Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 30,958

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Read more

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16883 Feb 28, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Even you know that this is a bad "translation". Thanks for playing.
Hardly, it is the highest regarded translation in use.

But thank you for your lying gay twirl limp-wristed response!

Smile.
Robsan5

United States

#16884 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said a walnut was not a fruit.
As to childless marriage, it is so unusual, humanity doesn't distinguish, but rather extends sympathy.
However, a walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches scares apple trees and makes the apples sad.
Are you suggesting we cut up and burn all fruitless straight and gay couples???
SNicker.
Genius, prove your assertion that childless marriages are "so unusual".
Are you suggesting that you're a fruit psychologist?
Please prove your assertion that god evolved into Adam.
Please prove your assertion that Adam was evolved, not created.
Please prove your assertion that god is genderless.
Please prove your assertion that 80% of all seafood poisoning is from shellfish.
Please prove your assertion that eve is created in god's image.
Please prove your assertion that radiation caused Moses' face to shine.
Please your assertion that the biblical use of the word 'shine' means 'glow'.
Please prove your assertion that god can reduce radiation exposure by holding out his hand or turning his back.
Please prove your assertion that god is radioactive.
Please prove that homosexual is a better translation for the word that it replaced in bibles in 1946.

Snicker Snort (blow away, NoIQ!)

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16885 Feb 28, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Genius, prove your assertion that childless marriages are "so unusual".
Are you suggesting that you're a fruit psychologist?
Please prove your assertion that god evolved into Adam.
Please prove your assertion that Adam was evolved, not created.
Please prove your assertion that god is genderless.
Please prove your assertion that 80% of all seafood poisoning is from shellfish.
Please prove your assertion that eve is created in god's image.
Please prove your assertion that radiation caused Moses' face to shine.
Please your assertion that the biblical use of the word 'shine' means 'glow'.
Please prove your assertion that god can reduce radiation exposure by holding out his hand or turning his back.
Please prove your assertion that god is radioactive.
Please prove that homosexual is a better translation for the word that it replaced in bibles in 1946.
Snicker Snort (blow away, NoIQ!)
Robert
No.

Snicker.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16886 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean this fruit;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Smirk.
Dear old and decrepit smirking one,

Many legitimate studies done by reputable Psychology and Psychiatry Associations show that same-sex couples, whether male, female or transgender, are fully capable of loving and raising well-adjusted children into productive lives.

I don't have to provide references. A simple Googling of the topic will provide the references. Anyone can read the parameters and results of these studies. It is your choice as to whether or not you believe any of the findings. But, the evidence and the findings are plenty clear enough to the bearer of common sense to put away any rabid denial.

Good parenting is much a matter of nurture care, love, encouragement, stable environment and intent.

Furthermore, having a pair of heterosexual parents is not, in any way, any guarantee of such a supportive environment. Even more to the point, nearly half of all of our children in this nation are now, at some point or another in their childhood, being raised by a single parent.

Almost any same-sex couple can now, through artificial insemination and various medical procedures, have a child brought into this world who carries at least one half of such a couple's DNA, making such parentage a matter of fact and not of conjecture.

That leaves foster care and adoption as the only other remaining practices that may or may not place children in the care of a willing set of parents, either heterosexual or non-heterosexual.

Both of these, foster care and adoptions, are generally, but not always, a better option than an orphanage. I have friends who grew up in orphanage and they are fine, upstanding, disciplined and productive citizens who have become parents themselves. Their children and grandchildren are also good people.

For all of your theoretical howling about this, the actual consequences about which you complain are nearly non-existent. And when and if there are the rare problems in parentage, such problems cannot be stereotypically laid at the altar of same-sex relationships.

Rev. Ken
Robsan5

United States

#16887 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said a walnut was not a fruit.
.
Genius, suffering from short-term memory loss?
"KiMare | Friday Feb 1
Another difference between marriage and gay couples;

A fruit tree bearing fruit.

A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.

A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.

A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree."

All nuts on a nut tree are fruit. Nut trees don't pretend to be fruit trees. They are fruit trees.
Ergo, walnuts are fruit. Just like you!

