who gives a shit who marries who? We are all human beings, therefore it doesn't matter. You are extremely ignorant and foolish by saying whites and blacks, indians and asians, gays and lesbians can't marry each other. Who gives a fuck? It's called freedom for a reason. Get off of your Jesus Christ kick and wrap your head around the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs and when it comes down to it, none of it matters at all. It's just something for people like yourself to get angry about and turn into a religious issue. The issue is beyond religion, it's about equality for all humans, it's really not that complicated.
who gives a shit who marries who? We are all human beings, therefore it doesn't matter. You are extremely ignorant and foolish by saying whites and blacks, indians and asians, gays and lesbians can't marry each other. Who gives a fuck? It's called freedom for a reason. Get off of your Jesus Christ kick and wrap your head around the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs and when it comes down to it, none of it matters at all. It's just something for people like yourself to get angry about and turn into a religious issue. The issue is beyond religion, it's about equality for all humans, it's really not that complicated.
who gives a shit who marries who? We are all human beings, therefore it doesn't matter. You are extremely ignorant and foolish by saying whites and blacks, indians and asians, gays and lesbians can't marry each other. Who gives a fuck? It's called freedom for a reason. Get off of your Jesus Christ kick and wrap your head around the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs and when it comes down to it, none of it matters at all. It's just something for people like yourself to get angry about and turn into a religious issue. The issue is beyond religion, it's about equality for all humans, it's really not that complicated.
You do realize that the op does not actually believe what the woman said he is merely alerting the covers faithful of her madness.
Quote Originally Posted by MclatchyHostage:
who gives a shit who marries who? We are all human beings, therefore it doesn't matter. You are extremely ignorant and foolish by saying whites and blacks, indians and asians, gays and lesbians can't marry each other. Who gives a fuck? It's called freedom for a reason. Get off of your Jesus Christ kick and wrap your head around the fact that not everyone has the same beliefs and when it comes down to it, none of it matters at all. It's just something for people like yourself to get angry about and turn into a religious issue. The issue is beyond religion, it's about equality for all humans, it's really not that complicated.
You do realize that the op does not actually believe what the woman said he is merely alerting the covers faithful of her madness.
gay "marriage" is disgraceful and revolting every way that it's looked at. How about mom/son marriage? Father daughter marriage? German -Shepherd/ women marriage.
You've GOT be be kidding me. But you're not.
Gay Marriage
Two consenting non-related ADULTS is not the same thing as a person and an animal or a person and a child.
I don't even support gay marriage, but that doesn't make you any less of a moron.
Quote Originally Posted by Jon11:
gay "marriage" is disgraceful and revolting every way that it's looked at. How about mom/son marriage? Father daughter marriage? German -Shepherd/ women marriage.
You've GOT be be kidding me. But you're not.
Gay Marriage
Two consenting non-related ADULTS is not the same thing as a person and an animal or a person and a child.
I don't even support gay marriage, but that doesn't make you any less of a moron.
It seems that if you question any part of the gay agenda, you may be
subject to gangster like harassment and attacks. Sending white powder
to Mormon temples and staging church invasions go beyond legitimate
protest action, and should be condemned all around.
It seems that if you question any part of the gay agenda, you may be
subject to gangster like harassment and attacks. Sending white powder
to Mormon temples and staging church invasions go beyond legitimate
protest action, and should be condemned all around.
In it's truest form, homosexuality is genocidal behavior. Because of this, it is only logical that it is inherently wrong.
as is the common decision among heterosexual couples not to have kids and as is the decision of a person who can have kids to be with the person who cannot. therefore, we take the position that two consenting adults should be able to be together in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship without having kids. it's not a matter of advocating, but tolerating a position among consenting adults that does not harm the rest of us in a practical sense.
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
In it's truest form, homosexuality is genocidal behavior. Because of this, it is only logical that it is inherently wrong.
as is the common decision among heterosexual couples not to have kids and as is the decision of a person who can have kids to be with the person who cannot. therefore, we take the position that two consenting adults should be able to be together in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship without having kids. it's not a matter of advocating, but tolerating a position among consenting adults that does not harm the rest of us in a practical sense.
Does any culture in the world ,regardless of faith, advocate homosexuality, much less same sex marriage ?
In it's truest form, homosexuality is genocidal behavior. Because of this, it is only logical that it is inherently wrong.
Homosexuality is genocidal because it doesn't result in procreation???
What about incest? Is it okay to populate the world through incest, with all the resultant genetic abnormalities that arise from it, because procreation is possible?
