Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Same-Sex Attraction'

Dec 6, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: GPB.org

The Mormon Church has a new website to clarify its position on "same-sex attraction" and to reach out to all of its members, including gays and lesbians, "with love and understanding." The launching of mormonsandgays.org follows persistent criticism of Mormon involvement in California's ballot measure banning gay marriage, NPR's Howard Berkes ... (more)

Comments
401 - 420 of 432 Comments Last updated May 6, 2013

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#508 Jan 18, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
So the position of a Bishop is more holy than a prophet? Because the reason given for forbidding the Bishops and deacons from having more than one wife is that they are to be beyond reproach. So, I guess that wouldn't apply to any so-called prophet, right?
lol...this is really fricking sad, seriously. Do you have a mature brain cell at all? Or are they all really immature brain cells?
You stated...
"You conveniently dismiss the New Testament verses clearly saying that to hold an office in the church, one must be the husband of one woman,"
I responded and told you that you took that verse out of context. I than explained the true context of that verse to help you understand what you didn't understand.
What do you do for a reply? You ask me sarcastically if the position of a bishop is more holy than a prophet. Where the *ell did that question come from besides far left field?
If you want to discuss the differences between the office of a bishop and the office of an apostle/prophet, mature some brain cells, get rid of the immature childish sarcasm and speak to me like the adult man you are.
What is your problem with being so immature? Do you really like being that way?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#509 Jan 18, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I hope you can get over it.
<quoted text>
Which are accurate and true descriptions of the man you think is a prophet.
<quoted text>
If you can't stand the heat... If it is too much for you, go to the Nicklelodon chat room and discuss Spongebob Squarepants. LOL!!!
lol...you don't get over a person's constant immaturity. Many have to learn to adjust to the fact that some people like you, you like your childish mentality and you're apparently not ready to be a mature minded person any time soon. So we hope for the best that you leave it behind and become what you should be, a mentally mature person. But it's your choice to be such.
What you think is accurate of Smith is based on your immaturity and malevolent hate and anger you display for that guy. Nothing you think of Smith is really based in sound reasoning and sound logic.
Hate and anger don't equal sound logic and reasoning for anything.
Can't stand the heat? You bring nothing but immaturity, hate and anger to the table. That isn't heat. That's the recipe for idiocy and irrationality, immaturity hate and anger with you are so full of.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#510 Jan 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Dana, what so ever shall I do when an immature mind pretending to be a mature mind calls me such names....boo-hoo-hoo, please stop...lolol. You and your name calling belong back on a play ground with little kids dude where you'll fit in just nicely with your childish mentality. Why don't you grow up and speak like an adult for a change? Is that to tough to do? Is that why you resort to these childish names you call people? Because you don't know how to speak like an adult without reverting to childish rants and name calling? Hmm? Ever heard that verse that goes something like...when I was a child I acted/spoke like a child but when I became a man, I acted/spoke like a man. You should find that verse and read it a few times, just saying :)
By the way, why are you asking me to show you Emma brought other women to Smith to marry? I never said that happened. Is this some information you think actually happened and you want me to help you find out if it's true? I doubt it is.
Wives stated Emma attended their "marriage as a witness for some wives. Wives stated some of them lived in the Smith home after their marriage. But I don't remember anything of Emma going out and searching for women for Smith to marry. Me thinks you have your wires crossed on that one. But let me know what you find out :)
You're the one comparing Abraham to Smith, calling him a pervert because he had more than one wife. He had more then one wife because Sarah asked him to her the other woman. Abraham didn't go around telling lies about angels wanting to kill him with flaming swords. That's your pervert Smith doing that. Emma didn't ask him to marry anybody. Tried to stop him. Yet you want to protect the sickness of Smith's actions by pretending it's the same. You demonstrate a lack of honesty and integrity. You have a save the pervert at any cost mentality. Smith could do no wrong, and if he did, it's OK, or no big deal. Then you whine like a little child when people don't follow your BS warped way of thinking. The only person here with crossed wires is you.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#511 Jan 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you do for a reply? You ask me sarcastically if the position of a bishop is more holy than a prophet. Where the *ell did that question come from besides far left field?
