Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 25,023

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.

Full Story

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#17051 Mar 6, 2013
The resident babbling idiot is kimare, without question.

I ought to know, I'm his vagina.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17052 Mar 6, 2013
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you know the Laws in Leviticus are anti-Canaanite, each and every one?
Really, history can be your friend.
Now, for those Bible versions that are more accurate due to findings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls which you have no clue about, which versions are they again?
Talk about being full of it....
"Anti-Canaanite"??? Seriously.

So sexual morality only applies to heterosexuals in the Bible?

Seriously silly.

Please, validate from a non-gay source.

Snicker.
Robsan5

United States

#17053 Mar 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
"Anti-Canaanite"??? Seriously.
So sexual morality only applies to heterosexuals in the Bible?
Seriously silly.
Please, validate from a non-gay source.
Snicker.
Please, validate any of your assertions, Genius:

Please prove your assertion that homosexuality is a mistake of genetic epi-markers.
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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17054 Mar 6, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,.... LOL!!!
I suppose you can draw a conclusion like that - if you ignore the Constitution.
Marriage has nothing to do with crossing cultures and religion, per se.
Marriage, the pair bond between a man and a woman, came before.
All culture, society, religion; these are compounded tribal expressions, just as morality is tribal expression, all of which relates to the stability that is Tradition.
All human beings are genetic constructions based on a combination of gametes. When these are put together, variations result. Every one of us exhibits physical expressions of both sexes. Then, having come into this world, we grow up into the traditions and morality of our tribes, societies and cultures.
You know this as well or better than most. Maleness or femaleness is a matter of degree.
The bonding of individuals in marriage is generally, traditionally, tribally and morally, recognized as the coupling of male and female. But, to the individuals who do not fit within the accepted and proper recognition of polarized sexuality, the traditional model of marriage has not generally, tribally, been an option.
However, our Constitution, whether you have recognized this or not, was written to define the rights of the minority - the ultimate minority - the individual, in ways not defined by other cultures and societal governments. Not only does the Constitution recognize the God given rights in the Spirit, such as thought and communication and assembly and a personal understanding of Being, it also defin...es of the Free Masons.
Individuals who do not specifically fit into the stereotypes of male and female are afforded rights in our society. Because, even in their minority, they have the right to personally define themselves and to assign the uses and privileges of their own real property, they will also be afforded the right to subjectively define their relationships with each other.
So, there is no actual desecration. The same-sex marriage is a matter of Law, first.
The SCOTUS will make this finding. It will be found to be the right of two individuals to marry, regardless of what YOU decide to recognize as the ideal. They may define it as "civil union." But, State's Rights notwithstanding, discrimination when recognized will not be allowed to prevent such unions.
Freedom of Religion will prohibit the SCOTUS from requiring religious establishments to marry those who they don't recognize as marriageable. But, other religious establishments WILL be allowed to marry such pairs.
You can howl about sin all you want. But, your howling does not make it sin. You can mischaracterize it as gay twirl. But, the real issue is a subjective understanding made between two consenting adults who are witnessing each other in the sight of God.
Rev. Ken
1. Cultural and religious insensitivity has nothing to do with the Constitution. It simply is or isn't. Calling gay couples 'married' clearly is insensitive.

2. Jumping the gun there rev. SCOTUS has validated traditional marriage a number of times. It has not ruled on calling gay couples married.

3. Nor do genetics have anything to do with cultural and religious insensitivity. Especially your gay twirl twist on genetics... At it's basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a definitive defective contradiction of the very basic goal of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'. A court or legislative ruling that contradicts that only flails at reality. Always a losing proposition.

4. The same goes for your designer religion. It will not change the reality of evolution or Christianity. Both condemn gay sex as abnormal.

5. Where did I 'howl about sin'? That very claim is another example of your gay twirl lies, rev.

Just a note. A believer would repent and apologize about lying rev.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17055 Mar 6, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, validate any of your assertions, Genius:
Please prove your assertion that homosexuality is a mistake of genetic epi-markers.
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
No.

