PDA

View Full Version : Billboard Featuring Gay Marine Vandalized



Pages : [1] 2

megimoo
09-28-2009, 03:14 AM
Billboard Featuring Gay Marine Vandalized
Gay and Lesbian community asking for full investigation

The gay and lesbian community is calling for an investigation into a billboard that was destroyed. The billboard is just one of 5 put up for National Coming Out Day and features a gay Marine.

The billboards were paid for by the Memphis Gay and Lesbian Community Center. "We had the idea to celebrate National Coming Out Day which is October 11th.

It's a time that around the nation people say I'm proud to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender," said Heidi Williams, Memphis Gay and Lesbian Community Center.

The MGLCC wanted to get Memphis' attention but they didn't expect..

http://www.wreg.com/wreg-gay-billboard-story,0,3374450.story

NJCardFan
09-28-2009, 05:34 AM
Probably one of their own.

stsinner
09-28-2009, 08:48 AM
I think that any of this-In Your Face forcing of the homosexual culture on society is fair game...

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 11:57 AM
This kind of behavior is stupid. It wasn't like the billboard depicted gay sex. I have no problem accepting gays as people, as members of society, and as my friends and neighbors. I see nothing wrong with the billboards shown in the story.

megimoo
09-28-2009, 12:03 PM
I think that any of this-In Your Face forcing of the homosexual culture on society is fair game...
Did they actually expect the billboard to survive for very long ?
If you persist in shoving your perversity in my face I am going to shove back !

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 12:05 PM
Did they actually expect the billboard to survive for very long ?
If you persist in shoving your perversity in my face I am going to shove back !

what is perverse about saying - I'm gay and I've defended this country?

stsinner
09-28-2009, 12:11 PM
Did they actually expect the billboard to survive for very long ?
If you persist in shoving your perversity in my face I am going to shove back !

Exactly.. They provoke and provoke, and then they act offended when people respond.

pssvr
09-28-2009, 05:14 PM
Exactly.. They provoke and provoke, and then they act offended when people respond.

How in God's name is this provocation?

Provocation would be a billboard depicting a naked gay man with an erection screaming, "People who oppose this can suck my balls!"

This is not provocation. To call it such is to reduce yourself to the level of the people who cry 'racism' when someone doesn't want socialism or sue for religious discrimination when a kid next to them prays in school. Quit complaining and let other people have their say.

stsinner
09-28-2009, 06:19 PM
How in God's name is this provocation?

Provocation would be a billboard depicting a naked gay man with an erection screaming, "People who oppose this can suck my balls!"

This is not provocation. To call it such is to reduce yourself to the level of the people who cry 'racism' when someone doesn't want socialism or sue for religious discrimination when a kid next to them prays in school. Quit complaining and let other people have their say.

It's provocation because I don't even want to know gay people exist.. I don't oppress them, so I don't need to know they're gay. I don't feel the need to tell them I'm straight. They don't need to tell me, and doing so is just antagonizing those of us who are straight and think it's repulsive.. There is absolutely no reason for a Marine to say, "I'm gay and I served in the military.." No reason at all besides provoking people to fight about the issue.. It's against the rules to be gay and in the military, so when you act like a 5 year old and say that you broke the rules and did it anyway, it's a provocation.. It's childish and they knew it would piss people off-especially Marines.

wilbur
09-28-2009, 06:36 PM
It's provocation because I don't even want to know gay people exist..

Seriously, you have to be fake - StSinner is probably as left wing and gay-loving as it gets, and is just having some fun... gotta be.



I don't oppress them, so I don't need to know they're gay. I don't feel the need to tell them I'm straight. They don't need to tell me, and doing so is just antagonizing those of us who are straight and think it's repulsive.. There is absolutely no reason for a Marine to say, "I'm gay and I served in the military.." No reason at all besides provoking people to fight about the issue.. It's against the rules to be gay and in the military, so when you act like a 5 year old and say that you broke the rules and did it anyway, it's a provocation.. It's childish and they knew it would piss people off-especially Marines.

Well no... it only pisses off prejudice assholes who are so ridiculous as to be offended at the mere existence of homosexuals..

FlaGator
09-28-2009, 06:42 PM
It's provocation because I don't even want to know gay people exist.. I don't oppress them, so I don't need to know they're gay. I don't feel the need to tell them I'm straight. They don't need to tell me, and doing so is just antagonizing those of us who are straight and think it's repulsive.. There is absolutely no reason for a Marine to say, "I'm gay and I served in the military.." No reason at all besides provoking people to fight about the issue.. It's against the rules to be gay and in the military, so when you act like a 5 year old and say that you broke the rules and did it anyway, it's a provocation.. It's childish and they knew it would piss people off-especially Marines.

