Egg+egg=baby?

---

Originally Posted By: deek

I believe that if you are faithful to your partner than it's not bad.

I understand, but I disagree. There's a lot more to it and it's effect on your life, and the lives of others, than is possible for many folks to understand or accept. This can make it bad for you and others in ways you don't (yet) understand...there are a lot of things in this life that feel good but, in the end, create us (and others) a whole lot of trouble.

Quote:

I believe I was born gay.

Maybe...but everytime a gay person has sex, they are making a choice in the same way as when a straight person chooses to have sex. Being gay doesn't mean not having a choice to have sex or not.

ah, now I understand... the only good gay is a celibate gay

First off, that is a step up form the old days of the only good fag is a dead one!atleast he is offering them life!second.ShitI forgot my second point, it was directed at thor, but it slipped my mindEDIT:PFFFFFTTTTT I recall now!Sex is a choice?The fuck it isis a desire, a longing, a need. Even the Priests who choose to be celibate fuck little boys.I guess thats OK thought as they are good christ fearing god loving people.I hope that all women make a choice to not have sex with you and allow you to pass on those genes and fill some child with the dribble that escapes your head.Gays are okey dokey as long s they do not stick the pee pee in the no no place!where the fuck do you get off?For the record, I stuck it in the old ladys no no place, and Iv drained a billion babies down her neck, all in the name of fun!In fact a few years back, I got my nuts cut to make sure no more babies. Since I fuck for fun and not for creation, am I evil now?I have slaughter billions and billions of babies on sheets, chins, the shower drain, tissue papers, and random girls bellies and tits and across their ass, and a couple million in the hair and eyes.I suppose I would burn in hell for it all, but I think I got enough goo left over to put out those fires. That or we gonna be baking cum cakes!The fact is that guys fucking guys does nothing to me, and girls fucking girls gives me a huge boner.Who anyone chooses to fuck is none of your business, none of mine either. Where the fuck do you get off speaking for god? since when was it your duty to tell people how to live?Eddie, you go ahead and butt fuck your boy friend, and any other guy that is willing, suck them off and swap some cum in a kiss for all I care. Since it has no negative impact on me I see it as none of my business.Did you know that I am an ordained minister in the church of life?I can legally perform fucking weddings. You get to a fucking state that will let you marry him, and Ill perform the fucking ceremony free of charge, just so I can have my name listed on a place of honor in history.One more fucking marriage license granted to people that want the same rights I have and are willing to stand up and speak for them.You find some guy to play clackers with thor and Ill do your wedding too, but not for free, because i find you to be a self righteous prick, I think all those people should be charged double.

[In general, not directed to you, Eddie.]I think we need to lay off thor here. He's clearly said that he has no problems with gays, just the sin part, which I can understand, seeing as he IS religious. That's different than saying/thinking "Gays are abominations!", in my mind, anyway, **because [like many others have said] not all gay people have "same sex" sex. Thor, I'm curious, we're doing a unit on early literature in America in my Lit. class, and right now we're on the Puritans. If I may, what denom. are you? I'm not bashing/jabbing, but from what we've read, you have lots of Puritan qualities. If not, hey, whatever.

So what I'm sopposed to stay a virgin forever and never be able to have a family with the person I love? Almighty person whom we should all trust are lives to and trust everything he says, and do everything he says. Almighty Thor almighty Thor we worship you who are holier than thou. The great high Emporer.

I know i'll probably get flamed here by some super religious person for this.The way I see it is that all the stuff in the bible is, so they say 2000 years old (give or take) and just look around you right now how much we have changed. Its wrong for society to change in such dramatic ways and the rules to stay the same. They are out dated in my honest opinion. Though some comandments i do agree with like don't cheat on your partners or kill eachother. But otheres such as sex before marriage should be down to how you feel not what an ancient book says (note it's meaning has undoubtably been diluted and obscured over the centurys).So thats my opinion... Lets hear yours hehe.Hawk

Quote:

think we need to lay off thor here. He's clearly said that he has no problems with gays, just the sin part, which I can understand, seeing as he IS religious

