So now on to 3 way marriages

[jimnyc]

Yup, swirly swirly swirly our society is going down the 'terlet' as Archie Bunker used to say.

-----

'I do, I do, I do:' Brazilian female trio get hitched

Rio de Janeiro (AFP) - Three's a crowd? Not in Brazil, where three women have defied deeply conservative trends in Congress and wider traditional mores by celebrating a polyamorous civil union.

The happy trio, who reportedly have shared a bed for years and say they want to raise a child, took an oath of love in early October in the presence of Rio de Janeiro notary public Fernanda de Freitas Leitao.

"This union is not just symbolic," because it defines "how they intend to have children," attorney Leitao said.

The lovers -- a businesswomen and a dentist who are both 32 and a 34-year-old office manager -- have been together for three years and wish to remain anonymous. Despite salacious media speculation about their supposed love life, they are in fact shy, their lawyer said.

The union is not a formal marriage, because under Brazilian law that would be bigamy. Neither are they automatically allowed to declare joint income or join a healthcare plan for spouses.

But the civil union is still a big step, according to the lawyer.

http://news.yahoo.com/brazilian-female-trio-hitched-021426110.html

[Abbey Marie]

I'm fairly certain some of us here predicted this a while ago. Marriage to animals and children are not far behind.

I've said before, we really need to develop a new term and vows for traditional, holy matrimony, and set ourselves apart. I've never considered vow renewal, but I would do it for this reason.

[Christie Brinkley]

After that they will be legalizing pedophilia, Salon.com (liberal rag) has already written on article titled I'm a pedophile, but I am not a monster
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

Just prepping you to forcibly take your children and hand them over to a pot bellied pedophile to spend a night with, if you refuse you will be deemed pedophile phobic and put on a hate register where you will be unable to get a job.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm fairly certain some of us here predicted this a while ago. Marriage to animals and children are not far behind.

I've said before, we really need to develop a new term and vows for traditional, holy matrimony, and set ourselves apart. I've never considered vow renewal, but I would do it for this reason.

YEP that ole slippery slope argument a reality so soon!
Who on earth wud have thunk it!??
Why ever time we cited it, geniuses like fj, and another unmentionable member ridiculed it as juvenile and imbecilic reasoning.
Funny how such worms never seem to be around when the proof in the pudding shows up!

Same way as the vermin that tried to call me a fool aren't around now that reality so proves the validity and truth of this thread I authored over 3 years ago.

"I Take My Stands, You?"


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you

FJ tried his best to ridicule me three years ago there but now never posts in that thread now . Hiding Idiot.. -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

So a non-married polyamorous group living together is a slippery slope... how? They're not married, article says as much.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So a non-married polyamorous group living together is a slippery slope... how? They're not married, article says as much.

How- where slippery slope.
From the article--




http://news.yahoo.com/brazilian-female-trio-hitched-021426110.html

The union is not a formal marriage, because under Brazilian law that would be bigamy. Neither are they automatically allowed to declare joint income or join a healthcare plan for spouses.

But the civil union is still a big step, according to the lawyer.

"If they seek these rights before a court, they could obtain them -- and I think they will," Leitao said.

They also have a better chance now of making good on their plan to create a three-parent family, Leitao said.

"Our union is the fruit of love," the unnamed businesswoman in the trio told the daily O Globo.


From the article cited....-Tyr

[Drummond]

What about Conservatives and Socialists intermarrying .. ????!!?? :argue::argue: :puke3:

[Sorry if you were eating a meal as you read that one .....]:popcorn:

[DragonStryk72]

How- where slippery slope.
From the article--




From the article cited....-Tyr

So "might" and "I think they will" are now "has already happened"?

Come on, this is a pretty clear cut case of fear mongering journalism to boost readership. Wizards First Rule: People will most often believe a lie, because they think it's true, or fear it might be true.

[revelarts]

So "might" and "I think they will" are now "has already happened"?

Come on, this is a pretty clear cut case of fear mongering journalism to boost readership. Wizards First Rule: People will most often believe a lie, because they think it's true, or fear it might be true.


yes like the fear-mongering that same sex marriage might become a reality in the U.S. 20 years ago DS.

I still remember people laughing at christians who warned that with sex education, next schools would be giving students condoms in school.
all a big joke.
until it wasn't.

But please tell me what laws on the books in the U.S. could withstand a legal challenge for poly-marraiges?
What legal grounds would you use in the supreme court to forbid it, that wasn't used to try and stop homosexual marriages?
If the article's only fear mongering your answer should be clear and easy to articulate.

[Black Diamond]

What about Conservatives and Socialists intermarrying .. ????!!?? :argue::argue: :puke3:

[Sorry if you were eating a meal as you read that one .....]:popcorn:

Unequally yoked is a sin

[jimnyc]

So "might" and "I think they will" are now "has already happened"?

Come on, this is a pretty clear cut case of fear mongering journalism to boost readership. Wizards First Rule: People will most often believe a lie, because they think it's true, or fear it might be true.

