Homosexuality in the View of a Christian

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Jimmy the Pro Homosexuality in the View of a Christian

Except for DNA-related cases, I take and/or recognize a homosexuality as a wrong concept and/or approach for sexual activity.

Whatever those guys do, that is their and only business, as long as it does not interfere with my family and/or family business.
Therefore, they had better stay away from any form of publicity if that may (potentially) influence children, especially since children deserve a special status within communities, societies, groups, etc. that is why any form of endorsing and/or promoting homosexuality is unacceptable (at least).

Is homosexuality a sin and/or immoral and/or abnormal form of sexual activity, etc. ?
Why should I even fatigue my mind over homosexualists activity ?
Those guys are fully aware of their activity, very well - unless intellectually and/or mentally impaired. Therefore they can recognize their approach with ease. That is their choice and/or decision, after all.

P.S.
I am a Catholic.

[Morality Games]

Except for DNA-related cases, I take and/or recognize a homosexuality as a wrong concept and/or approach for sexual activity.

Why the exception for DNA-related cases?

(rhetorical question -- I already know your answer, I just look forward to demonstrating the faulty logic behind your reasoning)

Therefore, they had better stay away from any form of publicity if that may (potentially) influence children, especially since children deserve a special status within communities, societies, groups, etc. that is why any form of endorsing and/or promoting homosexuality is unacceptable (at least).

I feel the same way about religion, including Catholicism, for its generally (exceptions allowed) destructive influence on the ego and intellect. However, we live in a democratic society, and unless one (you or me) can prove an act or activity produces irreparable damage (that which threatens the health of a community to the point of rendering dysfunctional -- aka, destroying it), you can't inhibit public sphere endorsement or promotion of it.

That's the virtue and vice of equality. Since exposure to homosexuality does not appear to make churn out significantly higher numbers of homosexual children, that whole avenue of thought is a waste of time -- moreover, it has not been proven large numbers of homosexuals would be wrong (it would only be a serious problem if maintaining the population became hard, which is actually the opposite of our trouble just now), since homosexuality is not intrinsically a drain on health, intellect, or happiness.

Maybe you would be happier living in a theocracy like the Vatican, where publicity you approve of is mandated. If you can't accept publicity of factions contrary to yours, then you aren't suitable for a democratic society, where other factions are a fact of life.

[Tycoon]

Except for DNA-related cases, I take and/or recognize a homosexuality as a wrong concept and/or approach for sexual activity.

Homosexuality is not a concept or an approach. Please explain why you think homosexuality is wrong either way.

Whatever those guys do, that is their and only business, as long as it does not interfere with my family and/or family business.

People interfere with homosexuality by denying gay marriage. I don't know your stance personally on gay marriage, but as for those who are against it it is a very hypocritical thing to say that homosexuality should stay out of their family business.

Therefore, they had better stay away from any form of publicity if that may (potentially) influence children, especially since children deserve a special status within communities, societies, groups, etc. that is why any form of endorsing and/or promoting homosexuality is unacceptable (at least).

It seems to me you would completely segregate homosexuals from the rest of the population. Almost similar to Hitler's death camps, only trying to destroy the homosexual influence.

What are you afraid of? You think your children will become homosexual themselves? What an irrational fear.

Those guys are fully aware of their activity, very well - unless intellectually and/or mentally impaired. Therefore they can recognize their approach with ease. That is their choice and/or decision, after all.

How many times does it have to be explained that homosexuality is not a choice? Sure, it is a choice to follow through with homosexual desires, but why should they be denied? They're no less real than yours.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: gela 'F**k' deliberatly vulgar and derogatory. Its aim is to shock.

I disagree. I think some people cannot handle the word. The word fook has evolved into a plethora of definitions. To accuse that the word is vulgar and derogatory, is only one the many definitions.

You generaly wouldn't use the word 'f**k' to describe having sex with someone you respected.

Wrong again. Me and my partners have both use that word without being disrespectful. Again, the word fook is just a word. Why others find it strong and offensive is beyond me.

