Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality

[uscitizen]

For fish to be considered clean to eat they must have fins and scales. It is in Leviticus. I can't quote chapter and verse though.
the same book that says hosexuality is a sin as well.
And a sin is a sin.

According to the Catholics, there are "mortal" sins and "venial" sins. The former being one that makes you go to hell and the later being one you can be forgiven for, maybe serve time in purgatory?

Is that like a vomitorium?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Please do keep up! Lewdness, perversity and immoral sex were included among other sins that Yeshua mentioned. If any of the above can be included in that, then they are sins. Please focus! Homosexual acts are "sinful", it does not matter that "other" people are sinning. It does not matter that those sins are comparable. What matters is: those other people are not declaring "their sins" as NOT SINFUL; they do not have the authority to do so. Just as homosexual activists have no spiritual authority to declare the sins they are committing NOT SINFUL.
If you want to find the Lord, you must accept that you are a sinner, and that you can only improve (sin less) with grace from the Holy Spirit. By homosexual activists telling people that what they are doing is NOT SINFUL, is setting them up for eternal punishment, compared to them sinning and repenting, improving with the help of the Lord. The Lord is just. We will all be punished for our sins, appropriately (hopefully with lots of mercy). Why encourage a whole segment of the population to sin and then to continue to sin when you know they will face punishment for their actions?

Do try to stay on topic.

Right so why does it seem based on how you post at least, that homosexuals having homosexual sex is worse than straights performing sodomy (oral and anal sex)?

Or straights who remarry? When there's no doubt by the scripture that's far worse than anything having to do with homosexuality.

You understand if you go exactly by what the Bible says word for word, that there's FAR more straights in the world openly sinning through sex than gays right? All the pre-marital straight sex, all the oral sex by married straight couples, all the remarrying and having sex with 2nd/3rd/4th/11th wives.

However, despite the obvious # of straights sinning far outnumbering the # of gays sinning through sexual acts, you hear more griping and whining from the self-righteous fundamental types at a rate of about 1000 to 1 in terms of gays to straights. Besides obvious prejudice and hatred, what else could be the rationalization?

Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins. They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins. Everyone sins. One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars. Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"? Do you need a pacifier?

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

 

[Dragon]

I said that an adulterer is a deceiver. I did not mention what the motivation "was".

I did, though, and you were responding to what I said.

How is breaking 3 of the 10 Commandments, trivial or nonconsequential?

Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself: these are all of the Law and the Prophets. Implied: Don't get hung up on what the text says by, for example, counting how many Commandments are violated.

If someone cheats on his/her partner, that may or may not be a serious problem depending on the rules of their relationship and how seriously the partner takes it. It is in any case in a completely different category than, say, the CEO of a major bank hiring lobbyists to provide bribes to legislators to make sure the law enables the bank to siphon vast amounts of other people's money into its own coffers. Or a televangelist using his charisma to get poor people to donate money they desperately need, to him, who clearly doesn't. Or a company dumping its well-paid workforce to hire dirt-cheap labor in a third-world country with an oppressive government that stomps all over workers' rights.

It's not that sexual sins are not wrong (although in many cases, e.g. premarital sex by unmarried people, I do think things traditional Christianity calls wrong aren't wrong), it's just a matter of perspective. Even when they're wrong, they're not horribly wrong, compared to sins that people like you tend to ignore.

And that's my point here. Jesus saw it more or less the way I do. He brushed off adultery with a sophistry and a "neither do I accuse you," but drove the money changers from the temple with a whip. He was lax about enforcing the Sabbath, and when some i-dotter called him on it, responded that the Law was made for man, not vice-versa. He hung out with the despised -- the poor, prostitutes, even the loathed tax collectors -- and castigated the well-regarded for thinking they were better than these people. He had no respect at all for wealth or status, and only contempt for ostentatious holiness. And he obviously didn't make a big deal about sins arising from love, or from carnal desire, focusing his big guns on those arising from greed and desire for power.

If you want to be like Jesus, go and do likewise.

 

[logical4u]

Right so why does it seem based on how you post at least, that homosexuals having homosexual sex is worse than straights performing sodomy (oral and anal sex)?

Or straights who remarry? When there's no doubt by the scripture that's far worse than anything having to do with homosexuality.

