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?

[1John2_26]

So what are you disagreeing with here? Me? The plain meaning of the Hebrew Qadesh? (BTW just how many years have you studied Hebrew and Greek?), the fact that the 1st Kings passages PLAINLY mean Idol worship?

"Know" means sexual intercourse and is used in old English in what we all know of and what it means. Are you presenting that "you" are an expert in Greek and Hebrew translation, and yet left out Aramaic? I have the Peshitta signed by Lamsa. I do not see any support for homosexuality in the Aramaic translation "either." I do see agreement with every other orthodox version though.

"Scholars" are dime a dozen "these days."

Where is the license for homosexuality "as we know it today" from anyplace in the Bible in any of the languages you allegedly seem to be claiming you know? Where are the glowing endorsements, support, celebrations, promotions or preaching and teaching of homosexuality "as we know it today" anywhere in scripture? David and Johnathan? Bith guys married women. In fact david got all hot and bothered over one with dreadful consequences for his actions. Very un-PC.

Pax Romana came at the cost of immorality. Even in the pre-Christian world morality was good marriages of men with women. Adultery literally outlawed by Augustus (Octavian). This little rising of homosexuality "as we know it today," seems no different than what has happened in the past. There literally is nothing new under the sun.

There is no justification to homosexualize Christians and the Christians Church sir. There is complete justification to Christianize homosexuals.

Do that.




Back to top


Cathar1950

I didn't report you john and you do deserve to be insulted as you have hurled one slenderest thing after another.

A person with your views cannot insult me. No possible way. I have no desire not to fight with you anyway you want to. I am an American citizen just as Paul was a Roman citizen. I can fight with both hands. By the way, you kiked my %$ with the typos comeback. Good one. Too bad society won't be as lucky to endure what you are willingly inflicting on it. Order to chaos is a deadly formula.

Quote:
Homosexuality and sodomy are connected. Pun intended.

I don't see a pun.

I know. But the fact is they literally are connected.

No they are not connected any more then heterosexuality and sodomy are.

Really? Let's see?

Noun 1. sodomy - anal intercourse committed by a man with a man or woman
anal intercourse, anal sex, buggery
sexual perversion, perversion - an aberrant sexual practice that is preferred to normal intercourse

I wrote commenting on john's calling liberals enemies of the USA, which is obvously, a lie.
Quote:
More crap I see.

John wrote back:
Quote:
Are you mentioning sodomy here?

No I was not mentioning sodomy john you did. I am not surprised that is what you thought about.

You missed my sarcasm/belittling and the actual facts involved in the very act of sodomy. It is called "the yuck factor."

Romans 1: 26-27

26. For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.
27. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

At first sight it must appear that the Romans passage does indeed condemn LGBT activity.

At second and third sight it looks as if Paul had cable or satellite TV and lives now.

Paul is quite clearly criticising sex which is against nature. However there are at least a couple of points which might mitigate against that interpretation.

Convolution and spin?

1: Greco-Roman society accepted that homosexuality and bisexuality was a natural activity for some people. And so it is possible that Paul was actually criticising heterosexuals who engaged in homosexual acts in
order simply to have sex.

Paul was a Jew and new very well why he was criticising Greco-Roman same-gender sex acts. He was a Jew. You sir, went out on a theological limb to say the least. Reading into the text what is not there.

2: If we look at the verses which come before Rom 1:26-27 it becomes clear that he was referring to sexual acts which were associated with idol worship. Because of the preceding verses it is considered by scholars that the verse is simply not clear enough to win the prize for being opposed to homoerotic acts.

I would have though the caveat "scholars" better suited for the start of your opinion. There are many other "scholars" that believe Paul was talking about ages old same-gender sex acts.

Once again it is important to let scripture interpret scripture and to look at the verses in their context. A context which is found in Romans chapters 1-3. Please note the following verses:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes; for the Jew first, and also for the Greek.