Straight is just a word used to describe being attracted to the opposite sex.

The opposite of straight is "crooked". I find the word "crooked" to be more derogatory than homosexual.

What I find ironic is that people are using the words 'gay', 'poof', 'fag', and 'queer' are not being punished. These words are very degoratory and evolved out of discriminatory and bigoted origins. It is similar to calling an African American _______ or Jews_______ or Italians_______ or Asians_________, etc.

It is ok to use the words 'gay', 'poof', 'fag', and 'queer' since they are derogatory and steeped in bigotry. But, use the word fook, then all hell breaks loose and punishment is implemented.

[Jack]

What are you afraid of? You think your children will become homosexual themselves? What an irrational fear.

It appears rational to those gullible enough to believe the foolish contention that someone can simply, by an act of will, wake up one morning and decide, "You know, I think starting today I'm going to be gay. I've never had the slightest interest in having sex with another person of my same gender before, but suddenly I find them irresistibly attractive."

What I find ironic is that people are using the words 'gay', 'poof', 'fag', and 'queer' are not being punished.

They often are, by their peers, if their group is a bit more enlightened and rational than they are. If their peers are as bigoted as they, then they're often applauded for their wit.

The exception are gays. Those terms, when used by gay people, are a mocking form of self-depreciation similar to Blacks who use the "N" word. Within the community its accepted. Use by those outside the community is considered unacceptable. It's a fairly common phenomena within groups formed by a common cause, belief or affiliation.

[christianmathew]

Okay, this is getting a little weird. Why are we talking abut "poff". That either sounds like snorting drugs or faeries. No one uses terms like that. Don't believe me? let's hold a poll.

Also, f**k is exremely derogatory. If it doesn't seem that way to you, it is because you have become derogatory to everyone and just don't notice it. Sex, sexual intercourse, intimacy, making love, and a few others are somewhat old fashioned in todays society but not nearly as derogatory.

And what is with the whole gays made the term 'gay' and 'straight'? That is so not true. Gay means happy, who would get offended? It wasn't created as some sort of gay conspiracy, it just became synonymous, with both gay and straight people using it. The same is true for straight. It is not as if gays where trying to speak in code or something.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: christianmathew Okay, this is getting a little weird. Why are we talking abut "poff". That either sounds like snorting drugs or faeries. No one uses terms like that. Don't believe me? let's hold a poll.

"Poff" is Australian or British.

Also, f**k is exremely derogatory.

No, it is not.

If it doesn't seem that way to you, it is because you have become derogatory to everyone and just don't notice it.

In the same manner that people do not accept your fundamentalism.

Sex, sexual intercourse, intimacy, making love, and a few others are somewhat old fashioned in todays society but not nearly as derogatory.

Who gives a fook? The word 'fu#k' is not nearly as derogatory to you as sex outside marriage. Tell me, are you more offended by people "fooking" inside their marriage or "fooking" outside of it? Or the word "fook" itself?

You can substitute fooking for sexual intercourse, intimacy, making love, humping, or good ol' fashion spooning.

Regardless, it is a term that describes an act; whether fornication, sexual bliss, gettin' dirty, humping, uniting with christ, making love, banging, etc. It represents an act that most adults can comprehend regardless of language.

Should I "put" the glass on the table, "lay it " on the table, "place" it on the table, etc.

And what is with the whole gays made the term 'gay' and 'straight'?

I said that the opposite of straight of was crooked.

That is so not true. Gay means happy, who would get offended?

Heterosexuals.

It wasn't created as some sort of gay conspiracy, it just became synonymous, with both gay and straight people using it. The same is true for straight. It is not as if gays where trying to speak in code or something.

Why does being a homo equal being happy when they are damn to hell?

[Anmon]

Quote by: Voluntary I said that the opposite of straight of was crooked.

'Bent' actually, gay was a word available to everyone once for the context of saying 'they were feeling gay,' not now but.
I get the feeling also the rainbow is used as their symbol on flags, and other paraphernalia mostly in an attempt by socialists to mock God, as the Rainbow in the Bible was a symbol of Gods friendship with humanity.
See Noah leaving the Ark account in Genesis for confirmation of this.

