created by: Travis Morgan | Oct 27, 2007

Top Stories

57,192 votes

Is homosexuality a sin?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#99262 Apr 22, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Look me up, that is not religion for me. I don't put all my trust into a church, I attend church but with an open mind. And just because sometimes I walk away not agreeing, it opens up ideas and thoughts for me. I try my best to follow Jesus and His teachings.
I think you could do better than to follow a cult leader who told his followers that they must hate their families and follow him instead, who condoned slavery, and who taught that one should remain weak in the face of immorality (turning the other cheek).

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Horse Trailer

#99264 Apr 22, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL,
You judge, but you have no judgement.
Smile.
The verdict of the Unjust Judge.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#99265 Apr 22, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You judge, but you have no judgement.
You dismiss our marriages as unreal, but you have no administrative authority to impose your opinion.
KiMare wrote:
It is described as the union of Mars and Venus vs the collision of Uranus and Uranus.
No, it isn't "described" that way, by anyone except yourself. No one else says that. Human beings are not planets. The planets in our solar system never unite nor collide. Our legal and administrative systems do not run on metaphors.
Toby

Portland, OR

#99268 Apr 22, 2014
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Actually toby brought it up. Go back more pages. I did Not bring it up.
You got to be kidding right, religion has constantly been discussed by various posters who oppose of same sex marriages. Overwhelmingly a majority of the time, the origin of their opposition to homosexuality and same sex marriage, is their religion, now you say it's me bringing it up. It's impossible to visit this forum (without) seeing extremely homophobic and bigoted comments posted using religion as the bases for it. You have MUQ who thinks oppression and persecution of homosexuals is fine, and he advocates it in the name of Allah. You have Mandingy who references bible verses in every other hateful post, and incessantly rants on about how God does hate" fags" in the Bible, yet maintains that he is agnostic.

Then you have Adam who quotes Bible verses and then tells everyone that all homosexuals should be eliminated off the face of the Earth, and that would be "Gods wishes". Then you have KiMare who won't admit it, but who quotes Bible verses and then says his opposition to same sex marriage is totally a scientific perspective, yet then post that "God is not mocked". I suspect Kimares opposition isn't really that pseudo-scientific drivel he repeats like a mantra,his homophobia is Bible based also, the same as his sock puppet Mandingo.

I initially started the discussion on religion? LoL
Toby

Portland, OR

#99269 Apr 22, 2014
Can you imagine a member of the spanish inquisition asking- " why are witches, heretics, blasphemers and sodomites always bringing up religion? "

Spanish Inquisitor- Why are they always hating on Christianity?
Toby

Portland, OR

#99270 Apr 22, 2014
I can easily envisage this-

KiMare as a modern day fundamentalist Christian inquisitor torturing a same sex married couple in the name of his religion and junk science, while repeating to them "say after me, same sex couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#99271 Apr 22, 2014
Toby wrote:
I can easily envisage this-
KiMare as a modern day fundamentalist Christian inquisitor torturing a same sex married couple in the name of his religion and junk science, while repeating to them "say after me, same sex couples are a defective failure of mating behavior making ss marriage an oxymoron."
LOL, yeah, I'm the one who's getting violently angry.

I can easily envision you lashing me and saying, "Shut up, shut up, shut up!"

Hey, what do you think about calling ss couples 'maried', with one r because there is only one gender and no procreation?

Good idea, right?

SMile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#99272 Apr 22, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, yeah, I'm the one who's getting violently angry.
I can easily envision you lashing me and saying, "Shut up, shut up, shut up!"
Hey, what do you think about calling ss couples 'maried', with one r because there is only one gender and no procreation?
Good idea, right?
SMile.
DUDETTE!!!

Procreation is still totally irrelevant.

“Free your mind”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#99273 Apr 22, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, yeah, I'm the one who's getting violently angry.
I can easily envision you lashing me and saying, "Shut up, shut up, shut up!"
Hey, what do you think about calling ss couples 'maried', with one r because there is only one gender and no procreation?
Good idea, right?
SMile.
Weren't you the one throwing the Biblical punches a few pages back? You said you don't hold them back...

Changing a word doesn't change the institution itself. Your proposal is almost the silliest I've ever seen on Topix, and that's saying quite a lot!...none of it good. LOL

It's like the difference between God and god. Like letters make a bit of difference at all. Language itself is inefficient and insufficient to communicate fully, always has been and even with our expanded American English with several different words for one thing, it is still inadequate. If memory serves, it was Jaques Lacan who put forth the idea further back in the 1950s-60s....but I'll allow you to correct me if I'm wrong on that. This effect is largely to do with the fact some people don't pay attention well and/or project their own preconceptions onto the words of others, but also because language as an evolving human construct is fallible in regards to expressing immaterial things, esp emotions. It's best in debates to set emotion aside and go only with facts.

