prove that homosexuality is wrong.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25649 Jan 31, 2013
Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again babbling on and on about how you think God hates the same things I do. Lets get something clear right here right now you blasphemous, small minded, moron, God does not hate you and I did not make him up. Your idiotic comments about religion were at first mildly amusing but now they've gotten flat out ignorant and completely off track from the truth. You claim that I believe in my own God that I make the rules for and everything I want to believe about him is true about him.
Your dead wrong for the millionth time! You target me as an individual to have created the same God that every other christian in the world worships, which doesn't make any sense seeing how christianity has been around since before I, you or anyone else on currently on the planet was even conceived in their mothers womb.
You claim that i'm believing in a God that is completely what I want him to be, WHEN THE REAL FACT IS I BELIEVE EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE! That's right moron I didn't make up any of christianity. I accept what is written in Gods word, something you nor any other blasphemous heathen that dares to crawl this Earth can ever dream of changing! Oh but you try continuously of accusing me of making up my own God and claiming it to be the same God as Christianity.
SHOW ME PROOF IN YOUR POST THAT PROVES ANYTHING I'VE SAID ABOUT MY GOD THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SAME GOD AS CHRISTIANITY. I GUARANTEE YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY PROOF BECAUSE THE SAME GOD I WORSHIP IS THE SAME GOD EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN WORSHIPS.
Turn off your caps lock sweetie, screaming your nonsense at me doesn't help. How can you claim to believe everything in the Bible when you can't even fake having a clue as to what is actually in it? Good luck dear, you are really, really going to need it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25650 Jan 31, 2013
Retardification wrote:
<quoted text>
What does evolution or defects have to do with it? How would either make it morally wrong to get it on with the same sex? Why does it matter?
Where did I say that evolution or defects are morally wrong? I in fact said the opposite just in my previous post!

Now to your questions;

1. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It is outlawed in many countries and was here until recently. Abusing someone or allowing yourself to be abused is morally wrong and against design.

2. Why does it matter? You approve of abuse? You want to equate sex that goes against design with natural sex?

http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25651 Jan 31, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are at the opposite spectrum. A direct defective failure of the primary goal of evolution.
Simple facts you have no defense for, because they are pure truth.
Smile.
Retardification wrote:
<quoted text>
So they can't reproduce, so what? How does that make it wrong to have gay sex?
And if two gays can't reproduce why is there a need to put any constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. And how is marriage constraining any mating behavior to begin with? People mate outside of marriage constantly.
Speaking of evolution and it's goals, it sure has a lot of whacky ways of going about it. It also leads to a lot of dead ends, nature loves to experiment. Did you know a female horse and a donkey getting it on makes a mule? Or that a lion and tiger will sometimes willingly mate given the opportunity? My friend's dog tried to hump her cat last week, I wonder if that's part of evolutions grand plan too. 
But fuck all that, let's talk about same sex animals getting on. Did you know bonobo apes love fucking, like a lot? It's one of their main solutions for conflict resolution among other things. Male on male, female on female, not to mention they even have multiple sex positions like we do. Some animals can't even distinguish between their own species sexes and just hump any of them until it works. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in the animal kingdom.
Somehow I'm getting the sense that nature and evolution couldn't give a fuck. There are plenty of animals reproducing that a few "going against evolution's goals" aren't going to make a lick of difference. Btw, defects and mutations are very much a part of evolution. 
Talk out of your ass some more, it's hilarious. 
I think you need to slow down and think about what I said. Your comprehension is lacking...

Do you know what mating behavior is?

Do you understand what it means,'marriage is a constraint on mating behavior'?

Of course people mate outside of marriage. If children are a result, there is an immediate and devastating impact on the future of that child. That's okay with you?

The constraint of marriage is to require the parents to raise that child together. Nature's only design, and the best circumstance by far for the child.

You are basely talking about same sex sexual behavior (SSSB) among animals. Your point? Did you want to equate humans to those sexual behaviors?

Mutations are the vehicle of evolution. Defects are the dead ends. Which brings me to my point. You can't equate the success of your parents mutation (you) with a defect. You can equate the sterility of a gay union with a defect.

Hence this fact; At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are at the opposite spectrum. A direct defective failure of the primary goal of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'.

I would suggest you look on some sites other than gay one's for unbiased information.

