Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 08/25/2004 View Tue 08/24/2004 View Mon 08/23/2004 View Sun 08/22/2004 View Sat 08/21/2004 View Fri 08/20/2004 View Thu 08/19/2004
1
2004-08-25 Home Front: Politix
Cheney [sensibly] rejects gay marriage ban
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymous6166 2004-08-25 3:50:03 PM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "Among the evidence Boswell presents are Greek texts of the ceremonies, along with their English translations ... The texts are clear. The texts are clear. There is no doubt that the ceremonies sanction a union between two people of the same sex."

The translation is false. It translates "adelphoi genesthai" as "to be united together", when any Greek could tell you that it means "to be made brothers".

The translation of "Adelphopoiia" itself is brother-making, a word again clearly understood as such by any Greek you could find and that doesn't have a hint of sexual component. Though ofcourse nowadays the imagery it would provoke would be people (possibly Native Americans) slitting their palms and grabbing each other's hands to share blood, a thing which I remember had me asking at grade school whether people with different blood groups would get hurt by doing such a thing.

... getting back to the point: Yeah, it's "same-sex union", in the sense that two brothers have to be of the same gender. But the union you are referring to doesn't seem to have anything to do with marriage.

And the word "pisti" that's translated "fidelity" is also quite easily translated into "faith", btw.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-08-25 7:52:00 PM||   2004-08-25 7:52:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Lol!

This poster isn't anonymous - it's Zenster.

I've got a sawbuck to back it up.
Posted by .com 2004-08-25 7:57:08 PM||   2004-08-25 7:57:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Wouldn't surprise me, Dotcom.
Typical Beeb propaganda--VP Cheney said that he endorsed "freedom" for gays, but regretted that the courts legislating from the bench had taken the issue of gay rights away from the 50 states and made a DOM amendment to the Constitution mandatory.
Cheney hasn't changed his position at all and I wish the Left would leave the Cheneys, including Mary, alone about this!
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-25 8:11:32 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-25 8:11:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Check this out!
The article contradicts ITSELF in the first few grafs:
US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage, apparently contradicting President George W Bush's stance.

Mr Cheney was addressing a campaign audience in Iowa that included his daughter, Mary, who is openly lesbian.

He said the issue of legalising gay unions should be settled by individual states rather than by Washington.

However, Mr Cheney said he accepted the views of Mr Bush, whose opposition to gay marriage is well publicised.

And yet the Baghdad Broadcasting Company gives it the headline that Cheney has endorsed gay marriage.
Pathetic.
But even more pathetic is Zenster's editorializing "sensibly."
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-25 8:17:15 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-25 8:17:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Bull Tweed!

Don't let the judges make the rules. Homos are against American populace rule because the US population doesn't support queer marriage.
Posted by Capt America  2004-08-25 8:22:10 PM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/]  2004-08-25 8:22:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Jen, if the article is accurate about Cheney's sayings, that'd probably be *Cheney* contradicting himself -- IF we assume that "accepted the views of Mr. Bush" means "agrees with the views of Mr. Bush".

But I'm not fluent in political-speak, and what Cheney "accepting" Bush's views actually means, if anything.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-08-25 8:27:51 PM||   2004-08-25 8:27:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I have addressed this topic at length, many, many times, so I"m not going to now, but I do need to respond.

This post is not unlike the Islamic proselytizing of posters like Gentle and Antiwar. And Yale can no more be trusted as being credible than John Kerry can.

In fact, a couple of years ago I read a text published by Yale University Press in which homosexual and lesbian "activists" were advocating the overthrow of heterosexual society by clandestinely infiltrating early childhood centers. Their thesis was that young children were being "repressed" in their sexuality by "the puritanical dictates of western religious strictures" as asserted by Anon6166. The contributions were quite disgusting, and I remember that one lesbian described the "wonderful" feelings she would get when the little kids accidentally brushed up against her breasts. One of the real aims of the homosexual movement is to break down social norms and introduce their form of sexuality to children. However, it's been well-documented that sexual abuse ( and that is what it is, regardless of what they call it) of children produces long-term psychological and emotional issues for the victims. But the homosexual/lesbian cohort will argue that that's only because society, which has been influenced wrongly by religion, will not accept sexual deviance "differences."