That would support the orthodox prohibition of same-gender sex acts "like" the Israelites thought of it. First to the Jew and then the gentile . . .

The Good News of the inbreaking Kingdom is that it is for everyone, both Jew and Gentile.

Yes that should be noted.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Not a good ppace for Anglican same-sex marriages.

God's anger is shown against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.

Not a good ppace for Anglican same-sex marriages.

Romans 1:28-32 28. Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

The meaning of that is so clear that many liberal/progressives think it is hate speech.

Let's bold some of the following:

29. being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy,

Homosexuals demanding same-gender marriages?????

murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers,

The slippery slope of consequences for unleashing the chaos of relativism on society.

30. backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Orthodox with no liberalizing allowable.

31. without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;

32. who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

Those Christians that flee the Churches licensing and promoting same-gender sexual unions are warned and supported by Paul.

Those who are outside the kingdom need the Gospel as is shown in their acts. Note here how Paul ties sexual acts into the general picture he is creating of a people seperated from God by idolatory.

No. They are seperated from God by knowing what they should do but embracing what they no they shouldn't do AND encouraging others to embrace wrongdoing. That is a clear message from the text here. And it is very accurate to Western society 2006.

BUT (and here Paul starts to really warm to his topic); Romans 2:3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Better not practice such "things." So much for "idolatry" being "things."

The Jews are as much in need of the Good News as are the Gentiles.
for (Romans 3:23-24) 23. for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24. being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;

If you can grasp the truth here, why alter the clear preaching of Paul?

Paul seems to be criticising both Jew and Gentile, he is not happy with homosexual acts but he seems to consider them 'unclean' (following the precepts of the law) rather than immoral.

What?

31. without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;

32. who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

29. being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy,

There is no support for you opinion from the text here in Romans.

But please also notice, Paul was condemning ACTS not people.

Christians like in many of my posts, are called hateful, bigots, homophobes etc., because we mention "the act" and disapprove of "it," and oppose those that encourage people to involve themselves in same-sex sex.

We are not even terribly certain WHAT acts paul was condemning because we are not sure of the background to the letter of the Romans.

That is not exactly accurate and I am being nice for once. Because you're a Priest.

Only a bath house and peep show operator denies what Paul makes clear.

This sounds like a prophecy about the diseases rising in the late eighties:

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Just what series of events was he talking about? What triggered Paul's comments? Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts?

Can we assume these verse mean one thing and one thing only?

Perhaps we can leave Paul with the final comment here?

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.

Kiwimac

Now perhaps you will show us the scriptures that promote, license, celebrate, condone, support, preach to embrace, or teach to embrace:

"Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.

If you cannot present the Biblical mandate to alter the marriage and sexuaility of the standard preaching of the New Testament then:

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.

Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."

Is not judging others, but agreeing with scripture.

It is no wonder that the Gay Agenda includes the invasion of Churches and the altering of laws in both the secular and religious environments.

Like it has been said:

"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
"All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

"All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

We now have gay evangelicalism masquerading as Christian outreach (Soulforce.org), and this today as well. The Gay Agenda in reality and the news:

Gay candidates look to further rights at state level

Updated 5/9/2006 8:28 AM ET

By Ryan Galbraith, AP

Utah state senator Scott McCoy helped block a bill to bar partner benefits.




By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
Stung by their failure in 2004 to stop ballot measures banning same-sex marriage, gay rights activists are moving to elect more of their own to legislatures where social policies often incubate.

The push isn't confined to places such as Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2003. Gays and lesbians are running for legislatures in Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma and for re-election in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Utah all states whose residents voted predominantly for President Bush in 2004.

"There's a more concerted and integrated effort" in states, says Chuck Wolfe of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Leadership Institute, which trains and funds candidates. The group plans to give $4.3 million to openly gay candidates this year.

Opponents of same-sex marriage say gay activists fear that if Congress passes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, they will have to fight ratification in the states. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the issue next month.

