19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwI get that you have a belief that homosexuality is a "sin" and that you have a notion that it transgresses the will of a God figure you believe in, but - in terms of the 'law of the land' - what would homosexuals (going about their lives without committing criminal acts) be "guilty" of exactly?
What do you think the law is for? To protect the guilty?
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwOf course you condemned homosexuals. You condemned them explicitly and repeatedly. It was on page 7. You condemned them for their "lack of moral convictions". Then on page 8 you claimed that they live lives that are "bereft of moral restraints". You can't really deliver a personal condemnation of homosexuals as people that's any more fundamental than that
What's your point? I never said anything about condemning homosexuals. What I said was that homosexuals and their supporters are disturbed.
Try sticking to what I said instead of adding to it.
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwHuh? You never said anything about condemning homosexuals??
What's your point? I never said anything about condemning homosexuals. What I said was that homosexuals and their supporters are disturbed.
I was answering this question, which you asked me:
"What's preventing you from joining the majority of the human race that condemns homosexuality?"
How can you ask a question like that, and then, when I answer it, you then suddenly claim that you never said anything about condemning homosexuals?
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFCan't you read? I condemn homosexuality, not the homosexual.
Huh? You never said anything about condemning homosexuals??
I was answering this question, which [b]you asked me:
"What's preventing you from joining the majority of the human race that condemns homosexuality?"
How can you ask a question like that, and then, when I answer it, you then suddenly claim that you never said anything about condemning homosexuals?[/b]
You can't be that dense.
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwYes, I can read and that is exactly why I am confronting you with what you wrote. So are you now retracting the explicit condemnations you made of homosexuals and their morals on page 7? And are you now retracting, as well, the your condemnation of people who "support" homosexuals, also on page 7?
Can't you read? I condemn homosexuality, not the homosexual.
You can't be that dense.
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFAs you've already stated you don't believe homosexuality to be a criminal act, but it is the law of the land in certain countries. Do you believe that homosexuals should be condemned where the practice is criminalized?
I get that you have a belief that homosexuality is a "sin" and that you have a notion that it transgresses the will of a God figure you believe in, but - in terms of the 'law of the land' - what would homosexuals (going about their lives without committing criminal acts) be "guilty" of exactly?
Obviously not. But you see, it is your argument that you initiated that you're talking about. I wasn't even talking about the law and the criminalization of homosexuality. You brought it up. Not me.
I was talking about the morality of homosexuality. But you changed the subject. As you always do.
My original contention was that homosexuals and their supporters are disturbed. Why don't you try sticking to the topic?
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by FMFYou're not going to get anywhere pushing your twisted interpretation of what I said. You keep saying I condemn people, and I keep telling you I never did. Either you can't read and comprehend, or you have an agenda to obfuscate the topic.
Yes, I can read and that is exactly why I am confronting you with what you wrote. So are you now retracting the explicit condemnations you made of homosexuals and their morals on page 7? And are you now retracting, as well, the your condemnation of people who "support" homosexuals, also on page 7?
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwYou have remembered our conversation incorrectly.
But you see, it is your argument that you initiated that you're talking about. I wasn't even talking about the law and the criminalization of homosexuality. You brought it up. Not me.
It was you who compared homosexuals to a list of criminals like pedophiles and murderers on page 13.
You then, on page 14, asked "If it was illegal to commit homosexual acts, would you place homosexuals on the list of people considered criminal? If most people considered homosexuality criminal would you join the crowd in condemning the criminality of homosexuality?"
On page 15, you said that a law criminalizing homosexuality "...would be a just law to protect the innocent".
These are things you brought up, not me.
19 Jun 16
Originally posted by josephwYour original contention was that homosexuals (and those who "support" them) "lack of moral convictions" and are "bereft of moral restraints" (see page 7). Are you now contending that those charges somehow do not constitute a condemnation of homosexuals and supporters of homosexuals' rights?
My original contention was that homosexuals and their supporters are disturbed. Why don't you try sticking to the topic?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiejosephw made what I think was an honest and sincere statement of his belief about homosexuals on page 7. Unfortunately, he has been repeatedly 'economical with the truth' about what he actually said on page 7 ever since, even when confronted with verbatim quotes of what he said.
Is there any mode other than interrogation trolling? why all the repeats, is this a cheapo network or what?
If he truly had the courage of his convictions, and perhaps if he typed a little slower and thought a little longer about some of the things he says, I don't think he'd now be trying to distance himself from what he posted earlier on the thread.