Man, I love pointing out how stupid you are.

So what word was replaced with homosexual in bibles in 1946, and why is homosexual a better translation?

Snicker Snort (thanks for the blow job, NoIQ!)

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16888 Feb 28, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear old and decrepit smirking one,
Many legitimate studies done by reputable Psychology and Psychiatry Associations show that same-sex couples, whether male, female or transgender, are fully capable of loving and raising well-adjusted children into productive lives.
I don't have to provide references. A simple Googling of the topic will provide the references. Anyone can read the parameters and results of these studies. It is your choice as to whether or not you believe any of the findings. But, the evidence and the findings are plenty clear enough to the bearer of common sense to put away any rabid denial.
Good parenting is much a matter of nurture care, love, encouragement, stable environment and intent.
Furthermore, having a pair of heterosexual parents is not, in any way, any guarantee of such a supportive environment. Even more to the point, nearly half of all of our children in this nation are now, at some point or another in their childhood, being raised by a single parent.
Almost any same-sex couple can now, through artificial insemination and various medical procedures, have a child brought into this world who carries at least one half of such a couple's DNA, making such parentage a matter of fact and not of conjecture.
That leaves foster care and adoption as the only other remaining practices that may or may not place children in the care of a willing set of parents, either heterosexual or non-heterosexual.
Both of these, foster care and adoptions, are generally, but not always, a better option than an orphanage. I have friends who grew up in orphanage and they are fine, upstanding, disciplined and productive citizens who have become parents themselves. Their children and grandchildren are also good people.
For all of your theoretical howling about this, the actual consequences about which you complain are nearly non-existent. And when and if there are the rare problems in parentage, such problems cannot be stereotypically laid at the altar of same-sex relationships.
Rev. Ken
Ironic you accuse me of being deceptive, and immediately mention deceptive studies that you know are found to be so.

Diabolical gay twirl from a supposed 'rev'...

You can not only find the expose' of those fallacious studies, but the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on all family structures here;

http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/

It rates homosexual households as last in child friendly settings out of seven family types. After single parents.

Children want their mother and father. Any default setting is immediately and drastically statistically harmful to the child. Simple fact.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16889 Feb 28, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Genius, suffering from short-term memory loss?
"KiMare | Friday Feb 1
Another difference between marriage and gay couples;
A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree."
All nuts on a nut tree are fruit. Nut trees don't pretend to be fruit trees. They are fruit trees.
Ergo, walnuts are fruit. Just like you!
Man, I love pointing out how stupid you are.
So what word was replaced with homosexual in bibles in 1946, and why is homosexual a better translation?
Snicker Snort (thanks for the blow job, NoIQ!)
Robert
Silly girl, that was 'fruit' in the generic sense.

However, YOU helped me make the point more clear!

You mean this fruit;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Thanks!

Smirk.
Robsan5

United States

#16890 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly girl, that was 'fruit' in the generic sense.
However, YOU helped me make the point more clear!
You mean this fruit;
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!
Thanks!
Smirk.
KiMare wrote:
"I never said a walnut was not a fruit."

Yes you did. I proved you to be a liar. A walnut is a fruit, in the "generic sense".

So what word was replaced with homosexual in bibles in 1946, and why is homosexual a better translation?

Snicker Snort.

Robert
Join Free

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16892 Feb 28, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMare wrote:
"I never said a walnut was not a fruit."
Yes you did. I proved you to be a liar. A walnut is a fruit, in the "generic sense".
So what word was replaced with homosexual in bibles in 1946, and why is homosexual a better translation?
Snicker Snort.
Robert
Calm down, you'll hurt your wrist again flinging it like that!

Yes, a walnut is a fruit, and a walnut tree is fruitful. Unless it is a homosexual walnut tree in my analogy.

Which Bible translation, there are a number of different ones?

I wasn't born until after 1946.

Ask someone older honey.

Snicker.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#16893 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down, you'll hurt your wrist again flinging it like that!
Yes, a walnut is a fruit, and a walnut tree is fruitful. Unless it is a homosexual walnut tree in my analogy.
Which Bible translation, there are a number of different ones?
I wasn't born until after 1946.
Ask someone older honey.
Snicker.
Tap dance, little monkey, tap dance.
Robsan5

United States

#16896 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down, you'll hurt your wrist again flinging it like that!
Yes, a walnut is a fruit, and a walnut tree is fruitful. Unless it is a homosexual walnut tree in my analogy.
Which Bible translation, there are a number of different ones?
I wasn't born until after 1946.
Ask someone older honey.
Snicker.
"... a homosexual walnut tree..."?!? You just don't get the whole "analogy" thing, do you?

What word was replaced with homosexual in bibles in 1946, and why is homosexual a better translation?
Come on, Genius. Two simple questions.

Snicker Snort (thanks for the BJ, NoIQ!)

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16897 Mar 1, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
"... a homosexual walnut tree..."?!? You just don't get the whole "analogy" thing, do you?
What word was replaced with homosexual in bibles in 1946, and why is homosexual a better translation?
Come on, Genius. Two simple questions.
Snicker Snort (thanks for the BJ, NoIQ!)
Robert
Its been clear for a long time who doesn't get it.

Smirk.
Robsan5

United States

#16899 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Its been clear for a long time who doesn't get it.
Smirk.
What's the matter, Genius? Did you forget that you said "a sunburn is a form of radiation", and did you forget that you said "the sun is a form of radiation"?
Since you weren't born before 1946, then don't quote any biblical passages written before 1946, as you don't understand the parts of the bible written before 1946. Or do you?
What word was replaced with homosexual in bibles in 1946, and why is homosexual a better translation?

Snicker Snort.(Thanks for sucking it, NoIQ!)

Robert

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16900 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic you accuse me of being deceptive, and immediately mention deceptive studies that you know are found to be so.
Diabolical gay twirl from a supposed 'rev'...
You can not only find the expose' of those fallacious studies, but the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on all family structures here;
http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/
It rates homosexual households as last in child friendly settings out of seven family types. After single parents.
Children want their mother and father. Any default setting is immediately and drastically statistically harmful to the child. Simple fact.
Smile.
LMAO!!!!!!!.

An Online Research Panel that made their findings on the basis of 219 gay couple respondents and others who were paid $20 each to respond?

Are you kidding me?

You are so full of stink baubles that every time you say something, they fall out of your mouth like sulphurous thunder eggs rolling down the side of Mt. Aetna.

Man, you are goofy!

And if you are really still smiling, whatever teeth you've got left are almost certainly kept in a glass of water at night.

This from an ABC News Report:

" The study was published Sunday in the journal Social Science Research. It was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, groups that are "commonly known for their support of conservative causes," though the organizations played no role in the design and analysis of the report, the study said.

[So they said ...(RK)]

Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of the report, said the study was not intended as a political statement, but simply tried to answer the question of whether children of parents with same-sex relationships are different. He said the study also isn't designed to prove that family structure causes poor health."

The study you cite is fatally flawed.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16902 Mar 1, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!!!!!!.
An Online Research Panel that made their findings on the basis of 219 gay couple respondents and others who were paid $20 each to respond?
Are you kidding me?
You are so full of stink baubles that every time you say something, they fall out of your mouth like sulphurous thunder eggs rolling down the side of Mt. Aetna.
Man, you are goofy!
And if you are really still smiling, whatever teeth you've got left are almost certainly kept in a glass of water at night.
This from an ABC News Report:
" The study was published Sunday in the journal Social Science Research. It was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, groups that are "commonly known for their support of conservative causes," though the organizations played no role in the design and analysis of the report, the study said.
[So they said ...(RK)]
Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of the report, said the study was not intended as a political statement, but simply tried to answer the question of whether children of parents with same-sex relationships are different. He said the study also isn't designed to prove that family structure causes poor health."
The study you cite is fatally flawed.
Rev. Ken
The largest study group to date.

The only one with a control group; Six other family types totaling nearly 1900 people.

The study was awarded honors for it's study method, and peer vindicated fully of charges brought by the gay community.

