Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36055 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16916 Mar 2, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
"...awarded honors..."?!? By who?
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 the sun is a form of radiation.
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.(Play it like a flute, NoIQ!)
Robert
Look it up.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16917 Mar 2, 2013
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by an imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Robsan5

United States

#16918 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by an imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Still stuck on stupid this morning, Genius?

Please prove your assertion that the sun is a form of radiation.
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.(Thanks for the blow job, NoIQ!)

Robert

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16920 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by an imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Well,.... That's really kind of funny, brother.

Love is the foundation of a healthy marriage, regardless of the phsicality of either person of a married couple.

... Considering that the qualification that YOU call a "Cross-cultural constraint on sexuality" is your only stipulation for what you regard to be marriage.

Committed relationship is fundamental to exclusivity in the pair-bond called Marriage.

"Rights" and "benefits" in this context are validated through the State and, yes, they are conferred by marriage. Without the lawful conferrance, the couple must produce a contract that then must be legally recognized. The lack of such recognition is a significant discrimination. This is why the SCOTUS will take up the case.

The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.

No desecration is to be considered. The same-sex marriage is a matter of Law, first. If it is acknowledged by a religious entity, acting freely within Constitutionally protected right and conscience, it is then and only then, a matter of spirit.

The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.

Law requires consistency and judicious recognition through the principles of individual rights and freedom of expression. Read on Thomas Jefferson.

Any so-called duplication of sexuality stereotypically ignores the basis for relationship which is specific to the individuals as consenting adults.

Any such labelling as a condemnation or denial is your own opinion.

What harm? Say what this harm is if you actually believe this.

We have covered this issue. There is no reproductive "dead-end." In vitro fertilization and surrogate wombs have proven this issue to be purely academic. Almost any couple can contribute at least 1/2 of the required DNA. Furthermore, you exaggerate and desire to make a mountain out of a molehill. We are talking about no more than 3-5% of all human pair-bonds, regardless of definitions of stereotypical gender.

Health? Much to discuss here.

Parallel the sole birthplace? Please elaborate.

The same-sex union as defined to be a "Marriage" is a matter of the subjective understanding held by the participating individuals. This is the same, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual. If YOU try to objectify the union of two other people who you do not know or understand and cannot fathom, you are attempting to enjoy the privilege of a judgment that YOU cannot make.

Rev. Ken
El Segundo

United States

#16921 Mar 2, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,.... That's really kind of funny, brother.
Love is the foundation of a healthy marriage, regardless of the phsicality of either person of a married couple.
... Considering that the qualification that YOU call a "Cross-cultural constraint on sexuality" is your only stipulation for what you regard to be marriage.
Committed relationship is fundamental to exclusivity in the pair-bond called Marriage.
"Rights" and "benefits" in this context are validated through the State and, yes, they are conferred by marriage. Without the lawful conferrance, the couple must produce a contract that then must be legally recognized. The lack of such recognition is a significant discrimination. This is why the SCOTUS will take up the case.
The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
No desecration is to be considered. The same-sex marriage is a matter of Law, first. If it is acknowledged by a religious entity, acting freely within Constitutionally protected right and conscience, it is then and only then, a matter of spirit.
The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
Law requires consistency and judicious recognition through the principles of individual rights and freedom of expression. Read on Thomas Jefferson.
Any so-called duplication of sexuality stereotypically ignores the basis for relationship which is specific to the individuals as consenting adults.
Any such labelling as a condemnation or denial is your own opinion.
What harm? Say what this harm is if you actually believe this.
We have covered this issue. There is no reproductive "dead-end." In vitro fertilization and surrogate wombs have proven this issue to be purely academic. Almost any couple can contribute at least 1/2 of the required DNA. Furthermore, you exaggerate and desire to make a mountain out of a molehill. We are talking about no more than 3-5% of all human pair-bonds, regardless of definitions of stereotypical gender.
Health? Much to discuss here.
Parallel the sole birthplace? Please elaborate.
The same-sex union as defined to be a "Marriage" is a matter of the subjective understanding held by the participating individuals. This is the same, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual. If YOU try to objectify the union of two other people who you do not know or understand and cannot fathom, you are attempting to enjoy the privilege of a judgment that YOU cannot make.
Rev. Ken
"The same-sex union as defined to be a "Marriage" is a matter of the subjective understanding held by the participating individuals."
RevKen is full to shit. Although a marriage structure consist of two individual individuals, the conceptual of marriage is not defined by those two individuals, marriage is a societal construction.
Peace
El Segundo