So your desire not to know about them trumps their right to free speech?

JB
09-28-2009, 06:44 PM
<snip> Quit complaining and let other people have their say.Fine. Just as long as that standard is applied to the LGBT community regarding Proposition 8. ;)

stsinner
09-28-2009, 07:35 PM
So your desire not to know about them trumps their right to free speech?

I didn't say that.. What I'm saying is why not just shut the hell up? Why do they come out of the blue with an antagonizing poster and then get mad when it's vandalized? Fags are provocative incessantly to normal people, and they wonder why they're getting oppressed more and more.. People are getting sick of it..

wilbur
09-28-2009, 07:45 PM
I didn't say that.. What I'm saying is why not just shut the hell up? Why do they come out of the blue with an antagonizing poster and then get mad when it's vandalized? Fags are provocative incessantly to normal people, and they wonder why they're getting oppressed more and more.. People are getting sick of it..

"Just existing" is apparently enough to antagonize you - so... short of suicide, its hard to see how a homosexual could reasonably avoid antagonizing you. Even the others here, who tend to take issue with many homosexual things arent even seeing the big deal - a rational person might take that as evidence that the problem lies with you.

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:18 PM
It's provocation because I don't even want to know gay people exist.. um . . . tough shit. They exist.
I don't oppress them, so I don't need to know they're gay. If you say you don't even want to know they exist - you're saying that oppressing them is exactly what you want to do.
I don't feel the need to tell them I'm straight. They don't need to tell me, and doing so is just antagonizing those of us who are straight and think it's repulsive.. This is not the case of someone running around rubbing it in everyones faces. This is a reminder that there are people who are different out there trying to live lives just like the rest of us.


There is absolutely no reason for a Marine to say, "I'm gay and I served in the military.." Your reaction proves otherwise.


No reason at all besides provoking people to fight about the issue.. You really just don't have perspective at all on these kinds of issues do you. :rolleyes:


It's against the rules to be gay and in the military, so when you act like a 5 year old and say that you broke the rules and did it anyway, it's a provocation.. It's childish and they knew it would piss people off-especially Marines. Right because what that guy really wants is to be attacked and vilified.

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:18 PM
So your desire not to know about them trumps their right to free speech?

seems that way doesn't it.:rolleyes:

stsinner
09-28-2009, 08:18 PM
"Just existing" is apparently enough to antagonize you - so... short of suicide, its hard to see how a homosexual could reasonably avoid antagonizing you. Even the others here, who tend to take issue with many homosexual things arent even seeing the big deal - a rational person might take that as evidence that the problem lies with you.

I didn't say that I have a problem with them existing-don't put words into my mouth.. I said I don't even want to know-I don't need to be informed of someone's sexuality, and I can get through my day just fine.. Sexuality should only matter in the bedroom, so why do they feel the need to shove it in the face of people who really don't approve of it? It's a childish need to be a douche bag and attention whore, and they knew damned well when they though up the stupid billboard idea that it would piss people off..

Look-no billboard, no problem.. So what's the problem with that?

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:19 PM
Fine. Just as long as that standard is applied to the LGBT community regarding Proposition 8. ;)

agreed. There needs to be a two way street of communication and as long as we have people on either side acting like to disagree is an insult and a provocation - it's going to be hard.

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:20 PM
"Just existing" is apparently enough to antagonize you - so... short of suicide, its hard to see how a homosexual could reasonably avoid antagonizing you. Even the others here, who tend to take issue with many homosexual things arent even seeing the big deal - a rational person might take that as evidence that the problem lies with you.

OH LORD I WANT TO DIE! I'm finding I agree with WILBUR! :PUKE:

stsinner
09-28-2009, 08:22 PM
um . . . tough shit. They exist.If you say you don't even want to know they exist - you're saying that oppressing them is exactly what you want to do. This is not the case of someone running around rubbing it in everyones faces. This is a reminder that there are people who are different out there trying to live lives just like the rest of us.
Your reaction proves otherwise.
You really just don't have perspective at all on these kinds of issues do you. :rolleyes:
Right because what that guy really wants is to be attacked and vilified.

