Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1035 by Stan]

Stan, consider:
Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... omosexuals

and...
When compared to those with more favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, these studies have found that persons with negative attitudes:
....
are likely to be older and less well educated....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rview.html

Plus, when coupled with religious piety ...likely to be obnoxious . . .?

Just asking . . .

An interesting and reasonable hypothesis; however, current studies have been impeded by the difficulty of coming up with an operational definition of "obnoxious."
Apparently obnoxiousness is linked to pornography in that it is difficult to define, but 'you know it when you see it.'

[otseng]

[Replying to post 1026 by McCulloch]

I DIDN'T accuse anyone of lying.

Moderator Final Warning

15. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[99percentatheism]

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. We are dealing with the exact same kind of attitudes as did the Angels in Sodom: Genesis 19:

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

We are being setup exactly as the Bible predicted.

Stay 100% on the straight path and deal with this issue completely through Biblical truth. There's nothing that can be done to you if you do that other thasn be labled with lies that have no weight on eternity.

[10CC]

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. We are dealing with the exact same kind of attitudes as did the Angels in Sodom: Genesis 19:

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

We are being setup exactly as the Bible predicted.

Stay 100% on the straight path and deal with this issue completely through Biblical truth. There's nothing that can be done to you if you do that other thasn be labled with lies that have no weight on eternity.

Do you mean the biblical truth that jesus never even mentioned homosexuality?

That biblical truth?

And what makes a biblical truth TRUE?

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

It's not surprising that neither Stan nor 99percentatheism have responded to my post #1004. Since both appear to be obsessed with the sexual aspect of gay marriage, however, I ask a simple question for either or both.

KID, you of all people know that I have utterly no fear in dealing with gay activism, liberal/gay theology and of course you. We've been at this a long time. As you know, I do not care the slightest about what homosexuals do to each other. This is a matter of protecting the Church from attacks by unsavory groups and individuals.

While God would have designed sex for procreation and made it pleasurable to ensure that people DO procreate, recreational sex, i.e. sex for pleasure, is the norm today for straight married people.

Yup. I know that very well. He also designed The Church not to be a copy of the world and its ways. Your demands are that Christians not only live exactly like pagans, but celebrate and cheer them on. That is antithetical to Christian truth. You should preach your message where it fits. In pagan and atheistic worldviews and communities.

Note: sex for pleasure and for no other reason. Neither Stan nor 99percentatheism appear to have a problem with non-procreation intimacy for straight people.

All of a sudden it is you making this all about behavior? Well of course. I know why. This subject IS all about behavior.

But, they would prohibit the very same non-procreation intimacy for gay married people.

I don't know about Stan's views on pagans and anti-Christians, but I couldn't care less. There isn't one place I have ever posted about curtailing what anti-Christians do. I am all about Christian truth, not gay anything. That is outrside the Church and of course nothing I would ever champion. Notice "I" don't celebrate Voodoo worship either. I don't stand against Atehists doing their thijg as they see fit. But it seems that you and your side drools over making me support what is impossible to support.
Why?

BTW, if the above question is too difficult for you to answer/if my post #1004 is equally too difficult for either of you to offer a response would you just say so? Thanks.[/color]

Don't make me laugh. Nothing you have ever presnted is even slightly difficult for me to deal with. All I have to do is saty on the straight path. The truth paved into every stone by Christians that have fought this fight since the beginning of the Church. What you fail to realize (of course) is that Christians like me cannot justify my own sins, why would I celebrate LGBT's in their demands to proclaim theirs to be justifiable? I don't know one Christian that claims to not be a sinner past, present ot future. And I wouldn't name one a friend that celebrated their sins and made excuses for them.

uno mas:

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.

But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

This is exclusively a Christian apologetics issue with me. As it should be. What do I care what the unrepentant and Dodless demand?

And of course we have dealt with the licentious and agenda-laden reprobates cruising the Church since its founding:

The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

KID, I can't hang out on this website every day. I have places to go and people to meet. And help in this war on the Church by secularism, liberalism and the typical ills that befall the Church and Christians. I just need to do as Jesus advised and not champion the world and its ways:

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come.

It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.

You and the rest of thiose that celebrate and support and encourage gay activism, demand repentance is a hate crime.

There's nothing I have to do about that. That is your position and your judgment awaits you. I am no part of that accept to support that truth in scripture and support my brothers and sisters in Christ.