United States

#16922 Mar 2, 2013
The relationship ReKen labors to describes, in where the participants define their own relationship, is more actually descriptive of what Americans refers to as "going steadily".
Robsan5

United States

#16924 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Look it up.
Snicker.
Making more false assertions you can't back up, Genius?
"...awarded honors..."?!? By who?
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 the sun is a form of radiation.
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 it like a flute, NoIQ!)

Robert
Robsan5

United States

#16925 Mar 2, 2013
El Segundo wrote:
The relationship ReKen labors to describes, in where the participants define their own relationship, is more actually descriptive of what Americans refers to as "going steadily".
How would you know what Americans refer to anything as, El Stupido?

Robert

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#16926 Mar 2, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know what Americans refer to anything as, El Stupido?
Robert
El Stupido ;) Who's that? I can't see anybody in here with that nic-name.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16927 Mar 2, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,.... That's really kind of funny, brother.
Love is the foundation of a healthy marriage, regardless of the phsicality of either person of a married couple.
... Considering that the qualification that YOU call a "Cross-cultural constraint on sexuality" is your only stipulation for what you regard to be marriage.
Committed relationship is fundamental to exclusivity in the pair-bond called Marriage.
"Rights" and "benefits" in this context are validated through the State and, yes, they are conferred by marriage. Without the lawful conferrance, the couple must produce a contract that then must be legally recognized. The lack of such recognition is a significant discrimination. This is why the SCOTUS will take up the case.
The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
No desecration is to be considered. The same-sex marriage is a matter of Law, first. If it is acknowledged by a religious entity, acting freely within Constitutionally protected right and conscience, it is then and only then, a matter of spirit.
The lawful entities responsible for wielding the fundamental building blocks of a social and civil Republic are certainly correct in adding to the available set of building blocks, when such additions promote justice and consistency before the Law.
Law requires consistency and judicious recognition through the principles of individual rights and freedom of expression. Read on Thomas Jefferson.
Any so-called duplication of sexuality stereotypically ignores the basis for relationship which is specific to the individuals as consenting adults.
Any such labelling as a condemnation or denial is your own opinion.
What harm? Say what this harm is if you actually believe this.
We have covered this issue. There is no reproductive "dead-end." In vitro fertilization and surrogate wombs have proven this issue to be purely academic. Almost any couple can contribute at least 1/2 of the required DNA. Furthermore, you exaggerate and desire to make a mountain out of a molehill. We are talking about no more than 3-5% of all human pair-bonds, regardless of definitions of stereotypical gender.
Health? Much to discuss here.
Parallel the sole birthplace? Please elaborate.
The same-sex union as defined to be a "Marriage" is a matter of the subjective understanding held by the participating individuals. This is the same, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual. If YOU try to objectify the union of two other people who you do not know or understand and cannot fathom, you are attempting to enjoy the privilege of a judgment that YOU cannot make.
Rev. Ken
First, we are not 'brothers' spiritually or naturally.

Now to your replies;

1. If you believe denying marriage to a relationship will prevent love

rK; Love is the foundation of a healthy marriage, regardless of the phsicality of either person of a married couple.
... Considering that the qualification that YOU call a "Cross-cultural constraint on sexuality" is your only stipulation for what you regard to be marriage.

KiMare'a; Love is the foundation of ANY healthy social relationship. The distinction of marriage does not prevent love in any other relationship.

Your assertion that duplicate genders qualify for marriage is not based on any logical fact.

Moreover, I clearly state that at it's 'fundamental' essence marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, it is not the 'only stipulation'. The very list you are responding to exposes your deceitful attempt to restrict my view of marriage.
Robsan5

United States

#16928 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
... The very list you are responding to exposes your deceitful attempt to restrict my view of marriage.
Let's rewrite that last sentence to make it truthful, shall we?
"The very list I wrote exposes my deceitful attempt to restrict other's view of marriage."
There, Genius, that looks looks much better.

