Originally posted by e4chrisEPIC FAIL, you have still failed to answer the question, therefore i put it to all those others who accuse those of homophobia without substantiation to make a full public recantation and to refrain from doing so in the future.
to actually answer your question, is a transexual a lesser human being then you because there bits turned out different, they turned out EXACTLY as nature intended for them.
i don't think a christian questioning a gay lifestyle is homophobic no, but this unnatural, sub human business is really quite ugly.
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieyou were not asked whether it was natural or not, you were not asked whether body parts can be used for other purposes, you were asked why its homophobic to state that the practice is physiologically opposed to nature because the anus is not meant to be penetrated and that the practice is anti biblical, and your answer is that it is because i think that homosexuality is wrong, which again does not answer the question, why? because I have not stated that it is wrong even though i think it is, that was not the basis of my assertion, was it, noooo. What I have actually stated is that its physiologically opposed to nature and anti biblical, you got that? good. If you cannot bring yourself to understand even a simple question what chance have you of forming an answer. Please refrain from slandering others with this hate speech in the future. You got that?
firstly, it is not opposed to nature. nature does not lay down a bunch of rules for us to follow. nature is just a word we use to describe organic world around us.
a part of our body may have developed for a specific reason but their is nothing to say we cannot find other uses for them. fingers may have grown to help us catch and grip food, however ...[text shortened]... aying the bible tells you so is not an excuse. you are homophobic there is no escaping the fact.
Originally posted by e4chris'a lesser human being', are your words, load your questions much? no thanks, i don't do hate speech.
no, i think you should answer my question now
is a transexual a lesser human being then you because there bits turned out different? well?
even the Ayatollah Khomeini contemplated that one and came up with a, fairly, compassionate answer.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethen you havent understood what ive written then. ill try and keep it simple for you.
you were not asked whether it was natural or not, you were not asked whether body parts can be used for other purposes, you were asked why its homophobic to state that the practice is physiologically opposed to nature because the anus is not meant to be penetrated and that the practice is anti biblical, and your answer is that it is because i think t ...[text shortened]... answer. Please refrain from slandering others with this hate speech in the future. You got that?
you think it is opposed to nature. i dont think there is such a thing as 'opposed to nature' for the reasons i gave in my previous post. i therefore think your reason is wrong. you think the 'anus should not be penetrated' i say 'who says so'.
i dont disagree that its anti biblical. i dont know enough about the scripture to say. if it is anti-biblical then the bible is homophobic. you believe and agree with the bible, so you are therefore homophobic. you god says its wrong to be gay, you agree. god is homophobic and so are you.
there is nothing unnatural about a pe**is in a bum, in the same way its not unnatural for a doctor to check your prostrate with his finger. its not unnatural for a women to insert tapons in their vag**s, its not natural to where contact lenses, its not unnatural to pierce skin with jewelry.
if you are going to say anal sex is unnatural then you should also be equally against all forms of unnatural human behavior.
you just trot on robbie, back to your passive aggressive gay bashing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei do appreciate you taking a stand in this thread, and i would not call you a crude homophobe no. with respect i think you are a thoughtful homophobic, you seem to have contemplated it and still came out saying no.
'a lesser human being', are your words, load your questions much? no thanks, i don't do hate speech.
but you must appreciate, the absolution of self (?) that goes with christianity and perhaps against a gay lifestyle is not for everyone, and condemning homosexuality as against nature is plainly wrong. its a natural behavior seen in many animals, just one you don't like.
i used to hate muslims, i know hate is a bad word, but i did, i hated them for hating gay people, but after a while i started to read about them , made friends with a few and that bubble burst.
Originally posted by e4chrisI resent the term homophobic when all I have done is state what is self evident.
i do appreciate you taking a stand in this thread, and i would not call you a crude homophobe no. with respect i think you are a thoughtful homophobic, you seem to have contemplated it and still came out saying no.
but you must appreciate, the absolution of self (?) that goes with christianity and perhaps against a gay lifestyle is not for everyone, and ...[text shortened]... ut after a while i started to read about them , made friends with a few and that bubble burst.
Originally posted by GSWILLYou tell us what was the sin for which the land of Sodom and Gomorrah was judged. I am not going to lead you by the hand through Genesis 19 to uncover WHY God judged Sodom and Gamorrah.
sonship here writing:
C'mon jaywill, in none of those passages does Jesus explicitly state or even imply that He considered homosexuality a moral matter as you claim.
Mathew 10:15 - [b]"Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Go back ...[text shortened]... and not particularly highlighted above other sins in his listings.[/b]
I know this is not addressed to me, but I’ll do it.
A proper exegesis of the Hebrew Bible shows that the “sin of Sodom” was not homosexual behavior. Genesis 19 itself does not show that it was, though the possibility cannot be simply dismissed just by the wording of that text (and it can of course be read into the text; and I acknowledge that one can read from the NT back into the HB, rather than the other way around)—but it is not the most likely conclusion by a long shot.
I have to run into town for awhile, so it will be later today. And a “surface” reading of the texts won’t get it (and is as often as not misleading); but I’ll try not to make my exegesis too lengthy. 😉
Originally posted by stellspalfieI not only understood it, I pointed out how irrelevant it was to the actual question that was being asked of you.
then you havent understood what ive written then. ill try and keep it simple for you.
you think it is opposed to nature. i dont think there is such a thing as 'opposed to nature' for the reasons i gave in my previous post. i therefore think your reason is wrong. you think the 'anus should not be penetrated' i say 'who says so'.
i dont disagree tha ...[text shortened]... human behavior.
you just trot on robbie, back to your passive aggressive gay bashing.