Only on Covers...
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
Let's not make gay rights a religious issue.
Does any culture in the world ,regardless of faith, advocate homosexuality, much less same sex marriage ?
In it's truest form, homosexuality is genocidal behavior. Because of this, it is only logical that it is inherently wrong.
Homosexuality is genocidal because it doesn't result in procreation???
What about incest? Is it okay to populate the world through incest, with all the resultant genetic abnormalities that arise from it, because procreation is possible?
Homosexuality is genocidal because it doesn't result inprocreation???
What about incest? Is it okay to populate the world through incest, with all the resultant genetic abnormalities that arise from it, because procreation is possible?
Only on Covers...
Yes. Why is this so difficult to understand ? Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through it ?
CD, I agree with your idea that there should be a separation between "advocacy" and "tolerance" of homosexuality.
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Homosexuality is genocidal because it doesn't result inprocreation???
What about incest? Is it okay to populate the world through incest, with all the resultant genetic abnormalities that arise from it, because procreation is possible?
Only on Covers...
Yes. Why is this so difficult to understand ? Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through it ?
CD, I agree with your idea that there should be a separation between "advocacy" and "tolerance" of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is genocidal because it doesn't result in procreation???
What about incest? Is it okay to populate the world through incest, with all the resultant genetic abnormalities that arise from it, because procreation is possible?
Only on Covers...
You sure are dense for a smart fella.
If everyone was gay, would the human population not die off in say 100ish years?
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Homosexuality is genocidal because it doesn't result in procreation???
What about incest? Is it okay to populate the world through incest, with all the resultant genetic abnormalities that arise from it, because procreation is possible?
Only on Covers...
You sure are dense for a smart fella.
If everyone was gay, would the human population not die off in say 100ish years?
If everyone was gay, would the human population not die off in say 100ish years?
And this makes gays guilty of genocide??? Which is what Getty is attempting to accuse them of...
What if every heterosexual person born today decided to be child-free simply by convincing themselves that any sexual act was in violation of their beliefs?
Where in the Bible are we required to be sexual (insert "be fruitful and multiply biblical reference here")? The Bible is the main driver in ancient and modern societies behind making the act of sex shameful in almost all its forms (outside of the blessed marriage bond where the wife should be in the missionary position).
Are child-free people, those who choose to be by choice, also guilty of genocide?
Posters like Getty and his ilk are the greatest of hypocrites because while they read their bibles and attend services weekly, and clench their eyelids tight feeling the almighty's grace, while they raise their arms during religious hymns and lip-sync the words "Glory Glory" in that moment of surrender, they have absolutely no problem stigmatizing and ridiculing a sect of individuals who have been persecuted for millennia for what has been proven to be a biological, not personal, preference (in addition to condemning them to hell and blaming the majority of society's downfall on them). This biological fact, is of course ignored, because it clashes with the message of the good book.
And he goes so far as to attach a term relating to 'genocide' to them simply because they have a sexual preference unlike his.
It is delusion of the highest order and is Exhibit A with regard to why many today are abandoning all organized religions, that is, because of its divisiveness.
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
You sure are dense for a smart fella.
If everyone was gay, would the human population not die off in say 100ish years?
And this makes gays guilty of genocide??? Which is what Getty is attempting to accuse them of...
What if every heterosexual person born today decided to be child-free simply by convincing themselves that any sexual act was in violation of their beliefs?
Where in the Bible are we required to be sexual (insert "be fruitful and multiply biblical reference here")? The Bible is the main driver in ancient and modern societies behind making the act of sex shameful in almost all its forms (outside of the blessed marriage bond where the wife should be in the missionary position).
Are child-free people, those who choose to be by choice, also guilty of genocide?
Posters like Getty and his ilk are the greatest of hypocrites because while they read their bibles and attend services weekly, and clench their eyelids tight feeling the almighty's grace, while they raise their arms during religious hymns and lip-sync the words "Glory Glory" in that moment of surrender, they have absolutely no problem stigmatizing and ridiculing a sect of individuals who have been persecuted for millennia for what has been proven to be a biological, not personal, preference (in addition to condemning them to hell and blaming the majority of society's downfall on them). This biological fact, is of course ignored, because it clashes with the message of the good book.
And he goes so far as to attach a term relating to 'genocide' to them simply because they have a sexual preference unlike his.
It is delusion of the highest order and is Exhibit A with regard to why many today are abandoning all organized religions, that is, because of its divisiveness.