You would do better to remember the limitations of language when reading your 2500 year old verses, or anything really. Discernment is a huge key to comprehension. But without proper context from the Judaic renderings of the Tanahk, or OT as you may condescendingly call it, you have no understanding, thus you have no ability to discern what you are reading at all, not in the context it was originally meant, nor in the context of expanded thought on the texts by ancient to more recent rabbis, theologians and philosophers.

How deeply have you studied the Judaic texts? The debates on the three recognized forms of creationism? Maimonides? Talmud? Anything at all? Or can you only quote and guess it means what you want it to mean? What you NEED it to mean to justify your own feelings while you throw away all rational thought?

“Free your mind”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#99274 Apr 22, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
DUDETTE!!!
Procreation is still totally irrelevant.
It's a woman? I'd have never guessed. Maybe it's some form of ultra-feminism or something that's been incorporated into her brand of Christianity...I don't know.

I doubt it though, since she doesn't seem to have a clue what asexual reproduction is though claims to know all kinds of "scientific stuff." Go figure...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#99275 Apr 23, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
He repeats the same pseudo-scientific drivel like it is a mantra, verbatim day after day. If he says it enough one day he might even begin to believe it.
If he says it enough one day he might cure his hairy palms too.

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Horse Trailer

#99276 Apr 23, 2014
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
You got to be kidding right, religion has constantly been discussed by various posters who oppose of same sex marriages. Overwhelmingly a majority of the time, the origin of their opposition to homosexuality and same sex marriage, is their religion, now you say it's me bringing it up. It's impossible to visit this forum (without) seeing extremely homophobic and bigoted comments posted using religion as the bases for it. You have MUQ who thinks oppression and persecution of homosexuals is fine, and he advocates it in the name of Allah. You have Mandingy who references bible verses in every other hateful post, and incessantly rants on about how God does hate" fags" in the Bible, yet maintains that he is agnostic.
Then you have Adam who quotes Bible verses and then tells everyone that all homosexuals should be eliminated off the face of the Earth, and that would be "Gods wishes". Then you have KiMare who won't admit it, but who quotes Bible verses and then says his opposition to same sex marriage is totally a scientific perspective, yet then post that "God is not mocked". I suspect Kimares opposition isn't really that pseudo-scientific drivel he repeats like a mantra,his homophobia is Bible based also, the same as his sock puppet Mandingo.
I initially started the discussion on religion? LoL
That's the main reason for it all. Their religion and a couple of towns called Sodom and Gomorrah, which may or may not have existed, but certainly continue to throw a long shadow.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#99277 Apr 23, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Eternal damnation is one of the concepts which completely undermines this belief system. It's WAY too far over the top. Why would someone need to be punished FOREVER? And with such torturous suffering? And for such trivial crimes as disbelief in magic, or finding happiness with another consenting adult? How is that the action of a "loving" God? It's such an obvious scare tactic.
Yup. It's the carrot and the stick.

“Religion kills”

Since: Jun 13

Horse Trailer

#99278 Apr 23, 2014
Toby wrote:
Can you imagine a member of the spanish inquisition asking- " why are witches, heretics, blasphemers and sodomites always bringing up religion? "
Spanish Inquisitor- Why are they always hating on Christianity?
Yes, because certain of our posters missed their calling as Holy Inquisitors.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#99279 Apr 23, 2014
Some1 Else wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a woman? I'd have never guessed. Maybe it's some form of ultra-feminism or something that's been incorporated into her brand of Christianity...I don't know.
I doubt it though, since she doesn't seem to have a clue what asexual reproduction is though claims to know all kinds of "scientific stuff." Go figure...
Kimare claims to be a man who absorbed his lesbian female twin while in the womb. His 'sexual chimera' claim. Yet he refuses to explain how it was determined that his female twin was in fact a lesbian even before she was born.

For over a year he also claimed he had letters from 3 psychiatrists attesting to his sanity and when asked why such a thing was necessary claimed he needed them for his professional career. Hew recently admitted that was a lie.

So is he a sexual chimera? Is he really married? Did he actually get some woman to bear his child?

Who knows.

In short Kimare is......well....Kimare.

We can only look on him with pity.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#99280 Apr 23, 2014
Some1 Else wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't you the one throwing the Biblical punches a few pages back? You said you don't hold them back...
Changing a word doesn't change the institution itself. Your proposal is almost the silliest I've ever seen on Topix, and that's saying quite a lot!...none of it good. LOL
It's like the difference between God and god. Like letters make a bit of difference at all. Language itself is inefficient and insufficient to communicate fully, always has been and even with our expanded American English with several different words for one thing, it is still inadequate. If memory serves, it was Jaques Lacan who put forth the idea further back in the 1950s-60s....but I'll allow you to correct me if I'm wrong on that. This effect is largely to do with the fact some people don't pay attention well and/or project their own preconceptions onto the words of others, but also because language as an evolving human construct is fallible in regards to expressing immaterial things, esp emotions. It's best in debates to set emotion aside and go only with facts.
You would do better to remember the limitations of language when reading your 2500 year old verses, or anything really. Discernment is a huge key to comprehension. But without proper context from the Judaic renderings of the Tanahk, or OT as you may condescendingly call it, you have no understanding, thus you have no ability to discern what you are reading at all, not in the context it was originally meant, nor in the context of expanded thought on the texts by ancient to more recent rabbis, theologians and philosophers.
How deeply have you studied the Judaic texts? The debates on the three recognized forms of creationism? Maimonides? Talmud? Anything at all? Or can you only quote and guess it means what you want it to mean? What you NEED it to mean to justify your own feelings while you throw away all rational thought?
well said

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#99281 Apr 23, 2014
Some1 Else wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't you the one throwing the Biblical punches a few pages back? You said you don't hold them back...
Changing a word doesn't change the institution itself. Your proposal is almost the silliest I've ever seen on Topix, and that's saying quite a lot!...none of it good. LOL
It's like the difference between God and god. Like letters make a bit of difference at all. Language itself is inefficient and insufficient to communicate fully, always has been and even with our expanded American English with several different words for one thing, it is still inadequate. If memory serves, it was Jaques Lacan who put forth the idea further back in the 1950s-60s....but I'll allow you to correct me if I'm wrong on that. This effect is largely to do with the fact some people don't pay attention well and/or project their own preconceptions onto the words of others, but also because language as an evolving human construct is fallible in regards to expressing immaterial things, esp emotions. It's best in debates to set emotion aside and go only with facts.
You would do better to remember the limitations of language when reading your 2500 year old verses, or anything really. Discernment is a huge key to comprehension. But without proper context from the Judaic renderings of the Tanahk, or OT as you may condescendingly call it, you have no understanding, thus you have no ability to discern what you are reading at all, not in the context it was originally meant, nor in the context of expanded thought on the texts by ancient to more recent rabbis, theologians and philosophers.
How deeply have you studied the Judaic texts? The debates on the three recognized forms of creationism? Maimonides? Talmud? Anything at all? Or can you only quote and guess it means what you want it to mean? What you NEED it to mean to justify your own feelings while you throw away all rational thought?
Sweetie,

Words describe reality.

Changing one letter, changes the word.

If ss couples are desperate to imitate functioning mating behavior, I'm simply being sensitive by conceding a word that looks kind of like marriage for a couple who doesn't.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#99282 Apr 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetie,
Words describe reality.
Changing one letter, changes the word.
If ss couples are desperate to imitate functioning mating behavior, I'm simply being sensitive by conceding a word that looks kind of like marriage for a couple who doesn't.
Smile.
Why do you hold yourself up as the ideal of something we'd like to imitate? We're not imitating anything, which is why your argument is totally "etarded".

See, dropping an "r" doesn't change the meaning, or the reality.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#99283 Apr 23, 2014
Some1 Else wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a woman? I'd have never guessed. Maybe it's some form of ultra-feminism or something that's been incorporated into her brand of Christianity...I don't know.
I doubt it though, since she doesn't seem to have a clue what asexual reproduction is though claims to know all kinds of "scientific stuff." Go figure...
It's a non-specific gender person. lol

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#99284 Apr 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetie,
Words describe reality.
Changing one letter, changes the word.
If ss couples are desperate to imitate functioning mating behavior, I'm simply being sensitive by conceding a word that looks kind of like marriage for a couple who doesn't.
Smile.
Yes we already know you have a need to build your ego at other people's expense.

You opinion of mating behavior is totally irrelevant.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min Pegasus 259,137
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Buck Crick 738,602
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 8 min JuDeLeTe15mins 118,211
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 14 min Truth 542,038
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min CunningLinguist 227,376
I want to watch my wife flirt and get picked up... (Aug '12) 29 min Bennjy 43
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 31 min Lyndi 173,638
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Epiphany2 600,985
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••