I understand that, and even respect that. I also 100% understand that Thor has no issues with gay people... it's the "gay acts" he has issues with (though with some of his comments, I still think he has some issues with gay people in general). My point (In this thread) is the fact he's singling out one thing that was classed as an abomination to have issues with, while ignoring all the others. You cannot pick and choose what you wish to follow, Thor has said that himself. Yet the only scripture from Leviticus (and the like) that he wishes to follow is "no man shall lay with another man". What about all the others? What makes it okay to ignore them? I can answer the question, because it doesn't fit his cause. Unfortunately with some Christians they like to pick and choose what they wish to acknowledge when it fits their cause.

As a Christians it's hard to say that, but it's the truth. I'm not anymore perfect than Thor or any other Christian for that matter.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself  Quote: think we need to lay off thor here. He's clearly said that he has no problems with gays, just the sin part, which I can understand, seeing as he IS religious I understand that, and even respect that. I also 100% understand that Thor has no issues with gay people... it's the "gay acts" he has issues with Bullshit, P.C. Christian bullshit at it's best... that's just an argument tactic so that the person who says it doesn't look like a total and complete dick. You wouldn't say "I like Ron as person but can't condone the fact he's black." That blackness is a very large part of what makes Ron who he is. To disallow it is to disallow him. We're not talking about some minor, or even major, indiscretion someone committed in their past. Like stealing candy when they were a kid. "I like Ron but can't condone the fact he stole candy as a kid." We're talking about something that has and will continue to shape the identity of the person.It's fucking Christian bullshit double talk designed to allow them to adjust their halo as they discriminate against homosexuals or send Jews to the gas chamber.

That was very nicely worded. If you could of used the word "FUCK" a couple times, maybe "toad humping bowel slurper", or "scatophage", I would of been very proud, and envious it was not a post of my own hand.

My ire is a bit to high to allow such poetic prose. I shall seek to better the eloquence of my response in my next post.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself  Quote: think we need to lay off thor here. He's clearly said that he has no problems with gays, just the sin part, which I can understand, seeing as he IS religious I understand that, and even respect that. I also 100% understand that Thor has no issues with gay people... it's the "gay acts" he has issues with (though with some of his comments, I still think he has some issues with gay people in general). My point (In this thread) is the fact he's singling out one thing that was classed as an abomination to have issues with, while ignoring all the others. You cannot pick and choose what you wish to follow, Thor has said that himself. Yet the only scripture from Leviticus (and the like) that he wishes to follow is “no man shall lay with another man”. What about all the others? What makes it okay to ignore them? I can answer the question, because it doesn’t fit his cause. Unfortunately with some Christians they like to pick and choose what they wish to acknowledge when it fits their cause.As a Christians it’s hard to say that, but it’s the truth. I’m not anymore perfect than Thor or any other Christian for that matter. 1Tim.1[9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,[10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;Bold added by me. Note again that this refers to the behavior...not the person. Nothing wrong with being gay...just with sticking your dick up some other guys butt. So this would apply to some guys in prison as well as active homosexuals.FYI, there are a few other NT references...not that you're interested in finding them (or you would have already).

lmao

that's your biblical reference to homosexual sex?

you MUST have a better one that that

If Eddie promises to not stick his pee pee in his BFs bum and not let his bf do it to him either and they just go along with head but no more butt sex, then can you support them?You only stated it bad to be butt fucking, you said nothing about sucking each others cocks.SO is this cool? no bible breaking ? They can have a real life and be accepted by you and yours if they just do not play alien with the anal probe?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedlmaothat's your biblical reference to homosexual sex?you MUST have a better one that that The Bible tends towards euphamisms so as to portray something without getting severely graphic. OT references are, perhaps, a little more graphic and to the point. My point is that was abomination then is abomination now...Jesus came to fulfill the law; not to prevent us from sinning or committing abomination. We still have to make a choice there.