Snicker.
really

AOL

#17056 Mar 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Just a note. A believer would repent and apologize about lying rev.
Smile.
When can we expect your repentance and apologies?

Shrug
Robsan5

Ballwin, MO

#17058 Mar 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Snicker.
I didn't think you could.
Snicker Snort.(Blow blow blow, NoIQ!)

Robert
really

AOL

#17060 Mar 6, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a queer?
No Jake, not that it matters...Are you?
really

AOL

#17062 Mar 6, 2013
Jake wrote:
No, I'm not a queer, and it does matter.
No sweetheart, it really doesn't matter! When you finally realize that you can be happy and at peace.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#17065 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
4. If you equate the diversity of two genders with the redundancy of same genders
rK; The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
KiMare'a wrote; I did not say anything about 'stereo typing genders', I was talking about the distinctions between genders. The numerous distinctions between genders are obvious and clearly understood.
Moreover, the point was the complimentary nature of diverse genders, verse the duplication of genders in a union. The result of the first is a completely unique presence, versus the redundancy of always only half of what marriage creates.
You know this, but slyly attempt to avoid the point because it exposes the foolishness attempt to equate marriage with gay couples.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I think you are mistaking my speaking the truth for your denial.
Smile.
LOL!

You bet.

Keep on with your bigotry bu don't pretend it's God's....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17066 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
4. If you equate the diversity of two genders with the redundancy of same genders
rK; The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
KiMare'a wrote; I did not say anything about 'stereo typing genders', I was talking about the distinctions between genders. The numerous distinctions between genders are obvious and clearly understood.
Moreover, the point was the complimentary nature of diverse genders, verse the duplication of genders in a union. The result of the first is a completely unique presence, versus the redundancy of always only half of what marriage creates.
You know this, but slyly attempt to avoid the point because it exposes the foolishness attempt to equate marriage with gay couples.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I think you are mistaking my speaking the truth for your denial.
Smile.
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
You bet.
Keep on with your bigotry bu don't pretend it's God's....
You bet.
Keep on with your denial but don't pretend it's God's....

Genesis 1:27 (GW)
27 So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.

Smile.
Robsan5

United States

#17067 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
4. If you equate the diversity of two genders with the redundancy of same genders
rK; The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
KiMare'a wrote; I did not say anything about 'stereo typing genders', I was talking about the distinctions between genders. The numerous distinctions between genders are obvious and clearly understood.
Moreover, the point was the complimentary nature of diverse genders, verse the duplication of genders in a union. The result of the first is a completely unique presence, versus the redundancy of always only half of what marriage creates.
You know this, but slyly attempt to avoid the point because it exposes the foolishness attempt to equate marriage with gay couples.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I think you are mistaking my speaking the truth for your denial.
Smile.
<quoted text>
You bet.
Keep on with your denial but don't pretend it's God's....
Genesis 1:27 (GW)
27 So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.
Smile.
Why are you quoting GW, Genius? Don't you remember saying that the NASB is the most accurate?

Genesis 1:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
So only man is created in god's image, and woman is just created, the same as trees, fish, birds and everything else.

This is right in the middle of your other assertions you haven't pr
Wow are you stupid. Still.

Snicker Snort.(Suck suck suck, NoIQ!)

Robert
Robsan5

United States

#17068 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...
I'm fully ready to answer any assertions I made.
Smile.
Apparently not, Genius:

Please prove your assertion that homosexuality is a mistake of genetic epi-markers.
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.(Suck blow suck, NoIQ!)