Smile.
Gator

Wrens, GA

#25652 Jan 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Hon, the truth and what you have chosen to mistake for the truth aren't one and the same thing. You should be more worried about your own relationship with God than you should be any one else's, I'm no expert, but you seem to have a lot of work you need to be doing to get it right.
Well you got one thing right. You're definitely no expert. But how could you be, I mean after all you are a pagan and a gay one on top of that.

PS I'm not worried about you, as I've mentioned before I couldn't possibly care less if and when you go to Hell. Your suffering won't affect me in the slightest.
Gator

Wrens, GA

#25653 Jan 31, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Turn off your caps lock sweetie, screaming your nonsense at me doesn't help. How can you claim to believe everything in the Bible when you can't even fake having a clue as to what is actually in it? Good luck dear, you are really, really going to need it.
SHOW ME PROOF IN YOUR POST THAT PROVES ANYTHING I'VE SAID ABOUT MY GOD THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SAME GOD AS CHRISTIANITY.

Just as I expected you didn't answer the question because you couldn't answer the question because everything I've said about God and Jesus's thoughts on homosexuality is completely backed by the word of God.
But don't beat yourself up, your a pagan after all. No one was expecting you to be able to use the Bible in your argument.

Since: Jan 13

Nottingham, UK

#25654 Jan 31, 2013
ok let me break it down to you.
man+man = no more human race
women+women = no more human race
Men+women = offspring.

There is nothing more to it really.
Rosa Winkel

East Maitland, Australia

#25655 Jan 31, 2013
Gaytor wrote:
<quoted text>I'm by far the biggest moron here.
We know, little boy.
Elohimsokie

Ringold, OK

#25656 Jan 31, 2013
Sweety,honey. I'm get'n sick.

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#25657 Jan 31, 2013
PotentialHumanBeing wrote:
ok let me break it down to you.
man+man = no more human race
women+women = no more human race
Men+women = offspring.
There is nothing more to it really.
man+infertile woman = couple without children
sterile man+woman = couple without children
SSM = couple without children

See, there is more to it, really.
Rosa Winkel

Helensvale, Australia

#25658 Jan 31, 2013
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
man+infertile woman = couple without children
sterile man+woman = couple without children
SSM = couple without children
See, there is more to it, really.
But wait there's more
IVF = infertile couple now with children

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#25660 Feb 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that evolution or defects are morally wrong? I in fact said the opposite just in my previous post!
Now to your questions;
1. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It is outlawed in many countries and was here until recently. Abusing someone or allowing yourself to be abused is morally wrong and against design.
2. Why does it matter? You approve of abuse? You want to equate sex that goes against design with natural sex?
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc...
I'm a lesbian, I don't do anal.

1. What makes it demeaning? How is it abuse? Unsafe sex is unsafe, but if both partners are willing and using protection than I don't see how that is harmful, demeaning, or abusive.

2. Once again prove it's abusive. Sex that goes against design? Who's design? Sorry to say it's entirely natural, nature likes getting freaky, it doesn't go against any designs.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#25661 Feb 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are at the opposite spectrum. A direct defective failure of the primary goal of evolution.
Simple facts you have no defense for, because they are pure truth.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I think you need to slow down and think about what I said. Your comprehension is lacking...
Do you know what mating behavior is?
Do you understand what it means,'marriage is a constraint on mating behavior'?
Of course people mate outside of marriage. If children are a result, there is an immediate and devastating impact on the future of that child. That's okay with you?
The constraint of marriage is to require the parents to raise that child together. Nature's only design, and the best circumstance by far for the child.
You are basely talking about same sex sexual behavior (SSSB) among animals. Your point? Did you want to equate humans to those sexual behaviors?
Mutations are the vehicle of evolution. Defects are the dead ends. Which brings me to my point. You can't equate the success of your parents mutation (you) with a defect. You can equate the sterility of a gay union with a defect.
Hence this fact; At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Gay couples are at the opposite spectrum. A direct defective failure of the primary goal of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'.
I would suggest you look on some sites other than gay one's for unbiased information.
Smile.
Humans are animals, it's perfectly equatable. If it's natural for animals to get on with the freaky sex it's not unnatural for humans. And if homosexuals can't produce how are they bringing unwanted children into the world like unmarried heteros? Kid's of gay parent's are far less likely to be accidents. Sounds like pretty good circumstances for the child to me.