I don't think this is a lie though, but rather the beginning. What IF they do in fact get those rights within a year, what then? Would that open the door for others. Yep, of course it will. I don't see this as a lie in any way at all. They did in fact get a notary and form a civil union. I don't think it's a matter of will, but when they'll file to get additional rights there. I agree it hasn't happened yet.... but people scoffed about animals 15 years ago, then it happened in a few places, and people continue to scoff, and a few more happened. Bigamy and even more are discussed in places throughout the states, stating "well, now that those arguments worked for gays..." and they're right, I fail to see why those arguments won't work for them.

Scoff if you will..... gay marriage, multiple spouses, animals, incest... and worse. People want to ignore this slippery slope, and yet all of the above have already been started.

[sundaydriver]

Done by a Notary Public, sheesh. So these 3 had some sort of contract notarized, all that means is:

A Notary's duty is to screen the signers of important documents — such as property deeds, wills and powers of attorney — for their true identity, their willingness to sign without duress or intimidation, and their awareness of the contents of the document or transaction. Some notarizations also require the Notary to put the signer under an oath, declaring under penalty of perjury that the information contained in a document is true and correct. That's it.

Dad was a Notary as part of one of his jobs and I remember the neighbors coming to our house to have a drivers permit notarized or transfer of a car title. Any business of size has an employee that is a Notary for contracts, etc., all the company does is request the state to give their blessing to said employee.

Nothing to see here, move along!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't think this is a lie though, but rather the beginning. What IF they do in fact get those rights within a year, what then? Would that open the door for others. Yep, of course it will. I don't see this as a lie in any way at all. They did in fact get a notary and form a civil union. I don't think it's a matter of will, but when they'll file to get additional rights there. I agree it hasn't happened yet.... but people scoffed about animals 15 years ago, then it happened in a few places, and people continue to scoff, and a few more happened. Bigamy and even more are discussed in places throughout the states, stating "well, now that those arguments worked for gays..." and they're right, I fail to see why those arguments won't work for them.

Scoff if you will..... gay marriage, multiple spouses, animals, incest... and worse. People want to ignore this slippery slope, and yet all of the above have already been started.

The slippery slope warning is always criticized by some but later when reality shows it was correct prediction that some never come around to apologize or to admit their error!
Rev comments about "next they'll be passing out condoms at school" is just one example of slippery slope argument made, was laughed at , then in reality came true.. There are many others.
Same type people deny the truth about Islam in much the same way--denial being a convenient way to not have to deal with a problem!! But denial lets it get bigger and have far ,far bigger harmful results..
An ounce of prevention(early) is worth far more than a pound of cure just never seems to enter these type peoples heads IMHO.
DE NILE (de-nial) IS MORE THAN JUST A RIVER IN EGYPT.. -:laugh: -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Done by a Notary Public, sheesh. So these 3 had some sort of contract notarized, all that means is:

I don't think anyone is saying this because it's notarized. It's because they're doing it in general, and announcing it, and having a lawyer... and likely going to bring it to the courts to have laws changed, only time will tell. But this is about how the gay marriage fight started.

[revelarts]

A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy

A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series "Sister Wives."

The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.
But the judge said he would keep in place the ban on bigamy "in the literal sense -- the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage."
The 91-page decision comes months after the Supreme Court struck down a separate federal law that defined marriage as between only one man and one woman, a major legal, political, and social victory for homosexual couples seeking recognition of their same-sex unions.

The current suit was brought two years ago by Kody Brown, a Utah resident and his four wives -- Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn -- who together have 17 children, and whose lives are chronicled on the TLC cable television program.

They claim their privacy rights were being violated by the decades-old law, passed around the time Utah became a state. They are members of a fundamentalist branch of the Mormon Church known as the Apostolic United Brethren Church...
The case is Brown v. Buhman (2:11-cv-652) (https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?211cv0652-78).
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



Montana polygamist family still pursuing marriage license

BILLINGS - MT Updated: Jul 07, 2015 8:53 PM EDT

A Lockwood family that wants to have their polygamous marriage legalized said Tuesday that the road to the altar is just beginning. Since MTN News first broke the story last week (http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license), the family's story has gone viral across the globe. Nathan Collier and his wives Vicki and Christine found themselves in the glare of the national spotlight after applying for a marriage license. Their goal is to legalize their polygamous marriage.Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense."We're simple people from simple backgrounds," said Nathan. "To find ourselves in a position to make real social change, that's a pretty big burden to bear." Last week, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act. ...

..."There's a spot on there where you put the dissolution date of your previous marriage and we put 'not applicable,'" said Christine. The couple was met with varied reaction from employees, who were caught off guard. "So, are you legally married, you didn't get divorced?" asked one clerk. "We'll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I'm aware you can't be married to two people at the same time," said another clerk. The Colliers were denied the license, and the clerk later returned to tell the couple that they would have to check with the Montana Attorney General's office. Since then, the Colliers have been met with silence from Yellowstone County officials, leaving them to wonder what will happen next. "At this point we don't know what to expect, we're either going to plan a marriage, plan a civil suit, or possibly even a criminal defense," said Nathan. The family hopes that their situation could be included in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision that legalized gay marriage across the nation.