John Boswell, the cited "expert" for Anon's post is a pseudo-intellectual fake with an explicit agenda-- like so many other "revisionist historians" masqerading as university "teachers."

Anon6166 also says "What’s more, the Christian religion used to celebrate such unions in ancient times."

Again--activist subterfuge. The gnostics may have, but sexual deviance was never condoned by the Early Christians of the Orthodox faith.

For the non-religious at Rantburg, I direct you to the texts. Whether you believe it or not is immaterial. The fact is, it's really not too hard to figure out the writer's point of view/belief/position, and it's totally disengenuous for posters like Anon6166 to prey on people's ignorance by sounding off false information as "fact." But then, that's what the left does, huh?

From Young's Literal Translation ( a little dicey, but not that hard to piece through)

Romans 1
"24  Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves; who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen. Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame . . ."

Well, I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty clear.

1Corinthians 6
" . . . have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit. And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God."

Note: "sodomites" = arsenokoites (arsen "a male" and koite "cohabitation, sexual intercourse") = one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

Again, we're talking crystal clear, folks.

1Timothy 1
" . . . and we have known that the law is good, if any one may use it lawfully; having known this, that for a righteous man law is not set, but for lawless and insubordinate persons, ungodly and sinners, impious and profane, parricides and matricides, men-slayers, whoremongers, sodomites . . .".

Finally, Anon6166 says 'The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Amendment) is a naked attempt to enshrine religious doctrine into the American constitution . . .'

Oh, wow. A " a naked attempt" is it? Cute. However, even a cursory investigation into the life and times of the founding fathers indicates that religious doctrine is the philosophical cornerstone of the Constitution. Duh.
Posted by ex-lib 2004-08-25 8:29:25 PM||   2004-08-25 8:29:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Aris, the Beeb is putting too much into Cheney's words, as is the rest of the Leftist press.
If Cheney were going to break with the President on this key issue, he wouldn't do it like this.
In addition, Cheney is a man of conviction, as are all members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, and if he truly were to endorse gay marriage, he wouldn't continue to run as the VP for the President who wants to pass the Defense of Marriage amendment.
The reporter who asked Cheney this question was trying to put him in a spot because they know his daughter is a lesbian.
The problem here being that most homosexuals (including Mary Cheney) don't want to get married and are fairly happy the way they are, which is enjoying all the civil rights and liberties the rest of us do.
BTW, interesting exegesis on those Greek terms and setting Zenster straight. Thanks!
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-25 8:34:11 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-25 8:34:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 ex-lib, thanks so much for sharing those verses from Scripture!
Thanks be to God!
And it couldn't be any clearer, could it?
It's stunning to me how much of the Bush hating is grounded in the fact that he's also a Christian and the Left loves to say that he abuses the office of the Presidency by "enshrining religious doctrine into the Constitution," when, as you correctly observe that Judeo-Christian Faith was the cornerstone of the Constitution and this nation!
Yet, this same crowd had no problem with the previous occupant of the Oval Office flaunting his whoremongering and perversion.
"Truth forever on the scaffold, Evil forever on the throne."
God willing, there is still time and the opportunity to save this nation and keep it safe from perverts like Anon6166 implementing their evil anymore than they already have.
Gee, take out the "1" and Anon's name becomes "666"--Hmmmm.
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-25 8:44:57 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-25 8:44:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Thanks for the translation Ari - my Greek is limited to reading (with glossary in hand) the New Testament, and looking up the occasional word from a concordance or the Oxford reasearch Bible.

The Hebrew word behind the terminology in 1 Chronicles and a few other citations above is "qadesh", which conveys the meaning of a male person dedicated to licentious idolatry, homosexuality, or prostitution.

Thats where the greek roots of the words in the New Testament usually translated as "sodomite" come from.

Your translation of the word seems to be spot on - a related word that appears in the New Testament is adelphotes - a feeling of botherliness, derived from the root 'adelphos' - which (in ancient greek anyway) comes off as "brother" - derived from the connective particle 'l' and 'delphus' (the womb) - i.e. shared birth. Given Christian theology about rebirth, brotherliness certainly is the proper meaning.

It certainly carries not even one hint of homosexuality.

