My Confession (part 2)

Originally posted by trev33
you know in the past people who have been so publicly anti-gay have in fact harboured internal feelings towards people of the same sex, it is also more often than not that these being are told by their religion that homosexuality is wrong.

look what your gayness has done to the gospel account that you posted, it has turned something Holy and sacrosanct it into a sexual fantasy, my goodness, ive even read ludicrous accounts from the protagonists of Gaydom that have even tried to corrupt the account of Ruth and Naomi, stating that it was a Lesbian relationship, its utterly contemptible and I feel no remorse in exposing its deprivations, no, none what so ever!

as for your other assertions, they are laughable, for Gaydom would also have us believe that womanisers are not really interested in women at all, but are in fact roving homosexuals????

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look what your gayness has done to the gospel account that you posted, it has turned something Holy and sacrosanct it into a sexual fantasy, my goodness, ive even read ludicrous accounts from the protagonists of Gaydom that have even tried to corrupt the account of Ruth and Naomi, stating that it was a Lesbian relationship, its utterly contemptible a ...[text shortened]... hat womanisers are not really interested in women at all, but are in fact roving homosexuals????

if you gave birth to a homosexual son or daughter would you still love them?

Originally posted by trev33
if you gave birth to a homosexual son or daughter would you still love them?

i do not buy the whole genetic argument, there is no such thing as a gay gene, none whatsoever, and before you and the evolutionists start to get frisky, all that has ever been stated is that certain individuals may be predisposed to produce a disproportionate amount of some types of hormones. it is an argument that has been ruthlessly heralded as a catalyst for every type of sexually deviant behaviour and shows the utter folly of human reasoning and the materialistic viewpoint, for where will you stop?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i do not buy the whole genetic argument, there is no such thing as a gay gene, none whatsoever, and before you and the evolutionists start to get frisky, all that has ever been stated is that certain individuals may be predisposed to produce a disproportionate amount of some types of hormones. it is an argument that has been ruthlessly heralded as a ...[text shortened]... ows the utter folly of human reasoning and the materialistic viewpoint, for where will you stop?

I don't think I have heard of a gay gene and thus do not buy such and argument either. Interestingly though, the question you are responding to said nothing about a gay gene and certainly is not in any way dependent on such a concept.
So, do you not believe that gay people exist at all? If you don't then can you give more details, if you do, then can you answer the question ie if you had a son and he turned out to be gay, would you still love him?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think I have heard of a gay gene and thus do not buy such and argument either. Interestingly though, the question you are responding to said nothing about a gay gene and certainly is not in any way dependent on such a concept.
So, do you not believe that gay people exist at all? If you don't then can you give more details, if you do, then can you ...[text shortened]... answer the question ie if you had a son and he turned out to be gay, would you still love him?

au contrare, the poster was asserting that persons were born with a predisposition towards gayness!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
au contrare, the poster was asserting that persons were born with a predisposition towards gayness!

He may have been, but not in the post you were replying too. And further to that, being born with a predisposition towards gayness is not equivalent to the existence of a gay gene. Our predispositions are a result of both nature (genes) and nurture (environment). I think there is strong evidence that being gay is strongly related to conditions in the womb.

Now, are you willing to answer the questions or will you continue to avoid them?

Originally posted by twhitehead
He may have been, but not in the post you were replying too. And further to that, being born with a predisposition towards gayness is not equivalent to the existence of a gay gene. Our predispositions are a result of both nature (genes) and nurture (environment). I think there is strong evidence that being gay is strongly related to conditions in the womb.

Now, are you willing to answer the questions or will you continue to avoid them?

strong evidence? please enough postulation, as is usual, all you can state with any certainty is, perhaps, maybe, it is suggested that, strongly related???? if you ever get any clear incontrovertible evidence then you shall have a case, as it is, its naught but postulation. Even if it were true, sodomy and other miscreant sexual acts are still a choice or so called 'preference', therefore whether they are committed by heterosexual or homosexuals matters not, for the act itself is strongly condemned, in no mean way. As for my family affairs, they are my own private business and i will thank you to remember that.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As for my family affairs, they are my own private business and i will thank you to remember that.

it was merely a hypothetical question but your unwillingness to answer proves quite a sad point really.

Originally posted by trev33
it was merely a hypothetical question but your unwillingness to answer proves quite a sad point really.

it proves absolutely nothing!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it proves absolutely nothing!

an unbiased bystander reading this thread would say differently.

Originally posted by trev33
an unbiased bystander reading this thread would say differently.

ok, what does it prove?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, what does it prove?

i'm not an unbiased bystander. ask someone else.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
strong evidence? please enough postulation, as is usual, all you can state with any certainty is, perhaps, maybe, it is suggested that, strongly related???? if you ever get any clear incontrovertible evidence then you shall have a case, as it is, its naught but postulation. Even if it were true, sodomy and other miscreant sexual acts are still a choi ...[text shortened]... for my family affairs, they are my own private business and i will thank you to remember that.

I love the idea that what happens between consenting adults alone in their bedroom can somehow be strongly condemned. Utterly hilarious.

After reading many of your posts Robbie, i've come to the conclusion that really you're just a bigoted fundamentalist who sometimes has a sense of humour.

'I don't condone homsexuals as people, just the act', biggest load of crap i've ever heard. What you mean is, 'i don't like gays, i think it's wrong but i'm just not aloud to say it'.

Family affairs are private, but didn't you blab all over the forum not too long ago about how your brother grows his own weed and runs his own computer business. If i were prying eyes a i'd only have to put two and two together. Carrobie, computer business, Glasgow. Can't be too hard to find.

Come on Robbie remain consistent. But then i guess your inconsistentcy is your consistentcy.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I love the idea that what happens between consenting adults alone in their bedroom can somehow be strongly condemned. Utterly hilarious.

After reading many of your posts Robbie, i've come to the conclusion that really you're just a bigoted fundamentalist who sometimes has a sense of humour.

'I don't condone homsexuals as people, just the act', bigg bbie remain consistent. But then i guess your inconsistentcy is your consistentcy.

Noobster, again it is a complete failure on your part to make a distinction between the person and the act. Why you do not understand this point i do not know? if someone commits a crime, they are a criminal, are they condemned for who they are? no they are punished because of the act which they have committed! thus Christians do not in any way hate homosexuals for who they are, as persons and individuals, but as has been stated zillions of times, the act is clearly condemned in scripture, therefore under duress to love persons of 'all sorts', we are in no way under any type of duress to accept nor condone what they want to practice, as consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes, that is up to them.

We as Christians on the other hand value the moral guidance of Gods word, you people do not, yet we are the ones who stand accused of bigotry, when in fact you are committing the very same act that you accuse others of, disallowing that we should have a stance contrary to your own.

You should learn to live and let live Noobster.

Originally posted by trev33
i'm not an unbiased bystander. ask someone else.

you made the assertion, where is the proof?