Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[Cathar1950]

Evolution is not going to support you in aberrant sex acts. Darwinism is more pitiless to homosexuality than any other belief system. Survival of the fittest does not include same-sex matings.

It might include same sex matings. Bees have bees that done produce yet the hive survives and therefor so is the production of offspring.

Procreation may be a driving force but it is not the only force.
Cooperation is also useful.
It looks to me like you need to study biology as well as math.
You seem to have a limited view of most things.

Evolution is not going to support you in aberrant sex acts

It doesn't support anything. It is a process.

Same-sex sex is another word for death.

No it isn't. If you look up death you will not find as a definition same-sex sex. Get a grip. Now unichs stay alive because the are casterated. Not being a unich could cause there death.

Unich

It was discovered that men who have their balls removed before their late 30s;

1)Live longer lives, because testosterone is an aging booster.

2)Don't grow hair on their backs & chest.

3)Don't get receading hairlines.

4)Don't pester their wives in bed.

5)Don't think about sex & have actual lives to live.

6)Retain their physical beauty longer.

They say being a unich makes him less of a man, but the ladies are all over him.

Homosexuals do not like being punished for homoseexual sex acts. Yet, this has occured "quite frequently" throughout the history of societies and civilizations.

What is your point? So you think that is ok?

[kilczer15]

I have read studies where animals in a crowded environment display homosexual behavior.
This may be due to a natural response to slow down population growth.
Then I saw a program on the wiptail lizard that is only female yet it preforms courting and sexual behavior. The X chromosome has disappeared.
In humans it is shrinking and it could be humans are headed into the same direction. I just thought it was interesting.

OK. Then do we consider homosexuals and homosexuality "throughout the ages" as a mental disorder or a congenital brain deformity not unlike being born with malformed arms?

Now, having been raised in the country before moving to the big city at eighteen, I have seen bulls and stallions mount fences. In fact though, it was a female "in heat" that "caused the behavior," that theses animals couldn't "get to."

Where would this fit in, in your scienctific hypothesis?

And remember, I have stated clearly that "transexuals" are not wanting anything but to "be normal," or "normalized." Literally. Who has a problem with that? They seem to want things to be right. But, then again, if a DNA/chromosome test were to comeback showing what "sex" they were, then they would have a problem.

I would not consider being a homosexual a "disease", specifically because it is not a negative thing. It is neither positive nor negative, it simply is. There is no proof of any deformed brain or chromozones in a homosexual's body that are not present in a heterosexual body. It's like taste...

People who like Broccoli better than steak aren't diseased, although some may consider them that. Who the heck doesn't like steak!?

[kilczer15]

Wow. What a relief not to hear Jesus Christ used as curse words for a change.

I have no idea who you are or even if you can be shamed.

You have discovered my terrible secret. Atheists have no souls and therefore cannot be shamed...

I'll bet I know who you voted for in the last presidential election though.

I didn't vote. I disagreed with both of them.

Let's peruse your list and see:

"Atheist." A trip to infidels.org; the internet oracle of anti-Christian spew, may see the Christians as not obscene at all. Atheism is the only faith-based belief system allowed in our public schools while any mention of deity especially Jesus Christ is not allowed. Those atheists are such a diversity seeking crowd.

Atheism isn't faith-based. There are two main types of atheists, weak atheists and strong atheists, one being more faith-based. Strong Atheists think that it would be impossible for there to be a God. As in, "There is no God". Weak atheists, on the other hand, are not fully convinced that there is a God. So instead of saying "There is no God" they say "We do not have enough proof to believe in a God". There is a subtle difference. For instance, someone may say it is impossible for aliens to exist, but another may just say "It is possible, but until I am presented with enough proof, I cannot be convinced of their existance. However, there are billions of stars out there and it would be ludicrous to think there are not."

Atheism is not in our schools. Science is present. Facts are present. The Church is not. Mention of Jesus Christ is allowed, in fact, just not on school time. For instance, a teacher cannot insite prayer before a class. However, if a child chooses to before school begins, that is appropriate. I doubt a teacher (remember 3/4 of Americans are Christians) would restrict that. There are several private Christian schools. If you care so much about the matter, it would not be impossible to send your children to one.

"Muslim." Slaughtering Christinans worldwide may just not disqualify Muslim's as being morally obscence. I don't think Jihad means "personal struggle seeing all of the non-Muslims stacked up like wood from Jihadist terrorism. But, then again it might just be a pack of infidel lies. I'll call the Churches in Saudi Arabia and Iran and ask how things are going.

I see them as no more or less nonsensical as you.

"Liberal." Jesus wasn't really real. Ask a liberal "Christian?" Anyone can do whatever they want and we'll create a new mental illness to excuse away any immoral behavior. Except homosexuality which is not a mental illness. Err, anymore. They have the law to protect their behavior.