The author of the original article is a poor scholar if he cannot discover what I have from my handy concordance, the New Testament in (origianl) Greek, and a N.T. Greek dictionary and Glossary

The error is so egregious that it smacks of deliberate distortion, i.e. a lie on the part of the translator of the above stuff in yellow.
Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-25 8:59:07 PM||   2004-08-25 8:59:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Oh, and Rantburgers, as you can see, Rantburg U is now in session again, much appreciation to Ari K!
Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-25 9:01:09 PM||   2004-08-25 9:01:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "[Cheney]said the issue of legalising gay unions should be settled by individual states rather than by Washington."

This is perfectly consistent with supporting the proposed amendment which speaks only to what courts may "find" in their consitutions-- also with DOMA which only sez gay marriages may not be exported to states that that do not recognize such things.

Posted by Wuzzalib  2004-08-25 9:52:03 PM||   2004-08-25 9:52:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 
This place rocks! I get SO much material for reducing my liberal and lefty acquaintences into a foaming at the mouth, spittle spraying rage of impotence©.

I swear, I think the angriest of them will one day have stroke.

SWEET!

Oh...that sound you hear from time to time, it's their crest falling.

CiT
Posted by CiT 2004-08-25 10:04:19 PM||   2004-08-25 10:04:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Of course it's Zenster posting this... we discussed this already in the article about the shocking red marks.

Check the last comments
Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-25 10:29:13 PM||   2004-08-25 10:29:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 And to cut my ideas about "homosexual marriage" short: Unlike homosexual relations, homosexual marriage never existed in Western societies.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-25 10:34:52 PM||   2004-08-25 10:34:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Great catch, TGA!
(Wonder where old Zenster found that John Boswell's stuff?--apparently it's the "gay" marriage "bible," if you'll pardon the expression.)
Posted by GreatestJeneration  2004-08-25 11:08:43 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-08-25 11:08:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 When I was a young fellow, we didn't even have "homosexuals." It just wasn't done, y'know? (TGA, you can probably remember those days.)

What we did have was bachelors. Bachelors were simply men who didn't marry. Occasionally a bachelor would share the rent with another bachelor and nobody really said much about it. There were also "bachelorettes," though the term wasn't as widely used.

Admittedly, there were queers, the fellows who would occasionally accost young fellows in the bathroom. They were regarded as deviants. They weren't the same thing as bachelors.

But that was a long time ago, in a galaxy far away, where one's sexual proclivities weren't a matter for public consumption.
Posted by Fred  2004-08-25 11:25:21 PM||   2004-08-25 11:25:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Fred - That was back before you became enlightened by your, ahem, betters, eh?
Posted by .com 2004-08-25 11:32:42 PM||   2004-08-25 11:32:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Boswell is (or rather was) a self professed "gay historian" (not that there is anything wrong with that) whose findings have been questioned. If you want to, you can read a lot into old texts, especially when you try to read them with our "modern" conceptions. The Old Greek "philia" (friendship) had no sexual connotation, it rather referred to "soul unions".
It's very dangerous to interpret religious texts. If you read the mystic hymns of Teresa de Avila or Juan de la Cruz, you might think... wow this is very sexual... and yet it was about exuberant love for God.
Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-25 11:36:36 PM||   2004-08-25 11:36:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 OK, I'm gonna do it. Everybody ready?

Aris, the fine points of that translation exposition were the sharp edges of what I feel might be the best smackdown I've ever seen you do. Great job!

TGA: good catch. I love your work on the linked thread.

.com: that method of finding hidden LLL's has to be adopted by the members of the VRWC Inquisition. "Who's your President? Who's the President of you and me? Say it, Biatch!" Love it!
Posted by Asedwich  2004-08-26 1:51:33 AM||   2004-08-26 1:51:33 AM|| Front Page Top

04:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
03:24 trailing wife
01:51 Asedwich
00:25 Super Hose
00:22 CrazyFool
00:21 Lucky
00:12 Lucky
00:06 Lucky
23:43 GreatestJeneration
23:40 .com
23:36 True German Ally
23:34 Halfass Pete
23:32 .com
23:29 GK
23:26 Anonymoose
23:25 Fred
23:08 GreatestJeneration
23:06 Steve White
23:06 ed
23:00 Darth VAda
22:55 Yank
22:54 .Abu Billy
22:51 True German Ally
22:47 .Abu Billy









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com