"The Bible tends towards euphamisms so as to portray something without getting severely graphic."With the exception of violence, right?

but that phrase makes no reference to sex in general or sex between men in particular.hence the folly of referring to the bible for rules of life. It contains, as you so astutely observe, euphemisms, open to interpretation. Interpretations depend upon the readers predispositions. That's why christians are in conflict with christians.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedbut that phrase makes no reference to sex in general or sex between men in particular.hence the folly of referring to the bible for rules of life. It contains, as you so astutely observe, euphemisms, open to interpretation. Interpretations depend upon the readers predispositions. That's why christians are in conflict with christians. Why don't you at least go study it in the original language for yourself before you run into conflict with scholars who have done so most of their life, please. "Sodomite" is one of the original terms used in the NT...is that of any help to you?

ok scholar boy:words: Sodomite In 16th and 17th Century England, one who practices sodomy. The term sodomite is not equivalent to the modern term homosexual, because sodomites were not believed to have a sexuality that differed from that of non-sodomites. When the category homosexuality appeared in the West in the 19th Century, sex between men was redefined as the consequence of a constitutional feature of deviant individuals, not a momentary sexual sin. Like murderers or arsonists, sodomites were certainly considered wicked, but unlike homosexuals, they were not considered different in kind from other peopleSodomite (n.) An inhabitant of Sodom.

Originally Posted By: GrvtykllrSodomite (n.) An inhabitant of Sodom. And what happened there in Biblical times? The full story, please.Once again, chance...it's the behavior, not the reason behind it.

what did happen there?god you are easy to bait. Post that, take a piss, let the dog take a shit and refresh to find the post I wanted to reply to to begin with. "Sodomy" and "sodomite" are some of the ugliest words in the English language. They of course are derived from the Canaanite city of Sodom, whose destruction along with Gomorrah is related in Genesis 19. Most people assume that homosexuality was the grounds for this divine retribution and that this is the reason that gay men have been branded "sodomites." The word itself, used as implying a sexual sin, does not appear until A.D. 395 in letters between Saint Jerome and a priest Amandus, but the details of the act and the nature of the sin are not explained. A growing consensus about sexual orientation is that it primarily genetically determined, so gays and lesbians may not have any choice in the matter. There are two alternative theological positions that follow from the conservative Christian position: (1) If homosexuals are inherently evil, then that means that God created them such; or (2) more orthodox and acceptable is the view that all humans are created in the image of God and all that God creates is good. Therefore, if God creates gays and lesbians the way there are, then God must intend that they are an integral part of the human community. Interestingly enough, Jesus did not interpret the sin of Sodom as sexual. First, Jesus says nothing specific about the sin of homosexuality anywhere in the Gospels. He does of course speak of sexual sins, but all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation, commit a few of these. Second, when Jesus instructs his disciples to preach in the towns of Israel, Jesus warns that those who do not receive them peacefully will be judged more harshly than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10: 5-15).Jesus joins other ancient authorities in viewing the sins of the Sodomites as the abuse of strangers, neglecting the poor and needy, and the stigmatizing of outsiders. For example, Ezekiel says that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah "had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy" (16:49-50); and the Wisdom of Solomon says that they "refused to receive strangers when they came to them" (19.14). On the other hand, an early Christian book I Clement states that Lot was saved "because of his hospitality and piety" (11.11). It is significant that when Leviticus condemns "men who lie with men," it does not mention the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.It is true that other ancient authorities mention sexual sins in Sodom and Gomorrah, but these are usually described in a general way, such as lust, sexual impurity, fornication, and adultery. These again are sins of the many not just as few gays and lesbians. The narrow interpretation known today comes from an ancient minority report from thinkers such as Philo of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo. The former condemned the Sodomites for "forbidden forms of intercourse" and the latter for "lewdness between males."[2] The odd point about this charge is that the object of Sodomitic lust is not male humans but sexless angels! (Those who object by saying that the Sodomites did not know they were angels miss the point: both Augustine and all of us who read the Bible know that they were angels!)Who wrote that?A SCHOLAR!by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho