It is said that justice is equality, and so it is, but not for all persons, only those who are equal.
--Aristotle
In overturning the California voters' ban on gay marriage, the state's high court argued that homosexuals are a special class, somewhat similar to blacks and women, and deserve special judicial scrutiny for the protection of their rights. At the same time the court insisted that gay marriage must be allowed because gays deserve, no less than anyone else, the equal protection of the laws.
This argument is dubious on two counts. First, blackness and femininity are outwardly identifiable characteristics. Homosexuality generally is not. True, some homosexuals adopt exhibitionistic ways of walking and talking which perhaps serve as a kind of signal to others similarly inclined. But gays can "pass" for straight in a way that blacks can't typically pass for white or women for men. Moreover, blacks were slaves and suffered historical oppression in a way that neither women or gays can match. So the idea that these groups are the "new blacks" is an insult to blacks. Finally whether there is an innate disposition to homosexuality or not, it's hard to deny that homosexuality constitutes a choice and a lifestyle. Whatever the orientation, one still has to choose to act on it. By contrast, blacks and women don't have any choice because race and gender are not a lifestyle.
Now let's turn to the issue of equal protection. Clearly this means that people who are similarly situated should be treated in the same way. So men and women, blacks and whites, straight people and gays, all have the right to vote, the right to speak their mind, and the right to marry. But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex. This, however, is not a right enjoyed by anyone else. In other words, gays are not asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They want special rights that no one else claims or enjoys. They want to rewrite the definition of marriage.
Put the matter another way. States, acting through their representatives and reflecting the values of the voters, have the constitutional authority to define what marriage is. Traditionally marriage requires: a) two persons b) both of them adults of legal age c) unrelated to each other and d) one male and the other female. Now here are some interesting possibilities. A 10 year old demands the right to marry, charging that the age requirement discriminates against him. Or a fellow wants to marry his sister, contending that the incest prohibition violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Or a Muslim seeks four wives, asking why polygamy among multiple "consenting adults" should not be allowed the same legal status as the traditional two-person arrangement. In more imaginative scenarios, a fellow might want to know why the marriage definition is so species-specific. This guy wants to marry his dog on the grounds that "I love my dog and my dog loves me." Why don't all these people have valid equal protection claims under the constitution?
The point here isn't that gay marriage is indistinguishable from polygamy or child-marriage. Rather, it is that gay activists want to dislodge one of the definitions of marriage but retain all the others. They want to move one of the goal posts but not the rest. But how can one part of the marriage definition be discriminatory under the laws while the other parts are not? If the male-female requirement violates the equal protection clause, so must the other requirements which also exclude classes of people. If gays are a special category, why aren't Muslims and Mormons also a special category? It seems that gay activists want a form of "equal protection" for themselves but not for other groups.
Neither equal protection nor antidiscrimination is a real issue here. Judicial tyranny is the issue. Isn't it interesting how even the most naked imposition of power must make the pretense of having justice on its side?
Reader Comments ( Page 33 of 34)
481. Thanks, Brandon!
I'll just wait until Botts emails the REAL information through you.
a born atheist at 10:56PM on May 22nd 2008
482. "479. Thanks, Brandon!
I'll just wait until Botts emails the REAL information through you.
a born atheist at 10:56PM on May "
ABA, I have asked him the question from you via email this evening. When he gets to answer that (which could be days, or weeks) I will let you know.
Brandon
brandon at 11:16PM on May 22nd 2008
483. A Born Atheist, Botts' wife answered your question about which bible version via email.
"We like to use New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, printed by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. All Bibles are biased in their translations to suit their Religions. The NWB is by far the most accurate translation. It will give you grades and other choices under each verse. The grade given indicates the confidence from the translators. Unfortunately, there is no way getting around the fact that there are words in the NT that can't be translated.
I hope this helps with your answer. "
Anyway...
brandon at 9:02AM on May 23rd 2008
484. To Brandon and Ryan,
Where can one go to find life-long couples---common-law or married---who have no children and who stayed together exclusively for a lifetime? Finding even a few hundred such couples in the world would be as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack.
As to your comment, Brandon, that we should let gays "breach the contract with high frequency and be legally liable for severe economic consequences" if they want, I say let them first draw up a separate social contract instead of obliterating the current one via a massive revision. Then let them have at it!