You can ply your belief systems where you'd like. But there's no reason to label the Christian opposition to gay activism as hate or anything negative. Doing that is unjustified and has no foundation in fairness. You live in a decidely non Christian worldview and that is your choice. When I have ever demanded that you live as a Bible believing Christian???? Never. Not once. You should allow Christians to live the same way as you desire and to be able to follow their consciences along the same path as that of Jesus and His Apostles and disciples.

Please show anywhere in the Bible that doing good to our enemies is to celebrate their sins and sinning?

When reading Luke Chapter 6, do we see anywhere that doing good to sinners means celebrating their sins? Encouraging their sins? Redefining sin and sinning to make a politically correct statement?

LGBT activism is nothing but worldiness. As Jude points points out.

[99percentatheism]

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. We are dealing with the exact same kind of attitudes as did the Angels in Sodom: Genesis 19:

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

We are being setup exactly as the Bible predicted.

Stay 100% on the straight path and deal with this issue completely through Biblical truth. There's nothing that can be done to you if you do that other thasn be labled with lies that have no weight on eternity.

Do you mean the biblical truth that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality?

That biblical truth?

And what makes a biblical truth TRUE?

So you admit and you support the honest Christian view that homosexuality is never supported IN THE BIBLE.

Thank you for your support.

[10CC]

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. We are dealing with the exact same kind of attitudes as did the Angels in Sodom: Genesis 19:

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

We are being setup exactly as the Bible predicted.

Stay 100% on the straight path and deal with this issue completely through Biblical truth. There's nothing that can be done to you if you do that other thasn be labled with lies that have no weight on eternity.

Do you mean the biblical truth that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality?

That biblical truth?

And what makes a biblical truth TRUE?

So you admit and you support the honest Christian view that homosexuality is never supported IN THE BIBLE.

Thank you for your support.

JESUS never condemned homosexuality as you rightly contend, thank you for your honesty.

[99percentatheism]

@ KCKID

Your challenges are a bit on the vapid side, but I take the time I do to swipe them aside because I love my brothers and sisters in the Church.

99percent, I don't know that anyone is disputing male/female relations as per the Bible. You are correct. The Bible quite clearly demonstrates that a man will dominate a woman and take that woman in marriage as his property.

Oh really? You do know what thread you're in right?

So let's go to the New Testament shall we? And we will see how much gay activism is denounced.

Letter from Paul to Christians in Ephesus:

Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

12 It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.

NOW, I think it might have been back in the 1960's that women were given equal rights to men which was a slap in the face to God because women were always intended to be subordinate to the male. So, then and there society had made up its mind to go against God and make women no longer the property of man.

Whatever fantasy you are presenting, it has nothing to do with Christian life. It is though, common propaganda that I run into ubiquitously when dealing with modern secularists:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.� This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

That sure looks like the definition of pure equality. Though of course it is not in keeping with the feminism of the ungodly though.

Some churches - if I recall - didn't like the idea of equality for women for the reasons given. Most Churches today will not ordain women as pastors or ministers or be given positions of authority because, according to Paul, it was the woman that was deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden and women, therefore, cannot be entrusted with positions of authority. Besides that, of course, it had already been firmly entrenched in the minds of both men and women that no woman be allowed to have authority over a man. "I FORBID!" cries Paul.

Without doubt radical secularist feminism has been a scourge to society. A plague that children are suffering every single day. Visit any jail, mental health facility or morque and see.

So, your sweet little picture of men and women living their lives in wedded bliss is nothing of the kind according to scripture (God).

Oops! You're wrong huh.

The status of women in today's marriage is NOT what God intended. HOWEVER, we all accept the present-day marriage of equality and frown upon situations of domestic violence.

Thanks to Christian morality.

You need to handle scripture better sir. Cafeteria theology makes for a poor theological salad. Yours is missing most ingredients for anything healthy to be offered.

Domestic violence might well be the result of the wife bucking the Bible definition of the female in marriage, i.e. not being subservient to the male and not catering to his every whim.

Your personal opinion is duly noted.

But one question: How do you abuse your wife while loving her as Christ did His Church?

Guess you need a bit a churchin' up.

Such a woman would surely have been in line for a beating back in the good old days. THAT is what a Christian marriage should be according to the Bible. Correct?

obviously not. Even extra-biblical history shows that the Christians introduce a loving family to the Romans that treated spouses exactly as you desribe the secular world doing now.

Oh and by the way, how is feminism doing helping out women and children?

Badly.

Was Dan Quayle a Prophet? Maybe not. But his views on feminsim was deadly accurate. As in deadly.