In 2004, 11 states passed ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage. Gay activists "have been shocked at how badly they've done at the state level and are now trying to make up for that," says Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage, which opposes gay marriage.

There are 353 openly gay elected officials including 61 state legislators and three members of Congress up from 49 in 1991, Wolfe says.

All the gay legislative candidates are Democrats in urban districts that often encompass universities and gay neighborhoods.

Although a minority, gay legislators have had influence:

Three gay members of the Maryland House of Delegates in March helped kill an effort to join seven other states in putting constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on the ballot.

Utah Rep. Jackie Biskupski and Sen. Scott McCoy worked with gay activists to bottle up a bill to bar domestic-partner benefits.

Idaho Rep. Nicole LeFavour helped stop a bill that would have required a parent's signature to allow students to join gay and lesbian clubs in high schools.

Christians have no excuse for not seeing this coming. Like Paul wrote so accurately:

They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.

They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.

They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.

And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

[melikio]

They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.

And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

1John, you so frequently render your witness INEFFECTUAL, by pointing AT other people with verses which point right back at YOU (based upon the attitude you show here alone).

Who should believe a thing you say, with you acting like God just sent you down here with a special note from His desk? (That isn't what has taken place. You should stop pretending.)

You just aren't very realistic at all; acting as if someone should hear you just because you said something from the "Bible".

You seal your own coffin, as much as anyone ever could or does. It would likely do you much good, to back off and see what you are saying to yourself.

1John, how do YOU believe gay people should be treated in this world?

Do you feel you are equal to them, or ABOVE them?

Why should ANY homosexual person trust you at all?

-Mel-

[Wyvern]

One that wore a beret. I am no stranger to fighting and I have no fear of liberal/progressive anti-Christian skeptics any more than I do an insane Jihadist. I try not to give out too much personal info on websites.

Well that means you were in less than five years ago when all of the army switched over, otherwise you would have been in special forces which I doubt heavily unless you feel really bad about what you did then and are now trying to repent for it. But really what was your M.O.S.?

They fight the same enemy as orthodox Christians do. Because of their Christianity.

No actually they help people regardless of who they are. Which is why everyone likes them.

Anyone in the military by definition gives up their right to be a pacifist(along with a number of other rights).

Really? I had no problem pacifying a few guys I didn't like while in the service. There's a place where the lower jaw meets the upper jaw and with the right amount of pressure and a closed fist pacification comes rather easy. It is easier though to shut-up anti-Christians within the Church with just words to counter their heresy.

And thus you prove you have no understanding of pacifism.

The oath you take TWICE before actually being in the armed forces states you will defend the United States from any enemy both foreign and domestic.

And that is why liberals are the enemy of the United States.

Hmm lets see, I know you think I'm a liberal while at the same time I took that oath, strange.

You either have no understanding what pacifism is or you have no understanding of the military.

I am a ballistics expert and an amazingly good shot.

You already showed yourself as having no understanding of pacifism.

You would be surprised what I did in my stint. Being a killer is not impressive either. AIDS, apathy and a 55 grain full metal jacketed .223 bullet doing 3200 feet per second (at the muzzle) are all killers in the hands of an immoral person. I choose to be morally sound. Now. I chose Christ Jesus and His Gospel. Don't even try to lecture me pal.

Ahh, so you are trying to atone for your sins of the past by going just as overboard in your supposed good works. See if you would of had a positive mental outlook back then you would not have done those bad things you are trying to atone for now. Even in the military I chose to save lives instead of take them. Which is why I had lots of friends.

I was in a hurry and used a two-cent word I did indeed learn from leftists. I'll try not to veer into the reprobate lexicon. "Scumbag associates" I'll use next time.

My my, you certainly are getting more and more insulting. And this coming from the person that has chided others for being emotional.

Slavery is is in the Bible. Where do I find this flat earth stuff? Dogma now comes in porno and deviant colors from liberal doctrines. You cannot find same-sex marriage or homosexuality anywhere supported or celebrated in the Bible. That dogma is only in heretical liberal theology.

