Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[Pop23]

What occurred was procreation, not coupling. You don't need heterosexual coupling for procreation.

Procreation is impossible without combining the sperm (male) with the egg (female)

Heterosexuality is between Male/Female

It is far closer to Hetero than homosexuality.

You need to understand procreation more. It's not "heterosexual", it's simply procreation. Did you know that some animals can procreate a-sexually?

I believe I understand it correctly, you used the heterosexual dynamic to conceive and deliver a child.

You claim it was a homosexual birth, or procreation. You are lesbian, no other female contribution was made to your egg. You used the dynamic of the male to female, heterosexual mixing to create the child.

So far, the best argument that the two demographic groups are even close to the same, as it applies to procreation is to say:

Same sex couples procreate in the same manner as heterosexuals with reproductive disabilities do. But then you would have to even define that down even farther since many of those can be treated and procreate without further intervention, and others can simply go the same route you did BUT use the partners sperm or egg.

So now you additionally have to discount those groups to the most severely reproductively disabled heterosexuals as your comparative as the demographic that best reflects this sameness.

And you think that reflects well on the argument?

 

[bodecea]

Procreation is impossible without combining the sperm (male) with the egg (female)

Heterosexuality is between Male/Female

It is far closer to Hetero than homosexuality.

You need to understand procreation more. It's not "heterosexual", it's simply procreation. Did you know that some animals can procreate a-sexually?

I believe I understand it correctly, you used the heterosexual dynamic to conceive and deliver a child.

You claim it was a homosexual birth, or procreation. You are lesbian, no other female contribution was made to your egg. You used the dynamic of the male to female, heterosexual mixing to create the child.

So far, the best argument that the two demographic groups are even close to the same, as it applies to procreation is to say:

Same sex couples procreate in the same manner as heterosexuals with reproductive disabilities do. But then you would have to even define that down even farther since many of those can be treated and procreate without further intervention, and others can simply go the same route you did BUT use the partners sperm or egg.

So now you additionally have to discount those groups to the most severely reproductively disabled heterosexuals as your comparative as the demographic that best reflects this sameness.

And you think that reflects well on the argument?

Why not?

 

[Seawytch]

Procreation is impossible without combining the sperm (male) with the egg (female)



Heterosexuality is between Male/Female



It is far closer to Hetero than homosexuality.

You need to understand procreation more. It's not "heterosexual", it's simply procreation. Did you know that some animals can procreate a-sexually?

I believe I understand it correctly, you used the heterosexual dynamic to conceive and deliver a child.



You claim it was a homosexual birth, or procreation. You are lesbian, no other female contribution was made to your egg. You used the dynamic of the male to female, heterosexual mixing to create the child.



So far, the best argument that the two demographic groups are even close to the same, as it applies to procreation is to say:



Same sex couples procreate in the same manner as heterosexuals with reproductive disabilities do. But then you would have to even define that down even farther since many of those can be treated and procreate without further intervention, and others can simply go the same route you did BUT use the partners sperm or egg.



So now you additionally have to discount those groups to the most severely reproductively disabled heterosexuals as your comparative as the demographic that best reflects this sameness.



And you think that reflects well on the argument?

No I didn't say that. What I said is that there was no heterosexuality that went into the making of my two children or the three surrogate children.

Where is procreation a requirement for civil marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

The Shamelessness of Professor Mark Regnerus

Regnerus’ research doesn’t show what he says it does. Not remotely. No research ever has. Yet Regnerus, unchastened by a chorus of professional criticism correctly pointing out the obvious flaws in his work—including a formal reprimand in an audit assigned by the journal that published his piece—continues to make these groundless claims, knowing full well they are baseless.[...]

Much has been written on Regnerus’ discredited study, so I’ll just summarize the single most obvious reason it’s bunk. Regnerus claims to have evaluated outcomes of children “of same-sex parents” and found results are “suboptimal” when compared to children reared by their biological parents. The study claims that, unlike other research that relies on smaller samples, “meaningful statistical inferences and interpretations can be drawn” from his data, and they show that “the optimal childrearing environment” is one where kids are raised by their biological parents.