"We're just wanting to be a family, we just want the same rights that everybody else has," said Vicki. "Marriage equality means marriage equality." The family said they want legal legitimacy, but also for society to know that they have nothing to hide. For now the Colliers wait in limbo until their marriage license receives approval or denial. "We have received no response yet from the county," said Nathan. "Which is a shame. Montana right now has the chance, has the opportunity, to lead the entire nation." All attempts to reach comment from Yellowstone County officials have gone unanswered.http://www.krtv.com/story/29496453/montana-polygamist-family-still-pursuing-marriage-license.
seems they were denied so their planning a civil suit.
so yeah no slippery slope here right?



Side bar

California bill would allow a child to have more than two parents (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/02/4604048/california-bill-would-allow-a.html)

<tbody>
...Mom and Dad, same-sex couples or blended families, California law is clear: No more than two legal parents per child.
When adults fight over parenthood, a judge must decide which two have that right and responsibility – but that could end soon. State Sen. Mark Leno is pushing legislation to allow a child to have multiple parents. "The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today," the San Francisco Democrat said.
Surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction are changing society by creating new possibilities for nontraditional households and relationships. Benjamin Lopez, legislative analyst for the Traditional Values Coalition, blasted Leno's bill as a new attempt to "revamp, redefine and muddy the waters" of family structure by a leader in the drive to legalize gay marriage.
...
Under Leno's bill, if three or more people who acted as parents could not agree on custody, visitation and child support, a judge could split those things up among them.

</tbody>

[Jeff]

I called this sheot when they first started talking about gay marriages, yup soon it will be cool to marry your dog, but only if you where born loving man's best friend. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I called this sheot when they first started talking about gay marriages, yup soon it will be cool to marry your dog, but only if you where born loving man's best friend. :rolleyes:

There goes that slippery slope blathering again.. :poke:--Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

So a non-married polyamorous group living together is a slippery slope... how? They're not married, article says as much.

In the same way that what were once gay civil unions are now officially (gay) marriages.

[Abbey Marie]

yes like the fear-mongering that same sex marriage might become a reality in the U.S. 20 years ago DS.

I still remember people laughing at christians who warned that with sex education, next schools would be giving students condoms in school.
all a big joke.
until it wasn't.

But please tell me what laws on the books in the U.S. could withstand a legal challenge for poly-marraiges?
What legal grounds would you use in the supreme court to forbid it, that wasn't used to try and stop homosexual marriages?
If the article's only fear mongering your answer should be clear and easy to articulate.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXt7ZZtwmGYXVmZr29RAW084wAezPmc UziQpJ-2c3uEh1oZ3TJ

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think anyone is saying this because it's notarized. It's because they're doing it in general, and announcing it, and having a lawyer... and likely going to bring it to the courts to have laws changed, only time will tell. But this is about how the gay marriage fight started.

With every victory anywhere, people become empowered to push the envelope. We see it over and over. Frankly, I don't understand how some people can deny it.

[sundaydriver]

I called this sheot when they first started talking about gay marriages, yup soon it will be cool to marry your dog, but only if you where born loving man's best friend. :rolleyes:

I figured a guy married to his motorcycles would have good insight into this. :laugh:

[revelarts]

From the SCOTUS "marriage" ruling
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." link (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12-most-important-lines-from-the-historic-gay-marriage-decision-20150626#ixzz3fFpDkzo4)

Can someone Please explain to me how the above LEGAL viewpoint cannot be applied to polygamous persons, or other even odder combinations? the key word in this last statement can not be construed to be "two" by anyone who's honest. But the idea of multiples comes logically and easily. If 2 is good then 3 or more may be even better and anyway "They just ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law." right?

[fj1200]

Polygamy; biblical.

[indago]

From the SCOTUS "marriage" ruling
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." link (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12-most-important-lines-from-the-historic-gay-marriage-decision-20150626#ixzz3fFpDkzo4)

Can someone Please explain to me how the above LEGAL viewpoint cannot be applied to polygamous persons, or other even odder combinations? the key word in this last statement can not be construed to be "two" by anyone who's honest. But the idea of multiples comes logically and easily. If 2 is good then 3 or more may be even better and anyway "They just ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law." right?


So, how can a man lusting after another man's asshole be "dignified"?

[Black Diamond]

Polygamy; biblical.

Homosexuality; unbibical

[fj1200]

So, how can a man lusting after another man's asshole be "dignified"?

Lust is a sin. Is lusting after a woman's ***** "dignified"?


Homosexuality; unbibical

Not exactly. It involves reading the original Greek translations though.