As I have noted before, by comparing the two contracts (traditional marriage and gay marriage), we see that they contractualize entirely different sets of rights, obligations, and objectives for the consenting contracted parties. Therefore TWO different contracts need to be made to preserve the differing uses of each. Asking gays to enter the traditional marriage contract is as nonsensical as asking a person to buy a house using a Limited Liability Business Partnership contract.
preteristvision at 9:03AM on May 23rd 2008
485. "Asking gays to enter the traditional marriage contract is as nonsensical as asking a person to buy a house using a Limited Liability Business Partnership contract.
preteristvision at 9:03AM on May 23rd 2008"
No, it is not. Same contract applies to M/F, M/M, F/F, etc. There is not a massive difference here. For example, there is no differing marriage contract for those of us heteros who choose NOT to have children. The only other possible difference is in physical equipment of the participants, which doesn't matter for the purposes of the marriage contract.
brandon at 10:04AM on May 23rd 2008
486. Brandon: No, it is not. Same contract applies to M/F, M/M, F/F, etc.
PV: It does not, for it is not a friendship or romance contract. Gays need to draft a separate "life-long romantic friends" contract.
Brandon: there is no differing marriage contract for those of us heteros who choose NOT to have children.
PV: The stipulations of the traditional marriage contract never were based on "heteros who choose not to have children." Such people don't need a contract, for heteros who simply want to exchange romantic affections can do so without the contractual obligation that they must do so under penalty of law.
preteristvision at 11:24AM on May 23rd 2008
487. From Botts -
Jesus never mentions the subject of homosexuality in the Holy Bible.
Strictly speaking, the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality *as a sexual orientation*. The concept of 'sexual orientation' does not appear in the Bible; the idea is only about a century old; the word 'homosexuality' was not even coined until the 19th century; no such word existed in the Greek in which the New Testament was written. Certain Biblical passages do condemn particular homosexual acts.
There is absolutely no reputable study indicating that a permanent change in sexual orientation is possible. (Of course it is possible for some people, at least in the short term, to outwardly conform to others' expectations, while repressing and denying their true and natural gay or Lesbian feelings.) It is hard to reconcile the manipulation (sometimes involving aversion therapy, etc.) and condemnation of gays with a gospel of love and forgiveness and faith.
Only *one* passage in the entire Bible (both Old and New Testaments) refers to homosexual activity among women: St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1:26). St. Paul's attitude towards women is generally critical; he viewed marriage as merely a last resort against burning with (heterosexual) lust. (See 1 Corinthians 7:9.)
The supposedly sweeping Biblical condemnation of homosexuality rests almost exclusively on only the following eight (brief) passages; (all other references merely reiterate or comment upon these eight passages, and so are merely cited in parentheses):
I. Deuteronomy 23:17-18. (Cf 1 Kings 14:22-24, 15:22, 22:46, and 2 Kings 23:7.) This passage, in the most scholarly, reliable, modern
translations, refers only to (now defunct) male and female temple prostitutes. Old translations of the Hebrew term for 'male temple prostitute' as 'sodomite' are simply inaccurate; some scholars think
these male prostitutes serviced female customers, not males. This passage hardly applies to today's gays and Lesbians!
II & III. Genesis 19:4-11; Judges 19:22 (Cf. Jude 6-7; 2 Peter 2:4, 6-8.) Most people assume Sodom was destroyed due to God's judgments upon the homosexual lusts of the inhabitants. Yet many now argue that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality to the angelic visitors who stayed with Lot. How does the rest of the Bible explain the 'sin of Sodom'?
It is clear from Ezekiel 16:49-50 that Sodom's sin was primarily pride, wealth, and indifference to the needy; it is also evident from Luke 10:10-12 that Jesus explicitly stated that many sins would be punished more severely on the day of Judgment than the sins of Sodom. Even if the sins of Sodom were in part sexual, it is important to note that it is the violence of the treatment of the strangers that is condemned -- something that hardly applies to acts performed between *consenting* adults.
IV & V. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-14. "You shall not lie with a man as a woman: that is abomination" . This part of the "Holiness Code" of the Old Testament, which also condemns the practice of eating rare meat or wearing a fabric from more than one material - anyone eating a rare steak while wearing a cotton/polyester is doubly violating this holiness code! (Funny: these things don't seem to bother fundamentalists.) Leviticus also states that any man or woman caught in adultery '*must* be put to death' (Lev. 20:10).
Preachers quick to call homosexual acts an 'abomination' did not insist that Jim Bakker *must* be "put to death"! And for good reason: the New Testament repeatedly declares the Hebrew Holiness
Code or "Law" has been replaced by the new dispensation in Christ.
Jesus said of the woman caught in adultery:
"If any one of you is without sin, let him to be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:3-11). Furthermore, the "detestable" nature of lying "as a woman" refers to a male's assuming the *passive role in anal intercourse*, which was held as an abomination because of taking on the inferior status of women. Apparently it does not view the "active" role in anal intercourse as an abomination, nor other homosexual acts, e.g., fellatio.