The claim sounds reasonable enough. But since Regnerus never actually studied “children of same-sex parents,” as he claims, his conclusions are equivalent to calling a 747 the fastest plane without ever testing the Concorde. Kids raised in “planned” same-sex households—as opposed to kids from divorced families where one parent later came out—are still statistically rare, and out of his much-ballyhooed sample size of 3,000, Regnerus was unable to find a valid sample of kids who were actually reared by same-sex parents. Instead, all but two—yes, two—came from households originally led by a different-sex couple, usually the kids’ biological parents, that had suffered a family break-up, the one variable that’s most clearly known to raise risks for children. Since the kids in his data set who come from households with what he calls a “gay” or “lesbian” parent nearly all come from broken homes, his conclusions merely restated what everyone already knew: that instability raises risks for kids. But since Regnerus refers to these subjects as “children of same-sex parents,” which he didn’t actually examine, his study is nothing short of dishonest.​

Dr. Regnerus utilizes Scientific Objectivity in his research, he doesn't initiate a project and say "Hey I'm gonna prove the homosexulas are good" He initiates a project with the intent of discovering and revealing the Truth - there can only be one Scientific Truth. IF it happens to be politically incorrect - then so be it

Another Researcher, an a staunch advocate of Gay Rights DR. Nicholas Cummings was one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness back in the 70s. In fact, he wrote the proposal to remove it from the DSM. [Homosexuality] He stated the following

“By the mid 1990s, the Leona Tyler principle [Scientific Objectivity] was absolutely forgotten, that political stances seemed to override any scientific results. Cherry-picking results became the mode. The gay rights movement sort of captured the APA.” [APA=American Psychological Association]

Cummings is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science,... Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases.

Dr. Regnerus and Dr. Cummings have that principle in common . Dr. Cummings in recent years has become highly critical of the Gay Rights monement in cherry picking "BAD SCIENCE" such as the half baked article you just quoted - which is nothing more than a propaganda rag - saturated with sour grapes because the Regnerus work did not suit their agenda - despite the fact that it was Scientifically Objective .


PS : A good example of Scientifc Objectivity from some our past squabbles on this forum regard whether Gay Men are born that way or whether it is an acquired trait. I argued that there is no such thing as a "Gay Gene" and queerness was an acquired trait, another poster , it may have been you- but I doubt it as it's way over Your head - pointed out a study relative to enzymes found in the brains of a relatively large percentage of Gay men , not present in heterosexual men as predominantly- at which point I was forced to concede that it may be possible that some Gay Men may actually be born that way - which did not help my argument well - it fact it diffused it - BUT - it was Scientifically Object and I was able to get around my personal bias and accept the facts. Why can't you GROW UP and do the same - is your personal bias, your apparently low IQ or some other factor ?

You still haven't provided facts, you provided a flawed study.

And Paul Cameron?

For the most part, official scientific organisations have paid very little attention to Cameron's studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron's research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Secure in papers from search and seizure is the definition of privacy. To pretend it's not there because they did not use the word privacy, thus arguing its constitutional to take away your privacy by unreasonably searching and seizing your papers is ludicrous.

Nothing in the Constitution, and especially nothing in the fourteen amendment provides for a definition of protection of marriage. The only thing that even comes close is the right to life and liberty, which one could argue includes marriage. But more particularly, the 14th is not the right TO life and liberty, the 14th is the right of the state to TAKE your life and liberty with due process. IOW the 14th is more the authoritarian right of the majority to limit, through due process, the rights of the people. For example the right to limit gays from getting married through tyranny of the majority if they say they used due process.

However privacy covers more than just searches of your papers, wouldn't you say? This is merely one part of privacy.

Who you choose to marry is your own matter and part of personal privacy.

A lot of what is considered privacy has come through interpretation through the courts, the same as the right to marry.