You understand if you go exactly by what the Bible says word for word, that there's FAR more straights in the world openly sinning through sex than gays right? All the pre-marital straight sex, all the oral sex by married straight couples, all the remarrying and having sex with 2nd/3rd/4th/11th wives.

However, despite the obvious # of straights sinning far outnumbering the # of gays sinning through sexual acts, you hear more griping and whining from the self-righteous fundamental types at a rate of about 1000 to 1 in terms of gays to straights. Besides obvious prejudice and hatred, what else could be the rationalization?

Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins. They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins. Everyone sins. One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars. Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"? Do you need a pacifier?

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You didn't answer the questions.

BTW, there are a lot of people that have issues with our tax dollars subsidising immoral sex.

 

[logical4u]

I said that an adulterer is a deceiver. I did not mention what the motivation "was".

I did, though, and you were responding to what I said.

How is breaking 3 of the 10 Commandments, trivial or nonconsequential?

Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself: these are all of the Law and the Prophets. Implied: Don't get hung up on what the text says by, for example, counting how many Commandments are violated.

If someone cheats on his/her partner, that may or may not be a serious problem depending on the rules of their relationship and how seriously the partner takes it. It is in any case in a completely different category than, say, the CEO of a major bank hiring lobbyists to provide bribes to legislators to make sure the law enables the bank to siphon vast amounts of other people's money into its own coffers. Or a televangelist using his charisma to get poor people to donate money they desperately need, to him, who clearly doesn't. Or a company dumping its well-paid workforce to hire dirt-cheap labor in a third-world country with an oppressive government that stomps all over workers' rights.

It's not that sexual sins are not wrong (although in many cases, e.g. premarital sex by unmarried people, I do think things traditional Christianity calls wrong aren't wrong), it's just a matter of perspective. Even when they're wrong, they're not horribly wrong, compared to sins that people like you tend to ignore.

And that's my point here. Jesus saw it more or less the way I do. He brushed off adultery with a sophistry and a "neither do I accuse you," but drove the money changers from the temple with a whip. He was lax about enforcing the Sabbath, and when some i-dotter called him on it, responded that the Law was made for man, not vice-versa. He hung out with the despised -- the poor, prostitutes, even the loathed tax collectors -- and castigated the well-regarded for thinking they were better than these people. He had no respect at all for wealth or status, and only contempt for ostentatious holiness. And he obviously didn't make a big deal about sins arising from love, or from carnal desire, focusing his big guns on those arising from greed and desire for power.

If you want to be like Jesus, go and do likewise.

For someone that claims not to "believe" the Bible, you sure do use it to your advantage.

If you do not hold a person accountable for "nonconsequential" actions, it will be harder to hold them accountable for more serious crimes (if a child is killing little animals and you say nothing, the child's crimes will grow with the child) (if children that are sport stars are allowed to cheat in classrooms, what makes you think they will be honorable on the playing field or in life?)

Man asked for the "Laws". They begged Moses to petition the Lord for rules that they could live by without angering the Lord. After those original "laws", men started pushing the envelope, and "man" had to expand, stretch, clarify the laws to keep the peace (these are the "laws" that Yeshua is referring to when He talks of man's laws).

You did not answer the question: How can you love your neighbor when you are coveting a person that belongs to their family for less than honorable intentions? How can you dishonor a person that you used for sexual gratification and claim that you "love your neighbor" and have done right by them? How can you claim that adultery is not sinful (did you not break your word, your vow? Is that not deceit?)?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins. They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins. Everyone sins. One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars. Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"? Do you need a pacifier?

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You didn't answer the questions.

BTW, there are a lot of people that have issues with our tax dollars subsidising immoral sex.

I don't answer loaded questions. There should be no such thing as straight marriage and gay marriage, it should all just be called marriage.

I have no idea where you're going with your prostitute analogy. Frankly I don't want to know.

But I torched all your silly post by pointing out that according to what the Bible says is sinful sex, that yes sex ed does teach about sinful sex and yes taxpayer dollars are already used for that.

It just goes along with your hypocritical stance you've had this whole time, straights having sex the bible calls sinful=no problem, gays having sex the bible calls sinful=a travesty.