Find a place where same sex marriage is mentioned in the first place, I tried and could not find a single mention of it, maybe your superior abilities can find the correct passages. Flat earth comes from the places in the bible that say things about the corners of the earth, last I checked spheres have no corners.

Remember, I like science. Still though, please point out the flat earth statements in the Bible? Earth centric universe is still quite common. Look at how self-centered the hedonist is. Yeah yeah I know.

How could you be a good shot when you apparently have the concentration of a gnat, earthcentric does not mean self centered.

Prove that?

Thats easy, John which branch of christianity do you belong to? Yes I know you won't answer because you are paranoid about giving information out which is surprising since you have no problem asking this very same question of others.

"For THIS reason a man (male) leaves his parents and takes a wife (female), the two becoming one flesh." In the beginning God created people this way. How in the world can anyone proclaim the support for homosexualizing Christians from the unsupport and silence for homosexuality IN the Bible compared to the opposition of it.

And yet this says nothing about same sex marriage. Try again.

I guess you never heard of the protestant revolution. You know Martin Luther and all that.

Yes please, let us go down that road. Still, there will be no oasis we will come to celebrating, supporting or promoting Christians to choose to practice homosexual sex acts. I believe i could show my orthodoxy has Biblical and Church history to support it.

Good thing we are talking about your contention that rebellion is wrong and not homosexuals at all, at least in this section.

Anarchy is not chaos. It is freedom from authoritative government. Chaos results from anarchy maybe, but the two words are not interchangeable. Liberalism and chaos are though, as liberalism champions relativism that makes little sense anymore.

You started out so good too. Your first two sentences actually made sense but then you sank back into your own morass of misinformation.

The American Constitution was delivered at the point of a gun that was fired. British citizens murdered other British citizens to form a more perfect union.

First off you mean the declaration of independance. The constitution was written after the revolution. Secondly you prove my point in that freedom was won by the people not some outside power although France did help at the repeated request of the nascent americans. Do you see the difference? France didn't come in and kick out the british and then set up a government to there own liking as america did in Iraq. Instead a bunch of colonials decided internally that they had enough of distant unreasonable rulership and they took steps to become independant. Really, do look up your history.

You mean like FEMA, he appointed someone whose only leadership experience was being the president of a horse club.

By the way that horse club was Arabian horses. I have owned an Arabian horse. I cannot believe that anyone can be blamed for Katrina. Not even the Mayor of New Orleans.

Great you had a horse, all the same it was a case of monumental incompetance to appoint someone with absolutely no applicable experience to an agency whose job it is to react to disasters. Because of this incompetance FEMAs reactions were greatly slowed.

Liberals search for messiahs more than heretical cults do. Why? A hurricane is a massive powerful storm that can literally wipe cities away. How in the world can you pin that on anyone?

You aren't listening again, it's the reaction and the failed leadership from a political appointee who had no business being there.

He is an adulterer and a convicted criminal. Perjury is still a crime, although the liberalizing of our moral codes made adultery disappear. I like Clinton in many ways, but not because he passed some tests in a college. He wasn't all bad. And, if Billy Graham likes Bill and Hilary, they gotta have something going for them. And Hilary stayed by her man for whatever reasons. Let's hope it was from forgiveness.

Always like you people, if you hate someone it doesn't matter what they do you will still hate them, the opposite is true also look at Reagan.

I'm sorry, that was a response about what? Heterosexuality is normal and natural. Homosexuality is aberrant or deviant sex no matter how hard you want to close your eyes and scream.

You have yet to show the true difference between the two other than your interpretation of the bible says so.

Show one, just one schools lesson plan which shows they are teaching sodomy. Not homosexuality, sodomy, I dare you, I double dog dare you to show this. If you can't this is just another one of your unfounded claims, which makes you that much more of a liar.