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17070 Mar 7, 2013
Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you quoting GW, Genius? Don't you remember saying that the NASB is the most accurate?
Genesis 1:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
So only man is created in god's image, and woman is just created, the same as trees, fish, birds and everything else.
This is right in the middle of your other assertions you haven't pr
Wow are you stupid. Still.
Snicker Snort.(Suck suck suck, NoIQ!)
Robert
http://biblos.com/genesis/1-27.htm

Strong's Transliteration Hebrew English
1254 [e] wayyi&#7687;r&#257; &#1493;&#1463;&#14 97;&#1460;&#1468;& #1489;&#1456;&#1512; &#1464;&#1448;&#14 88; created
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1444;&#1497; &#1501; &#1472; God
853 [e]e&#7791;- &#1488;&#1462;&#15 14;&#1470; -
120 [e] h&#257;&#257;&# 7695;&#257;m &#1492;&#1464;&#14 69;&#1488;&#1464;& #1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1433; man
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;alm &#333;w, &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1463;& #1500;&#1456;&#1502; &#1428;&#1493;&#14 65; image
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;elem &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1462;& #1445;&#1500;&#1462; &#1501; the image
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1430;&#1497; &#1501; of God
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1443;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#333;w; &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1425;&#1493;& #1465; -
2145 [e] z&#257;&#7733;&#2 57;r &#1494;&#1464;&#14 99;&#1464;&#1445;& #1512; male
5347 [e] &#363;n&#601;q &#7687;&#257;h &#1493;&#1468;&#15 04;&#1456;&#1511;& #1461;&#1489;&#1464; &#1430;&#1492; and female
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1445;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#257;m. &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1464;&#1469;& #1501;&#1475; -

Smile.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17073 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Cultural and religious insensitivity has nothing to do with the Constitution. It simply is or isn't. Calling gay couples 'married' clearly is insensitive.
2. Jumping the gun there rev. SCOTUS has validated traditional marriage a number of times. It has not ruled on calling gay couples married.
3. Nor do genetics have anything to do with cultural and religious insensitivity. Especially your gay twirl twist on genetics... At it's basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a definitive defective contradiction of the very basic goal of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'. A court or legislative ruling that contradicts that only flails at reality. Always a losing proposition.
4. The same goes for your designer religion. It will not change the reality of evolution or Christianity. Both condemn gay sex as abnormal.
5. Where did I 'howl about sin'? That very claim is another example of your gay twirl lies, rev.
Just a note. A believer would repent and apologize about lying rev.
Smile.
LOL!!!.... YES!, Right!... A believer in YOUR point of view.

You call the Constitution a matter of religious and cultural "insensitivity?"

Son, you haven't got a clue! No wonder you write the things that you do. Time for you to go back to school. The Constitution is largely based upon principles established through the Magna Carta. This was the 14th Century declaration of personal freedom that put the Lords and Bishops, and the common man, on equal footing with His Majesty, the King.

The Constitution is the very essence of the recognition of sensitivity. It is the Rule of Law that makes every person equal BEFORE the Law. It is a study in personal freedom and the right to exchange ideas and viewpoints!

Insensitivity, my foot!- unless by insensitivity, you mean the stubborn refusal to propagate traditional hypocrisies and bigotry.

For thousands of years, the Free Masons worked through every advancing form of civil law and reason-based culture to establish the principles of freedom of thought and of lawful assembly. These principles are held to be furnished to humanity as divinely made in "God's Image."

The Image is not anthropomorphic, as in Michelangelo's Finger of a languishing God touching the finger of the human with the sense of equality - yet the idea is the same. The Human Being is the outer manifestation of the Inner Being. The Inner Being is Light and Life and Love, expressed in the spectrum of polarized energy. But, that spectrum includes the centered, asexual being.

Jesus said, "In Heaven they are neither married nor given in marriage."

You continue to refuse to see from the view of the two individuals who seek marriage. YOU do not have the right to deny them the capacity to regard each other. This is not a matter of YOUR definition. It is a matter of THEIR definition and it is THEIR Constitutional right.

Hence, I said that the SCOTUS - WILL - recognize their right. I did not write that it already had. So, no, I did not jump the gun.