 

[Newby]

Right so why does it seem based on how you post at least, that homosexuals having homosexual sex is worse than straights performing sodomy (oral and anal sex)?

Or straights who remarry? When there's no doubt by the scripture that's far worse than anything having to do with homosexuality.

You understand if you go exactly by what the Bible says word for word, that there's FAR more straights in the world openly sinning through sex than gays right? All the pre-marital straight sex, all the oral sex by married straight couples, all the remarrying and having sex with 2nd/3rd/4th/11th wives.

However, despite the obvious # of straights sinning far outnumbering the # of gays sinning through sexual acts, you hear more griping and whining from the self-righteous fundamental types at a rate of about 1000 to 1 in terms of gays to straights. Besides obvious prejudice and hatred, what else could be the rationalization?

Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins. They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins. Everyone sins. One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars. Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"? Do you need a pacifier?

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact. And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age. The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins. They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins. Everyone sins. One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars. Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"? Do you need a pacifier?

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact. And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age. The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.

Sex outside of marriage is just going to become more prevalent with ppl getting married at older ages. 40-50 years ago everyone got married between 17-21 more or less, now everyone is in college until 22-26 and you don't have time to devote to a wife/husband and kids. Also a lot of people who are 22-26 have $30,000-$150,000 in college debt, certainly a burden that will keep people from wanting to have kids.

I'm more with the mainstream, premarital sex and sex education are good things. Adultery is awful I agree, and I have zero issue with 2 consenting gay ppl having a sex life and a marriage. It affects no one else, so no one else should an issue with it, however as we see in society that's not the case.

Luckily though, the anti-gay and anti-gay marriage voice has become the voice of the minority and a continuingly dwindling minority.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact. And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age. The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.

Several things that YOU'RE forgetting Newby......

First, there were people who helped start this country who were kicked out of Britian for being too puritanical.

Second, you're also forgetting the fact that several things that you say were unacceptable to AMERICAN SOCIETY (you forget that the US isn't the only culture in the world), WERE acceptable to other societies and belief systems. Check Hindu sometime.

 

[Gadawg73]

Little boy, the only difference between the sins is that one group says it is NOT sinful, while the other group knows that it is and that they are committing sins. They are not trying to get the whole country to SUPPORT their sins. Everyone sins. One tiny part of the population wants their "sins" declared legitimate, and then wants the majority Christian population to support them with tax dollars. Is that clear enough?
Do couples living together demand the "benefits" of being married?
Do prostitutes demand that tax dollars be used to legitimize their lifestyle?
Are their classes to teach that other forms of immoral sex is okay (say like: one of my dads is a kangeroo), or that if you think sex with inanimate objects is strange, you should try it before you judge, in schools to little children?
Is your arguement really, really down to: "they did it too!"? Do you need a pacifier?

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact. And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age. The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.

Premarital sex was all the norm in the roaring 20s and before the Victorian age.
What is wrong with teaching sex ed in school?
Homosexual marriage is a non issue. It affects no one. Waste of time.

 

[Dragon]

For someone that claims not to "believe" the Bible, you sure do use it to your advantage.

I don't "believe in the Bible" the way many Christians do, but neither do I believe every word in it is false (which would be just as unlikely as every word in it being true). I don't know for sure that the Gospel accounts are accurate as to what Jesus really taught and did and believed, but I am familiar with what they say, and happen to admire Jesus as he is described. So the story is worth referring to, not least as proof that Christians often depart radically from his teachings while thinking they are conforming to them.

If you do not hold a person accountable for "nonconsequential" actions, it will be harder to hold them accountable for more serious crimes

As a practical matter, the law does not operate that way. I've jay-walked many times in full view of police officers without getting a ticket, but that doesn't lead me to expect the law to be lax if I rob a store at gunpoint. (It does lead me to think I can jay-walk with impunity, though.)

But what really gets me is that so many Christians do what the Pharisees did: focus on the inconsequential sins and let the truly bad ones go by, or even honor those who commit them.

Man asked for the "Laws". They begged Moses to petition the Lord for rules that they could live by without angering the Lord. After those original "laws", men started pushing the envelope, and "man" had to expand, stretch, clarify the laws to keep the peace (these are the "laws" that Yeshua is referring to when He talks of man's laws).

The law he was specifically referring to at the time was one of the Ten Commandments: Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. So, no.