When teachers in Massachusetts and California schools teach about homosexuality and PFLAG and GLAAD and othet homosexual promoting orgnanizations come into schools to teach children about homosexuality, what do you think the "sexual behavior" of homosexuals "is?" And. is being taught to children in those schools.

You have failed to prove your claim about sodomy being taught, you filthy no good liar.

[kiwimac]

So what are you disagreeing with here? Me? The plain meaning of the Hebrew Qadesh? (BTW just how many years have you studied Hebrew and Greek?), the fact that the 1st Kings passages PLAINLY mean Idol worship?

"Know" means sexual intercourse and is used in old English in what we all know of and what it means. Are you presenting that "you" are an expert in Greek and Hebrew translation, and yet left out Aramaic? I have the Peshitta signed by Lamsa. I do not see any support for homosexuality in the Aramaic translation "either." I do see agreement with every other orthodox version though.

What are you talking about? Qadesh means 'Temple Prostitute', you are thinking of "Yadah", to know. And there is much discussion about that word as well. 99% of the times it is translated it has NOTHING to do with sex so why, in the 1 percent of the Sodom and Gomorrah story should it mean something it never means anywhere else?

I am well aware of Lamsa's Aramaic translation, I have read the Peshitta. As for Hebrew and Greek I have studied them for 15 or so years so I am by no means an expert. However I know what I am talking about with regard to the OT passages which are considered to relate to homosexuality.

Kiwimac

[1John2_26]

I don't need to be a surgeon to trust my general practicioner enough, or the all-important second and third "opinions" to get the truth about a medical subject.

There was a world around the Hebrews and Hebrew-Christians that they knew all about. They lived "in the real world without doubt. Some like the heretical Christian, joined it and "mixed" with it.

There's also a lot of conspiracy-mongering claiming that understanding "effeminate" in terms of homosexuality is misleading and that the word means "soft" or "vulnerable" and probably refers to those who are unreliable or lacking in courage. That's certainly not supported by other uses of the same word (malakos): Witherington's Corinthians commentary [166] notes uses of it referring to a "young male prostitute". Lexicons like BAGD, as Wold notes in Out of Order [189], clearly say that the word is used of "men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually" and cites "numerous examples from Greek literature" of the word used this way.

Critics argue in reply that the word has no specific referent for the homosexual act, just having feminine characteristics, but of course the "passive" partner in such a relationship DOES act out that very sort of characteristic. In addition, Wold notes [192] that at Paul's time, the common preference for a "passive" homosexual partner WAS one that was effeminate (whereas prior to the 5th century BC, the preference was for a masculine partner).

Finally, other Greek terms for the passive partner, clearly used in homosexual contexts, are words that have no "inherent" homosexual meaning but are borrowed words used to describe the passive homosexual. Critics have a substantial burden to carry before they can simply dismiss this word.

The reference to "abusers of self with mankind" uses a word also found in 1 Tim. 1:10 (arsenokoitai). Critics try to make some issue of this being an "obscure" or "uncertain" word for Paul's use of it seems to be the first ever use of it. The idea that it means male-female sex is a desperate move; the two parts of the word mean "male" and "sexual intercourse," and Paul hardly needed to invent a word male-female sex.

Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the LXX translations of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which used the words arsenos koitin and arsenos ou koimethese.

Paul is merely creating a compound word from two clear words used of homosexual relations in Leviticus. It also ought to be noted that with these two words Paul would cover the "passive" and "active" role in the male homosexual relationship [Wold, 191] recognized by classical Greek writers.

Do you want children wearing fishnet stockings and dresses and marching in "Gay Pride Parades?" Do you want children indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle in public schools? AND Churches?

Here are photos of your theology and gospel:

http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... de_052105/

I am not going to be bluffed by your forcing new definitions on immutable subjects and words. My mind and eyes are fully open and indeed have been opened.

View those photos and preach there acceptance from a Christian pulpit!

You sir, Kiwimac, have to prove why it is sound to promote homosexuality be embraced, celebrated and promoted.

