Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36050 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.

Spam mmm good

Santa Cruz, CA

#16941 Mar 3, 2013
If you like spam, you'll enjoy KiMarie's posts.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16942 Mar 3, 2013
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!

Smile.
Robsan5

United States

#16943 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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!
Smile.
The difference between KickMe and intelligence?

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.

It's quite a long list, and this is only the abridged version.

Snicker Snort.(Keep on blowing, NoIQ!)

Robert
Robsan5

United States

#16945 Mar 3, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What's up ASSTROLL, the Santa Cruz [email protected] is none other then Snyper.
You fking shiteater.
You love asstrolls, don't you NoIQ?
But you forgot to mention your favorite word, DICK.

Roberta (just for your gay anal sex fantasies!)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16946 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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!
Smile.
Dear Mr. Smiley Face,

What on earth are you blabbering about?

Your allegories are nutty and you are apparently a fruitcake when it comes to concepts of marriage. A marriage can be arranged. Marriage can be contracted for between families. Marriages can be pursued over the internet or through matchmakers or they can occur as a result of love-at-First-Sight. No matter.

Some marriages are made in Heaven. Some, apparently, in Hell. Some at the Elvis Chapel in Las Vegas. Some in front of a justice of the Peace. Some aboard an airplane or a ship conducted by the Captain. Some at the point of a gun. Some by the couple on the run. No matter.

However it happens, ultimately the marriage becomes - if it succeeds - a union of the two individuals on a spiritual level that is both objective and subjective in nature and symbiotic in product, whether or not there are any offspring.

First, any marriage is not like any fruit tree. But, if that is how you see marriage and want to describe marriage as such, have at it.

As to human procreation, whether the couple is heterosexual or non-heterosexual, modern medical practices have advanced to the point that, if the couple can afford to or their health insurance permits, one or both of the individuals can contribute the necessary genetic material for half of the required fertilized egg. The other half can be acquired from any number of known and/or anonymous providers. The couple, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual, can even have their in-vitro fertilized zygote brought to term in the womb of a willing and able third party.

If neither can supply the necessary goods, they can adopt. Adoption is normally a process that involves extensive interviewing before the match is made. But, not always. Some couples have enough money to arrange private adoption.

There are foster care options. In some cases there is legal guardianship. But, the plain truth is that if a couple is intent on adopting, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual, they can usually succeed - granted that they are a fairly well-adjusted pair of people having the wherewithal and competence to be parents.

You can complain all you want about how nothing is better for a child than his or her own parents. But, sometimes, that is just not true or more often just not an available option. Sometimes, adoption really is better.

So, in a final analysis, all of your nutty fruitiness is for naught and is purely academic. Solutions to all of the imagined problems can and will be found.

Children raised by responsible, loving and caring adults is the simple answer.

God approves.

Rev. Ken
Robsan5

United States

#16948 Mar 3, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Roberta, I'm sure you get enough DlCK to satisfy your needs, [email protected] You're very familiar with ASSTROLLS, that's what you Queers are.
I've got enough DICK to satisfy my needs, that's for sure. The question is, is it enough to satisfy your needs?

Roberta (just for your gay anal sex fantasies!)
Robsan5

United States

#16950 Mar 3, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Just remember [email protected], just make sure all that DlCK you're getting isn't from little boys.
I would never try to take any DICK action away from you, NoIQ.

Roberta (just for your gay anal sex fantasies!)
Robsan5

United States

#16951 Mar 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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!
Smile.
Hey Genius, you do realize that male apple trees can't fertilize female apple trees without help, right? So are you saying that heterosexual couples should have threesomes to reproduce?
Exactly how stupid are you?
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.(Keep on blowing, NoIQ!)

Robert
Robsan5

United States

#16953 Mar 3, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said [email protected], stay away from the little boys.
Like I said, asstroll, I wouldn't think of moving in on your preferred action.