If you want to discuss the differences between the office of a bishop and the office of an apostle/prophet, mature some brain cells, get rid of the immature childish sarcasm and speak to me like the adult man you are.
What is your problem with being so immature? Do you really like being that way?
You're the one claiming that what rules apply to Bishops, doesn't apply to the prophets. Are you that stupid? Are prophet allowed to be any kind of filth they want to be, but Bishops are not? You really think there is such a double standard in God's church? You are a simpleton, and you do like being that way, apparently.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#512 Jan 18, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one comparing Abraham to Smith, calling him a pervert because he had more than one wife. He had more then one wife because Sarah asked him to her the other woman. Abraham didn't go around telling lies about angels wanting to kill him with flaming swords. That's your pervert Smith doing that. Emma didn't ask him to marry anybody. Tried to stop him. Yet you want to protect the sickness of Smith's actions by pretending it's the same. You demonstrate a lack of honesty and integrity. You have a save the pervert at any cost mentality. Smith could do no wrong, and if he did, it's OK, or no big deal. Then you whine like a little child when people don't follow your BS warped way of thinking. The only person here with crossed wires is you.
You're fricking bonkos! Do you know that? You give me a question to make a judgement by, I do that very thing and than you criticize me for doing as you asked??? You're nuttier than a raving lunitic at times! lolol.
You stated..."So, you're OK with a man calling himself a prophet of God and cheating the whole time on his wife? It's also OK if he cheats if the women are OK with it? You have very low standards for your prophets. Yet you also get emotional when I accurately describe him a sexual pervert and pig. It's OK if he acts like a pig, we just can't honestly say that about him."
The above accurately described every single man in the Bible that ever had a polygamous relationship according to your logic!
Not everyone living when those polygamous men lived believed they were a prophet/leader or even should have been a king of Israel! Those people were just like you, having negative view points for those men as you have negative view points for Smith! And probably for similar reasons used to hate and detest them!
So when you stated as a question,... "So, you're OK with a man calling himself a prophet of God and cheating the whole time on his wife? It's also OK if he cheats if the women are OK with it?
You have very low standards for your prophets. Yet you also get emotional when I accurately describe him a sexual pervert and pig. It's OK if he acts like a pig, we just can't honestly say that about him." ...I used it for all the men in the Bible that had polygamous relationships that others thought of them like you think of Smith, that they were cheating on their first wife. That for marrying other women, even women that belonged to other men, they considered them the equal of what we define as sexual perverts and pigs as you so fondly use the terminology.
And Abraham claims to have seen angels and who knows what else. So what if Smith claimed to see them. There were dozens and dozens of people writing in journals claiming to have seen angels with Smith and separately. There have been a lot of people on this earth in just the last three centuries that have claimed to of seen angels in many circumstances. People who have had life after death experiences, religious, not so religious and not religious at all have claimed to of seen who they believed was Jesus himself.
According to you their all filthy mouthed loony toon liars. Because if you say someone is a liar, their a liar and that's it.
PS...I don't want you to follow my way of thinking. What I want is for you to read all the information from a source before you pick and choose from it without knowing all that was said. That's just a smart thing to do :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#513 Jan 18, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one claiming that what rules apply to Bishops, doesn't apply to the prophets.
Your a fricking liar AGAIN! lol...doesn't your out right ungodly lying ever stop? Are you a pathological liar? Is that why you're so willing to state a lie instead of stating what I said? What in the *ell is wrong with you that you prefer lying over stating what was actually said?
I never claimed what rules apply to a bishop don't apply to a prophet. I never said that. I never even inferred that! You're such a pathetic liar! Fricking stop it and state what was said for a change..gosh almighty! So fricking sad...
By the way, to my remembrance, there were never made in the Bible a list of qualifications for the position of a prophet as there is a list of qualifications for a bishop.
And no, you can't by logic or reason state the qualifications for a bishop are the same qualifications for a prophet or apostle or seventy or even a member of the faith who holds no position at all.
I took the following from the web. Take from it what you can for good usage :)

I. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE BISHOPS
These qualifications are given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. They are:
1. BLAMELESS
By this it is not meant that the bishop must be morally perfect. No man in the flesh is. It means that he must be above serious reproach. This requirement it explained and amplified in both of the passages given above, as follows:
"Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:7).
"For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon angry; no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre" (Titus 1:7).
If the public does not have a high regard for the moral integrity of a man, he should never be made a bishop.
2. PROPER CONJUGAL RELATIONS
He is to be the husband of one wife. Of course this means that he is to be husband of but one at a time. He must not have two living wives. This neither requires that a preacher be married—though, in most cases, it is best that he should; nor forbids him to marry again if his wife dies.[2]
3. VIGILANCE, SOBRIETY, AND GOOD BEHAVIOR
These are given together in 1 Tim. 3:2. They are given in the Revised Version as meaning that the bishop is to be temperate, sober-minded, and orderly. And this version leaves out the reference to wine in the next verse. Temperance means self-control in everything. It involves total abstinence from that which is harmful or evil.
I. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE BISHOPS

These qualifications are given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. They are:
1. BLAMELESS
By this it is not meant that the bishop must be morally perfect. No man in the flesh is. It means that he must be above serious reproach. This requirement it explained and amplified in both of the passages given above, as follows:
"Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:7).
"For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon angry; no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre" (Titus 1:7).
If the public does not have a high regard for the moral integrity of a man, he should never be made a bishop.
2. PROPER CONJUGAL RELATIONS
He is to be the husband of one wife. Of course this means that he is to be husband of but one at a time. He must not have two living wives. This neither requires that a preacher be married—though, in most cases, it is best that he should; nor forbids him to marry again if his wife dies.
3. VIGILANCE, SOBRIETY, AND GOOD BEHAVIOR
These are given together in 1 Tim. 3:2. They are given in the Revised Version as meaning that the bishop is to be temperate, sober-minded, and orderly. And this version leaves out the reference to wine in the next verse. Temperance means self-control in everything. It involves total abstinence from that which is harmful or evil.
Cont

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#514 Jan 18, 2013
Continued...
I. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE BISHOPS

These qualifications are given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. They are:
1. BLAMELESS
By this it is not meant that the bishop must be morally perfect. No man in the flesh is. It means that he must be above serious reproach. This requirement it explained and amplified in both of the passages given above, as follows:
"Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:7).
"For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon angry; no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre" (Titus 1:7).
If the public does not have a high regard for the moral integrity of a man, he should never be made a bishop.
2. PROPER CONJUGAL RELATIONS
He is to be the husband of one wife. Of course this means that he is to be husband of but one at a time. He must not have two living wives. This neither requires that a preacher be married—though, in most cases, it is best that he should; nor forbids him to marry again if his wife dies.[2]
3. VIGILANCE, SOBRIETY, AND GOOD BEHAVIOR
These are given together in 1 Tim. 3:2. They are given in the Revised Version as meaning that the bishop is to be temperate, sober-minded, and orderly. And this version leaves out the reference to wine in the next verse. Temperance means self-control in everything. It involves total abstinence from that which is harmful or evil.
4. HOSPITALITY
Hospitality refers to entertainment of visitors in the home. In New Testament days hospitality was "a service specially necessary...when the Christian traveler was exposed to peculiar difficulties and dangers, and a duty, therefore, which was often insisted on" (Harvey, on Titus). Hospitality may not be so urgently necessary today, but it is nonetheless beautiful and beneficial.
5. APTNESS TO TEACH
This includes both love for teaching and ability in it. This requires knowledge and the ability to impart it.
6. PEACEFULNESS
The qualifications that follow aptness to teach are given in the better translation as follows: "...no brawler, no striker, but gentle, not contentious." The bishop is not to have a disposition that tends to stir up strife. He is not to be by nature violent and combative, but a man of a gentle, forbearing spirit, adverse to quarrelling and dispute. See 2 Timothy 2:24. Yet he must contend for the faith, and fight evil.
7. LACK OF COVETOUSNESS
He must not be a lover of money, for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. He must not put money above faithful discharge of the will of God.
8. DISCIPLINARY ABILITY
The test of this is the way in which he controls his own children, and the Scripture says if he cannot control them, he cannot care for the church of God.
9. A SEASONED CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE
The bishop must not be a novice, that is, one newly come to the faith. He must possess a considerable degree of Christian maturity.
10. SOUNDNESS IN THE FAITH
For the eight foregoing qualifications we have followed the epistle to Timothy, and have not tried to list everything mentioned in both epistles, talking it that in Timothy we have, in a general manner, all that is included in Titus. But the last stipulation in Titus we wish to notice. It reads as follows:
"...holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that they may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).
This means that the bishop is to be one who holds to the Word of God in spite of all temptation to forsake it.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#515 Jan 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a fricking liar AGAIN! lol...doesn't your out right ungodly lying ever stop? Are you a pathological liar? Is that why you're so willing to state a lie instead of stating what I said? What in the *ell is wrong with you that you prefer lying over stating what was actually said?
I never claimed what rules apply to a bishop don't apply to a prophet. I never said that. I never even inferred that! You're such a pathetic liar! Fricking stop it and state what was said for a change..gosh almighty! So fricking sad...
No, your the one who said that the rule of the Bishops to have only one wife is only for the Bishops. The rules is there so they are considered blameless. Any rule rule applying to a Bishop, certainly would apply for any man who is to call himself prophet today.