Also, you're missing the 9th amendment from this, which makes it clear not all rights are protected in writing with the actual words in the BoRs.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You need to understand procreation more. It's not "heterosexual", it's simply procreation. Did you know that some animals can procreate a-sexually?

I believe I understand it correctly, you used the heterosexual dynamic to conceive and deliver a child.



You claim it was a homosexual birth, or procreation. You are lesbian, no other female contribution was made to your egg. You used the dynamic of the male to female, heterosexual mixing to create the child.



So far, the best argument that the two demographic groups are even close to the same, as it applies to procreation is to say:



Same sex couples procreate in the same manner as heterosexuals with reproductive disabilities do. But then you would have to even define that down even farther since many of those can be treated and procreate without further intervention, and others can simply go the same route you did BUT use the partners sperm or egg.



So now you additionally have to discount those groups to the most severely reproductively disabled heterosexuals as your comparative as the demographic that best reflects this sameness.



And you think that reflects well on the argument?

No I didn't say that. What I said is that there was no heterosexuality that went into the making of my two children or the three surrogate children.

Where is procreation a requirement for civil marriage?

I certainly hope not, since I am 69 years old!

 

[JoeB131]

Yes it is. As a matter of fact, it's explicitly defined. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I don't see the word "privacy" there. Which is the claim being made about marriage that word marriage isn't in the constitution.

Secure in papers from search and seizure is the definition of privacy. To pretend it's not there because they did not use the word privacy, thus arguing its constitutional to take away your privacy by unreasonably searching and seizing your papers is ludicrous.

Nothing in the Constitution, and especially nothing in the fourteen amendment provides for a definition of protection of marriage. The only thing that even comes close is the right to life and liberty, which one could argue includes marriage. But more particularly, the 14th is not the right TO life and liberty, the 14th is the right of the state to TAKE your life and liberty with due process. IOW the 14th is more the authoritarian right of the majority to limit, through due process, the rights of the people. For example the right to limit gays from getting married through tyranny of the majority if they say they used due process.

SCOTUS found otherwise in Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, for lack of a better term, is a "right".

 

[GreenBean]

Dr. Regnerus utilizes Scientific Objectivity in his research, he doesn't initiate a project and say "Hey I'm gonna prove the homosexulas are good" He initiates a project with the intent of discovering and revealing the Truth - there can only be one Scientific Truth. IF it happens to be politically incorrect - then so be it

Another Researcher, an a staunch advocate of Gay Rights DR. Nicholas Cummings was one of the primary movers in having Homosexuality declassified as a mental Illness back in the 70s. In fact, he wrote the proposal to remove it from the DSM. [Homosexuality] He stated the following



Cummings is a true scientist and a firm believer in Scientific Objectivity, which is a basis of all science,... Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases.

Dr. Regnerus and Dr. Cummings have that principle in common . Dr. Cummings in recent years has become highly critical of the Gay Rights monement in cherry picking "BAD SCIENCE" such as the half baked article you just quoted - which is nothing more than a propaganda rag - saturated with sour grapes because the Regnerus work did not suit their agenda - despite the fact that it was Scientifically Objective .


PS : A good example of Scientifc Objectivity from some our past squabbles on this forum regard whether Gay Men are born that way or whether it is an acquired trait. I argued that there is no such thing as a "Gay Gene" and queerness was an acquired trait, another poster , it may have been you- but I doubt it as it's way over Your head - pointed out a study relative to enzymes found in the brains of a relatively large percentage of Gay men , not present in heterosexual men as predominantly- at which point I was forced to concede that it may be possible that some Gay Men may actually be born that way - which did not help my argument well - it fact it diffused it - BUT - it was Scientifically Object and I was able to get around my personal bias and accept the facts. Why can't you GROW UP and do the same - is your personal bias, your apparently low IQ or some other factor ?

You still haven't provided facts, you provided a flawed study.

And Paul Cameron?

For the most part, official scientific organisations have paid very little attention to Cameron's studies, and thus extensive scientific analysis of his claims have not been widely available. However Cameron's research, public statements and legal testimony have received criticism from researchers and organizations over methodologies they view as academically dishonest and misleading.

Oh Really ? Point out the flaws please.

 

[GreenBean]

The Evelyn Hooker Study is a good example of "Bad Science" as proulgated by Gay Activists.

Relatively unknown outside the Gay Agenda, Evelyn Hookers Tainted Studies have contributed to the advancement of their political goals. Her studies put her in a class with Alfred Kinsey and his long since ridiculed and debunked studies which some like to cite as the ignition point of the sexual revolution.

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society [A Gay-SocioFacist Organization] and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.



Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms


Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals

Just to be clear, I am against ANY tainted study, but you saying it is so is no proof at all. I have never heard any independent source claim that the Kinsey study was biased or tainted, ever. Got some links? If you do, I will gladly look at them.

Stat; If you haven't heard it than you haven't really researched the topic well - I've read your posts on other threads and you are obviouslly an intelligent person so may I suggest you start with DR. Judith Reismann - Fighting the Kinsey Fraud:


If you are still inclined you might also want to have a look at the work of the late John W. Tukey, whom I admired not just for his criticisms of the Kinsey tripe, but as a brilliant and caring person and wonderful Human Being. Starting in the 50s, while working for the National Research Council, he began criticizing Alfred C. Kinsey's research on sexual behavior. The Kinsey Report had sent shock waves through the the nation by depicting the country's sexual habits as far more diverse than had been imagined. But Tukey thought the work was ridiculously flawed, it used convenience samples of acquainted peoplerather than scientific random samples. It also relied on inmate populations . It was a travesty of science and has long sincebeen refuted. One key aspect Kinsey flaunted was that 1 in 10 men were Gay - which was prove incorrect a long time ago the actual number is between 3 and 5 out of 100 - not 10 out of a 100.

"A random selection of three people would have been better than a group of 300 chosen by Mr. Kinsey."

Another article worthhaving a look see at is Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution

Kinsey and his colleagues proclaimed, were surprisingly commonplace; 85 percent of men and 48 percent of women said they’d had premarital sex, and 50 percent of men and 40 percent of women had been unfaithful after marriage. Incredibly, 71 percent of women claimed their affair hadn’t hurt their marriage, and a few even said it had helped. What’s more, 69 percent of men had been with prostitutes, 10 percent had been homosexual for at least three years, and 17 percent of farm boys had experienced sex with animals. ....... Time magazine ran a series of stories exposing Kinsey’s dubious science (one was titled “Sex or Snake Oil?”)........... Before he began studying human sexuality, Kinsey was the world’s leading expert on the gall wasp. Trained as a zoologist ..............

Skewed Samples ........ Faulty Statistics .........

Kinsey?s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution | Crisis Magazine

That the Kinsey Study is a non Study, a travesty , a disgrace and an insult to pure science is not really even debateable - Kinsey is an outright Fraud .

 

[GreenBean]

The Evelyn Hooker Study is a good example of "Bad Science" as proulgated by Gay Activists.

Relatively unknown outside the Gay Agenda, Evelyn Hookers Tainted Studies have contributed to the advancement of their political goals. Her studies put her in a class with Alfred Kinsey and his long since ridiculed and debunked studies which some like to cite as the ignition point of the sexual revolution.

The study, "The adjustment of the male overt homosexual", Hooker administered several standardized personality tests to two sets of men, the first group of 30 was homosexual and heavily screened by the Mattachine Society [A Gay-SocioFacist Organization] and the other heterosexual. The whole purpose of the study was to examine the instances of mental instability in homosexuals, However, individuals who showed the slightest signs of mental instability were excluded , it was not a random test and was designed to arrive at predetermined results.



Sexual minority status and psychotic symptoms


Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals

Just for the fun of it, what's your real agenda against homosexuals? Why do they cause such concern for you? Faith? Fear? Hatred?

