Homosexuality and Religion (Jesus Christ, agnostic, LDS, bible, God)

[painted wolf]

Legal rights allows parades thru down town SF with guys holding each others winkies.

Wow... this is one of the inane, bigoted and sad things I think I've heard in a very long time.

sadly I'm sure it will be topped soon.

wa:do

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

Wow... this is one of the inane, bigoted and sad things I think I've heard in a very long time.

sadly I'm sure it will be topped soon.

wa:do

no, you have the crown......

just because you suggest revealing what does occur in open public, is bigotry, seems maybe I should post a few pictures of the 'rights' that are often abused, just to make a point (their march for equal rights)

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by nawab

Let me make one thing very clear,if you think that i would like you to convert thats why i am presenting to you your wrong. I just mentioned about Islam in relation to Homosexuality. Not propogation. I do not speak for all Muslims. I dont have such a big heart to care about every human being and inviting them to the truth. If you want to beleive, than you beleive if not face the consequences later. Why do i have to care.

Of course, if it were true, you wouldn't have to try to frighten people into believing it, would you?

it is not my duty to present the truth but rather your duty to learn the truth. just like when your thiristy you go to the well, the well does not come to you.

Right back at you, brother. What do you think is a good way to do that?

How about a young couple can they have children or not. How about two dead gays can they make out. by giving examples of old people you have only proved your own standard of knowledge to me.

Sorry, this reads like gibberish. Could you try to rephrase it for me? Thanks.

Do you believe that people should only be allowed to have sex if it may lead to reproduction or not?

[painted wolf]

Unless "winkies" is some sort of wierd code word for "hands" I hardly think I missed the bigotry.

If it is, I hardly see the harm in holding hands in public. (Outside of a few oppressive nations where holding hands in public will get you fined and/or whipped.)

wa:do

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

This word "only' is rubbish. And the tone whether 'bordering offensive' is also rubbish. Anything to do with sex in a religious forum is rubbish.

Even when every person ever born on earth came from sex, that is not what this is about. It's about integrity over and above 'legal rights'.

Legal rights allows parades thru down town SF with guys holding each others winkies.

Freedom of choice is to each their own but homosexuality is not normal. From nature to reality; real truths are not based on a clic. Clics just create a louder voice than a single. And since most every piece of material information this person represents is from this persons own homework, then all you have to work with is me.

And us three are the only clic sitting on this forum debating a stupid issue, with a darth vader and a religion nut that likes girls on trampolines.

Hey what ever floats your boat.

See even you have an opinion.

I think people who think their sexual preferences should be in open public is rude.

Anyone could imagine as in will and grace, jack still has no idea what girl do.

So in some other culture maybe beastiality is normal.

Now that would usually call for a retalitory comment but why? Never said a word about my idea of the action. You presume you have it all figured out, almost like trying to catagorize or shelf the opinion.



and what is you moral basis? Religion, political. theist, or let me guess clicish?

This one comes from reality, such that to combine atom "A" with atom 'B" in a physical constuct of pure truth. From the physics of life, to consciousness and not many religious in between that have not been observed. If compassion is the rule then I'm your huckleberry but premise one is honesty, otherwise not interested in the debate as we could be here for months at this rate. Neither of you admits at least the first real fact. Life would not exist if same sex was 'normal.'

it's a pass time enjoyment in the case of the human experience.... and over 90% of the procreation of the like players comes from children being exposed or inflicted adversely in a relationship....... do the homework... when you say hey the stat is incorrect then back it up...

the only objective that is important is that when the case of compassionate observance is to be placed, the majority is the rule, not the needs of a few when the whole line of the debate is enjoyment.

would you care to have another go at writing this post, perhaps try making an actually coherent argument? that would be swell

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

What a subject to be debating.

No one is forcing you.

This word "only' is rubbish. And the tone whether 'bordering offensive' is also rubbish. Anything to do with sex in a religious forum is rubbish.

Then why are you talking about it?

Even when every person ever born on earth came from sex, that is not what this is about. It's about integrity over and above 'legal rights'.

Yes, integrity is important. That's why gay people should be honest to themselves and others.

Legal rights allows parades thru down town SF with guys holding each others winkies.

Wow, this hardly bears replying to, but is one of the most juvenile, inaccurate, and generally stupid contributions I've seen on this forum in a long time. No, they don't.

Freedom of choice is to each their own but homosexuality is not normal.

Define "normal."

Hey what ever floats your boat.

Cool. Why are you arguing then?

I think people who think their sexual preferences should be in open public is rude.

Does this apply equally to heterosexuals, or is it only rude if homosexuals do it? For example, will you get married in private, or have a public ceremony?

Anyone could imagine as in will and grace, jack still has no idea what girl do.

So in some other culture maybe beastiality is normal.

Now that would usually call for a retalitory comment but why? Never said a word about my idea of the action. You presume you have it all figured out, almost like trying to catagorize or shelf the opinion.

We're all having a hard time understanding you. Maybe if you took a little more time in writing your posts?

and what is you moral basis? Religion, political. theist, or let me guess clicish?

That would be a long story. Basically, none of the above. Mine would best be characterized as empirical.

This one comes from reality, such that to combine atom "A" with atom 'B" in a physical constuct of pure truth. From the physics of life, to consciousness and not many religious in between that have not been observed. If compassion is the rule then I'm your huckleberry but premise one is honesty, otherwise not interested in the debate as we could be here for months at this rate. Neither of you admits at least the first real fact. Life would not exist if same sex was 'normal.'

I'm sorry I have no idea what you're driving at. And what is a huckleberry?

it's a pass time enjoyment in the case of the human experience.... and over 90% of the procreation of the like players comes from children being exposed or inflicted adversely in a relationship....... do the homework... when you say hey the stat is incorrect then back it up...

Again, we don't understand what you're saying. If you want us to, you need to try again.

the only objective that is important is that when the case of compassionate observance is to be placed, the majority is the rule, not the needs of a few when the whole line of the debate is enjoyment.

Are you saying that everyone needs to comply with the majority? Would this include say Muslims in America? Should they give up their religion to make the non-Muslims happy?

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Then why are you talking about it?

'empirical' responsibility

Yes, integrity is important. That's why gay people should be honest to themselves and others.

But compassion means 'others' first, not the self.

Wow, this hardly bears replying to, but is one of the most juvenile, inaccurate, and generally stupid contributions I've seen on this forum in a long time. No, they don't.

Saw with my own eyes. Just like the words represent truth, no fibs when it comes to reality.

Define "normal."

Nature!

Does this apply equally to heterosexuals, or is it only rude if homosexuals do it? For example, will you get married in private, or have a public ceremony?

Did you get an invitation? Cuz to you, it was private!

We're all having a hard time understanding you. Maybe if you took a little more time in writing your posts?
That would be a long story. Basically, none of the above. Mine would best be characterized as empirical.

Who's the last word? You? Sorry but the nature of existence only works one way; that is empirical!

Are you saying that everyone needs to comply with the majority? Would this include say Muslims in America? Should they give up their religion to make the non-Muslims happy?

Yes! IN both! The total is what is to be kept as priority and yes, as the revealing unfolds then all religions will be but historical reference.

And if the few wish to play in with each other just for their own needs, then that is their choice, but not to brandish their desires in open public or ever think that nature offers condolences. Meaning perfection is not the requisite but that to impose upon others just because they (the individual) think they have rights, they can affect others in such an adverse way.

It is not that we the poeple do not care about the confusions of the few but that the confusion of the developing minds of the majority is the priority.

kind of common sense