[Jeff]

I figured a guy married to his motorcycles would have good insight into this. :laugh:

It's OK, I was born that way. :laugh:

[revelarts]

Polygamy; biblical.
Not everything ALLOWED in the bible is promoted as God standard.
Jesus and God in the Garden gave the standard.
one man one woman.

God didn't give Adam 2 or more more wives.
and didn't give him another man



Not exactly. It involves reading the original Greek translations though.

Yes Exactly.
Only if the Greek and Hebrew are MIS-translated and other scripture are completely ignored can one honestly conclude that homosexuality is not sin.

Look FJ , as you've pointed out, we can find polygamy in the lives of various biblical people. without much condemnation.
But FJ can you show ANY homosexual marriages in the bible?
Or even any un-condemned homosexual "relationships" in the bible?
Or even a place where, like the probation against certain foods, the condemnation for homosexuality is specifically lifted in the new testament?

Show any of those and then maybe you've got an honest starting place to maybe consider that maybe homosexuality is not that sinful.
Until then it's just twisting scriptural "interpretations" into a pretzel to see what's socially fashionable.

[indago]

Lust is a sin. Is lusting after a woman's ***** "dignified"?

I don't know! Is it?

[fj1200]

Not everything ALLOWED in the bible is promoted as God standard.
Jesus and God in the Garden gave the standard.
one man one woman.

God didn't give Adam 2 or more more wives.
and didn't give him another man

I've been told all along that we need to stick with the historical/biblical standards for marriage in this country. That includes women as chattel, multiple wives and concubines. etc.


Yes Exactly.
Only if the Greek and Hebrew are MIS-translated and other scripture are completely ignored can one honestly conclude that homosexuality is not sin.

Look FJ , as you've pointed out, we can find polygamy in the lives of various biblical people. without much condemnation.
But FJ can you show ANY homosexual marriages in the bible?
Or even any un-condemned homosexual "relationships" in the bible?
Or even a place where, like the probation against certain foods, the condemnation for homosexuality is specifically lifted in the new testament?

Show any of those and then maybe you've got an honest starting place to maybe consider that maybe homosexuality is not that sinful.
Until then it's just twisting scriptural "interpretations" into a pretzel to see what's socially fashionable.

That would be a fallacy. There are many things that are not in the bible that are not a sin. Much of the condemnation is not based on biblical sources it is based on the MIS-translation ;) in the first place. You are working from the standpoint that the KJV is correct and true and must be disproved before one can look for correct biblical sources. The only honest starting point are the original texts.

[revelarts]

I've been told all along that we need to stick with the historical/biblical standards for marriage in this country. That includes women as chattel, multiple wives and concubines. etc.

see that's a dodge FJ.
Jesus pointed out and Paul reiterated, the biblical standard is what God created "in the beginning" in Genesis.
one man + one women at his side. not chattel or multiple wives or anything else.
that's the biblical standard FJ. Go back to the very beginning.
Why are dodging ignoring what God created 1st? and what Jesus and Paul said?
that's the biblical standard.
everything else is off template, 2nd rate at best and sin after that.



That would be a fallacy. There are many things that are not in the bible that are not a sin. Much of the condemnation is not based on biblical sources it is based on the MIS-translation ;) in the first place. You are working from the standpoint that the KJV is correct and true and must be disproved before one can look for correct biblical sources. The only honest starting point are the original texts.

No, I'm not assuming the KJV. I am very much talking about the original text in Hebrew and Greek, that all translations come from FJ.
Below are a few other bible'sversions of Leviticus 20:18.
Among them are the Orthodox jewish bible, Youngs literal translation, the amplified bible, several Catholic bibles.
The translations are from the pre1500s to the 1980s. from original text that date back to the 1st century and before.
Did everyone over the past 700 years mistranslate the condemnation of homosexuality FJ?


And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.AMP (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=AMP)
If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed a detestable (perverse, unnatural) act; they shall most certainly be put to death; their blood is on them.

AMPC (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=AMPC)
If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

BRG (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=BRG)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

CEB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=CEB)
If a man has sexual intercourse with a man as he would with a woman, the two of them have done something detestable. They must be executed; their blood is on their own heads.

CJB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=CJB)
If a man goes to bed with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they must be put to death; their blood is on them.

CEV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=CEV)
It’s disgusting for men to have sex with one another, and those who do will be put to death, just as they deserve.

DARBY (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=DARBY)
And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.

DRA (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=DRA)
If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

ERV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=ERV)
“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.

ESV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=ESV)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

ESVUK (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=ESVUK)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

EXB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=EXB)
“‘If a man ·has sexual relations [L lies] with another man as a man does with a woman, these two men have ·done a hateful sin [committed an abomination]. They must be put to death. They have brought ·it [blood] on themselves [18:22].

GNV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=GNV)
¶ The man also that lieth with the male, as one lieth with a woman, they have both committed abomination: they shall die the death, their blood shall be upon them.

GW (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=GW)
When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.

GNT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=GNT)
If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.

HCSB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=HCSB)
If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable thing. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.