Faith? Fear? Hatred? Try Social Concience and a sense of obligation to my country

For the future "PaintMyHouse" I have very little respect for you sir, quite frankly I think you are an asshole, and not even worth talking to - so please do not respond to my future posts, leaving me to feel obligated to show you the decency of a reply - basically sir, be a good little shit fly and buzz off .

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just for the fun of it, what's your real agenda against homosexuals? Why do they cause such concern for you? Faith? Fear? Hatred?

Faith? Fear? Hatred? Try Social Concience and a sense of obligation to my country

For the future "PaintMyHouse" I have very little respect for you sir, quite frankly I think you are an asshole, and not even worth talking to - so please do not respond to my future posts, leaving me to feel obligated to show you the decency of a reply - basically sir, be a good little shit fly and buzz off .

You have no conscience little homophobe, at least none worth mentioning. And if you think you are doing the country a favor by saving us from the dreaded faggots with your biased nonsense, you aren't. You are just a scared child in a nation of ignorant homophobes like yourself. Luckily for us, you're losing in a profound way and soon your mentality will be exactly where it belongs, in the history books along with those who fought against integration and rights for women.

I care nothing for your respect BTW. God only knows why you would think that I did.

 

[GISMYS]

GOD== is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. There was a time when some of you were just like that but now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God; and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
1 corinthians 6:9 ==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. leviticus 20:13

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just for the fun of it, what's your real agenda against homosexuals? Why do they cause such concern for you? Faith? Fear? Hatred?

Faith? Fear? Hatred? Try Social Concience and a sense of obligation to my country

For the future "PaintMyHouse" I have very little respect for you sir, quite frankly I think you are an asshole, and not even worth talking to - so please do not respond to my future posts, leaving me to feel obligated to show you the decency of a reply - basically sir, be a good little shit fly and buzz off .

You have no conscience little homophone, at least none worth mentioning. And if you think you are doing the country a favor by saving us from the dreaded faggots with your biased nonsense, you aren't. You are just a scared child in a nation of ignorant homophobes like yourself. Luckily for us, you're losing in a profound way and soon your mentality will be exactly where it belongs, in the history books along with those who fought against integration and rights for women.

I care nothing for your respect BTW. God only knows why you would think that I did.

Hardly surprising he doesn't respect you, doesn't seem to have respect for anyone. For someone to care about his country by using hatred of people from his country is rather bizarre, and then to talk about faith and then call people names seems even more weird.

Kind of like walking into church just so you can spend the next week being a complete moron but know at the end of it you will be "absolved of your sins".
The Mafia seemed to manage killing and immorality alongside religiousness, contradictions aren't a problem for some.

 

[frigidweirdo]

GOD== is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. There was a time when some of you were just like that but now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God; and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
1 corinthians 6:9 ==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. leviticus 20:13

God's also very hard on those who claim to speak for him, but actually talk complete nonsense and use it for hatred. Go figure.

 

[GISMYS]

GOD== is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. There was a time when some of you were just like that but now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God; and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
1 corinthians 6:9 ==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. leviticus 20:13

God's also very hard on those who claim to speak for him, but actually talk complete nonsense and use it for hatred. Go figure.

NOT MY WORDS BUT GOD'S!! read and believe!!!

 

[KNB]

GOD== is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. There was a time when some of you were just like that but now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God; and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
1 corinthians 6:9 ==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. leviticus 20:13

God's also very hard on those who claim to speak for him, but actually talk complete nonsense and use it for hatred. Go figure.

NOT MY WORDS BUT GOD'S!! read and believe!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqwvU8QhlYQ]Bad Religion - Come join us - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GreenBean]

Just for the fun of it, what's your real agenda against homosexuals? Why do they cause such concern for you? Faith? Fear? Hatred?

Faith? Fear? Hatred? Try Social Concience and a sense of obligation to my country

For the future "PaintMyHouse" I have very little respect for you sir, quite frankly I think you are an asshole, and not even worth talking to - so please do not respond to my future posts, leaving me to feel obligated to show you the decency of a reply - basically sir, be a good little shit fly and buzz off .

