- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe only people currently being obnoxious are you and Sumydid. Your only contributions to this thread have been to register your disgust at the idea of anal sex, even though it's not even relevant to the thread.
No. I will let the reader figure it out.
06 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KThe thread title is "The Bible accepts homosexuality!"
The only people currently being obnoxious are you and Sumydid. Your only contributions to this thread have been to register your disgust at the idea of anal sex, even though it's not even relevant to the thread.
I was clarifying that this does not mean homosexuals can do any
sexual act they desire and be accepted.
P.S. I was not the person that first mentioned anal sex.
06 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KWrong.
The only people currently being obnoxious are you and Sumydid. Your only contributions to this thread have been to register your disgust at the idea of anal sex, even though it's not even relevant to the thread.
Page One: tomtom suggests God might be a hermahprodite
Page Two: tomtom asks if “porking yourself” constitutes incest, which is when I went to the mods the first time and politely asked that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum.
Page Three: Zhalanzi posts a reference to greeks “doinking” small boys.
Page Three: Zhalanzi comments, “just because a gay dude chooses to stick his schlong into another dude... doesn't mean he is evil.”
Page Three: Zhalanzi goes on again in detail about sex between men, women, and hermaphrodites.
Page Five: Zhalanzi speaks of the moral relevance of gay sex because of the overpopulation problem and how gays can “ have fun sex without making a baby at each schlong insertion.”
Need I continue? Because really I'm starting to feel ill.
Your claim is devoid of facts, if not outright dishonest. If anal sex weren't "relevant to this thread" I wouldn't have asked for it to be moved, because otherwise the subject of homosexuality and religion is quite appropriate and engaging.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe Bible has a long list of sins and abominations. For example here are some:
The comments by sumy and RJ have been revealing. I think other christian posters are wisely staying out of this, just as any decent person should stay out of prying into one's personal, adult life.
Proverbs 6:16-17 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Although homosexuality is clearly among the abominations and is wrong, there are many Christians who will cringe at the thought of gay sex but turn a blind eye to many of the abominations listed in Proverbs above.
06 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K
The only people currently being obnoxious are you and Sumydid. Your only contributions to this thread have been to register your disgust at the idea of anal sex, even though it's not even relevant to the thread.
Wrong.
Page One: tomtom suggests God might be a hermaphrodite
Page Two: tomtom asks if “porking yourself” constitutes incest, which is when I went to the mods the first time and politely asked that this thread be moved to a more appropriate forum.
Page Three: Zhalanzi posts a reference to greeks “doinking” small boys.
Page Three: Zhalanzi comments, “just because a gay dude chooses to stick his schlong into another dude... doesn't mean he is evil.”
Page Three: Zhalanzi goes on again in detail about sex between men, women, and hermaphrodites.
Page Five: Zhalanzi speaks of the moral relevance of gay sex because of the overpopulation problem and how gays can “ have fun sex without making a baby at each schlong insertion.”
Need I continue? Because really I'm starting to feel ill.
Your claim is devoid of facts, if not outright dishonest. If anal sex weren't "relevant to this thread" I wouldn't have asked for it to be moved, because otherwise the subject of homosexuality and religion is quite appropriate and engaging.
(sorry for the repeat but RJH and I were accused of something and I don't want a fresh page to bury it and leave it unnoticed)
06 Nov 11
2 edits
Conreau K
I support your right to engage in conversations about topics which you are interested in, such as incest, hermaphrodite gods and people, "porking oneself," "doinking" little boys, and "schlong insertion" into men's bums.
I just politely ask that these conversations take place in a forum other that the spirituality forum.
That is unless "schlong insertions" into men is something that you want to argue is spiritually relevant, in which case I ask you to state your argument so I can understand better. Thanks in advance.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidOriginally posted by Conrau K
[b]The only people currently being obnoxious are you and Sumydid. Your only contributions to this thread have been to register your disgust at the idea of anal sex, even though it's not even relevant to the thread.
Wrong.
Page One: tomtom suggests God might be a hermahprodite
Page Two: tomtom ...[text shortened]... re accused of something and I don't want a fresh page to bury it and leave it unnoticed)[/b]These are isolated examples and, primarily, committed by one person. Anyway, I believe that I have written with absolute decorum in this thread. I have been at pains to stress that anal-penetrative sex is not the norm, although this point has been repeatedly overlooked. It is you and RJHinds and RC who conflate homosexuality with anal-penetrative sex and it was you who rather offensively spoke about 'taking it up the bum'.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidwhat is spiritual relevant is how you claim to be a christian while being disgusted by a group of people.
Conreau K
I support your right to engage in conversations about topics which you are interested in, such as incest, hermaphrodite gods and people, "porking oneself," "doinking" little boys, and "schlong insertion" into men's bums.
I just politely ask that these conversations take place in a forum other that the spirituality forum.
That is unl ...[text shortened]... h case I ask you to state your argument so I can understand better. Thanks in advance.
unless i am mistaken and you didn't claim to be a christian? because by your actions, you most certainly aren't
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidWell, then, my apologies. You were not the first, although I don't really see that as any kind of justification at all. And since you and RJhinds have shown yourselves averse to responding to any of my posts, an opportunity for you to engage in a mature discussion and redeem the thread, I can only conclude that your moral high ground here is pretense. All you have done is perpetuate immaturity, which is worse than instigating it in the first place.
You suggested we were the ONLY ones, which is ... well... it's either ignorant or a lie.
Secondly, you seem to miss that "schlong insertion" is a very visual description of anal sex, and such comments came well BEFORE rjh and I responded (and responded with polite discretion in comparison)