A mental illness? Honestly, now. I cannot see how any kind of true love between two consenting adults could ever be qualified as immoral.

"Gay." Well seeing that only they can define sexuality (even to kindergarten students), places them in the "not to tolerant of Christians" category. Now of course by secular law.

What is that drool dribbling from your mouth? Oh...is a gathering of the cesspool of ideas circulating in your mind. Disgusting...

Why the need to apologize? Insults directed "personally" at me are not considered breaking the rules on this site. Only if a Christian says anything in dissent of "freethinkers," liberalism, and progressive thought does the warning button get pressed.

Well, usually our criticisms concerning your beliefs are justified, while yours are backed up only by a 2000 year old book.

It is not an idea I thought up. Look up John Locke?

Because thinking up our own ideas would be a very bad thing. Yes, John, I understand there are many, many people that think exactly like you do.

Or call a person that lived in East Berlin about 30years ago.
[/quote]

Not the Communists! Nooo!

[theleftone]

Edit: I removed the post, as I realized it was off-topic.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
My calf muscle cannot get pregnant from a humping dog and have puppies come out of my leg. Neither can the rectum of any species of mammal I have studied in school bear offspring. Get back to us when they find one. Otherwise I'll keep believing that wrong science is wrong science.

ok John, once again, where back at square one it seems. You just said "Neither can the rectum of any species of mammal I have studied in school bear offspring.", its good you got educated about that.

So, this is your basis that its immoral? What about the keyboard typing? You going to answer about this abnormal behaviour?

We are back to basics. "My" point is, that it is not bigotry or hateful to see homosexuality as not normal and indeed unnatural and a choice behavior. I guess I could write all of you letters with pen and paper but that "form of communication" is also "not natural." That you use the analogy of the keyboard to prove that unnaturla sex acts are rationally to be equal to normality makes the point that the anti-Christian position is lacking in strength.

Your hand is not "made" for typin on a keyboard, hence, sick and perverted. As using the rectum for sexual intercourse is "sick and perverted". But why do you not follow your own doctrines????

I have no clue why you cannot see or understand purpose in design. The progressive mind is an interesting anomaly to me as those that possess that id claim such immense intelligence but hardly display anything but knee-jerk emotionalism when challenged,

It's like this: You go into a sporting goods store, you ask the first employee you see: "Where are the tennis racquets?" "She sends you back to another employee that is bouncing a tennis ball up and down on a Dell Keyboard.

You ask: "Where are the tennis racquets," and he leads you over to Dell keyboards, while telling you how he plays tennis with one.

You respond: "Keyboards are not tennis racquets, I'd like to see the Wilson nSix-One Tour 90?" "You are using a keyboard and keyboards are not tennis racquets. Are you seriously trying to sell me a keyboard as a tennis racquet?"

He responds by screaming at you that you are an anti-gay homophobe.

Later, you find out that he is only a part-time employee of the sporting goods store, and his real job is your child's fourth grade teacher and, that he has a Master's Degree from Berkely.

[Cathar1950]

John that tennis story made little sense.
The only knee jerking I see is your constant distain for any kind of sexual activity except procreation.
You seem to mistake sexual activity for sexuality.
Of all the words in the bible and the 66 books you manage to dwell on passages in 6 or 7 of the books minimal passages, which are often, interpreted differently and vague meanings where the context is often missing.
This seems to be an obsession with you. Considering all the things it says about the poor and strangers it hardly seems worth anyones time.
I remember you talking about you lascivious life style before you were snared and it seems you feel shame, which you gave to Jesus only to scapegoat others and absolving yourself with some cheap repentance from your large libido and promiscuous lifestyle.
Because it was a choice for you assume it is a choice for others. Just because you might have caved in with a few drinks and the right guy does not mean everyone that is attracted to the same sex are that way. You constantly ignore research that says anything different. It seems like your ego drives you to thinking you are protecting Christians from people like you thus promoting yourself as a protector/hero.

[1John2_26]

Man, now that is a great rebuttal Cathar1950. (Where's Melikio?)

I mean that. Although I know you got my sporting goods story right between the eyes. You don't fool me in pretending you are not brilliant.

John that tennis story made little sense.
The only knee jerking I see is your constant distain for any kind of sexual activity except procreation.

My tennis parable was well constructed for a response to Scrotum's nonsense. You know that.

You seem to mistake sexual activity for sexuality.

Nice spin but we both know what you are doing and why. I have never written that consenting adults cannot do whatever they want to do sexually to each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I love the way you adversaries of my position neglect that fact. I only have the right to comment on "your" behavior, if you want to peddle it to be embraced by others. Once you make you position public, then the public gets to tell you what they think of you and your behavior. It is just that simple. What do you do to Christians? You challenge their assertions. That is fair. I wish gays and lesbians and their clubmembers were so open to challenge.