Please prove your assertion that the article Regnerus wrote has received awards.
Please prove your assertion that the sun is a form of radiation.
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.(Thanks for the hummer, NoIQ!)

Robert
DMAN

Aurora, CO

#16929 Mar 2, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's rewrite that last sentence to make it truthful, shall we?
"The very list I wrote exposes my deceitful attempt to restrict other's view of marriage."
There, Genius, that looks looks much better.
Please prove your assertion that the article Regnerus wrote has received awards.
Please prove your assertion that the sun is a form of radiation.
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.(Thanks for the hummer, NoIQ!)
Robert
Please quit anal eating everyone.... Please quit being a shitstain fagsandwich..... Please quit being a P&S terd......... Please go out back to YO alley and ram your face into an aids infested needle..... Still a wus!...(hahahahahahaha)
Robsan5

United States

#16930 Mar 2, 2013
DMAN wrote:
<quoted text> Please quit anal eating everyone.... Please quit being a shitstain fagsandwich..... Please quit being a P&S terd......... Please go out back to YO alley and ram your face into an aids infested needle..... Still a wus!...(hahahahahahaha)
Still weak, lame and just plain stupid.

Roberta/Robsana (just for "your" gay anal sex dreams, Village Idiot!)
El Segundo

United States

#16931 Mar 2, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know what Americans refer to anything as, El Stupido?
Robert
Says the queer Brazil Nut.
Robsan5

United States

#16932 Mar 2, 2013
El Segundo wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the queer Brazil Nut.
Thanks for proving my point, El Stupido.

Robert

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#16933 Mar 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
If you
believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows....
If you believe that copying and pasting the same material from thread to thread, in spite of the fact that your posts are nutty and fruity,

Then, and only then, will you be Kimare.

I'm your vagina and I approved this message.

By the way, if I bang my back door with sex toys is that harmful, unhealthy and demeaning?
gokkod

Rochester, PA

#16936 Mar 2, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ……
The Bible doesnt have the same languange knowledge as Modern languange the Bible has been edited

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16938 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Bulloney!

219 interviews by same-sex parents!

What a CROCK!

$20 paid to each interviewee! Yeah, sure. Completely unbiased. No. The ABC News critique was right.

And then the guy who conducted the study started backpedalling, saying the study wasn't intended to show this and the study wasn't intended to show that. Et cetera.

No good, buddy.

The professional organizations that you don't want to acknowledge and that have actual standing in these studies, having already produced a mountain of research and ongoing studies have already shown that same-sex couples can make excellent parents.

Those are the facts. Period.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16939 Mar 3, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Bulloney!
219 interviews by same-sex parents!
What a CROCK!
$20 paid to each interviewee! Yeah, sure. Completely unbiased. No. The ABC News critique was right.
And then the guy who conducted the study started backpedalling, saying the study wasn't intended to show this and the study wasn't intended to show that. Et cetera.
No good, buddy.
The professional organizations that you don't want to acknowledge and that have actual standing in these studies, having already produced a mountain of research and ongoing studies have already shown that same-sex couples can make excellent parents.
Those are the facts. Period.
Rev. Ken
At this point, all you give is your opinion.

I've already pointed out your deceit numerous times.

Smile.
Robsan5

United States

#16940 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point, all you give is your opinion.
I've already pointed out your deceit numerous times.
Smile.
Hey Genius:
Please prove your assertion that the article Regnerus wrote has received awards.
Please prove your assertion that the sun is a form of radiation.
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.(Thanks for the hummer, NoIQ!)

Robert

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump's Lawyer Jay Sekulow Opposed Legalizing G... 24 min The Troll Stopper 10
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 32 min The Troll Stopper 65
News Nikki Haley and her son heckled during NYC gay ... 33 min The Troll Stopper 12
News Thanks to Trumpa s vague order, LGBT activists ... 39 min The Troll Stopper 15
News Poll: Younger Republicans more liberal on immig... 44 min The Troll Stopper 6
News New York's highest court welcomes first openly ... 46 min The Troll Stopper 7
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 2 hr Victor Hugo 105
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 51,439
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 4 hr Tommy T 82
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 8 hr TNT 69,548
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 11 hr Frindly 6,885
More from around the web