ICB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=ICB)
“‘A man might have physical relations with another man as a man does with a woman. If he does, these two men have done a hated sin. They must be put to death. They have brought it on themselves.

ISV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=ISV)
“If a man has sexual relations with another male as he would with a woman, both have committed a repulsive act. They are certainly to be put to death.

JUB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=JUB)
If a man shall join himself with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

KJV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

AKJV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=AKJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

LEB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=LEB)
“‘As for the man who lies with a male as lying with a woman, they have committed a detestable thing; they shall surely be put to death—their blood is on them.

TLB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=TLB)
The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.

MSG (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=MSG)
“If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.

MEV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=MEV)
If a man lies with another man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood guilt shall be upon them.

NOG (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NOG)
When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men are doing something disgusting and must be put to death. They deserve to die.

NABRE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NABRE)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.

NASB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NASB)
If [I]there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

NCV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NCV)
“‘If a man has sexual relations with another man as a man does with a woman, these two men have done a hateful sin. They must be put to death. They have brought it on themselves.

NET (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NET)
If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

NIRV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NIRV)
“ ‘Suppose a man has sex with another man as he would have sex with a woman. I hate what they have done. They must be put to death. Anything that happens to them will be their own fault.

NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NIV)
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

NIVUK (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NIVUK)
‘“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

NKJV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NKJV)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

NLV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NLV)
If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both of them have done a very sinful act. They must be put to death. They will suffer for their own sin.

NLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NLT)
“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

NRSV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NRSV)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

NRSVA (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NRSVA)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

NRSVACE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NRSVACE)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

NRSVCE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=NRSVCE)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

OJB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Vayikra%2020:12-14&version=OJB)
If an ish also lie with zachar, as he lieth with an isha, both of them have committed to’evah; they shall surely be put to death; their dahm shall be upon them.

RSV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=RSV)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

RSVCE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=RSVCE)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

VOICE (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=VOICE)
If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have participated in a detestable act. Both men are to be put to death, for their blood is on them.

WEB (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=WEB)
“‘If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

WYC (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=WYC)
If a man sleepeth with a man, by lechery of a woman, ever either hath wrought unleaveful thing, die they by death; their blood be on them. (If a man sleepeth with a man, like in fleshly coupling with a woman, they both have done an unlawful thing, and they both shall be put to death; their blood be on them.)

YLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:12-14&version=YLT)

`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.

That's just one verse. there are others in old and new testaments that say the same.
There are NO verses that say that homosexual acts are allowed. NONE.
No verses that say ANY type of sex outside of hetrosexual marriage is not sinful.

[indago]

see that's a dodge FJ.
Jesus pointed out and Paul reiterated, the biblical standard is what God created "in the beginning" in Genesis.
one man + one women at his side. not chattel or multiple wives or anything else.
that's the biblical standard FJ. Go back to the very beginning.
Why are dodging ignoring what God created 1st? and what Jesus and Paul said?
that's the biblical standard.
everything else is off template, 2nd rate at best and sin after that.



No, I'm not assuming the KJV. I am very much talking about the original text in Hebrew and Greek, that all translations come from FJ.
Below are a few other bible'sversions of Leviticus 20:18.
Among them are the Orthodox jewish bible, Youngs literal translation, the amplified bible, several Catholic bibles.
The translations are from the pre1500s to the 1980s. from original text that date back to the 1st century and before.
Did everyone over the past 700 years mistranslate the condemnation of homosexuality FJ?



That's just one verse. there are others in old and new testaments that say the same.
There are NO verses that say that homosexual acts are allowed. NONE.
No verses that say ANY type of sex outside of hetrosexual marriage is not sinful.

It is also written:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. — Exodus 20 v 17

So, it is a violation of the Commandments to covet thy neighbors ass...

[Noir]

see that's a dodge FJ.
Jesus pointed out and Paul reiterated, the biblical standard is what God created "in the beginning" in Genesis.
one man + one women at his side. not chattel or multiple wives or anything else.
that's the biblical standard FJ. Go back to the very beginning.
Why are dodging ignoring what God created 1st? and what Jesus and Paul said?
that's the biblical standard.
everything else is off template, 2nd rate at best and sin after that.

Can we take from this that the "biblical standard" of clothing is to be none at all?

[indago]

Can we take from this that the "biblical standard" of clothing is to be none at all?

Yes, you can "take" that, if you like...

[revelarts]

Can we take from this that the "biblical standard" of clothing is to be none at all?

Yes you're exactly right... Until the Adam and Eve sinned. then they made clothes of leaves and then God gave them clothing of animal skins.
so yeah, the "biblical standard" is now clothing.

[revelarts]

Can we take from this that the "biblical standard" of clothing is to be none at all?

BTW I though you might mention that the biblical standard at the beginning was eating only fruits and vegetables.
it was. No animal products... well maybe milk.
Then 2 things happen, 1st Adam and Eve sinned. they were kicked out of the garden but eating a plant based diet was still the standard but more difficult to come by. Animals were killed for religious purposes and clothing. Then it seems only after the flood were animals also taken as a regular part of the human diet.