Once more, none of the mating or evolution shit matters. If you're entire arguement is it's not what nature intended then too bad, humans have been saying fuck you to nature since we first learned how to make tools. Two same sex couples getting married does no harm to you, that's a fact.

Smile.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#25662 Feb 1, 2013
Gator wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I Jesus? No moron no get back in your closet.
I never claimed you were moron, I said your behavior wasn't very christlike. I'm fairly certain one of the goals of you're peoples religion was following in jesus's footsteps and being as decent a human being you can be. Hey I didn't make the rules, it's your bible. Makes you a hypocrite to use religion to condeme others while rejecting your own teachings.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25663 Feb 1, 2013
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
man+infertile woman = couple without children
sterile man+woman = couple without children
SSM = couple without children
See, there is more to it, really.
Here is a more accurate discription;

A fruit tree bearing fruit.
A fruit tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A nut tree who never bears fruit wanting to be a fruit tree.
A nut tree hanging fruit on it's branches pretending to be a fruit tree.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25664 Feb 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I say that evolution or defects are morally wrong? I in fact said the opposite just in my previous post!
Now to your questions;
1. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It is outlawed in many countries and was here until recently. Abusing someone or allowing yourself to be abused is morally wrong and against design.
2. Why does it matter? You approve of abuse? You want to equate sex that goes against design with natural sex?
http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-conc ...
Rageoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a lesbian, I don't do anal.
1. What makes it demeaning? How is it abuse? Unsafe sex is unsafe, but if both partners are willing and using protection than I don't see how that is harmful, demeaning, or abusive.
2. Once again prove it's abusive. Sex that goes against design? Who's design? Sorry to say it's entirely natural, nature likes getting freaky, it doesn't go against any designs.
1. I always wondered with lesbians, what fits?

2.'Sit on it' expresses a common perception that it is demeaning. Have you ever said 'sit on it'?

3. Did you read the WebMed reference? The vast majority of anal sex partners don't practice 'safe' sex. And, as one doctor said, "Too much lub is almost enough and an anal condom is essential".

4. The anus is not designed (by evolution) for intercourse. No offense, but you show your ignorance of basic human physiology by even taking this track. In fact, it begs the question, how does an intelligent person confuse a septic system with a playground???

5. You are right,'nature' does get 'freaky'. Lots of species practice incest. Do you practice 'natural' incest with your dad? Wait, I'm sorry, your mom? Any siblings?'Nature' has no age limits either. How young were you the first time?

Why would cultures OUTLAW something so 'natural'. Please, help me understand your 'logic'.

Just a heads up,'natural' incest causes retardation among other issues.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#25665 Feb 1, 2013
Rageoholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans are animals, it's perfectly equatable. If it's natural for animals to get on with the freaky sex it's not unnatural for humans. And if homosexuals can't produce how are they bringing unwanted children into the world like unmarried heteros? Kid's of gay parent's are far less likely to be accidents. Sounds like pretty good circumstances for the child to me.
Once more, none of the mating or evolution shit matters. If you're entire arguement is it's not what nature intended then too bad, humans have been saying fuck you to nature since we first learned how to make tools. Two same sex couples getting married does no harm to you, that's a fact.
Smile.
Every social study seriously degrades a child's social health outside their natural parents. This includes foster, step, adoptive and single parents. Simply a fact.

A gay couple always deprives a child of one gender and at least one parent. The latest, largest and most scientific study of seven family types rated lesbian couples (male couples didn't even register), LAST, behind single parents.

You also might want to research the 'Cinderella Effect', regarding your assertion of wanted children and accidents.

Words matter. Labeling arsenic 'sugar' is criminal. Mislabeling the most essential cultural relationship, marriage, is not just denial, it is incredibly foolish.

Out of all relationships, if you want to equate a gay couple with marriage, you must equate that relationship from all others, and establish it's identity with marriage.

-At it's most basic identity, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. I'm sorry, but gay couples are a defective failure of that very identity.

-If you note, there are two basic arguments that still ignore that failure at the most basic essence, but dumb down marriage;

1. Marriage is only a contract.

Hardly. But if that is all you want, get a lawyer.

2. Marriage is two committed people.

That's a friendship. I have that with numerous people, including extended family. Hardly 'marriage'.