Of all the words in the bible and the 66 books you manage to dwell on passages in 6 or 7 of the books minimal passages, which are often, interpreted differently and vague meanings where the context is often missing.

That is complete bull. There is not one place in any book of the bible (66) that supports, promotes, celebrates, condones, agree with, or preaches that homosexuality is OK.

No where in any anatomy, physiology, biology or any other medical science book, is there support for sperm to be in a rectum or mouth. Or, fake phallues to be substituted for the real thing.

This seems to be an obsession with you.

I realize how desperately the need to paint me negatively. It is a common ploy of the leftist/liberal. I know it well. I've dwelled in that camp as you recognize.

The hatred and attack on Christians that I have posted the proof of over and over and over again, coming from the homosexual community and their supporters, is not an obsession but a place where my warnings and posts are valid and proveable. It is just that simple. It is also just simple that any disapproval or dissent from the homosexual political view is labeled as hate or bigotry to shut it up. It is disgusting that sexual deviant behaviors are protected by the beauty of the American soul to protect liberty. Licentiousness is not liberty. It is perversion.

Considering all the things it says about the poor and strangers it hardly seems worth anyones time.

Here is your brilliance shining like the sun. I mean that.

There are major themes I notice in the Bible and James punches us all in the face with one of the most major. I had it on the wall of my office in California.

Let's see:

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.quote]

That blood that flowed in that man's veins was from those that saw the glory of God at Mount Sinai and the Glory of God that is Christ Jesus.

You serve that blood so well on this point Cathar1950.

I remember you talking about you lascivious life style before you were snared and it seems you feel shame,

You wouldn't think so if you heard me talking to my sports buddies! James is insulting me here I think.

. . . which you gave to Jesus only to scapegoat others and absolving yourself with some cheap repentance from your large libido and promiscuous lifestyle.

That makes me laugh so hard because there may be truth in that. You amaze me how great a preacher you are. I mena that too.

Just a question though. Would you rather my position come from a Bible-belt Bible College grad that never did three things wrong in their life?

No way pal, can those that promote sexuality and a licentious lifestyle bamboozle me with their "poor pitiful me" OR, we got our civil rights bull$#& excuses. My "faith" is founded on cold hard facts. I may be a traitor to sexual deviants, but my perspective has a very good view of their camp. I know where they keep their weapons. I am hated far worse it seems than that pretty young Bible College kid. AND, I know why.

You think you can scare me with that position you take Cathar1950? Gimme a frickin' break guy. I am not "ignorant" of many things sir. I am more like the prostitute that came to the aid of the Israelites because the truth is with God and God's people. What can your use of trying to shame me possibly do "to me?" The truth is obviously NOT something I try to hide or hide from.

Because it was a choice for you assume it is a choice for others.

Well, excuse me if I do not think that people are unreasoning beasts. Who is insulting whom sir?

Just because you might have caved in with a few drinks and the right guy does not mean everyone that is attracted to the same sex are that way.

I can only face the truth. I was attractive to both sexes and I am sorry to say not attracted TO both sexes. I knew many very good looking men. You are correct in that I once had no morals, but no homosexual experiences though. It would not serve me to lie that I had them. I can figure what's up from the experiences I have had. But, there were a couple of times where dishonest men did try to get me drunk. But I have come to undertand what the term "reprobate" means and why it has come down to us from Paul's writing in Romans.

You cannot drive me away or the facts by using the truth sir. I literally worship the Way, the Truth and the Life. Now. Fear is something a Christian literally rids themself of when the accept Christ Jesus as Lord. Remember the Christian guy in Afghanistan? Millions of people about to behead him and he is preaching Christ. I so dearly want to meet that man.

Our society is virtually a repeat of Roman life. I am not sharing an opinion I do not know anything about.

You constantly ignore research that says anything different. It seems like your ego drives you to thinking you are protecting Christians from people like you thus promoting yourself as a protector/hero.

Yes, I realize my sin of egotism and pride. I literally pray that I don't find anti-Christians so pathetic and laughable. They are God's children too. Maybe is was born with a better sense of God than atheists. Who knows? I have seen a "God Gene" story somewhere. Oh yeah:

TIME Magazine: The God Gene. A TIME cover: Does our DNA compel us to seek a higher power? Believe it or not some scientists say yes.

Good ol' google. I guess there may be some validity to "The Chosen Race," after all. Sure would settle why so many claim that "condition."

Some sins are harder to get rid of then others. If you notice, I have never presented that I wasn't a sinner still. But I have also never hidden my agenda either (like liberals and gay activists do). That is absolutely to defend my fellow Christians from those that want to harm them. I have proven that I am no longer in that anti-Christ camp and many fellow-Christians trust me. Many. That is not something I take lightly. I just need some work on the ego part. The other behaviors I have done better with.