Two males would be of equal standing and so would be ineligible to become the property of the other unless one or the other of them was a foreign slave.

Your bizaare ideology is truly noted. But it was the pagan Romans that lived with men as sexual partners whether or not they wanted the interaction. Homosexuality was anathema to Christians. As is historically accurate.

And THAT is why male/male, female/female relations would not be found within the pages of the Bible. It would be unthinkable.

Your secular views fit a decidely un and no Christian category. Marriage and appropriate sexula bahvior is clearly within the Christian marriage. And as you prove solidly, there is no such thing as same gender marriage in Christian truth.

Women and slaves were the PROPERTY of the male.

I'm sorry? Who? MEN were slaves and sex slaves as well. Of Roman pagans. In paganism, there are no boundaies to sexual depravity.

But, not so today ...ideally speaking, of course. So, based on the above description of scriptural marriage, Christian sanctioned gay marriage would be/SHOULD BE no different to Christian sanctioned present-day male/female marriage.

In an other-worldy religion. There is no honesty in homosexualizing the historic Christian Church. You are though, free to invent any new religion you desire. And that is the only option your gay activism has.

Both could be seen as being 'anti-God' but changed to suit the times.

Anti God? What a accidental prophetic pronouncement you stumbled into.

But as the New Testament proves beyond hinest doubt, marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

Furthermore, as mentioned many times previously, gay people that choose to follow Christ should be as equal in the eyes of The Church as are divorcees and even divorcees that choose to remarry.

Unrepentant sinners have no standing in the Church. They of course can attend, but they are not to be celebrated and/or encouraged.

And you seem to always ignore the fact, that repentance and forgiveness washes clean the sinner. Unless of course you can provide scriptures that detail that that is wrong. Now of course, there are consequences of sin, but it is only the LGBT theology that demands that there are excuses to sin and for sin. I've never met the divorcee, the adulterer or remarried person that demands that God "made them that way" to be an adulterer, justified their divorce, or that The Church should celbrate their remarriage. Not even one.

I doubt that 99percentatheism or Stan or whoever can make a legitimate case against what I've just said but I DO, of course, challenge them to do so.

And as anyone can see, I did. And it was as effortless to do as simply reading the Bible.

KID, you have only secular ideology for all of your demands. Not one thing you presented finds support from the Bible.

Now go and live wherever and however you please, but just allow Christians the same rights.

[99percentatheism]

Really Stan... really?

What word would you like us to use when describing homosexual behavior in animals?

Your "HOMO" argument does not make the behavior disappear? The behavior is there, and that is what my argument is about. That you want to argue the "homo" part of the word is irrelevant to the observed behavior.

First your defense was homoSEXual (it being about the sex). Now it is HOMOsexual. We have cleaver readers here, and this will not go unnoticed.

When two male animals have sex with each other, is it not homosexual behavior that we are observing?

Yes Clownboat, REALLY.

Well I thought Pseudocopulation was a fairly accurate depiction of it.

"In English the word homosexual was first used in 1892 in the English translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia sexualis" which was a reference work, in German, on sexual perversions. It first appeared in 1886 and was enormously popular, being reprinted about once a year!"(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did ... ome_a_word)
"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from Ger. homosexual, homosexuale (by 1880, in Gustav Jäger), from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see homo- (1)) + Latin-based sexual. "Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897] Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... hmode=none)

I've no doubt there are some clever readers here and some also understand, which is probably why only YOU are commenting.

Stan,

You have to be VERY careful dealing with people on the subject of gay activism.

As you can see, they do not play fair. We are dealing with the exact same kind of attitudes as did the Angels in Sodom: Genesis 19:

9 “Get out of our way,� they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.� They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

We are being setup exactly as the Bible predicted.

Stay 100% on the straight path and deal with this issue completely through Biblical truth. There's nothing that can be done to you if you do that other thasn be labled with lies that have no weight on eternity.

Do you mean the biblical truth that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality?

That biblical truth?

And what makes a biblical truth TRUE?

So you admit and you support the honest Christian view that homosexuality is never supported IN THE BIBLE.

Thank you for your support.

JESUS never condemned homosexuality as you rightly contend, thank you for your honesty.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. When we see how He affirmed the Torah over and over again, where same gender sex is an abomination . . . your use of subterfuge is shown for what it is. A pitiful attempt at propaganda and nothing else. You do though, have the right to invent any new religion you so desire.

[Stan]

[Replying to post 1045 by 10CC]

Matthew 15:19 among others. You always ask but never receive the truth. I'm finished with you.