Roberta (just for your little boy anal sex fantasies!)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16954 Mar 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
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!
Smile.
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Mr. Smiley Face,
What on earth are you blabbering about?
Your allegories are nutty and you are apparently a fruitcake when it comes to concepts of marriage. A marriage can be arranged. Marriage can be contracted for between families. Marriages can be pursued over the internet or through matchmakers or they can occur as a result of love-at-First-Sight. No matter.
Some marriages are made in Heaven. Some, apparently, in Hell. Some at the Elvis Chapel in Las Vegas. Some in front of a justice of the Peace. Some aboard an airplane or a ship conducted by the Captain. Some at the point of a gun. Some by the couple on the run. No matter.
However it happens, ultimately the marriage becomes - if it succeeds - a union of the two individuals on a spiritual level that is both objective and subjective in nature and symbiotic in product, whether or not there are any offspring.
First, any marriage is not like any fruit tree. But, if that is how you see marriage and want to describe marriage as such, have at it.
As to human procreation, whether the couple is heterosexual or non-heterosexual, modern medical practices have advanced to the point that, if the couple can afford to or their health insurance permits, one or both of the individuals can contribute the necessary genetic material for half of the required fertilized egg. The other half can be acquired from any number of known and/or anonymous providers. The couple, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual, can even have their in-vitro fertilized zygote brought to term in the womb of a willing and able third party.
If neither can supply the necessary goods, they can adopt. Adoption is normally a process that involves extensive interviewing before the match is made. But, not always. Some couples have enough money to arrange private adoption.
There are foster care options. In some cases there is legal guardianship. But, the plain truth is that if a couple is intent on adopting, whether heterosexual or non-heterosexual, they can usually succeed - granted that they are a fairly well-adjusted pair of people having the wherewithal and competence to be parents.
You can complain all you want about how nothing is better for a child than his or her own parents. But, sometimes, that is just not true or more often just not an available option. Sometimes, adoption really is better.
So, in a final analysis, all of your nutty fruitiness is for naught and is purely academic. Solutions to all of the imagined problems can and will be found.
Children raised by responsible, loving and caring adults is the simple answer.
God approves.
Rev. Ken
All that gay twirl pontification, and not one straight answer. You represent your father well.

Gays demanding that children must be required in marriage for them to be considered a natural part is as silly as a fruitless walnut tree demanding it be called an apple tree.

And children are as natural with a gay couple as apples are hanging on a walnut tree.

You get it, you just don't like it.

Nature mocks you.

Reason mocks you.

A near senile old man with simple common sense mocks you.

God mocks you.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16955 Mar 4, 2013
3. If you claim rights and benefits can only be acquired by an imposition on marriage

rK; "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.

KiMare'a wrote; Numerous other relationships have rights and protections conferred by legal means. The rights and protections of marriage were fundamentally designed to protect the natural children of marriage and support the primary caretaker.

Gay couples never have that situation. In fact, civil unions already provide more than legitimate legal protection, and laws for default family situations already provides more support than marriage does to natural families.

Moreover, this blur of legal definition leaves no distinction between biological families and default situations, even though biological families are clearly distinct and preferred according to the SCOTUS numerous times!

Smile.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#16956 Mar 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
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!
Smile.
<quoted text>
All that gay twirl pontification, and not one straight answer. You represent your father well.
Gays demanding that children must be required in marriage for them to be considered a natural part is as silly as a fruitless walnut tree demanding it be called an apple tree.
And children are as natural with a gay couple as apples are hanging on a walnut tree.
You get it, you just don't like it.
Nature mocks you.
Reason mocks you.
A near senile old man with simple common sense mocks you.
God mocks you.
Smile.
Sorry, Kimare.

It is an old adage that some cannot see the forest for the trees.

There are many children who need responsible parents. There are many responsible people, single as well as couples, who can do the job, with competence and love. But, you will never get to be their judge.

You are apparently so full of your own ideas that you can't objectively read what you yourself have written. Then, to make matters worse, you refuse to objectively read what anyone else has written. You have internalized a disconnect that you refuse to acknowledge.

I have answered your posts; even some, point by point, and have given you opportunities to elaborate and explain your views.

What is your repeated response? Baseless insults, followed by lording condescension through your signature smiles and smirks. All of this after claiming "alien radiation." Brother, you don't know what you are talking about.