Just as distinguishing, the designed reunion of a male and female joins the two most diverse expressions of humanity into a unique oneness. It is equated with the union of Mars and Venus! Gay couples are simply duplication of one gender.

Do you realize that in 8000 years of recorded human history, EVERY SINGLE CULTURE has practiced marriage from start to finish?

Not one single culture has called or accepted gay couples 'marriage' from start to finish. In all that time, even though gay couples appeared extremely briefly and rarely, NEVER did the relationship establish itself and spread.

The current 30 year push to do so is far too short to validate an exception. In fact, the message of history is, it won't last, especially the culture it is practiced in.

Finally, you are making an assertion about 'harm' that cannot be validated either way. However, the likelihood that such a radical change would have 'no effect' is immensely irrational.

Smile.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25666 Feb 1, 2013
Gator wrote:
Well you got one thing right. You're definitely no expert. But how could you be, I mean after all you are a pagan and a gay one on top of that.
And yet, here you are, self-professed, Bible-believing Christian and post after post you have demonstrated that you know less about the Bible its content, context and history than the self-professed non-Christian whom you have accidentally mistaken for being a Pagan.
Gator wrote:
PS I'm not worried about you, as I've mentioned before I couldn't possibly care less if and when you go to Hell. Your suffering won't affect me in the slightest.
Sweetie, if you couldn't care less, explain to me why you have devoted post after post to reminding me that you choose to believe that I am destined for, Hell because you choose to believe that God has as many "issues" with my homosexuality as you do. You can lie to yourself if you want to, but I know that you're getting off on your holier than thou attitude.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25667 Feb 1, 2013
Gator wrote:
SHOW ME PROOF IN YOUR POST THAT PROVES ANYTHING I'VE SAID ABOUT MY GOD THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SAME GOD AS CHRISTIANITY.
Lamb chop, you have but one of MANY versions of the "Christian God". Y'all talk as if there is only one one and only, but if that were the case, God has more distinct personalities than Sybil. The reality is, the one and only comes in more flavors than Baskin-Robbins and some of those just never quite go together very well. Aside from the basics of the faith, Jesus, son of God, crucified, risen, Christians often believe in mutually exclusive messages from the very same God. Your version has issues with my homosexuality, other versions do not.
Gator wrote:
Just as I expected you didn't answer the question because you couldn't answer the question because everything I've said about God and Jesus's thoughts on homosexuality is completely backed by the word of God.
Hon, I thought there was an agreement that Jesus never offered any thoughts himself on the subject of homosexuality but here you are again attributing thoughts to him. You have chosen a version of God that does not approve, others have chosen versions that do. You choose to believe that yours is the version which is right and any version which disagrees with your choice has to be wrong, of course. Actually that's God's call, not His Christians. Didn't you ever read His handbook?
Gator wrote:
But don't beat yourself up, your a pagan after all. No one was expecting you to be able to use the Bible in your argument.
Unlike SOME alleged self-professed Christians, I find the practice of using scripture as a weapon to be rather offensive to it. I'll lead people to answers that they clearly didn't notice when they allegedly read the book themselves and occasionally remind some Christian folk about what Jesus taught about how one can spot a false prophet (hint, hint), but you'll notice that I haven't been pointing out the parts where you have now guaranteed your own eternal damnation.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25668 Feb 1, 2013
Elohimsokie wrote:
Sweety,honey. I'm get'n sick.
"Get'n sick", Gracie? I've seen your posts around here cupcake, you're already there, you just don't care.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25669 Feb 1, 2013
Legal marriage must be kept a heterosexual only status, because growing up heterosexual apparently makes one easily confused and misled about their own sexuality. They need the state to teach them that their heterosexuality is the only legally accepted option for marriage, because otherwise, they will all easily forget that they are heterosexual and/or forget to take responsibility for their own irresponsible breeding habits as heterosexuals, even more so than they've been doing on their own for decades now.

We're here, We're Straight. We're easy to confuse and have a habit of breeding like bears. Protect us from the new gay role model.

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 6 min Peace_Warrior 619,242
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 12 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 92,942
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 15 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 183,688
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 25 min kent 668,054
what are the physical differences between india... (Jun '09) 29 min Das 87
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 35 min Rosa_Winkel 979,535
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Student 46,048
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr AussieBobby 286,113
More from around the web