'12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Jimmy, on what basis do you disregard the anti-homosexual passages and not everything else?

Why didn't God inspire them to write about homosexuality being OK since he knew they would supposedly forge his word?

[Anmon]

[=Voluntary;496576]"Poff" is Australian or British.

Try 'poof' or 'poofter'

[Winter wind]

Quote by: anmon 'Bent' actually, gay was a word available to everyone once for the context of saying 'they were feeling gay,' not now but. I get the feeling also the rainbow is used as their symbol on flags, and other paraphernalia mostly in an attempt by socialists to mock God, as the Rainbow in the Bible was a symbol of Gods friendship with humanity. See Noah leaving the Ark account in Genesis for confirmation of this.

Yah, the socialists were using the rainbow to mock God. That's exactly what it was.

Your making these connections without a shred of evidence.

It's post hoc ergo proctor hoc

Equivalent to the logical fallacy: If I go on a picnic and it rains, the picnic caused the rain.
If the rainbow is a Christian symbol and the gays choose the rainbow to represent their cause, they definitely chose it because the Christians used it.

[Morality Games]

'Bent' actually, gay was a word available to everyone once for the context of saying 'they were feeling gay,' not now but. I get the feeling also the rainbow is used as their symbol on flags, and other paraphernalia mostly in an attempt by socialists to mock God, as the Rainbow in the Bible was a symbol of Gods friendship with humanity. See Noah leaving the Ark account in Genesis for confirmation of this.

Where are the socialists coming from again?

[christianmathew]

The socialists just want to hurt everybody, while looking good themselves.

Hey, I'm leaving for Las Angelas. See you guys later.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: morality games Where are the socialists coming from again?

heaven, when they fell from grace with their leader, Lucifer.

The socialists are the source of every evil in the world, ergo they are behind gay marriage.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Winter wind heaven, when they fell from grace with their leader, Lucifer. The socialists are the source of every evil in the world, ergo they are behind gay marriage.

Makes sense.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Morality Games 1. Why the exception for DNA-related cases? (rhetorical question -- I already know your answer, I just look forward to demonstrating the faulty logic behind your reasoning) 2. I feel the same way about religion, including Catholicism, for its generally (exceptions allowed) destructive influence on the ego and intellect. However, we live in a democratic society, and unless one (you or me) can prove an act or activity produces irreparable damage (that which threatens the health of a community to the point of rendering dysfunctional -- aka, destroying it), you can't inhibit public sphere endorsement or promotion of it. That's the virtue and vice of equality. Since exposure to homosexuality does not appear to make churn out significantly higher numbers of homosexual children, that whole avenue of thought is a waste of time -- moreover, it has not been proven large numbers of homosexuals would be wrong (it would only be a serious problem if maintaining the population became hard, which is actually the opposite of our trouble just now), since homosexuality is not intrinsically a drain on health, intellect, or happiness. Maybe you would be happier living in a theocracy like the Vatican, where publicity you approve of is mandated. If you can't accept publicity of factions contrary to yours, then you aren't suitable for a democratic society, where other factions are a fact of life.

#1
Are you suggesting that a person is born, as :
- gay and/or lesbian
???
Yes, it is true, but in DNA-related cases, Only (!)
The rest is that individual's approach, stance, choice, etc.
Reasons ? From "A" to "Z", starting with : upbringing a child.

#2
Hollywood is not my field of interests.

[Morality Games]

Are you suggesting that a person is born, as : - gay and/or lesbian ??? Yes, it is true, but in DNA-related cases, Only (!) The rest is that individual's approach, stance, choice, etc. Reasons ? From "A" to "Z", starting with : upbringing a child.

Homosexual couples have adopted and raised children for decades and these children are not becoming homosexuals in ratios significantly greater than that of children raised by heterosexual couples. Your beliefs do not agree with reality at all, which makes me wonder, "Why would anybody with an intellect consider you as anything other than someone who doesn't know what they are talking about?"

