DO YOU "ACCEPT" PEOPLE COMING OUT? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT LIFE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
Matt-;5761385 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

so are you saying that intercourse exists without an attraction

Definitely. It's called marriage. (especially w/ children)
 
Last edited:
Matt-;5761385 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

so are you saying that intercourse exists without an attraction
No. I'm saying attraction exists without intercourse.

I was heterosexual way before I started fucking bitches.
 
taeboo;5761323 said:
..
VIBE;5761178 said:
MrsWest;5761163 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT



BEING GAY IS A SIN.
. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT

So is anal sex and oral sex. You don't partake in those right?

Sex in general is only to procreate in the bible, anything for self pleasure is a sin.

That's the thing, these dumb fucks pick and choose. It's a game of convenience for them.

Actually the bible doesn't say sex is just for procreation. Matter of fact no person in the bible is ever punished for sex outside of marriage. That whole idea comes from an early catholic priest, St. Augustus I think was his name, he had some serious personal issues with sex...

The bible implies that marriage is between a man and a woman, because the two are compatible. Sex is only allowed within a marriage. These two sexes have sex to procreate, God tells his people to do this and "fill the earth".

One instance a dude pulls out, spilling his seed on the ground, which upsets god. He disobeys god. This man was supposed to fuck his brothers wife so she can carry a baby, not just for the pleasure of sex.

In the bible, anything you do for yourself is done in vain, whereas you're supposed to only do for God. The bible pretty much doesn't like self pleasures unless it was directed to you by God. Pride, selfishness, greed etc... Are all said to be for self pleasure, which is frowned upon. So while its not explicit, it's definitely implied.

That's not hard to get from the bible.
 
I don't think kids are going to try to be gay. I think if they are gay they're going to BE gay if they were meant to be either way it doesn't matter.
 
playmaker88;5761330 said:
CopperKing;5761322 said:
A lot of shit is considered a sin....when it come to homos u niggas put a lot of emphasis on what the Bible says is right n wrong

Pretty much same shit i said.. niggas be quotin.. niggas be quotin..

Niggas be skippin chapters and verses when it comes to their "Sins" and misdeeds

.. I STATED THAT FORNICATION AND ADULTERY WAS A SIN..

LUST IS ALSO A SIN...

BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GAY.. NOT THAT OTHER STUFF
 
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

SO YOU TELLING ME WHEN GAY PEOPLE (MEN OR WOMEN) HAVE GAY SEX, THEY AINT ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER?

HAHAHA OK
 
DROCRAZY;5761417 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

SO YOU TELLING ME WHEN GAY PEOPLE (MEN OR WOMEN) HAVE GAY SEX, THEY AINT ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER?

HAHAHA OK

He's saying that homosexuals do not have to have sex with each other to be attracted to one another. Since the bible only condemns the ACT of homosexuality, homosexuality in itself (the attraction) is NOT a sin.
 
Yean gotta read this shit but fuck it.

*****************

thought this article was interesting..... source:theweekmagazine.com

The origins of marriage

The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?

As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?

Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?

Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?

It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?

Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men

Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

2apgsfh.gif
 
It's all bullshyt.

Specifically when you got people like Kobe comin out of their way to say this dude is a hero, trailblazer, courageous, etc.

They (gays) have already successfully integrated every corner of society, so what's the propoganda about? Its gone beyond just "acceptance" and now it's gon into promotion. Thats where i draw the line. Do what you feel, but dont infringe upon my right to stick to my beliefs.

 
VIBE;5761425 said:
DROCRAZY;5761417 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

SO YOU TELLING ME WHEN GAY PEOPLE (MEN OR WOMEN) HAVE GAY SEX, THEY AINT ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER?

HAHAHA OK

He's saying that homosexuals do not have to have sex with each other to be attracted to one another. Since the bible only condemns the ACT of homosexuality, homosexuality in itself (the attraction) is NOT a sin.

SO YOU THINK THAT YOU, GAY OR STRAIGHT CAN BE ATTRACTED TO A MALE OR FEMALE AND NOT BE LUSTING AFTER THEM? CAUSE LUST IS A SIN YA KNOW

LUST -

sexual desire: the strong physical desire to have sex with somebody, usually without associated feelings of love or affection

eagerness: great eagerness or enthusiasm for something

desire sexually: to feel a strong desire to have sex with somebody

 
Personally, i don't care and i don't see why people have problems with homosexuality either. Please don't even open up your face to ''cling'' to religion either because it's alot of shit the bible and quaran bans but ya'll hypocritical asses still do it.