You did not answer the question: How can you love your neighbor when you are coveting a person that belongs to their family for less than honorable intentions?

I did answer the question, you just didn't like my answer. I reserve the right, of course, to rephrase any question when it is presented in misleading terms as you have done here.

 

[logical4u]

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You didn't answer the questions.

BTW, there are a lot of people that have issues with our tax dollars subsidising immoral sex.

I don't answer loaded questions. There should be no such thing as straight marriage and gay marriage, it should all just be called marriage.

I have no idea where you're going with your prostitute analogy. Frankly I don't want to know.

But I torched all your silly post by pointing out that according to what the Bible says is sinful sex, that yes sex ed does teach about sinful sex and yes taxpayer dollars are already used for that.

It just goes along with your hypocritical stance you've had this whole time, straights having sex the bible calls sinful=no problem, gays having sex the bible calls sinful=a travesty.

Hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your "good" opinion.
I called you a "little boy" because, I am having to repeat statements that you simply ignore: like: all immoral sex is sinful, it is only the homosexual activists that are claiming what they are doing is not sinful. The same way you have to explain to a four year old, over and over, when it comes to them not doing what they want to do, I have to explain that homosexual acts are sinful. The prostitute analogy: homosexual activists are teaching their preference of sex in schools, the prostitutes are not (kind of flames your: heterosexual sins are okay theory).
I know you "get it" because then, you want to focus on "heterosexual sins". That is not what this thread is about. If you want to start a thread on that topic, go for it. You will find that I have been consistant when it comes to "sin".
You, too, are consistant: if it is sin, then "do it"! And that applies across the board for immoral sex. When people start doing those other sins (theft/covet, murder/abortion), then you want to draw lines. If you want to throw the hypocrit label around, you might try the person in the mirror, first.

 

[logical4u]

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact. And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age. The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.

Sex outside of marriage is just going to become more prevalent with ppl getting married at older ages. 40-50 years ago everyone got married between 17-21 more or less, now everyone is in college until 22-26 and you don't have time to devote to a wife/husband and kids. Also a lot of people who are 22-26 have $30,000-$150,000 in college debt, certainly a burden that will keep people from wanting to have kids.

I'm more with the mainstream, premarital sex and sex education are good things. Adultery is awful I agree, and I have zero issue with 2 consenting gay ppl having a sex life and a marriage. It affects no one else, so no one else should an issue with it, however as we see in society that's not the case.

Luckily though, the anti-gay and anti-gay marriage voice has become the voice of the minority and a continuingly dwindling minority.

Why is it, whenever homosexual preferential benefits are put on the ballot, the vote is mostly against the homosexual additional rights?

 

[logical4u]

Little boy lol, you can always tell when someone is defeated by what they stoop to saying in their posts.

I never hear unmarried straight christians say them having sex is sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for sex before marriage to be illegal.

I never hear married straight christians say aspects of their sex lives are sinful. I also don't hear ppl clamoring for gov't to regulate what type of sex ppl should have.

I never hear straight christian couples getting married for the 2nd/3rd/etc time say the act of them getting remarried is breaking one of the 10 commandments. Churches don't even think that or they wouldn't perform the marriages, I can't see a priest/preacher openly allowing one of the 10 commandments to be broken inside church walls. I also don't hear ppl calling for remarriage to be illegal.

In every sex ed class you go to sex before marriage is just assumed, so in your mind yes taxpayer dollars are being used towards "sinful" sex. However you of course don't care about that, only "sinful" gay sex. Sinful straight sex, as has been throughout your entire hypocritical stance in this thread, is a-ok.

So every stupid argument you've made to rationalize your hate for gays, and downplay the biblical sins of straight people, goes right out the window with the application of common sense.

You made very good points, Drock, but you're leaving out one tiny little fact. And that is that about 40 to 50 years ago all of the things that you listed were not acceptable in society, sex outside of marriage, adultery, premarital sex, sex education taught in schools, etc... But, the counter culture has fought so hard over the last 40 to 50 years to erradicate any of those morals from our society that they have now all become 'acceptable' in today's age. The same is being done with homosexual sex and marriage, and I'm sure in another 20 years, it will also be considered 'acceptable' by mainstream society. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of it is good or right.