If so . . . how is anything wrong? Is the word "wrong" also hate speech? It is clear that it is applied to those that dissent of homosexualization. So there is a basis still held somewhere of the "notion" of right and wrong.

And "as a Christian" you have to prove that it is something that should be done by "the Church."

I have posted real happenings in Massachusetts (of course) of the Gay Agenda being promoted in the schools. Of children being shown embracing it. Why would any Christian wholeheartedly support that?

I have posted the USA Today article that gays and lesbians are becoming our elected officials solely as a means to spread their sexual lifestyle on the populace. And you sir, as a "Christian Priest" (allegedly) are preaching that the Christian body should celebrate that happening?

Why? How?

Paul:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And that is what some of you were.

But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Sir, it is undeniable what Paul was writing about. The fact that he did live within a very hedonistic, permissive and sexually open society counters your claims that the Church (and indeed society) can "once again" license the sexually debauched crowd from taking leadership positions and standing as role models to win the day.

History both Biblical and secular do not support your views that we can interpret scripture the way you and the liberal progressive historian or the liberal theologian attempts to.

I can't see why you are attempting to do what you are doing.

The Gay Agenda is not willing to play ball in a decent way. It has been shown in California and Massachusetts that the goal of the homosexual strategy is not to just get along with the overwhelming (99%) majorioty of non-homosexual people, but to rule them and teach other people's children by force of law, that these children should indeed not just embrace diversity for diversity's sake, but actually see gay and lesbian sex and gay and lesbian culture and community as something they should choose.

When a person becomes a politician solely to advance their own personal agenda, there is a problem with the open-mindedness of that person. Christians are hated and despised and accused of that and yet, that is the sole mission of gay politics. It is no longer a civil rights/tolerance issue, it is one of the membership drive of complete affirmation.

This is nothing new historically or religiously. With, disastrous results.

You have managed to attempt to put into history - Biblical and/or secular - what is not there with your attempt to "change" Biblical writings into political and social propaganda.

That needs to be highlighted for all to see. You cannot seperate the Gay Agenda from the desire to "educate" children into it.

Like Jesus said, nothing hidden will not be exposed.

Like the ancient Greeks said, no teaching of pederasty in schools.

This is not a new issue on the world's stage. There are lines that have been always drawn in this on-going culture war.

You are on only one side of it. Also nothing new. Granted, the issues surrounding homosexuals are not easy to just flippantly decide, but allowing the practioner a place in authority does not bode well for "true diversity" and open-mindedness to settle anything. What is a fact also is that this "Gay Agenda" is nothing new. And those that dissent of it and from it.

http://www.riteofsodomy.com/index.php?a ... 7be992eb45

Considering that the Book of Gomorrah was written in 1049 A.D. it borders on the miraculous to note how many of Damian's insights can be applIed to the current pederast and homosexual debacle here in the United States and abroad, including the Vatican. His treatise certainly stands as a masterful refutation of contemporary homosexual apologists who claim that the early Fathers of the Church did not understand the nature or dynamics of homosexuality. Rather, as Damian's work demonstrates, the degradation of human nature as exemplified by sodomical acts is a universal phenomenon that transcends time, place and culture.

http://www.riteofsodomy.com/index.php?a ... 7be992eb45

[Editors Note: Catholic Family News has asked Randy Engel to help clarify the basic issues surrounding clerical pederasty and homosexuality in the Church today. She has studied and researched the homosexual network in the Catholic priesthood and religious life for more than thirteen years and we believe that her commentary based on the works of the 11th Century Italian monk Saint Peter Damian will help put the current crisis into a proper perspective for our readers. Her latest book, The Rite of Sodomy Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church is scheduled for publication in July 2006. JV]

[otseng]

OK, please, I know when we're debating about homosexuality things can become quite heated, but let's try to avoid attacking one another personally, either directly or indirectly.

I'm tempted to close down this thread since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere except just personal attacks. But I know you guys are trying to break the Guinness record for the longest thread. So, let's try to remain civil, respectful, and on topic. Thanks.