I find it funny how people are selective with their belief system and religion.

You have antiquated books and thinking, in a modern era where science,knowledge, and our world is far removed from 2000 year old doctrines.

 
Last edited:
Why anyone will abstain from the warm, moist and squishy pink orifice of the female is beyond my comprehension :(

Go ahead Jason Collins, i'll take your quota of females that probably will spread their legs for you :)>-
 
DROCRAZY;5761439 said:
VIBE;5761425 said:
DROCRAZY;5761417 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

SO YOU TELLING ME WHEN GAY PEOPLE (MEN OR WOMEN) HAVE GAY SEX, THEY AINT ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER?

HAHAHA OK

He's saying that homosexuals do not have to have sex with each other to be attracted to one another. Since the bible only condemns the ACT of homosexuality, homosexuality in itself (the attraction) is NOT a sin.

SO YOU THINK THAT YOU, GAY OR STRAIGHT CAN BE ATTRACTED TO A MALE OR FEMALE AND NOT BE LUSTING AFTER THEM? CAUSE LUST IS A SIN YA KNOW

LUST -

sexual desire: the strong physical desire to have sex with somebody, usually without associated feelings of love or affection

eagerness: great eagerness or enthusiasm for something

desire sexually: to feel a strong desire to have sex with somebody

So to make a case against homosexuasl you just gone shoot yourself in the foot huht? Just like that. Anything to prove a point.
 
Last edited:
Gold_Certificate;5761397 said:
Matt-;5761385 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

so are you saying that intercourse exists without an attraction
No. I'm saying attraction exists without intercourse.

I was heterosexual way before I started fucking bitches.

if the Bible says that even looking at a woman with lustful intent is a sin, then, well its pretty safe to assume that the same can be said for a person looking at another person of the same sex.
 
DROCRAZY;5761439 said:
VIBE;5761425 said:
DROCRAZY;5761417 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761355 said:
Matt-;5761324 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761306 said:
Matt-;5761291 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761274 said:
Matt-;5761263 said:
Gold_Certificate;5761168 said:
DROCRAZY;5761118 said:
The Prodigalson;5761089 said:
DROCRAZY;5761047 said:
I THINK SOME OF YALL ARGUE JUST TO ARGUE..

AINT NOWAY U GONE TELL ME BEING GAY IS NATURAL.. THAT AINT LIFE.. HUMAN, ANIMAL, NOTHING!

No one said being gay is natural. Neither is being born deaf or blind but it happens.

GO READ THE 1ST 3 PAGES...

AND BEING BORN DEAF OR BLIND IS A DEFORMITY, BEING GAY IS NOT

BEING GAY IS A SIN.. BEING DEAD OR BLIND IS NOT...

SO YOUR EXAMPLE HOLDS NO WEIGHT
Do you have any bible verses to support this statement?

I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was "wrong".

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

it should be pretty easy to deduce how an abomination is a sin
I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

homosexuality = aboniation = sin.
I'm just going to repeat this, since it appears you aren't comprehending:

I wrote "I've only seen verses saying that homosexual intercourse was 'wrong'.", and you responded with a form of intercourse.

That does nothing to support the statement I questioned.

dro said it was a sin

you asked him to provide a verse showing that it was a sin, not just wrong.

i posted a verse showing it as a sin.

I think the part I failed to comprehend was that you asked Dro to respond
I'll give you a logical breakdown b:

1. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

2. Verses about homosexuality in the Christian bible only condemn sexual intercourse between members of the same sex.

3. Therefore, the Christian bible does not completely condemn homosexuality.

The conclusion (3) is based on my observation (2), so I was asking for bible verses contrary to my observation (2).

SO YOU TELLING ME WHEN GAY PEOPLE (MEN OR WOMEN) HAVE GAY SEX, THEY AINT ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER?

HAHAHA OK

He's saying that homosexuals do not have to have sex with each other to be attracted to one another. Since the bible only condemns the ACT of homosexuality, homosexuality in itself (the attraction) is NOT a sin.