Let us know when you do know what you are actually saying.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#516 Jan 18, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your the one who said that the rule of the Bishops to have only one wife is only for the Bishops. The rules is there so they are considered blameless. Any rule rule applying to a Bishop, certainly would apply for any man who is to call himself prophet today.
Let us know when you do know what you are actually saying.
I did say that. That is what the verse states. You can't accurately claim the qualifications for a bishop are the same qualifications for an prophet/apostle. The verse doesn't endorse your logic.
You have to remember something about history here. We have examples of polygamy all through out the OT. More than a dozen examples of prophets and leaders and kings having polygamous marriages.
All of a sudden you begin reading the NT and there is not a mention of polygamy. It existed for thousands of years in the OT era and suddenly after Jesus comes along, polygamy vanishes from being mentioned like it never existed. And of course you don't wonder why that is?
The church of Rome was against clergy being married. What is now the RCC that use to be called the church of Rome, till a few centuries ago they did not encourage and even forbid clergy to be married. Jesus was single they say. The apostles that were married that became single for whatever reason, they remained single to be like Jesus the RCC claims. The church of Rome and RCC use Paul's opinion about it better to be single as the base for their belief in remaining unmarried.
So in the second century, a bunch of single, anti-marriage minded self professed Christian scholars began to set forth a book of NT scripture. Another bunch did the same in the third century I believe.
Is it any wonder why after thousands of years of examples of polygamy existing with the very prophets/leaders/kings of God's people in the OT era, that now we have no mention of it in the NT? Anti-marriage minded scholars put the NT together. That's a fact. Go research it. To be a part of the clergy from the mid first century to later centuries you had to be single and remain unmarried. If you were clergy and you left to marry, you forfeited your place and standing in that church. And punishment came with such an action at times.
polygamy isn't missing from the NT because it was stopped being practised, it is missing from the NT because the NT scholars that set the NT together were anti-marriage.
Have doubts? Ever notice how marriages are mentioned through out the OT? Marriages the prophets/leaders/kings were part of and yet in the NT, it's like marriages lost their value and purpose? I don't know of a recorded instance in the NT that speaks of the celebration of a single NT leader as it was spoken of in the OT.
The anti-marriage scholars are the prime reason for why you hear so little about marriage in the NT of leaders and the people. It's why you hear absolutely nothing about polygamy in the NT.
Wondering is a wonderful thing to involve one self in. You can really learn a lot. You should try it more often, just saying :)

