Jump to content

Soy makes you gay

Scott Dolan

By Scott Dolan
in Miscellaneous - Non-Political

 Share

Recommended Posts

mikelz777 Newbie

mikelz777

Posted
Posted

Hell, I'd ask them to point out in the scripture where it says homosexuality is a sin.

Being a homosexual is not a sin, acting on one's homosexual desires is. Scripture is pretty clear on that. If your threshhold of truth requires a direct declaration using the words "homosexuality is a sin", then no, it is not in Scripture.

mikelz777 Newbie

mikelz777

Posted
Posted

but is being gay any more harmful than being married (man-woman i mean) and not having children? what's the standard argument at this point?

Here's a question I've always wanted to ask these zealots: which is worse: a gay couple who adopted two Guatemalen (sp?) girls and bring them to church and Sunday School every Sunday? Or a hetero couple who don't attend church except maybe Easter and Christmas?

(The first situation is a reality, BTW. I'm sure the second one is as well; but the couple in the first situation and their kids are dear friends of mine)

Just to take this from a philosophical angle, if both situations are inherently problematic according to the common rules or guidelines on which they are being judged, does it really matter which is worse? If so, then does that justify or make right the situation that is judged less problematic?

Big Al Collaborator

Big Al

Posted
Posted

but is being gay any more harmful than being married (man-woman i mean) and not having children? what's the standard argument at this point?

Here's a question I've always wanted to ask these zealots: which is worse: a gay couple who adopted two Guatemalen (sp?) girls and bring them to church and Sunday School every Sunday? Or a hetero couple who don't attend church except maybe Easter and Christmas?

(The first situation is a reality, BTW. I'm sure the second one is as well; but the couple in the first situation and their kids are dear friends of mine)

Just to take this from a philosophical angle, if both situations are inherently problematic according to the common rules or guidelines on which they are being judged, does it really matter which is worse? If so, then does that justify or make right the situation that is judged less problematic?

That requires more thinking than most zealots are capable of. ;)

GA Russell Mentor

GA Russell

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hell, I'd ask them to point out in the scripture where it says homosexuality is a sin.

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9

1 Peter somewhere, I can't find it now

Jude, verse 7

PS - I'm not finding what I thought in 1 Peter.

Edited by GA Russell
Aggie87 Collaborator

Aggie87

Posted
Posted (edited)

but is being gay any more harmful than being married (man-woman i mean) and not having children? what's the standard argument at this point?

Here's a question I've always wanted to ask these zealots: which is worse: a gay couple who adopted two Guatemalen (sp?) girls and bring them to church and Sunday School every Sunday? Or a hetero couple who don't attend church except maybe Easter and Christmas?

(The first situation is a reality, BTW. I'm sure the second one is as well; but the couple in the first situation and their kids are dear friends of mine)

Just to take this from a philosophical angle, if both situations are inherently problematic according to the common rules or guidelines on which they are being judged, does it really matter which is worse? If so, then does that justify or make right the situation that is judged less problematic?

That requires more thinking than most zealots are capable of. ;)

Did that say "the lesser of two evils is still evil"?

edit - Mikelz' response, not your question.

Edited by Aggie87
Noj Newbie

Noj

Posted
Posted

I thought it was stupid enough that some people actually think sexual orientation is some sort of choice. Attributing it to diet plummets it to a new depth of idiocy.

Scott Dolan Newbie

Scott Dolan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I thought it was stupid enough that some people actually think sexual orientation is some sort of choice. Attributing it to diet plummets it to a new depth of idiocy.

Yeah, but you have to admit to a somewhat morbid curiosity as to how they will top this one.

And trust me, my friend, they WILL eventually top it.

mikelz777 Newbie

mikelz777

Posted
Posted

but is being gay any more harmful than being married (man-woman i mean) and not having children? what's the standard argument at this point?

Here's a question I've always wanted to ask these zealots: which is worse: a gay couple who adopted two Guatemalen (sp?) girls and bring them to church and Sunday School every Sunday? Or a hetero couple who don't attend church except maybe Easter and Christmas?

(The first situation is a reality, BTW. I'm sure the second one is as well; but the couple in the first situation and their kids are dear friends of mine)

Just to take this from a philosophical angle, if both situations are inherently problematic according to the common rules or guidelines on which they are being judged, does it really matter which is worse? If so, then does that justify or make right the situation that is judged less problematic?

That requires more thinking than most zealots are capable of. ;)

Did that say "the lesser of two evils is still evil"?

edit - Mikelz' response, not your question.

Yes, but shorter and probably more understandable. ;)

Niko Rising Star

Niko

Posted
Posted

but is being gay any more harmful than being married (man-woman i mean) and not having children? what's the standard argument at this point?

Here's a question I've always wanted to ask these zealots: which is worse: a gay couple who adopted two Guatemalen (sp?) girls and bring them to church and Sunday School every Sunday? Or a hetero couple who don't attend church except maybe Easter and Christmas?

(The first situation is a reality, BTW. I'm sure the second one is as well; but the couple in the first situation and their kids are dear friends of mine)

always wondered what's the worst of these: only going to church on easter, only going to church on christmas or only going to church on both

concerning Guatemala: :tup definitely a step into the right direction; long as we do not treat at least most of those already living on this planet more or less adequately there is really no reason to complain about people producing no offspring

porcy62 Contributor

porcy62

Posted
Posted (edited)

According to the latest scientific researches, eating sushi in a London restaurant with former KGB agents is more harmful...but at least you're not a dead gay. :crazy:

Sorry for the bad taste, I couldn't resist, in front of idiocy, I became idiot. That's really harmful

Edited by porcy62
sal Newbie

sal

Posted
Posted

Hell, I'd ask them to point out in the scripture where it says homosexuality is a sin.

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9

1 Peter somewhere, I can't find it now

Jude, verse 7

PS - I'm not finding what I thought in 1 Peter.

Don't forget good ol' Leviticus 20:13

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...