Showing the attacks aimed at and literally being waged against Christians is fact and truth. Like I said, I no longer hide truth or flee from it. No matter the cost.

The war against society waged by practioners of same-sex sex and lacivious licentiousness is nothing new. Greece, Rome, Crete, all have prominenet places in history. Most of my list of words and phrases that you offered to ty to frighten me is well-documented from thousands and thousands of other people's writings. I didn't makeup anything new.

Like the Hebrew Bible reports so accurately; "There is nothing new under the sun." Stop labeling me as anything but a person that freely thinks for himself. The brilliance you possess Cathar1950, would be better served with a more accurate description of me and my position as being based in logicc and facts.

Watch, listen and the read for yourself:

Roman Same-Sex Weddings from the Legal Perspective
By Prof. Bruce W. Frier

On occasion during the early Roman Empire, pairs of Roman men are described as having undergone complete traditional marriage ceremonies: weddings with all the trimmings, so to speak. The sources that mention such weddings are few, difficult to interpret, and invariably hostile. But they are also highly detailed, to such an extent that we can be confident this was a true social institution, not just an isolated or aberrational occurrence.

These sources, although long known, have only recently attracted much attention, in large part, obviously, because of the modern debate about same-sex marriage. The Roman sources on marriage between males are, by general agreement, among the best evidence we now possess for the emergence of long-term, egalitarian homosexual relationships (consensual unions between adults).

This short paper argues two propositions. First, although the participants in Roman same-sex weddings clearly took the proceedings seriously, they almost certainly did not regard such a wedding ceremony as a prelude to legitimate Roman marriage, which in any case would certainly not have resulted from such a ceremony. Second, when we probe more deeply into the relationship between the Roman wedding ceremony and legitimate marriage, a possibility of some interest emerges: the Romans, encouraged by the structure of legal rules concerning marriage, may have come to understand wedding ceremonies as a ritual that could be and was formally detached from legitimate marriage; and so the ceremony could be conducted when there was occasion to invoke, by way of forceful analogy, the broader social institution of marriage, but without making any necessary or specific claim to legitimate marriage itself. In the case of same-sex weddings, this possibility is interesting because it implies that the male participants in Roman same-sex weddings did not necessarily view legitimate marriage (or some semblance of legitimate marriage) as even the desired outcome of their ceremony.

[McCulloch]

This seems to be an obsession with you.

Ad hominem. It matters not to the truth of any point in debate whether the debater is obsessed with the subject matter or not.

[Scrotum]

John that tennis story made little sense.
The only knee jerking I see is your constant distain for any kind of sexual activity except procreation.
You seem to mistake sexual activity for sexuality.
Of all the words in the bible and the 66 books you manage to dwell on passages in 6 or 7 of the books minimal passages, which are often, interpreted differently and vague meanings where the context is often missing.
This seems to be an obsession with you. Considering all the things it says about the poor and strangers it hardly seems worth anyones time.
I remember you talking about you lascivious life style before you were snared and it seems you feel shame, which you gave to Jesus only to scapegoat others and absolving yourself with some cheap repentance from your large libido and promiscuous lifestyle.
Because it was a choice for you assume it is a choice for others. Just because you might have caved in with a few drinks and the right guy does not mean everyone that is attracted to the same sex are that way. You constantly ignore research that says anything different. It seems like your ego drives you to thinking you are protecting Christians from people like you thus promoting yourself as a protector/hero.

As Cathar seems to be allowed to do an evaluation of John, i feel i want it to. Mainly because my view is totally different from Cathars;


I always seen John as either a 15 year old, or a 35 year old with a 15 year old mind. According to my calculations, and all the posts he writes regarding sex, he is a virgin, and nothing more in this world would make him happier then finding a mate and lose his virginity.

I suspect he got beaten as a child, or still beaten as a child, and his father was very hateful against homosexuals, and other people different from himself (atleast, thats would have been his story). Most likely he had homosexual tendencies himself, and maybe, just maybe, John got sexualy molested himself as his obsession with pedophilia, and constantly confused it with homosexuality.

If he is old enough to have a job, his father or other family member got it for him, and its most likely very calm, and alone kind of work. He is clearly what was once knows as sociopath, but is defined as psychopath now, but this makes the meaning of the word somewhat distorted. So lets call him anti-social.

I would be surprised if i am wrong, perhaps some details.

[melikio]

It's funny: The things in the Bible, never scared me as much as 1John does (by what He often implies).

Dogmatism is a real thing, and it seems that 1John is as dogmatic as anyone I've encountered in this life.

I listen to 1John, and I feel hated and rejected; NOTHING like the warmth and goodness I've felt/sensed the many times I've gotten on my knees and prayed to God.

The big difference between what 1John says and reality itself, is that reality isn't nearly as hopeless as the message 1John cosistently delivers.

-Mel-