You have no conscience little homophone, at least none worth mentioning. And if you think you are doing the country a favor by saving us from the dreaded faggots with your biased nonsense, you aren't. You are just a scared child in a nation of ignorant homophobes like yourself. Luckily for us, you're losing in a profound way and soon your mentality will be exactly where it belongs, in the history books along with those who fought against integration and rights for women.

I care nothing for your respect BTW. God only knows why you would think that I did.

You sick degenerate little inbred faggot, don't you dare even attempt to compare yourself to the righteous struggles for equality of my people, you are a subhuman pervert, a rancid nauseating degenrate, the brethren of baby rapers , and puppy fuckers. Pondscum is worthy of more respect than you.

 

[GreenBean]

Faith? Fear? Hatred? Try Social Concience and a sense of obligation to my country

For the future "PaintMyHouse" I have very little respect for you sir, quite frankly I think you are an asshole, and not even worth talking to - so please do not respond to my future posts, leaving me to feel obligated to show you the decency of a reply - basically sir, be a good little shit fly and buzz off .

You have no conscience little homophone, at least none worth mentioning. And if you think you are doing the country a favor by saving us from the dreaded faggots with your biased nonsense, you aren't. You are just a scared child in a nation of ignorant homophobes like yourself. Luckily for us, you're losing in a profound way and soon your mentality will be exactly where it belongs, in the history books along with those who fought against integration and rights for women.
I care nothing for your respect BTW. God only knows why you would think that I did.

Hardly surprising he doesn't respect you, doesn't seem to have respect for anyone. For someone to care about his country by using hatred of people from his country is rather bizarre, and then to talk about faith and then call people names seems even more weird.

Kind of like walking into church just so you can spend the next week being a complete moron but know at the end of it you will be "absolved of your sins".
The Mafia seemed to manage killing and immorality alongside religiousness, contradictions aren't a problem for some.

Hey Frigginweirdo - when did you ever see me use religion in any of my arguments , you pathetic imbecile. I'm not Christian - get a fucking clue bro !

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Faith? Fear? Hatred? Try Social Concience and a sense of obligation to my country

For the future "PaintMyHouse" I have very little respect for you sir, quite frankly I think you are an asshole, and not even worth talking to - so please do not respond to my future posts, leaving me to feel obligated to show you the decency of a reply - basically sir, be a good little shit fly and buzz off .

You have no conscience little homophobe, at least none worth mentioning. And if you think you are doing the country a favor by saving us from the dreaded faggots with your biased nonsense, you aren't. You are just a scared child in a nation of ignorant homophobes like yourself. Luckily for us, you're losing in a profound way and soon your mentality will be exactly where it belongs, in the history books along with those who fought against integration and rights for women.

I care nothing for your respect BTW. God only knows why you would think that I did.

You sick degenerate little inbred faggot, don't you dare even attempt to compare yourself to the righteous struggles for equality of my people, you are a subhuman pervert, a rancid nauseating degenrate, the brethren of baby rapers , and puppy fuckers. Pondscum is worthy of more respect than you.

Do continue my child? And you are a child, nothing more.

 

[frigidweirdo]

NOT MY WORDS BUT GOD'S!! read and believe!!!

Well, firstly the Bible was written and translated by MEN. There's no proof that the Bible is the word of God.

Second, people make the Bible say whatever they want it to say.

Nowhere in the original bible was there anything against gay people.

There was something against the practice of sleeping with priests to get closer to God that happened in the religions that happened before someone decided to invent Christianity, so they decided to change it.

Don't you think it's a little strange that Easter is at the same time as the old festival of spring and regeneration, and that Christmas is at the same time as the winter solstice?
They basically used old things and put their own thing on top, however with this particular thing they bulldozed it, and tried to make it not happen any more.

Now people like you are using it for things that "God" never said, nor those who wrote the bible intended. It's what YOU want it to mean and you have the cheek to claim "God said this" rubbish.