And there you go again with your "cross cultural constraint." Malarky. Marriage is the cultural recognition of the pair-bond. Yes, it is generally understood to be a male & female couple. But, there have been other legitimate forms of marriage, involving a lot more than sexuality. But, ultimately, marriage is a formal recognition of the bond. This bond is spiritual.

That is why Jesus said, "What God has put together, let no man tear apart."

Now you are howling about the sin of two non-heterosexuals developing a spiritual bond and an emotional and physical bond and trust and mutual care and the amassing of inheritable, communal property, that for ALL intents and purposes, FOR THEM, is a marriage. That is what it is.

For a while, States will find it easier to define this as "civil union." However, from a religious viewpoint, some will rightly call it marriage.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17075 Mar 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Cultural and religious insensitivity has nothing to do with the Constitution. It simply is or isn't. Calling gay couples 'married' clearly is insensitive.

2. Jumping the gun there rev. SCOTUS has validated traditional marriage a number of times. It has not ruled on calling gay couples married.

3. Nor do genetics have anything to do with cultural and religious insensitivity. Especially your gay twirl twist on genetics... At it's basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior....

4. The same goes for your designer religion. It will not change the reality of evolution or Christianity. Both condemn gay sex as abnormal.

5. Where did I 'howl about sin'? That very claim is another example of your gay twirl lies, rev.
Just a note. A believer would repent and apologize about lying rev.
Smile.
LOL!!!.... YES!, Right!... A believer in YOUR point of view.

And, yes. You do howl about sin and define the same-sex relationship as sin. Read your own posts.

Above, you call the Constitution a matter of religious and cultural "insensitivity?"

Son, you haven't got a clue! No wonder you write the things that you do. Time for you to go back to school.

The Constitution is largely based upon principles established through the Magna Carta. This was the 14th Century declaration of personal freedom that put the Lords and Bishops, and the common man, on equal footing with His Majesty, the King.

The Constitution is the very essence of the recognition of sensitivity. It is the Rule of Law that makes every person equal BEFORE the Law. It is a study in personal freedom and the right to exchange ideas and viewpoints!

Insensitivity, my foot!- unless by insensitivity, you mean the stubborn refusal to propagate traditional hypocrisies and bigotry.

For thousands of years, the Free Masons worked through every advancing form of civil law and reason-based culture to establish the principles of freedom of thought and of lawful assembly. These principles are held to be furnished to humanity as divinely made in "God's Image."

The Image is not anthropomorphic, as in Michelangelo's Finger of a languishing God touching the finger of the human with the sense of equality - yet the idea is the same. The Human Being is the outer manifestation of the Inner Being. The Inner Being is Light and Life and Love, expressed in the spectrum of polarized energy. But, that spectrum includes the centered, asexual being.

Jesus said, "In Heaven they are neither married nor given in marriage."

You continue to refuse to see from the view of the two individuals who seek marriage. YOU do not have the right to deny them the capacity to regard each other. This is not a matter of YOUR definition. It is a matter of THEIR definition and it is THEIR Constitutional right.

Hence, I said that the SCOTUS - WILL - recognize their right. I did not write that it already had. So, no, I did not jump the gun.

And there you go again with your "cross cultural constraint." Malarky. Marriage is the cultural recognition of the pair-bond. Yes, it is generally understood to be a male & female couple. But, there have been other legitimate forms of marriage, involving a lot more than sexuality. But, ultimately, marriage is a formal recognition of the bond. This bond is spiritual.

That is why Jesus said, "What God has put together, let no man tear apart."

Now you are howling about the sin of two non-heterosexuals developing a spiritual bond and an emotional and physical bond and trust and mutual care and the amassing of inheritable, communal property, that for ALL intents and purposes, FOR THEM, is a marriage. That is what it is.

For a while, States will find it easier to define this as "civil union." However, from a religious viewpoint, some will rightly call it marriage.