But Yeah so the original biblical standard were nude, heterosexual, monotheistic, vegans.

[Noir]

BTW I though you might mention that the biblical standard at the beginning was eating only fruits and vegetables.
it was. No animal products... well maybe milk.
Then 2 things happen, 1st Adam and Eve sinned. they were kicked out of the garden but eating a plant based diet was still the standard but more difficult to come by. Animals were killed for religious purposes and clothing. Then it seems only after the flood were animals also taken as regular part of the human diet.

Yeah I went to a talk about veganism (or atleast was advertised as such) that ended up actually being a young earth creationist blabbing on.

In any case - do you think humans should try and live by the "biblical standards" aforementioned?

[Perianne]

BTW I though you might mention that the biblical standard at the beginning was eating only fruits and vegetables.
it was. No animal products... well maybe milk.
Then 2 things happen, 1st Adam and Eve sinned. they were kicked out of the garden but eating a plant based diet was still the standard but more difficult to come by. Animals were killed for religious purposes and clothing. Then it seems only after the flood were animals also taken as a regular part of the human diet.

But Yeah so the original biblical standard were nude, heterosexual, monotheistic, vegans.

Revelarts, I am certainly not doubting your religious/Biblical knowledge, but I have never heard that before. Is it based on the Bible?

[Noir]

Revelarts, I am certainly not doubting your religious/Biblical knowledge, but I have never heard that before. Is it based on the Bible?

Delends how strictly you take the word of Genesis to be, as people have all different levels of how seriously they decide to take it.
But IIRC god doesn't tell humans it's okay to eat (some) animals until after the flood.

[revelarts]

Yeah I went to a talk about veganism (or atleast was advertised as such) that ended up actually being a young earth creationist blabbing on.

In any case - do you think humans should try and live by the "biblical standards" aforementioned?
Sure, but we're never going to be perfect but we should shoot for it where possible.
the fall created all the caveats to the original standard. Some of the caveats are promoted or allowed as the new situational standard.
But yeah the original standard is the goal we'll hit again when the whole show is done it seems.

"Blabbing on" lol ok.

[Gunny]

Sure, but we're never going to be perfect but we should shoot for it where possible.
the fall created all the caveats to original standard. Some of the caveats are promoted or allowed as the new situational standard.
But yeah the original standard as the goal we'll hit again when the whole show is done it seems.

"Blabbing on" lol ok.

Anyone arguing FOR this needs a red brick upside his head, but a yellow one will do. I bet you say there's no "slippery slope" too. Sure. You so-called "progressive" socialists need to look at the pit you're regressing ou society into and how other empires have fallen in just the same manner you push for.

[revelarts]

Revelarts, I am certainly not doubting your religious/Biblical knowledge, but I have never heard that before. Is it based on the Bible?

As Noir mentioned that's the understanding of most that take the bible as literal in Genesis.
It fairly clear if not 100% definitive if you read the 1st 9 chapters that humans were likely vegetarians until after the flood.

there's no mention of humans eating meat until after that, and as Noah and family are leaving the ark God says.
Genesis 9:3-4
"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. "

The Jewish dietary laws came long after that to Moses at Sinai.
And seemed to be for 2 purposes. religious and health.
But the religious prohibitions for foods were lifted with Jesus. But the prohibition against eating blood was reiterated.


question my knowledge will you??!! how dare ya! LOL!
look please feel free to question any so called knowledge of mine,
all i ask is that you check out what i say and see if i'm making it up or something.
please check it for yourself. 1st 9 chapters of Genesis. is where that particular view comes from.

[fj1200]

see that's a dodge FJ.
Jesus pointed out and Paul reiterated, the biblical standard is what God created "in the beginning" in Genesis.
one man + one women at his side. not chattel or multiple wives or anything else.
that's the biblical standard FJ. Go back to the very beginning.
Why are dodging ignoring what God created 1st? and what Jesus and Paul said?
that's the biblical standard.
everything else is off template, 2nd rate at best and sin after that.

That wasn't a dodge, it was the argument that has been presented by many. Regarding one man + one woman and Genesis 2:24 in looking at the Hebrew it appears that verse is an add-on from the original text; Genesis in Hebrew is poetic whereas 2:24 is not. Nevertheless the reality of marriage in biblical times is far from the love-based institution that it's been made into relatively recently.

And I also disagree with the interpretation of Paul and Jesus as it's been presented by some.


No, I'm not assuming the KJV. I am very much talking about the original text in Hebrew and Greek, that all translations come from FJ.
Below are a few other bible'sversions of Leviticus 20:18.
Among them are the Orthodox jewish bible, Youngs literal translation, the amplified bible, several Catholic bibles.
The translations are from the pre1500s to the 1980s. from original text that date back to the 1st century and before.
Did everyone over the past 700 years mistranslate the condemnation of homosexuality FJ?

