The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by sumydid
I would say that Robbie is correct. In my estimation, there are relatively few people that don't separate at least to some degree... the self-sacrificing, heartfelt, kinship, oneness, wholesome love one feels for their loved one, and the act of fornication; sodomy, standard, or otherwise. And this goes especially for the case of sodomy because it is ...[text shortened]... onymous on some level. I respect their decision but I disagree wholeheartedly.

Good day.

And this goes especially for the case of sodomy because it is a completely one-sided act as far as orgasm goes.

In correct. Women can orgasm through anal sex. How do i know? I'll let you work that one out...................😉

As for removing this thread, get a grip you soft tart.

Originally posted by sumydid
I would say that Robbie is correct. In my estimation, there are relatively few people that don't separate at least to some degree... the self-sacrificing, heartfelt, kinship, oneness, wholesome love one feels for their loved one, and the act of fornication; sodomy, standard, or otherwise. And this goes especially for the case of sodomy because it is onymous on some level. I respect their decision but I disagree wholeheartedly.

Good day.

Firstly it's not a one-sided orgasm. I'll even wager that more homosexuals have orgasms than hetero females.

Secondly, I cant understand why a seemingly intelligent dude such as yourself would have such a problem with what other adults do in privacy.

Thumbs up to the moderators.

Sexual and religous freedom go hand in hand,imo. As do other basic human rights,(ageism,sexism,raceism,etc.), that have taken so long to gain momentum on this backward, backwater planet that seems to have the potential to be a happy unified planet, but rarely lives upto that potential-if ever.

I live for the day when subjects like this are no longer an issue, until then eternal vigilance is still the price of freedom.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'll just contribute a few comments to this discussion, since I have the unique position of being an insider on this subject.

First, I do not believe it is possible to change sexual orientation. There are certainly many 'ex-gays' but whether they have actually experienced a re-orientation or whether they have simply decided to change their sexual ide ost gays, whether promiscuous or not, still want a lasting intimate romantic relationship.

It appears to me that desire is a very poor basis for legitimacy. I may desire a harem
of semi clad chess playing dusky maidens, but its does not mean that the desire is
either morally acceptable nor legitimate.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It appears to me that desire is a very poor basis for legitimacy. I may desire a harem
of semi clad chess playing dusky maidens, but its does not mean that the desire is
either morally acceptable nor legitimate.

Give it up Rob. You draw on extreme examples that have nothing to do with the love of two people for each other. Real love that involves fairness, decency and a common bond between 2 people-not unlike a heterosexuals love for each other.

Tell me Rob, why does a woman have a clitoris? Is it for procreation?
Think about it...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Give it up Rob. You draw on extreme examples that have nothing to do with the love of two people for each other. Real love that involves fairness, decency and a common bond between 2 people-not unlike a heterosexuals love for each other.

Tell me Rob, why does a woman have a clitoris? Is it for procreation?
Think about it...

give it up yourself Karoly Poly, it has already been established that a sexual act does
not define love, in fact, i doubt if you can even define it yourself, which in essence
means you are using terms of which you have not the slightest idea what they mean to
substantiate ludicrous claims which i doubt you even understand. Secondly it has also
been established that desire means actually very little in terms of establishing solid
and legitimate relationships. You may wish to make reference to either of these points
before you continue endlessly drivelling on about irrelevancies.

sometimes one needs to make reference with hyperbole or exaggeration so that you
cannot miss the point, you think about that!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
give it up yourself Karoly Poly, it has already been established that a sexual act does
not define love, in fact, i doubt if you can even define it yourself, which in essence
means you are using terms of which you have not the slightest idea what they mean to
substantiate ludicrous claims which i doubt you even understand. Secondly it has also ...[text shortened]... erence with hyperbole or exaggeration so that you
cannot miss the point, you think about that!

Classic Carrobie comeback.
Cant answer a question, draws into doubt all reputability of the poster as a last resort to claim the point.