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#517 Jan 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>I did say that. That is what the verse states. You can't accurately claim the qualifications for a bishop are the same qualifications for an prophet/apostle. The verse doesn't endorse your logic.
You have to remember something about history here. We have examples of polygamy all through out the OT. More than a dozen examples of prophets and leaders and kings having polygamous marriages.
All of a sudden you begin reading the NT and there is not a mention of polygamy. It existed for thousands of years in the OT era and suddenly after Jesus comes along, polygamy vanishes from being mentioned like it never existed. And of course you don't wonder why that is?
The church of Rome was against clergy being married. What is now the RCC that use to be called the church of Rome, till a few centuries ago they did not encourage and even forbid clergy to be married. Jesus was single they say. The apostles that were married that became single for whatever reason, they remained single to be like Jesus the RCC claims. The church of Rome and RCC use Paul's opinion about it better to be single as the base for their belief in remaining unmarried.
So in the second century, a bunch of single, anti-marriage minded self professed Christian scholars began to set forth a book of NT scripture. Another bunch did the same in the third century I believe.
Is it any wonder why after thousands of years of examples of polygamy existing with the very prophets/leaders/kings of God's people in the OT era, that now we have no mention of it in the NT? Anti-marriage minded scholars put the NT together. That's a fact. Go research it. To be a part of the clergy from the mid first century to later centuries you had to be single and remain unmarried. If you were clergy and you left to marry, you forfeited your place and standing in that church. And punishment came with such an action at times.
polygamy isn't missing from the NT because it was stopped being practised, it is missing from the NT because the NT scholars that set the NT together were anti-marriage.
Have doubts? Ever notice how marriages are mentioned through out the OT? Marriages the prophets/leaders/kings were part of and yet in the NT, it's like marriages lost their value and purpose? I don't know of a recorded instance in the NT that speaks of the celebration of a single NT leader as it was spoken of in the OT.
The anti-marriage scholars are the prime reason for why you hear so little about marriage in the NT of leaders and the people. It's why you hear absolutely nothing about polygamy in the NT.
Wondering is a wonderful thing to involve one self in. You can really learn a lot. You should try it more often, just saying :)
Would u give up celibacy if polygamy became legal?...can u imagine how awful that would be for a closet self hating gay man..oh wait, of course u can. Please tell us

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#520 Jan 19, 2013
Troy wrote:
<quoted text>Claiming that someone else shares your perversion is always the worst insult you radical homosexuals can muster, isn't it?
Do you realize how pathetic that makes YOU look?
Oh, CALEB, JAYCE, MAX, LUKE, RAND, DAVID MOORE, and any other false names you have used in the last few days...claiming you are someone else, by your constant use of false names, is perversion of truth. Do you realize how pathetic that make YOU look, LIAR?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#521 Jan 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say that. That is what the verse states. You can't accurately claim the qualifications for a bishop are the same qualifications for an prophet/apostle. The verse doesn't endorse your logic.
Oh, but it does. A prophet is a higher calling in the church than a Bishop. Any standards set for the Bishops and Deacons would certainly apply to anyone calling themselves Prophet. In fact there would be even higher standards for the Prophet than the Bishop. The reason the Bishop is to be the husband of only one wife is to be blameless in the eyes of the world. Prophets don't have to have that same standard? Please.
You have to remember something about history here. We have examples of polygamy all through out the OT. More than a dozen examples of prophets and leaders and kings having polygamous marriages.
And the rules got changed when Christ came. It went from a gospel of laws to a gospel of grace. The rules for food were removed. They principle of "eye for an eye" was changed. Use to be's don't apply.
All of a sudden you begin reading the NT and there is not a mention of polygamy. It existed for thousands of years in the OT era and suddenly after Jesus comes along, polygamy vanishes from being mentioned like it never existed. And of course you don't wonder why that is?
But it was mentioned, is was forbidden for the holder of any office in the church.

Your theories of a Roman conspiracy is bogus. If Rome wanted to remove marriage from the NT they would have taken out any mention of Bishop's being married at all.