Not all translations are the same but it brings up the question of if the original text is so clear then why do we have so many different translations? And I think the answer to your question is largely yes. It may not have been a purposeful thing but I think the answer is yes and as new interpretations come out they shouldn't be discarded out of hand just because they don't agree.


That's just one verse. there are others in old and new testaments that say the same.
There are NO verses that say that homosexual acts are allowed. NONE.
No verses that say ANY type of sex outside of hetrosexual marriage is not sinful.

Of course we all know that Leviticus doesn't count any more. :poke: I do think though that reading one verse does not take into account the context in which Leviticus 20 might apply.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/do-centuries-of-consistent-scholarship-prove-gays-are-wrong.html

[Noir]

Sure, but we're never going to be perfect but we should shoot for it where possible.
the fall created all the caveats to the original standard. Some of the caveats are promoted or allowed as the new situational standard.
But yeah the original standard is the goal we'll hit again when the whole show is done it seems.

So you 'shot for' veganism in your life?


"Blabbing on" lol ok.

Maybe I'd be more kind if they hadn't mislead on their postered advert, but yeah going to a talk about veganism and hearing that 'dinosaurs are alive and well in Africa we just haven't seen them yet' is blabbing.

[revelarts]

So you 'shot for' veganism in your life?

I tried vegetarianism for a few months, about 20 years ago. long story short, it didn't work for me.
And as mentioned, God gave us meat to eat as well at this point. Moses, Abraham, all the apostles and Jesus ate meat even visiting angels in human form ate meat. There's zero prohibition against it at this point.

But their may be again in the new kingdom when things are set again to the way they were in the Garden.



Maybe I'd be more kind if they hadn't mislead on their postered advert, but yeah going to a talk about veganism and hearing that 'dinosaurs are alive and well in Africa we just haven't seen them yet' is blabbing.
Ah.

[revelarts]

That wasn't a dodge, it was the argument that has been presented by many.
c'mon, women as chattel and polygamy hasn't been presented by many as the biblical standard i don't think FJ.



Regarding one man + one woman and Genesis 2:24 in looking at the Hebrew it appears that verse is an add-on from the original text; Genesis in Hebrew is poetic whereas 2:24 is not. whoa you're reaching.
A break in poetic voice does not mean it's added in. Plus Jesus confirmed it's authenticity. Frankly I'll take him as authoritative on the canon in Genesis and elsewhere. PLUS it's not just based on that 1 verse, but the whole of the creation story in Genesis 1, 2 and 3. God created 1 man & 1 woman for marriage companionship that's IT.



Nevertheless the reality of marriage in biblical times is far from the love-based institution that it's been made into relatively recently.
I'm not sure even that can be said. read song of solomon.



And I also disagree with the interpretation of Paul and Jesus as it's been presented by some.
Jesus and Paul both quoted Genesis as a START so your simply rejecting the clear Biblical standard from the git-go here and superimposing modern views of homosexuality and marriage on the scripture.

Frankly you're using the same process as various cults do in other areas.
Jehovah Witnesses dismiss the concept of the trinity and the spirits alive in heaven or hell, and more,
Mormons dismiss the concept of that God is the only God from eternity past, and more,
All by not agreeing with the 2 thousand+ year old Christian "interpretations"



Not all translations are the same but it brings up the question of if the original text is so clear then why do we have so many different translations? And I think the answer to your question is largely yes. It may not have been a purposeful thing but I think the answer is yes and as new interpretations come out they shouldn't be discarded out of hand just because they don't agree.
hold up right there. are you saying that the verse quoted means the OPPOSITE in any of the verses I posted.
No it does not. they all mean and say homosexual is a wrong.
the hebrew word "tow`ebah" is translated:
abomination in theKJVand most other translations
detestable in some translations
repulsive act in some translations
hateful sin in at least 1 translations
Abhorrent in at least 1 translations
something disgusting in 1 translationsseems pretty consistent.
No one seems to translate it with the english words anything close to meaning "good" or "OK" or "holy" or "allowed" or "personal preference" or "alternative lifestyle".



Of course we all know that Leviticus doesn't count any more. :poke: I do think though that reading one verse does not take into account the context in which Leviticus 20 might apply. http://www.gaychristian101.com/do-centuries-of-consistent-scholarship-prove-gays-are-wrong.html

Look concerning the context of leviticus, It's well...

... ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.11 If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.12 If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. 14 If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst. 15 If there is a man who lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the animal.16 If there is a woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death....

it's in the middle of several other prohibitions against various types of sexual sin.
It's repeated elsewhere in similar context in the old testament.
it's included in at least 2 lists of various sins in the new testament.

What other context do you need? Unless someone is just looking for a way around the obvious.

[fj1200]

c'mon, women as chattel and polygamy hasn't been presented by many as the biblical standard i don't think FJ.