Buddy, if there were a christian God, I'd bet he'd have better things to do than worry about what two consenting adults do in privacy.
Who are you, the "god police" ? Like I said give it a break, posts like this reveal your lack of humanity and understanding and as for love, well if we have to put the conditions which you prescribe then we're all screwed. Lucky that real love is unconditional and non-discriminatory . Gay basher!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
give it up yourself Karoly Poly, it has already been established that a sexual act does
not define love, in fact, i doubt if you can even define it yourself, which in essence
means you are using terms of which you have not the slightest idea what they mean to
substantiate ludicrous claims which i doubt you even understand. Secondly it has also ...[text shortened]... erence with hyperbole or exaggeration so that you
cannot miss the point, you think about that!

..And you know full well that the sexual act does define love for many lovers.

I am one in fact, (though you do find it more in women), who will not have sex with someone unless I am in love or have the potential to fall in love with that person.
Sexual desire has a hell of a lot to do with love.

BTW ,I've had 2 serious r'ships and 2 kids, both of whom are brilliant for their ages.
In between these r'ships I had a 7 year drought, not because I couldn't get any, but because I didn't find anyone who I thought I could love- so I do have some idea of what I am talking about.

So why did God give women a clitoris?

Originally posted by sumydid
I would say that Robbie is correct. In my estimation, there are relatively few people that don't separate at least to some degree... the self-sacrificing, heartfelt, kinship, oneness, wholesome love one feels for their loved one, and the act of fornication; sodomy, standard, or otherwise. And this goes especially for the case of sodomy because it is ...[text shortened]... onymous on some level. I respect their decision but I disagree wholeheartedly.

Good day.

I'll admit, I was so disgusted by this very subject I requested not once, but twice, that the moderators move this thread elsewhere.

I find your attitude extraordinary. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuals to death, the Christian government in Uganda only recently tried to get a bill passed through that would make homosexuality punishable by death, this came after a group of evangelical Christians from the US went to visit the Ugandan president. Homosexuals have been persecuted for millenia because of that homophobic tripe in your 'Holy Book' and you have the audacity to state that the mere discussion of homosexuality and religion is somehow 'disgusting'.

It would be funny if it wasn't quite so utterly tragic.

Originally posted by sumydid
I would say that Robbie is correct. In my estimation, there are relatively few people that don't separate at least to some degree... the self-sacrificing, heartfelt, kinship, oneness, wholesome love one feels for their loved one, and the act of fornication; sodomy, standard, or otherwise. And this goes especially for the case of sodomy because it is ...[text shortened]... onymous on some level. I respect their decision but I disagree wholeheartedly.

Good day.

Your attitude nauseates me. My sister and cousin are gay. They're both in long-term monogamous relationships. If it weren't for evangelical bigots, they would be married. They and their partners love, plan, argue, forgive and have sex, just like all other couples. At least you and your ilk will eventually die, and the next generation will be on the correct side of this civil rights issue.

Originally posted by bbarr
Your attitude nauseates me. My sister and cousin are gay. They're both in long-term monogamous relationships. If it weren't for evangelical bigots, they would be married. They and their partners love, plan, argue, forgive and have sex, just like all other couples. At least you and your ilk will eventually die, and the next generation will be on the correct side of this civil rights issue.

wow thats bitter and rather exemplary of the kind of hate speech that one may
encounter if one dares to question the legitimacy of same sex marriages and/or
homosexuality in general, sad to say. Which civil right is it that they are being
denied? Is there not the provision of civil union to which a same sex couple may apply
and get the same legal status and protection as a heterosexual married couple. If so,
what are they being denied. You cannot impose a morality on others which their
conscience cannot accept, not on the grounds of desire, of commitment nor any other
basis. What in fact it amounts to is trying to legitimise an amoral stance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow thats bitter and rather exemplary of the kind of hate speech that one may
encounter if one dares to question the legitimacy of same sex marriages and/or
homosexuality in general, sad to say. Which civil right is it that they are being
denied? Is there not the provision of civil union to which a same sex couple may apply
and get the same ...[text shortened]... ent nor any other
basis. What in fact it amounts to is trying to legitimise an amoral stance.