When it comes to our biological make up, there is compatability between male and female sex organs. You try and have sex with another man, its just not possible. But feel free to argue how you can fit a square peg in a round hole
Marriage should be a religious act, between a man and woman. Gay people should be allowed to be together, without ridicule, but no need to call it marriage
I think monogamy is a religious concept, unless you feel like evolution has led you to only want to be with one person (go ahead and lie to yourself)
Being gay is not a 'sexual' preference
When it comes to our biological make up, there is compatability between male and female sex organs. You try and have sex with another man, its just not possible. But feel free to argue how you can fit a square peg in a round hole
Marriage should be a religious act, between a man and woman. Gay people should be allowed to be together, without ridicule, but no need to call it marriage
I think monogamy is a religious concept, unless you feel like evolution has led you to only want to be with one person (go ahead and lie to yourself)
When it comes to our biological make up, there is compatability between male and female sex organs. You try and have sex with another man, its just not possible. But feel free to argue how you can fit a square peg in a round hole
Marriage should be a religious act, between a man and woman. Gay people should be allowed to be together, without ridicule, but no need to call it marriage
I think monogamy is a religious concept, unless you feel like evolution has led you to only want to be with one person (go ahead and lie to yourself)
i disagree that marriage should be a religious act because many people get married who want nothing to do with religion, myself included. why should marriage and religion be tied together? if gays should be permitted to be together and we call it a civil union rather than a marriage, then i want in on that too if the implication is that a civil union is non-religious while marriages necessarily have a religions connotation.
i also don't believe monogamy is necessarily a religious concept. there are some religions that specifically reject monogamy (certainly many christian politicians like newt gingrich do but that's another matter). innately, i'd like to be having sex with a lot of women, but i believe in monogamy out of respect for my wife and my kids, which i believe to be an evolutionary trait. what does my belief in monogamy have to do with religion? and which religion is that?
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
Being gay is not a 'sexual' preference
When it comes to our biological make up, there is compatability between male and female sex organs. You try and have sex with another man, its just not possible. But feel free to argue how you can fit a square peg in a round hole
Marriage should be a religious act, between a man and woman. Gay people should be allowed to be together, without ridicule, but no need to call it marriage
I think monogamy is a religious concept, unless you feel like evolution has led you to only want to be with one person (go ahead and lie to yourself)
i disagree that marriage should be a religious act because many people get married who want nothing to do with religion, myself included. why should marriage and religion be tied together? if gays should be permitted to be together and we call it a civil union rather than a marriage, then i want in on that too if the implication is that a civil union is non-religious while marriages necessarily have a religions connotation.
i also don't believe monogamy is necessarily a religious concept. there are some religions that specifically reject monogamy (certainly many christian politicians like newt gingrich do but that's another matter). innately, i'd like to be having sex with a lot of women, but i believe in monogamy out of respect for my wife and my kids, which i believe to be an evolutionary trait. what does my belief in monogamy have to do with religion? and which religion is that?
And this makes gays guilty of genocide??? Which is what Getty is attempting to accuse them of...
What if every heterosexual person born today decided to be child-free simply by convincing themselves that any sexual act was in violation of their beliefs?
Where in the Bible are we required to be sexual (insert "be fruitful and multiply biblical reference here")? The Bible is the main driver in ancient and modern societies behind making the act of sex shameful in almost all its forms (outside of the blessed marriage bond where the wife should be in the missionary position).
Are child-free people, those who choose to be by choice, also guilty of genocide?
Posters like Getty and his ilk are the greatest of hypocritesbecause while they read their bibles and attend services weekly, and clench their eyelids tight feeling the almighty's grace, while they raise their arms during religious hymns and lip-sync the words "Glory Glory" in that moment of surrender, they have absolutely no problem stigmatizing and ridiculing a sect of individuals who have been persecuted for millennia for what has been proven to be a biological, not personal, preference (in addition to condemning them to hell and blaming the majority of society's downfall on them). This biological fact, is of course ignored, because it clashes with the message of the good book.
And he goes so far as to attach a term relating to 'genocide' to them simply because they have a sexual preference unlike his.
It is delusion of the highest order and is Exhibit A with regard to why many today are abandoning all organized religions, that is, because of its divisiveness.
I think you have me confused with Sir John Drake.
On the rare occasion I choose to comment on religious issues, I do so with respect to non-believers, and with a sure sense of humility in knowing that organized religion is not without flaw.
I have respect for people who have read and understood the Bible and still choose not to believe, because they have taken the time and effort to weigh the facts as they are presented to everybody.