VI & VII. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10. The key words are translated differently in different versions: from 1 Cor.: "catamites, sodomites" (Moffat); "effeminate, homosexuals" (ASV); "homosexual perversion: (New English Bible); "Male prostitutes, homosexual offenders" (New International Version) etc.; 1 Timothy is also variously translated. However, there was no noun in Greek for homosexual; apparently the translations condemning homosexuals are inaccurate. The Greek words suggest not "homosexual" but "effeminate"
or "morally weak or soft" or "cowardly."
VIII. Romans 1:26-27. The only passage in the Bible mentioning Lesbian acts. Conclusion: The supposedly sweeping Biblical condemnation of homosexuality simply doesn't hold up to the Bible and
Homosexuality ed to acts of prostitute, idolatry, violent or non-consensual acts, inaccurate translations, or outmoded prejudices against women and their supposed inferiority. How can these be applied to a committed relationship based on love (rather than mere lust) between two consenting adults of the same gender?
There seems to be little point in arguing with people who believe the earth was created in 4,004 B.C.E.; this doesn't mean that you have to accept their interpretation of the Bible. Remember: these people are not homophobic to begin with. (You might chide them for wearing mixed fabric - if you really enjoy arguing.) You might familiarize yourself with the many Biblical passages (too numerous to mention here) that stress love, compassion, forgiveness of sins, not judging others, etc.
Remember: Jesus himself never married nor had children! Other parts of the Bible simply can't be forced into the "family values" obsession of the Fundamentalists, for example:
- The Book of Ruth sensitively portrays bonding and devotion between two women. Also don't miss Book of Judith for a surprising overturning of male/female roles: Judith sneaks into the enemy camps, cuts off the head of Holofernes, the leader of the enemy army, returns and receives a hero's welcome, and then lives out the remainder of her days with her maidservants, rejecting all male suitors!
- The "friendship" between David and Jonathan. The relevant passages: 1 Samuel 18:1-4; 20:3-4, and especially, 20:41 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26, quoted here: "And as soon as the lad had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times; and *they* (David and Jonathan) KISSED ONE ANOTHER, and wept with another, until David recovered himself" (1 Sam. 20:41 ).
"(David speaks:) 'Jonathan lies slain... I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; YOUR LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN'".(2 Sam 1:25-26)
Anyone can cherry pick to suit their agenda. Mr. No Name is an example of this.
Botts
brandon at 1:25PM on May 23rd 2008
488. "PV: The stipulations of the traditional marriage contract never were based on "heteros who choose not to have children." Such people don't need a contract, for heteros who simply want to exchange romantic affections can do so without the contractual obligation that they must do so under penalty of law."
PV, we've come full circle (surprise, surprise! WHO DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING?!) back to the crux of why it's vital that homosexuals be allowed to marry, like heteros (child-rearing or not) currently can: a marriage that is not legally sanctioned means the loss of hundreds if not thousands of legally-backed benefits that married couples have. Such as the right to decide medical issues in the case of a souse in a coma, the right to spousal medical benefits, ownership of property in the case of death, etc. etc.
Therefore, those of us who can legally marry now (again, regardless of child or no child status) have an advantage over those who cannot.
brandon at 1:30PM on May 23rd 2008
489. Bible: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Genesis 19:1-38
1 Now the two angels arrived at Sod´om by evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sod´om. When Lot caught sight of them, then he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the earth. 2 And he proceeded to say: “Please, now, my lords, turn aside, please, into the house of YOUR servant and stay overnight and have YOUR feet washed. Then YOU must get up early and travel on YOUR way.” To this they said: “No, but in the public square is where we shall stay overnight.” 3 But he was very insistent with them, so that they turned aside to him and came into his house. Then he made a feast for them, and he baked unfermented cakes, and they went to eating.
4 Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod´om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. 5 And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
6 Finally Lot went out to them to the entrance, but he shut the door behind him. 7 Then he said: “Please, my brothers, do not act badly. 8 Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please, let me bring them out to YOU. Then do to them as is good in YOUR eyes. Only to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof.” 9 At this they said: “Stand back there!” And they added: “This lone man came here to reside as an alien and yet he would actually play the judge. Now we are going to do worse to you than to them.” And they came pressing heavily in on the man, on Lot, and were getting near to break in the door. 10 So the men thrust out their hands and brought Lot in to them, into the house, and they shut the door. 11 But they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, from the least to the greatest, so that they were wearing themselves out trying to find the entrance.