amoral = lack of morality. whose morality? yours? a morality that says it is wrong for two gays to marry but it is right for the "chosen" people to kill the people of jericho, supposedly on gods orders.


you can keep your morality. no really, please keep it. and stop trying to smack people over the head with it. it has nothing to do with what is right. only what is comfortable. for you. and your group for like minded... persons.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow thats bitter and rather exemplary of the kind of hate speech that one may
encounter if one dares to question the legitimacy of same sex marriages and/or
homosexuality in general, sad to say. Which civil right is it that they are being
denied? Is there not the provision of civil union to which a same sex couple may apply
and get the same ...[text shortened]... ent nor any other
basis. What in fact it amounts to is trying to legitimise an amoral stance.

Yeah, I hate bigots. My speech reflects my hatred. I am disgusted by silly God-botherers with a persecutorial complex hiding behind political pluralism in an effort to impose their idio(t)syncratic "moral" code on the healthy, monogamous romantic relationships of others. And you have the audacity to claim that the quest for equal rights constitutes an imposition! As though federal recognition of my sister's and cousin's relationships at all impacts the well-being of fundamentalist loons. If you don't like homosexual marriages, don't have one. Teach your children whatever variety of fear and hatred you prefer. But don't pretend that equal rights for homosexuals constitutes an imposition on you. In any case, as I indicated above, this is a generational issue. When you and your ilk are finally interred, the political fight will be pretty much over.

Originally posted by bbarr
Yeah, I hate bigots. My speech reflects my hatred. I am disgusted by silly God-botherers with a persecutorial complex hiding behind political pluralism in an effort to impose their idio(t)syncratic "moral" code on the healthy, monogamous romantic relationships of others. And you have the audacity to claim that the quest for equal rights constitutes an impos When you and your ilk are finally interred, the political fight will be pretty much over.

You seem so full of a kind of loathing, i doubt it can be healthy for you. I do not know
in which country you reside, in the United Kingdom i may be subject to prosecution if I
raise any concern over the legitimacy of same sex marriages, in fact, i may lose my
job, many have. If this does not represent an imposition then either you are unaware
or simply refuse to acknowledge these facts.

i do not fear anything, except maybe a supported knight on the sixth. You have not
produced one piece of evidence to state why anyone should accept a morality and a
sexual preference that in my opinion runs contrary to nature. Monogamy is no
basis, unless you would like that whales also seek marraige. Healthy? on what
basis are we to accept that its healthy? shall i cite references of those who have
been subject to specific diseases solely as a consequence of their sexual practices?
shall I? there is no infringement of anyone's rights, marraige is defined as the
union of a man and a women. There has been no society ever other than this
amoral secular liberalist one that has sought to sanction such a union, no not one,
evah

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
amoral = lack of morality. whose morality? yours? a morality that says it is wrong for two gays to marry but it is right for the "chosen" people to kill the people of jericho, supposedly on gods orders.


you can keep your morality. no really, please keep it. and stop trying to smack people over the head with it. it has nothing to do with what is right. only what is comfortable. for you. and your group for like minded... persons.

you also need to stop being so hysterical, I did not make the rules, why are you trying
to portray that I am personally responsible for killing person in Jericho and of single
handedly opposing same sex marriages? Its hilarious. If you do not accept the
morality then establish your own, but spare me the hate talk. It surely cannot be good
for you either to hold so much resentment.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You seem so full of a kind of loathing, i doubt it can be healthy for you. I do not know
in which country you reside, in the United Kingdom i may be subject to prosecution if I
raise any concern over the legitimacy of same sex marriages, in fact, i may lose my
job, many have. If this does not represent an imposition then either you are unaware
or simply refuse to acknowledge these facts.

Your concern is appreciated. Most days, I feel no loathing at all. Then again, I live in Seattle. We don't have many fundamentalists. It's quite pleasant, actually. Sorry to hear about your inability to freely express your disgust and intolerance towards others. We protect that sort of speech here.