[Cathar1950]

What is the record otseng?
The thread does seem awfully repetitious. I wonder if that takes away from the record?
It would be nice to address the homosexual issues with out resorting to "pervert" and such.
But that would cut the thread down to just a few pages. I will try to be good as best I can.

[kiwimac]

John_1

The Gay Agenda is not willing to play ball in a decent way. It has been shown in California and Massachusetts that the goal of the homosexual strategy is not to just get along with the overwhelming (99%) majorioty of non-homosexual people, but to rule them and teach other people's children by force of law, that these children should indeed not just embrace diversity for diversity's sake, but actually see gay and lesbian sex and gay and lesbian culture and community as something they should choose.

proof please!

And for perhaps the umpeenth time there is no similarity between pederasty and homosexuality.

Homosexuality = Acts between two adults who are attracted to one another and it is mutual as are heterosexual acts.

Pederasty = Acts between an Adult and a child. It is not about sexual, it is usually power-based and it is never consensual.

[melikio]

Yeah, I agree that personal attacks aren't the way to go, and even if it's just meant to "chastise", in a forum like this it's likely inappropriate in most cases.

I prefer to share views which many people can intuitively relate to, because I believe that multitudes of straight people haven't been "allowed" to relate to homosexuals people and homosexuality well enough to understand either. So, my focus (which seems "emotional" a large part of the time) is about helping people to "relate" as human beings. That is my approach, and no matter the subject, I have found it to be ultimately helpful.

I've come to the conclusion (certainly for now, and to address to the length of this thread), that the Bible, Christianity and other more religious views aren't fully capable of dealing with homosexuality. Those things typically tend to lean toward ignoring or killing it (as they are so often interpreted and applied). I personally wish that weren't so, considering I have no small part of my worldview and foundation in religion. Still, I don't see where I can support the terrible views many pull from "religion" and the rather comfortable traditions as they relate to dealing with homosexual people.

I think it is GOOD that some have been and are beginning to question the overall oppression of homosexual people period. If those who are religious, Christian or conservative in their thinking only intend to maintain the status quo, they will face the difficulty commensurate with such positions. I do believe it is too bad that the battle must rage as it does (between religious thought and simply being human), still there is nothing new about any of that, and it doesn't surprize me anymore that human sexuality, being near the CORE of who/what we are, leads to "threads" which are simply "long" (especially when there is such interest in sex itself). I think it is unavoidable, mainly because of where this topic goes inside of us all.

I found an interesting link (no, it's not "Christian"); I think it expresses the concerns of many who are homosexual. And at this point, I'm not really interested in being "perfectly" or "particularly" apoligetic to "Christians" or "Christianity". Still, I respect the right of Christian people to see things the way they do; I cannot control that, and have not sought to force anyone to a given position. I merely wish to show certain people that there are other views which are truly "valid".

"For too long homosexuality itself has been thought of as the
central problem of gay men and lesbians. In fact, the real issue
for gay people is not homosexuality but homophobia, society's
fear and persecution of us."

See more here: http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/homo/homo3

-Mel-

[melikio]

Lafferty says there are valid reasons for opposing the spread of homosexual behavior among students. The average lifespan of a homosexual without AIDS is 50. With AIDS, it's 39. Homosexuals are also at high risk for anal cancer and serious venereal diseases. Health officials are concerned about rising levels of syphilis and AIDS among homosexuals. "The AIDS epidemic is gaining strength in San Francisco because men are refusing to use condoms during anal sex," said Lafferty. "Is this what we want to teach our children? I think not."

It is interesting to note that Lafferty (as others with a strictly conservative view of things) tends to NOT acknoweledge how the applied oppression of homosexual people adds negative things to their lives which likely contribute to shortening it. Additionally, he plays into the same medical mythologies which are nothing more than components/tools of fear mongering (much as we see in today's politics).

More here: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=271

-Mel-