You've done it to yourself, Kimare. Conversations of the sort that you are conducting have an inevitable way of trailing off into silence. It happens when those who would willingly converse with you to exchange ideas finally find out that your transmitter is on. But, your receiver is off.

God Bless, brother.

Rev. Ken
Robsan5

United States

#16957 Mar 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
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!
Smile.
<quoted text>
All that gay twirl pontification, and not one straight answer. You represent your father well.
Gays demanding that children must be required in marriage for them to be considered a natural part is as silly as a fruitless walnut tree demanding it be called an apple tree.
And children are as natural with a gay couple as apples are hanging on a walnut tree.
You get it, you just don't like it.
Nature mocks you.
Reason mocks you.
A near senile old man with simple common sense mocks you.
God mocks you.
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.(Keep on blowing, NoIQ!)

Robert
Robsan5

United States

#16958 Mar 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
3. If you claim rights and benefits can only be acquired by an imposition on marriage
rK; "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.
KiMare'a wrote; Numerous other relationships have rights and protections conferred by legal means. The rights and protections of marriage were fundamentally designed to protect the natural children of marriage and support the primary caretaker.
Gay couples never have that situation. In fact, civil unions already provide more than legitimate legal protection, and laws for default family situations already provides more support than marriage does to natural families.
Moreover, this blur of legal definition leaves no distinction between biological families and default situations, even though biological families are clearly distinct and preferred according to the SCOTUS 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.(Keep on sucking, NoIQ!)

Robert

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#16959 Mar 4, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What's up ASSTROLL, the Santa Cruz [email protected] is none other then Snyper.
You fking shiteater.
Heading to the Sulzbacher Homeless Center to prepare the evening meal for the 600 homeless folks there. What are you going to do for the glory of God besides sit on your ARSE and complain?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#16960 Mar 4, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
<quoted text>Heading to the Sulzbacher Homeless Center to prepare the evening meal for the 600 homeless folks there. What are you going to do for the glory of God besides sit on your ARSE and complain?
Good comment.
Robsan5

United States

#16961 Mar 4, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
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!
Smile.
<quoted text>
All that gay twirl pontification, and not one straight answer. You represent your father well.
Gays demanding that children must be required in marriage for them to be considered a natural part is as silly as a fruitless walnut tree demanding it be called an apple tree.
And children are as natural with a gay couple as apples are hanging on a walnut tree.
You get it, you just don't like it.
Nature mocks you.
Reason mocks you.
A near senile old man with simple common sense mocks you.
God mocks you.
Smile.
The only mocking here is me mocking you, 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.(Keep on blowing, NoIQ!)

Robert
DMAN

Aurora, CO

#16962 Mar 4, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still weak, lame and just plain stupid.
Roberta/Robsana (just for "your" gay anal sex dreams, Village Idiot!)
Still a cavron.... All talk Nothing else elfagsandbitch.....:)
DMAN

Aurora, CO

#16964 Mar 4, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still weak, lame and just plain stupid.
Roberta/Robsana (just for "your" gay anal sex dreams, Village Idiot!)
Still a gutless leaking gash....... Keep spooning anal girl...:) "CUT AND PASTE...."
DMAN

Aurora, CO

#16965 Mar 4, 2013
I.D.G.A.S...

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 29 min Travis Turbil 13,071
Transgender "woman" convicted of raping 10-year... 33 min Travis Turbil 2
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 3 hr Astro 2,570
News Anti-gay Southern Decadence preacher arrested o... (Feb '11) 4 hr BAC SOLDIER 31
News The fascinating sex life of Jonathan, the 186-y... 4 hr Newt G s Next Rel... 3
News Prominent chefs oppose baker in major gay right... 4 hr Luther 6
News Secret Symphony exhibit in Allentown explores t... 4 hr Newt G s Next Rel... 1
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 5 hr Noe 41
News Birth-record fix for gays falls to lower court 5 hr Travis Turbil 18
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 7 hr Newt G s Next Rel... 343
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Freedomofexpression 57,593
More from around the web