Premarital sex was all the norm in the roaring 20s and before the Victorian age.
What is wrong with teaching sex ed in school?
Homosexual marriage is a non issue. It affects no one. Waste of time.

I think that "premarital sex" has proven itself, repeatedly, to be costly and disasterous for societies.
Nothing is wrong with teaching sex ed in school. Stick to the facts: this is what happens, when you participate in this activity/ you are sharing germs with every other person your partner has been with/if you have intercourse, there is a good possibility you will have a child/more than one out of three people are or have been infected with sexually transmitted diseases/you can reduce you risk of catching sexually transmitted diseases by choosing one partner (preferably that has also chosen one partner, only), and sticking with that partner.
Homosexual faux marriage works pretty much like any other type of immoral sex: it hurts societies over time (it corrupts people).

 

[SmarterThanHick]

how does it corrupt people? what part of them is corrupted? and how does a corrupted person then pass on that corruption to the rest of society? Can you be corrupted for living to close to the gays? Do you catch the gay virus?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

how does it corrupt people? what part of them is corrupted? and how does a corrupted person then pass on that corruption to the rest of society? Can you be corrupted for living to close to the gays? Do you catch the gay virus?

1. The problem with sin, you don't always sense it.
2. And the further away from GOD you are, the less you sense it.
3. When Homos sin with their lewd actions, they sin against mankind, and GOD, its a shame, when homo enablers stand up for this obvious sin, they themselves become a partaker in their sins.
4. Kinda like when a pedophile uses children in an evil and sinful way, and then other people who watch what he did on the internet, the man watching on the internet isn't actually doing the acts, but he is enjoying it just as much, so yes, like he is corrupted, for watching the video, just like when people who are not homos defend homos, they too are just as corrupted as the homos.
5. If you watch videos of children being abused by a pedophile on the internet or anywhere else, you can go to jail for it, seems this should apply to the Homo defenders as well.
6. Then I think another example of sin being used to corrupt others, is how children get shot up with too many vaccines, at too young of an age, this corrupts the children, and also corrupts those who instigate this sin, they both are being corrupted, one is innocent, the other has no excuse, both suffer in the end, and sin is multiplied, and more shame is discovered.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[SmarterThanHick]

so you're saying you can sense the gays because you're closer to God? That's interesting that you feel that it is your religion that gives you the innate ability to SENSE a gay man. Be honest now: do you sense gays with your penis?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

so you're saying you can sense the gays because you're closer to God? That's interesting that you feel that it is your religion that gives you the innate ability to SENSE a gay man. Be honest now: do you sense gays with your penis?

1. You are a sinful person.
2. And your sin is not hidden.
3. Vile and evil you are.
4. Thats your problem, you deal with it.
5. And you pretend to be in the medical field, God help those whoever they are of which you have anything to do with.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[ABikerSailor]

so you're saying you can sense the gays because you're closer to God? That's interesting that you feel that it is your religion that gives you the innate ability to SENSE a gay man. Be honest now: do you sense gays with your penis?

Apparently, because Crap Whore Sow is so close to God that he can figure out who is gay and who isn't, means he has really good gaydar.

Apparently, God approves of gays, otherwise, someone so close to God wouldn't be able to sense them so well.

 

[logical4u]

how does it corrupt people? what part of them is corrupted? and how does a corrupted person then pass on that corruption to the rest of society? Can you be corrupted for living to close to the gays? Do you catch the gay virus?

I really wish that you people would pay attention.
DECEIT is corruption. If you are deceptive to yourself, to society, to your intended victim's family, that is corruption. If you are DECEPTIVE in one area of your life, chances are, that you find no problem with being deceptive in other parts of your life. Once that is established, then it is okay to covet....., etc, etc, etc.
Now that you have a "partnership" of deceptive people, they encourage other people to act in a similar manner, next thing you know, there is a "community" of deceptive people. Within that partnership or community those people take advantage of "outsiders" (they set them up to loose money, they blackmail them, they steal from them). Now the next community becomes vindictive or wants revenge. They circle grows, society weakens.
Is it possible to limit the deception? That is a question for the deceivers. The Biblical prophets condemn those that deceive. Maybe, we should pay attention to something that is basic to the foundations of society and discourage deceit as well.