#2

Hollywood is not my field of interests.

Stay out of my way unless you are willing to address the content of my post. There is no purpose in your being here otherwise. You definitely haven't proven yourself mentally competent enough to dismiss what I say out of hand, although I have certainly acquired that right when it comes to what you say (I choose not to use it out of an obligatory sense of 'respect').

[tommy5x]

I too am saddened by the foolish, bigoted views of many Christians.

I am aware that the majority of Christians are tolerant of homosexuality, however assinine morons like the WBC mar the name of all of Christianity.

As for as I am concerned, homosexuality is an uncontrollable hormonal balance which results in an attraction towards members of the same gender. I've heard it said that sexuality is controlled by the secretions in one tiny part of the brain, though I've never seen any supportive evidence.

In short, gay=O.K.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Tycoon 1. Homosexuality is not a concept or an approach. Please explain why you think homosexuality is wrong either way. 2. People interfere with homosexuality by denying gay marriage. I don't know your stance personally on gay marriage, but as for those who are against it it is a very hypocritical thing to say that homosexuality should stay out of their family business. 3. It seems to me you would completely segregate homosexuals from the rest of the population. Almost similar to Hitler's death camps, only trying to destroy the homosexual influence. What are you afraid of? You think your children will become homosexual themselves? What an irrational fear. 4. How many times does it have to be explained that homosexuality is not a choice? Sure, it is a choice to follow through with homosexual desires, but why should they be denied? They're no less real than yours.

#1
Sex with opposite gender, is what we occupy the part of the Universe for.
Since homosexuality is neither a concept nor any approach, what is it then ?

#2
I think that there are some families with no objections on variey of factors, issues, subjects, etc. around them, and homosexuality may be included within them. It does not concern and/or apply to my family, though.
I am not interested what other families do, as long as they do not interfere with my one.

#3
Here is the update for my family roots :
- grandpa : Ribbentrop's shoemaker and polisher
- grandma : Stalin's personal maid, she served under Czar as well, she was good, was not she :-)
- brother : Mao's personal tea-maker
- sister : Pohl Pot's personal senior medical assistance
- another sister : Duce's attraction :-)
We are damn good, are not we. We are the best :-)))
In case you miss some others, I will post some addtiional updates. Then feel free with your compilations and submit it.

I have been thinking about that fear-factor.
The most I am afraid of : intellectually impaired Homo Sapiens' representatives to take over top and/or executive positions within the governing bodies all over the globe.
I am pleased it would never materialize.
Hint : money

#4
Is that a choice or not, that is the question :-)

Generally, except for #1 I see no reason to upkeep these subjects alive what I think a local pub may serve that purpose well.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Morality Games 1. Homosexual couples have adopted and raised children for decades and these children are not becoming homosexuals in ratios significantly greater than that of children raised by heterosexual couples. Your beliefs do not agree with reality at all, which makes me wonder, "Why would anybody with an intellect consider you as anything other than someone who doesn't know what they are talking about?" 2. Stay out of my way unless you are willing to address the content of my post. There is no purpose in your being here otherwise. You definitely haven't proven yourself mentally competent enough to dismiss what I say out of hand, although I have certainly acquired that right when it comes to what you say (I choose not to use it out of an obligatory sense of 'respect').

#1, #2
Yes, I did addressed the subject.
You posted absurdal determinations, insinuations, conclusions, etc. including personal ones.

Example :
- I present the subject of process of upbringing a child
- You come up with percentage of children raised by hmosexualists.
What it has in common ? except for statistical data ?
Where is your response with that process of upbringing, then ?
There is none. That indicates to me, you have not sufficient data on the process of upbringing a child, except for copy-and-paste "technique".
Are you familiar with : Child Psychology ? Have you ever heard of that one ?

Yet, you demand and/or deserve a special status and/or recognition ? Based on what factor ? since material you submit osciallate around some stereotypes, mass-media fed by most likely.
What am I to post my answer to ?