12 Then the men said to Lot: “Do you have anyone else here? Son-in-law and your sons and your daughters and all who are yours in the city, bring out of the place! 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin.” 14 Hence Lot went on out and began to speak to his sons-in-law who were to take his daughters, and he kept on saying: “Get up! Get out of this place, because Jehovah is bringing the city to ruin!”
??? at 3:03PM on May 23rd 2008
490. NEW WORLD TRANSLATION of the HOLY SCRIPTURE
(Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses)
Leviticus 18:22-
22 “‘And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.
23 “‘And you must not give your emission to any beast to become unclean by it, and a woman should not stand before a beast to have connection with it. It is a violation of what is natural.
24 “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, because by all these things the nations whom I am sending out from before YOU have made themselves unclean. 25 Consequently the land is unclean, and I shall bring punishment for its error upon it, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out. 26 And YOU yourselves must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions, and YOU must not do any of all these detestable things, whether a native or an alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst. 27 For all these detestable things the men of the land who were before YOU have done, so that the land is unclean. 28 Then the land will not vomit YOU out for YOUR defiling it the same way as it will certainly vomit the nations out who were before YOU. 29 In case anyone does any of all these detestable things, then the souls doing them must be cut off from among their people. 30 And YOU must keep YOUR obligation to me not to carry on any of the detestable customs that have been carried on before YOU, that YOU may not make yourselves unclean by them. I am Jehovah YOUR God.’”
Let\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ at 3:04PM on May 23rd 2008
491. botts,
you spin and cherry pick like a pro.
you also re-iterate my previous posts:
homosexual love is not condemned
(though the sexual acting out of it is)*
And, this is not the type of love that the gays promote and advertise at their 'gay fests' with all of those sex toys.
Christians and believers don't promote killing of gays, but love for, understanding of and willingness to help them to overcome and repent.
(You ARE a Christian, right?!)
Also-it was NOT Jesus's role to come to the Earth and repeat every single Word of God, but rather to fulfill it with a New Covenant (translated New Testament, for any Jehovahs out there).
But, you yourself even said that God only need mention man with man, woman with woman ONCE.
And, yet, we see that Paul re-affirms for us.
(and, Paul DID get his Revelations from Jesus, the Son of God, yes?!)
*** And, your wife's OPINION that the NWT is THE most accurate is not only incorrect, but also contradicted by her in stating that mumbo bs about the translation being as accurate as the confidence of the translator. That says pretty much NOTHING.
Could it be that when you were atheist, the Jehovah's were the ones who 'brought you back into the fold'??
It has been noted by many prominent Jehovah's turned Catholic/Baptist, etc. that the religion of the Jehovah's Witness is not even considered Christian (just as the Mormons have a DIFFERENT VERSION of Jesus that goes against all major Christian Religions.)
*** However, in giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm posting, in separate posts, the actual Bible verses from Genesis and Leviticus from YOUR NWT separately after this.
Perhaps you could explain the confidence levels of the translators of the very Bible you use.
But, I won't be listening. It's too nice a day out to waste any more of my precious time on you, other than to pray for you.
??? at 3:03PM on May 23rd 2008
492. Brandon: We've come full circle back to the crux of why it's vital that homosexuals be allowed to marry, like heteros (child-rearing or not) currently can.
PV: Again, you are confused. Gays can't produce children, and that is the basis of the marriage contract and its stipulations. Thus, it wouldn't be the correct contract for their needs.
HOWEVER, if it is becoming necessary for some reason to provide economic or legal custody benefits to people or groups of people who want such, then a NEW social contract should be drafted that contractualizes general partnerships and offers economic or custody benefits related to whatever material needs are ascertained to exist for groups of people wishing to have communal living for a lifetime.
preteristvision at 2:52PM on May 23rd 2008
493. botts,
consenting or not, God has made it clear that homesexuality is an abomination. (the SEXUAL ACTING OUT).
your opinions, your interpretations do not in any way speak for God.
You yourself have said that you're not a preacher, however, the way you throw around scripture, tranlation and opinion,
you certainly like to think that you are.
You are nothing but a Charlatan.
??? at 3:02PM on May 23rd 2008
494.
The Jehovah's Witness Official Website
The Bible’s Viewpoint
Does God Approve
of
Same-Sex Marriage?
Related topics:
Homosexuality—How Can I Avoid It?
What's Wrong With Premarital Sex?
You Can Remain Chaste in an Immoral World
DURING the church ceremony, the two men stand hand in hand before a renowned Episcopal bishop. They make a “covenant . . . before God and the church.” Clothed in ornate gold-and-white vestments, the bishop publicly blesses their union. Afterward the couple hug and kiss and are given a standing ovation. According to this bishop, such homosexual relationships “are holy and deserve to be blessed, . . . deserve to be called what they are: sacred.”
