecting an honest or even rational reply from Just Tom (Just Gay), Army of One (Army in my @ss), or Cletus, they have far too much invested in their bigoted worldview to ever see through their own hatred.
:shocked: First of all, what did I do to deserve that comment? And secondly, that was a really lame attempt at a play on words.:chuckle:
 

Evee

New member
It is always funny when it happens to someone beside ourselves.
I saw that and laughed real hard! :bannana:
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Army of One said:
:shocked: First of all, what did I do to deserve that comment? And secondly, that was a really lame attempt at a play on words.:chuckle:

Sure beats "you're a #(#(#" or "you're such a @@#" or any of the other choice phrases good Christian folk have been known to use around here.
 

Army of One

New member
Granite said:
Sure beats "you're a #(#(#" or "you're such a @@#" or any of the other choice phrases good Christian folk have been known to use around here.
No doubt (though not by me).

I wasn't questioning his use of an unsavory word, just why it was directed at me.:D
 

Just Tom

New member
HappyMess said:
:rotfl:

No, heterosexual people don't need to suppress homosexual thought becuase they just dont have any. You're in no position to define heterosexual thought since you are not one.

You are clearly gay.

You remind me of the ex-military dad in the film "American Beauty".

Now you and your kind show how homosexuality is contagious.

You continually call me Gay.. You need to... You want to... are you a gay agent trying to brainwash me.. Cause you know you are what you think you are.. So if you call a kid an idiot enough times he might just believe it right.. Thus with homos and your ilk in society you need someone to feel superior to or hide your insecurities so you call people gay.. See how contagious homosexuality is..

If being homophobic from the very core of my being make a gay you can't think straight yet you claim to be it..

But you are in a position to define what homosexuality is and you are not one or so you claim.. LOL

You have the same value system as them.. ROFLMAO
 

Daniel50

New member
Will the Antichrist be a homosexual?

This question arises from the following Scripture about Antichrist:
“Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all” (Dan. 11:37).

Many Bible scholars believe that the phrase “desire of women” here means that Antichrist, the world’s last and most terrible tyrant, will be homosexual.
 

HappyMess

New member
Just Tom said:
Now you and your kind show how homosexuality is contagious.

You continually call me Gay.. You need to... You want to... are you a gay agent trying to brainwash me.. Cause you know you are what you think you are.. So if you call a kid an idiot enough times he might just believe it right.. Thus with homos and your ilk in society you need someone to feel superior to or hide your insecurities so you call people gay.. See how contagious homosexuality is..

If being homophobic from the very core of my being make a gay you can't think straight yet you claim to be it..

But you are in a position to define what homosexuality is and you are not one or so you claim.. LOL

You have the same value system as them.. ROFLMAO

Dude all you have to say is that you like women and that you never think of men sexually either unintentionally or intentionally. Say that and if I believe you then I stop thinking of you as being gay and just a hate filled little fascist monkey instead.

Strange thing is I say I don't think of men that way and you call me gay. I ask if you ever or have ever thought of men sexually and you respond, "homosexuality is bad for society' - its that response that screams gay to me and everybody else.

Why do you consider sexuality such a big deal. Drugs are far more damaging to society yet you dont seem to be going off on one about that.
 
Top