I was referring to the historical standard there that has been presented.


whoa you're reaching.
A break in poetic voice does not mean it's added in. Plus Jesus confirmed it's authenticity. Frankly I'll take him as authoritative on the canon in Genesis and elsewhere. PLUS it's not just based on that 1 verse, but the whole of the creation story in Genesis 1, 2 and 3. God created 1 man & 1 woman for marriage companionship that's IT.

I disagree that it's a reach, it's inconsistent text especially when one is relaying oral history. I'm not sure what you're saying about Jesus confirming authenticity. The time I'm thinking of that Jesus mentioned marriage he was making a comment on divorce. You can't say that he was confirming something when he wasn't really even referring to it.


I'm not sure even that can be said. read song of solomon.

One example is not proof of an entire sacrament from 2000+ years ago especially given the number of Solomon's wives especially if he also wrote Ecclesiastes. :poke:


Jesus and Paul both quoted Genesis as a START so your simply rejecting the clear Biblical standard from the git-go here and superimposing modern views of homosexuality and marriage on the scripture.

Frankly you're using the same process as various cults do in other areas.
Jehovah Witnesses dismiss the concept of the trinity and the spirits alive in heaven or hell, and more,
Mormons dismiss the concept of that God is the only God from eternity past, and more,
All by not agreeing with the 2 thousand+ year old Christian "interpretations"

I think you're granting too much perfection to some translations over others. I'm not rejecting biblical standard I want to read it correctly. This would not be the first time that the bible was read correctly differently than before. Jesus had a chance to condemn a likely gay relationship of the centurion and his pais; he did not.


hold up right there. are you saying that the verse quoted means the OPPOSITE in any of the verses I posted.
No it does not. they all mean and say homosexual is a wrong.
the hebrew word "tow`ebah" is translated:
abomination in theKJVand most other translations
detestable in some translations
repulsive act in some translations
hateful sin in at least 1 translations
Abhorrent in at least 1 translations
something disgusting in 1 translationsseems pretty consistent.
No one seems to translate it with the english words anything close to meaning "good" or "OK" or "holy" or "allowed" or "personal preference" or "alternative lifestyle".

Look concerning the context of leviticus, It's well...

it's in the middle of several other prohibitions against various types of sexual sin.
It's repeated elsewhere in similar context in the old testament.
it's included in at least 2 lists of various sins in the new testament.

What other context do you need? Unless someone is just looking for a way around the obvious.

What I'm trying to say if the context of those verses is temple prostitutes then it isn't a prohibition of a committed relationship.

[indago]

Jesus had a chance to condemn a likely gay relationship of the centurion and his pais; he did not.

Maybe he did and it was not recorded.

[revelarts]

I disagree that it's a reach, it's inconsistent text especially when one is relaying oral history. I'm not sure what you're saying about Jesus confirming authenticity. The time I'm thinking of that Jesus mentioned marriage he was making a comment on divorce. You can't say that he was confirming something when he wasn't really even referring to it.

Jesus referred to divorce by stating the standard.
If I some ask about the rules for cutting off fingers in various cases and you say people are suppose to have 10 fingers. Your establishing the standard in your reply. it's foundational. The reply is BASED on that foundation.



One example is not proof of an entire sacrament from 2000+ years ago especially given the number of Solomon's wives especially if he also wrote Ecclesiastes. :poke:
show me where Solomon whole life is held up as an example of good marriage.
As mentioned before much was allow but not condoned or promoted as best practices.
the Bible seems to promote the Song of Soloman. It does not promote Solomon's many wives in fact the practice was spoken against by God via Moses in Deuteronomy 17:16-17 long before he came to the throne.
"..The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray...."



I think you're granting too much perfection to some translations over others. I'm not rejecting biblical standard I want to read it correctly. This would not be the first time that the bible was read correctly differently than before. Jesus had a chance to condemn a likely gay relationship of the centurion and his pais; he did not.
It seems a stretch to assume a homosexual relationship when one is not specifically mentioned.
And if a new translation is given it can't simply be based on current social and political fashions.




What I'm trying to say if the context of those verses is temple prostitutes then it isn't a prohibition of a committed relationship.
does it say temple prostitutes?
no.
So why should we assume it?
especially when none of the other sexual offenses are framed in that context. And homosexually in general is mentioned in the middle of the list. The clear context are various sexual sins IN GENERAL. Not sexual sin within pagan ritualistic context. Pagan issues are spoken to elsewhere.

the Bible is very good at making exceptions. as mentioned to Noir about eating veggies and meat. God specifically gave meat after the flood, but made an exception with blood. then Moses spoke of forbidden food, but then Peter is given a vision to eat those foods again, BUT still not blood.

the older translations haven't missed homosexual caveats.
the verses says
"a man lying with a man AS with a woman... is detestable"
NOT
"a man lying with a man AS with a woman... in a pagan temple rituals only... is detestable

It's not there unless someone imagines it COULD mean that to try and shoehorn in some thin biblical legitimacy to what's obviously condemned outright at every mention.