You also mentioned the absence of rules for Prophets in the NT. I see that as good evidence that it is because there are not to be any prophets in today's church. There certainly wasn't anyone called "prophet" after Jesus left. And especially no one was like Moses, who is what the LDS church looks upon their prophets to be like.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#522 Jan 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The anti-marriage scholars are the prime reason for why you hear so little about marriage in the NT of leaders and the people. It's why you hear absolutely nothing about polygamy in the NT.
Wondering is a wonderful thing to involve one self in. You can really learn a lot. You should try it more often, just saying :)
I do wonder. I wonder if the same scholars you claim put together the NT wrote the Book of Mormon, because the BOM only speaks negatively about polygamy. And according to the Mormons, it is a more correct book than the Bible. While you are wondering, also wonder why there are so few women mentioned in the BOM. Wonder why the BOM prophets weren't polygamous.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#523 Jan 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I do wonder. I wonder if the same scholars you claim put together the NT wrote the Book of Mormon, because the BOM only speaks negatively about polygamy. And according to the Mormons, it is a more correct book than the Bible. While you are wondering, also wonder why there are so few women mentioned in the BOM. Wonder why the BOM prophets weren't polygamous.
Not possible. The writing style would have been traced back to Roman times with Roman writing influences. As it stands the BOM's writing style can be traced to American writing influences of the 18th century.
Next, polygamy is a complicated issue. Polygamy happens twice in the Bible. Once when God gives his leader/prophet/king their wives and, when a leader/prophet/king takes to his desire wives that weren't given to him by God.
Example: David married a wife of his choice. Very legally binding in the name of the Lord. Than we have David being given King Saul's wives after he dies by the Lord. So we have an example of David marrying as God commanded and, we have an example of God giving a man more than one wife with his approval. But than we have David wanting Bathsheba whom David wasn't suppose to marry and whom wasn't given to him by God. So now we have a second example concerning polygamy of a man taking more than one wife when he wasn't suppose to.
According to the BOM if you read it, you would know that it appears that the Lord sanctioned a single wife for a man, not multiple wives in the act of polygamy. The BOM speaks against polygamy four times I believe. It speaks in negative tones of the wives David and Solomon had that weren't given to them by the Lord.
So according to the Bible and BOM information one gathers, polygamy itself wasn't an evil act. It wasn't wrong either. But if men engaged in polygamy without the direct authorization/approval of the Lord, then it was called an unrighteous/wicked thing to do.
Also, I would gather the same reason few females are mentioned in the BOM is the same reason few are mentioned in the Bible. Women weren't prophets/leaders/kings and blessed to be such as were men in those positions. Some did notable and un-notable things to be mentioned but that was all. Lehi's wife was mentioned several times in the BOM like Sarah was in the Bible.

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#524 Jan 25, 2013
Filthy mormons..

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#525 Jan 25, 2013
Troth for Leogere wrote:
Filthy mormons..
Say what you will about those dreadful morons..sorry, MORMONS, they are as, a class, usually very attractive. Some of the HOTTEST men i have met turned out to be mormons.....once you get them OUT of those Magic Underpants, they are usually WILD. I guess all that crazy cult tight assery of their, ahem, "religion" drives them to REBEL!
qaxyax

Pittsburgh, PA

#526 Feb 23, 2013
youtube.com/watch...
same sex? is a excuse for not wanting a family

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#527 Feb 23, 2013
qaxyax wrote:
youtube.com/watch?v=R_3d8Oteeq w
same sex? is a excuse for not wanting a family
Wow, moron, drop out much from high school? PLEASE tell me that English is your second language. If not, then the Pittsburgh Unified Schools should be closed, IMMEDIATELY.

Why are you pretty ones always so STUPID?

“Truth Seeker ”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#528 Mar 30, 2013
Everyone should take a few minutes to check out this earth shattering revelation on Mormonism:



^^ Youtube video is about 3 minutes

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Real-Churc...

^^Interesting Facebook page
hellion

Tazewell, TN

#529 Apr 5, 2013
disgusted american wrote:
F the Mormons.....wouldn't trust them- as far as I could throw the Nazi Pope
And as for trusting an idiot like you would be just worse than Mormons.Mormon are very good people unlike the idiotic remark a fool as yourself has made.Faggot get a life

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 13 min I WIN I WIN 49,541
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 15 min Vitez 1,080
Gay marriage opponents take lower profile 25 min eJohn 8
Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares fo... (Mar '13) 25 min KiMare 1,558
Ga. teen kicked out after admitting he's gay to... 34 min eJohn 7
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 37 min eJohn 1
Local group hopes to revisit decade-old convers... 46 min eJohn 3
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr Pietro Armando 54,998
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 558
Biggest Gay Lies 8 hr Duran 1,722
California Takes a Stand Against Gay and Trans ... 11 hr Fa-Foxy 54
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 19 hr Frankie Rizzo 410
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••