It took a conservative group's funding to expose (Pro. Marks co-study) the fallacious studies used before, and provide the largest and most scientific study to date.

The only studies fatally flawed are the ones 'approved' by professional organizations who knew better.

Thanks for your opinion,'rev', I'm sure your father is proud...

Smirk.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#16903 Mar 1, 2013
El Segundo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who do you addressing to? There is no one here by name of "Man3". You are stupid, fat, black man from Brasil? Roberta and RevKen are having problems respecting boundaries?
Snikcer:Sn0rt!
:)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16904 Mar 1, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!!!!!!.
An Online Research Panel that made their findings on the basis of 219 gay couple respondents and others who were paid $20 each to respond?
Are you kidding me?
You are so full of stink baubles that every time you say something, they fall out of your mouth like sulphurous thunder eggs rolling down the side of Mt. Aetna.
Man, you are goofy!
And if you are really still smiling, whatever teeth you've got left are almost certainly kept in a glass of water at night.
This from an ABC News Report:
" The study was published Sunday in the journal Social Science Research. It was funded by the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, groups that are "commonly known for their support of conservative causes," though the organizations played no role in the design and analysis of the report, the study said.
[So they said ...(RK)]
Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of the report, said the study was not intended as a political statement, but simply tried to answer the question of whether children of parents with same-sex relationships are different. He said the study also isn't designed to prove that family structure causes poor health."
The study you cite is fatally flawed.
Rev. Ken
Goofy is putting mildly.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#16905 Mar 1, 2013
doug wrote:
<quoted text> Abby, Bible day's are not long gone,you refuse to except Gods word. the problem today is that people refuse to respect a decent way of life.Godliness is a way of life,and believe me Jehovah God is real.
The God of Israel is the only true God. He is the One and Only.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#16906 Mar 1, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear old and decrepit smirking one,
Many legitimate studies done by reputable Psychology and Psychiatry Associations show that same-sex couples, whether male, female or transgender, are fully capable of loving and raising well-adjusted children into productive lives.
I don't have to provide references. A simple Googling of the topic will provide the references. Anyone can read the parameters and results of these studies. It is your choice as to whether or not you believe any of the findings. But, the evidence and the findings are plenty clear enough to the bearer of common sense to put away any rabid denial.
Good parenting is much a matter of nurture care, love, encouragement, stable environment and intent.
Furthermore, having a pair of heterosexual parents is not, in any way, any guarantee of such a supportive environment. Even more to the point, nearly half of all of our children in this nation are now, at some point or another in their childhood, being raised by a single parent.
Almost any same-sex couple can now, through artificial insemination and various medical procedures, have a child brought into this world who carries at least one half of such a couple's DNA, making such parentage a matter of fact and not of conjecture.
That leaves foster care and adoption as the only other remaining practices that may or may not place children in the care of a willing set of parents, either heterosexual or non-heterosexual.
Both of these, foster care and adoptions, are generally, but not always, a better option than an orphanage. I have friends who grew up in orphanage and they are fine, upstanding, disciplined and productive citizens who have become parents themselves. Their children and grandchildren are also good people.
For all of your theoretical howling about this, the actual consequences about which you complain are nearly non-existent. And when and if there are the rare problems in parentage, such problems cannot be stereotypically laid at the altar of same-sex relationships.
Rev. Ken
Those who have gay parents will easily be bullied by the others, I think, and they might not feel so valuable as the other kids, and they might feel different; Not feeling respected by the other?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#16907 Mar 1, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>

Man, I love pointing out how stupid you are.

Robert
What kind of joy does it give you? Can't see how that can give you joy?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Same-sex couple turned away by small business i... 11 min Concerned Citizen 212
News Father found guilty of marrying off his 12-year... 1 hr Thinking 5
News Religious freedom laws not used against gays in... 2 hr Gremlin 8
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 2 hr piratefighting 1,780
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 3 hr Terra Firma 1,950
News Indiana religious freedom act: What's behind th... 4 hr Marcavage s Trick 26
News Kentucky argues gay marriage ban not biased 4 hr novus ordo seclorum 3
More from around the web