SO YOU THINK THAT YOU, GAY OR STRAIGHT CAN BE ATTRACTED TO A MALE OR FEMALE AND NOT BE LUSTING AFTER THEM? CAUSE LUST IS A SIN YA KNOW

LUST -

sexual desire: the strong physical desire to have sex with somebody, usually without associated feelings of love or affection

eagerness: great eagerness or enthusiasm for something

desire sexually: to feel a strong desire to have sex with somebody

Ask Tyler Perry.

 
The Prodigalson;5761429 said:
Yean gotta read this shit but fuck it.

*****************

thought this article was interesting..... source:theweekmagazine.com

The origins of marriage

The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin—and why?

How old is the institution?

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.

When did religion become involved?

As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God’s grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.

Did this change the nature of marriage?

Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that “the twain shall be one flesh,” giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful. But the church still held that men were the head of families, with their wives deferring to their wishes.

When did love enter the picture?

Later than you might think. For much of human history, couples were brought together for practical reasons, not because they fell in love. In time, of course, many marriage partners came to feel deep mutual love and devotion. But the idea of romantic love, as a motivating force for marriage, only goes as far back as the Middle Ages. Naturally, many scholars believe the concept was “invented” by the French. Its model was the knight who felt intense love for someone else’s wife, as in the case of Sir Lancelot and King Arthur’s wife, Queen Guinevere. Twelfth-century advice literature told men to woo the object of their desire by praising her eyes, hair, and lips. In the 13th century, Richard de Fournival, physician to the king of France, wrote “Advice on Love,” in which he suggested that a woman cast her love flirtatious glances—“anything but a frank and open entreaty.”

Did love change marriage?

It sure did. Marilyn Yalom, a Stanford historian and author of A History of the Wife, credits the concept of romantic love with giving women greater leverage in what had been a largely pragmatic transaction. Wives no longer existed solely to serve men. The romantic prince, in fact, sought to serve the woman he loved. Still, the notion that the husband “owned” the wife continued to hold sway for centuries. When colonists first came to America—at a time when polygamy was still accepted in most parts of the world—the husband’s dominance was officially recognized under a legal doctrine called “coverture,” under which the new bride’s identity was absorbed into his. The bride gave up her name to symbolize the surrendering of her identity, and the husband suddenly became more important, as the official public representative of two people, not one. The rules were so strict that any American woman who married a foreigner immediately lost her citizenship.

How did this tradition change?

Women won the right to vote. When that happened, in 1920, the institution of marriage began a dramatic transformation. Suddenly, each union consisted of two full citizens, although tradition dictated that the husband still ruled the home. By the late 1960s, state laws forbidding interracial marriage had been thrown out, and the last states had dropped laws against the use of birth control. By the 1970s, the law finally recognized the concept of marital rape, which up to that point was inconceivable, as the husband “owned” his wife’s sexuality. “The idea that marriage is a private relationship for the fulfillment of two individuals is really very new,” said historian Stephanie Coontz, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. “Within the past 40 years, marriage has changed more than in the last 5,000.”

Men who married men

Gay marriage is rare in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives. In second- and third-century Rome, homosexual weddings became common enough that it worried the social commentator Juvenal, says Marilyn Yalom in A History of the Wife. “Look—a man of family and fortune—being wed to a man!” Juvenal wrote. “Such things, before we’re very much older, will be done in public.” He mocked such unions, saying that male “brides” would never be able to “hold their husbands by having a baby.” The Romans outlawed formal homosexual unions in the year 342. But Yale history professor John Boswell says he’s found scattered evidence of homosexual unions after that time, including some that were recognized by Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. In one 13th-century Greek Orthodox ceremony, the “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union,” the celebrant asked God to grant the participants “grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.”

2apgsfh.gif

I SKIMMED THROUGHT IT.. I AINT BOUT TO READ ALL THAT, BUT IF IT GOES AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD.......

The creation of marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:23-24: "The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." God created man and then made woman to complement him. Marriage is God’s “fix” for the fact that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18).

The word “helper” used to describe Eve in Genesis 2:20 means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy. The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6).

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html#ixzz2RyfnOgte
 

Members online

No members online now.

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
556
Views
0
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…