Rev. Ken
Robsan5

United States

#17076 Mar 7, 2013
Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a queer?
Jake, this isn't really a gay pick up site. Perhaps you should ask NoIQ for his favorite gay anal sex hookup sites...
Or KickMe, they both seem to be the resident experts on the subject.

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17077 Mar 8, 2013
7.If you think a law can change the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

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

KiMare'a wrote; The law defines and defends distinctions in relationships! It is at the basis of this very issue. The question isn't can individuals claim identity at their discretion, but rather how the law protects the rest of society from such abusive indiscretion of clear inequality. Hence we give special consideration to the handicapped and minorities. And marriage.

In essence, this is a gay personification of the fable,'The Emperor's New Clothes'. Duplicate gendered couples trying to imitate marriage. Incredibly silly and obviously ridiculous. Even a child can see the obvious distinction between gay couples and marriage, especially if one is mom and dad.
Robsan5

United States

#17078 Mar 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
7.If you think a law can change the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
rK; Law requires consistency and judicious recognition through the principles of individual rights and freedom of expression. Read on Thomas Jefferson.
KiMare'a wrote; The law defines and defends distinctions in relationships! It is at the basis of this very issue. The question isn't can individuals claim identity at their discretion, but rather how the law protects the rest of society from such abusive indiscretion of clear inequality. Hence we give special consideration to the handicapped and minorities. And marriage.
In essence, this is a gay personification of the fable,'The Emperor's New Clothes'. Duplicate gendered couples trying to imitate marriage. Incredibly silly and obviously ridiculous. Even a child can see the obvious distinction between gay couples and marriage, especially if one is mom and dad.
"The Emperor's New Clothes"?!? Do you just pick random concepts to use as analogies, Genius? You're nuts!
Why don't you pick one of your baseless assertions and prove it?
I've made a list of them for you:

Please prove your assertion that homosexuality is a mistake of genetic epi-markers.
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 BJ, NoIQ!)

Robert

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#17079 Mar 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://biblos.com/genesis/1-27.htm
Strong's Transliteration Hebrew English
1254 [e] wayyi&#7687;r&#257; &#1493;&#1463;&#14 97;&#1460;&#1468;& #1489;&#1456;&#1512; &#1464;&#1448;&#14 88; created
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1444;&#1497; &#1501; &#1472; God
853 [e]e&#7791;- &#1488;&#1462;&#15 14;&#1470; -
120 [e] h&#257;&#257;&# 7695;&#257;m &#1492;&#1464;&#14 69;&#1488;&#1464;& #1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1433; man
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;alm &#333;w, &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1463;& #1500;&#1456;&#1502; &#1428;&#1493;&#14 65; image
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;elem &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1462;& #1445;&#1500;&#1462; &#1501; the image
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1430;&#1497; &#1501; of God
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1443;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#333;w; &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1425;&#1493;& #1465; -
2145 [e] z&#257;&#7733;&#2 57;r &#1494;&#1464;&#14 99;&#1464;&#1445;& #1512; male
5347 [e] &#363;n&#601;q &#7687;&#257;h &#1493;&#1468;&#15 04;&#1456;&#1511;& #1461;&#1489;&#1464; &#1430;&#1492; and female
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1445;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#257;m. &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1464;&#1469;& #1501;&#1475; -
Smile.
Best post you've written yet!

LOL.....

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
Us Aids fight shifts to African-American gay men 3 min raj 104
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 10 min KiMare 49,843
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 15 min Tubal Cain 1,909
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 22 min KiMare 437
Two Lesbians, one Gay man elected to Belfast Ci... 1 hr rock white 22
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 2 hr cpeter1313 28
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 3 hr ocxz 1,414
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 795
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 962
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 9 hr Howdy 55,925
Ginsburg: Watch 6th Circuit on gay marriage 17 hr Fa-Foxy 64
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••