Chelsea Manning's sentence commuted

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pleas learn to read,

their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature

it mentions only males?

It only mentions males with regard to homosexuality. With women, just some vague reference to something "contrary to nature." I don't know what that is. It doesn't say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pleas learn to read,

their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature

and again

[b]their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature

and just to make sure

THEIR FEMALES changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature

it mentions only males? are you capable of rational thought?[/b]

Where does it say, in the Bible, that lesbianism is "contrary to nature?"

The passage doesn't limit the men to a "contrary to nature" reference. It spells it out. Does not do the same for women.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
It only mentions males with regard to homosexuality. With women, just some vague reference to something "contrary to nature." I don't know what that is. It doesn't say.

the entire passage is talking about homosexuality, lets ask you what Paul meant when he stated that they (females) changed themselves into something contrary to nature and then says of males who were engaging in homosexual acts LIKEWISE the males. . . .

I don't mean to be rude but it appears that I am attempting to reason with someone that is actually incapable of reasoning.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Where does it say, in the Bible, that lesbianism is "contrary to nature?"

The passage doesn't limit the men to a "contrary to nature" reference. It spells it out. Does not do the same for women.

I just showed you if you cannot discern it from the passage ask someone for help but I will not be wasting a single second with someone with scant powers of discernment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the entire passage is talking about homosexuality, lets ask you what Paul meant when he stated that they (females) changed themselves into something contrary to nature and then says of males who were engaging in homosexual acts LIKEWISE the males. . . .

I don't mean to be rude but it appears that I am attempting to reason with someone that is actually incapable of reasoning/

No, that's YOUR reading. The first sentence makes no mention of homosexuality. Just that women "make use of themselves" in a way which is "contrary to nature." Could be referencing some form of masturbation, since the sentence about men talks about "use" of women. But you're assuming the whole thing is about homosexuality. That's not what the paragraphs says.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
No, that's YOUR reading. The first sentence makes no mention of homosexuality. Just that women "make use of themselves" in a way which is "contrary to nature." Could be referencing some form of masturbation, since the sentence about men talks about "use" of women. But you're assuming the whole thing is about homosexuality. That's not what the paragraphs says.

You were telling us about the term 'likewise', what Paul meant.

In fact, if you read the passage as a lawyer, you would assume that the first sentence does NOT reference homosexuality since it is spelled out explicitly in the second. It would be redundant, and if redundant, then you would want it spelled out in the first. So you cannot assume that "unnatural" is homosexual. That's based on your own preconception.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
In fact, if you read the passage as a lawyer, you would assume that the first sentence does NOT reference homosexuality since it is spelled out explicitly in the second. It would be redundant, and if redundant, then you would want it spelled out in the first. So you cannot assume that "unnatural" is homosexual. That's based on your own preconception.

You were telling us about the term 'likewise', what Paul meant, were you not? clearly it links the first clause with the second.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You were telling us about the term 'likewise', what Paul meant.

The word "likewise" refers to the "natural" or "unnatural" use of women. The conjunction "and" then takes you to the additional grievance with men, in their homosexuality. Otherwise it's triple redundant!

Originally posted by Kunsoo
The word "likewise" refers to the "natural" or "unnatural" use of women. The conjunction "and" then takes you to the additional grievance with men, in their homosexuality. Otherwise it's triple redundant!

I am sorry that makes no sense. It appears to me and probably anyone with even a modicum of discernment that Paul was drawing a correlation between the homosexual behaviour of the males and that of the females, likewise, as in like manner.

Concise, elegant and completely sound in contrast to your dogs dinner and vain attempt to evade reality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sorry that makes no sense. It appears to me and probably anyone with even a modicum of discernment that Paul was drawing a correlation between the homosexual behaviour of the males and that of the females, likewise, as in like manner. Concise, elegant and completely sound in contrast yo your dog-eared and vain attempt to evade reality.

Again, look at the passage.

"That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty,which was due for their error. - Romans 1:26-27."

The first sentence references "natural use of themselves," not others. With males, the passage goes to uses of others. So basically, women are having sex with themselves, and men are having sex with other men, so men and women aren't having sex together. That's how it reads to me. Nothing about women have sex with women.

Originally posted by Eladar
One person was killed for mentioning the fact in public.

Was it you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said that they are synonymous but I object to the practice in both homosexuals and heterosexuals for the same reason. As you are aware my main reason for opposition is religious, homosexuality is anti Biblical, citing things like the physiology of the human body is merely an attempt at corroboration. Either way my reasons are rational.

Oh, the irony.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Again, look at the passage.

"That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,working what is obscene and receiving in t ...[text shortened]... ren't having sex together. That's how it reads to me. Nothing about women have sex with women.

The whole treatment in the bible is that of making homosexuality a disease, a depravity. We now know it is no such thing. So why would people still, in century 21 believe biblical edicts in the first place? It makes no sense whatsoever to keep following 3000 year old dogma.

People who follow the bible for this kind of morality stop thinking for themselves and just fall over and play dead in their bible besotted obedience.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Again, look at the passage.

"That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,working what is obscene and receiving in t ...[text shortened]... ren't having sex together. That's how it reads to me. Nothing about women have sex with women.

females is plural, males is plural, and rather damning for you is the fact that they do so towards one another [in like manner]. Oh dear. I don't mean to be rude but I actually have better things to do than remonstrate with people who do not want to accept the simple reality of a text.