However, other religious leaders voice strong opposition to same-sex unions. “We are so disturbed by this [bishop’s] decision,” stated Cynthia Brust, spokesperson for the American Anglican Council, a group of conservative Episcopalians. “Same-sex blessings contradict the clear teaching on marriage and sexuality from the Bible,” she said, adding that “sexuality . . . is to be confined to a man and woman in holy matrimony.”
The fire storm of controversy over this issue is not restricted to religion. Internationally, heated political debates are raging, since the social, political, and economic implications involving pensions, joint health care, and taxes are great.
Issues involving civil rights and legal recognition are often very complicated and divide public opinion. True Christians are careful to maintain neutrality by avoiding political debates. (John 17:16)* Still, some who respect the Bible find themselves confused regarding the subject of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. How do you view same-sex marriage? What is God’s standard for marriage? What impact does your attitude have on your relationship with God?
Our Creator Sets the Standard
Our Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution. The opening book of the Bible tells us: “A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.” Jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be “male and female.”—Matthew 19:4.
Thus, God intended marriage to be a permanent and an intimate bond between a man and a woman. Men and women are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfying each other’s emotional, spiritual, and sexual needs and desires.
The well-known Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals God’s feelings about homosexuality. God declared: “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.” (Genesis 18:20) The extent of their sinful depravity at that time was apparent when two guests visited the righteous man Lot. “The men of Sodom . . . surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’” (Genesis 19:4, 5) The Bible says: “The men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.”—Genesis 13:13.
The men became “violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males.” (Romans 1:27) They had “gone out after flesh for unnatural use.” (Jude 7) In countries where homosexual rights campaigns are pervasive, some may object to using the word “unnatural” to describe homosexual behavior. However, is not God the final arbiter when it comes to nature? He commanded his ancient people: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”— Leviticus 18:22.
Your Accountability to God
The Bible is clear: God does not approve of or condone homosexual practices. He also disapproves of people who “consent with those practicing them.” (Romans 1:32) And “marriage” cannot give homosexuality a cloak of respectability. God’s direction that “marriage be honorable among all” precludes homosexual unions, which he considers detestable.—Hebrews 13:4.
Still, with God’s help, anyone can learn to “abstain from fornication,” which includes homosexual acts, and “get possession of his own vessel in sanctification and honor.”(1 Thessalonians 4:3, 4) Admittedly, this is not always easy. Nathan#, who formerly pursued a homosexual life-style, said: “I thought I could never stop.” But he did change with help from “the spirit of our God.”(1 Corinthians 6:11) As Nathan discovered, no problem is too big for Jehovah, who can provide the strength and help needed to meet His standards and receive His blessings.—Psalm 46:1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Even when the laws of the land are in conflict with their Bible-trained conscience, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not engage in protests or any form of political campaigns in order to change such laws.
# Not his real name.
Appeared in Awake! April 8, 2005
Home | Beliefs | Future | Medical | Topics | Contact Us | Publications | Languages | Search | Index
Copyright © 2008 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.
NWT Watch Tower Tract at 3:01PM on May 23rd 2008
495. Jesus said of the woman caught in adultery:
"If any one of you is without sin, let him to be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:3-11). Furthermore, the "detestable" nature of lying "as a woman" refers to a male's assuming the *passive role in anal intercourse*, which was held as an abomination because of taking on the inferior status of women. Apparently it does not view the "active" role in anal intercourse as an abomination, nor other homosexual acts, e.g., fellatio.
VI & VII. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10. The key words are translated differently in different versions: from 1 Cor.: "catamites, sodomites" (Moffat); "effeminate, homosexuals" (ASV); "homosexual perversion: (New English Bible); "Male prostitutes, homosexual offenders" (New International Version) etc.; 1 Timothy is also variously translated. However, there was no noun in Greek for homosexual; etc.."
______________
Greeks didn't need a noun, they were very clear on their meaning.
It's only us modern-day, politically correct fundies that aren't clear on the fact that a man laying with another man as if she were a woman means that he inserts his cock into a man's anus (substituting it for a woman's vagina).
And, that if you know your history (and not just google tracts) you'd know that back then, men kissed one another on each cheek.
And, none of this is clouded with the fact that woman was always considered passive and inferior and sacred in regard to sexual acts.
"apparantly" you like to confuse the facts to fit your agenda.
Your wifee should've answered truthfully in saying that you and your wife use the NTBAB,
Newly Translated Bible According to Botts.
But, good try.
Whatever.
Bah-bye Now.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ at 3:39PM on May 23rd 2008