Unfortunately, most haters of God and religion have formed their opinions based upon the interpretations of others.
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
And this makes gays guilty of genocide??? Which is what Getty is attempting to accuse them of...
What if every heterosexual person born today decided to be child-free simply by convincing themselves that any sexual act was in violation of their beliefs?
Where in the Bible are we required to be sexual (insert "be fruitful and multiply biblical reference here")? The Bible is the main driver in ancient and modern societies behind making the act of sex shameful in almost all its forms (outside of the blessed marriage bond where the wife should be in the missionary position).
Are child-free people, those who choose to be by choice, also guilty of genocide?
Posters like Getty and his ilk are the greatest of hypocritesbecause while they read their bibles and attend services weekly, and clench their eyelids tight feeling the almighty's grace, while they raise their arms during religious hymns and lip-sync the words "Glory Glory" in that moment of surrender, they have absolutely no problem stigmatizing and ridiculing a sect of individuals who have been persecuted for millennia for what has been proven to be a biological, not personal, preference (in addition to condemning them to hell and blaming the majority of society's downfall on them). This biological fact, is of course ignored, because it clashes with the message of the good book.
And he goes so far as to attach a term relating to 'genocide' to them simply because they have a sexual preference unlike his.
It is delusion of the highest order and is Exhibit A with regard to why many today are abandoning all organized religions, that is, because of its divisiveness.
I think you have me confused with Sir John Drake.
On the rare occasion I choose to comment on religious issues, I do so with respect to non-believers, and with a sure sense of humility in knowing that organized religion is not without flaw.
I have respect for people who have read and understood the Bible and still choose not to believe, because they have taken the time and effort to weigh the facts as they are presented to everybody.
Unfortunately, most haters of God and religion have formed their opinions based upon the interpretations of others.
On the rare occasion I choose to comment on religious issues, I do so with respect to non-believers, and with a sure sense of humility in knowing that organized religion is not without flaw.
I have respect for people who have read and understood the Bible and still choose not to believe, because they have taken the time and effort to weigh the facts as they are presented to everybody.
Unfortunately, most haters of God and religion have formed their opinions based upon the interpretations of others.
Right. You're respect for people who have a homosexual lifestyle has resulted in you attaching the word 'genocide' to their activities.
That's humility according to a self-proclaimed Christian in 2011 ladies and gentlemen.
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
I think you have me confused with Sir John Drake.
On the rare occasion I choose to comment on religious issues, I do so with respect to non-believers, and with a sure sense of humility in knowing that organized religion is not without flaw.
I have respect for people who have read and understood the Bible and still choose not to believe, because they have taken the time and effort to weigh the facts as they are presented to everybody.
Unfortunately, most haters of God and religion have formed their opinions based upon the interpretations of others.
Right. You're respect for people who have a homosexual lifestyle has resulted in you attaching the word 'genocide' to their activities.
That's humility according to a self-proclaimed Christian in 2011 ladies and gentlemen.
The is NO SUCH THING AS MORAL RELATIVISM when God is concerned! In the 60s it came under this guise: "If it feels good, do it! If it doesn't, do it anyway..." In the 70s it was, "I'm Okay. You're Okay." And these days children are BRAINWASHED with, "I Am Loveable and Kind!"
This is utter BULLSHIT!!!
The Apostle Paul writing in his letter to the Romans is even clearer, for he not only warns men and women about the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism, but he points out it is against nature, and that there would be terrible consequences for those ardently committed to this lifestyle. Romans 1:26-27 says,
26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another — men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
The is NO SUCH THING AS MORAL RELATIVISM when God is concerned! In the 60s it came under this guise: "If it feels good, do it! If it doesn't, do it anyway..." In the 70s it was, "I'm Okay. You're Okay." And these days children are BRAINWASHED with, "I Am Loveable and Kind!"
This is utter BULLSHIT!!!
The Apostle Paul writing in his letter to the Romans is even clearer, for he not only warns men and women about the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism, but he points out it is against nature, and that there would be terrible consequences for those ardently committed to this lifestyle. Romans 1:26-27 says,
26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another — men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
wow, that's an old one. hutch, slik and be easy haven't been seen for some time. not sure who this jon fella was. hold 'em probably settled down, got married, probably to a dude.
wow, that's an old one. hutch, slik and be easy haven't been seen for some time. not sure who this jon fella was. hold 'em probably settled down, got married, probably to a dude.
And this makes gays guilty of genocide??? Which is what Getty is attempting to accuse them of...
Hot Forum Topics