I didn't say that I don't want them to exsit, dumbass, so quit doing like the resident faggot and putting words in my mouth.. I said I don't want to know-meaning I don't need to be reminded of what they do in the bedroom.. I could pass by fags all day long on the way to work-they on the way to theirs, and nobody would be anything wiser, and it wouldn't matter.. But if they decide to shove a rainbow in my face as they pass and bitch about faggots not being allowed in the military, then it causes problems that are absolutely unnecessary..

I've said repeatedly that I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own homes and have never wished them ill in any way, but the constant barrage of pro-gay nonsense is enough already.. They don't change peoples' minds-they just drive them into submission with name calling and subjugation saying we're intolerant.. For me, it's a matter of morals and faith, and it's not up to me to make the call on its propriety.

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:24 PM
I didn't say that I don't want them to exsit, dumbass, so quit doing like the resident faggot and putting words in my mouth.. I said I don't want to know-meaning I don't need to be reminded of what they do in the bedroom.. I could pass by fags all day long on the way to work-they on the way to theirs, and nobody would be anything wiser, and it would matter.. But if they decide to shove a rainbow in my face as they pass and bitch about faggots not being allowed in the military, then it cause problems that are absolutely unnecessary..

You are everything the left points at with the intent to ridicule and calls conservative. I see no reason not to let anyone who wants to serve - serve. The jar heads will get over it like they did when they integrated the military and they had to get over having *gasp* blacks in the same units.

BadCat
09-28-2009, 08:27 PM
Geez guys.

Fags are societal and/or genetic DEFECTS of the human species.
They should be removed from said species...period.

stsinner
09-28-2009, 08:30 PM
You are everything the left points at with the intent to ridicule and calls conservative.

That's supposed to bother me? I think that Liberalism is a mental disorder, so why the hell would I care that they call me conservative? If anything it makes me proud to have a spine not allow my opinions and values to change with the political winds. .

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:30 PM
Geez guys.

Fags are societal and/or genetic DEFECTS of the human species.
They should be removed from said species...period.

Sorry - but if you believe in the value of human life - you don't marginalize someone just because they are defective.

BadCat
09-28-2009, 08:32 PM
Sorry - but if you believe in the value of human life - you don't marginalize someone just because they are defective.

I didn't say marginalize, I said remove.

Rockntractor
09-28-2009, 08:34 PM
OH LORD I WANT TO DIE! I'm finding I agree with WILBUR! :PUKE:

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/pink20rabbit1.gif?t=1254184388

wilbur
09-28-2009, 08:39 PM
I didn't say marginalize, I said remove.

BadCat the eugenicist!

I doubt any actual scientists would agree with your definition of "defect".

In modern biology, there really is no such thing as a genetic defect or a bad gene - there are simply bad gene/environment interactions. Just like one man's trash is another's treasure, one environment's "bad gene" will be another environment's "good gene".

But careful what you wish for.. you never know what might turn up, were we to analyze your DNA...

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:40 PM
I didn't say marginalize, I said remove.

Um . . . in order to remove - they must be marginalized. Are you going to have all disabled and otherwise imperfect people removed as well? :rolleyes:

BadCat
09-28-2009, 08:42 PM
Um . . . in order to remove - they must be marginalized. Are you going to have all disabled and otherwise imperfect people removed as well? :rolleyes:

I'm thinking about it...but Wilbur for sure.

wilbur
09-28-2009, 08:43 PM
I'm thinking about it...but Wilbur for sure.

Heh... again, just be sure to stick to your principles... if we find any defects in your DNA, can we trust you to off yourself?

BadCat
09-28-2009, 08:45 PM
Heh... again, just be sure to stick to your principles... if we find any defects in your DNA, can we trust you to off yourself?

Sure thing fag boy.
You'll be LONG gone before that happens.

Rockntractor
09-28-2009, 08:45 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/30927_fudge_packer.jpg?t=1254185047

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 08:50 PM
I'm thinking about it...but Wilbur for sure.

How Gattaca of you.

wilbur
09-28-2009, 08:52 PM
Sure thing fag boy.
You'll be LONG gone before that happens.

Perhaps you will succeed where Hitler failed! Good luck to ya..

FlaGator
09-28-2009, 10:29 PM
Sure thing fag boy.
You'll be LONG gone before that happens.

I'm impressed. You did what I thought impossible. You put wilbur and Policon on the same side of a discsussion. I think I'm moving this to the end of the world forum :D

PoliCon
09-28-2009, 11:17 PM
I'm impressed. You did what I thought impossible. You put wilbur and Policon on the same side of a discsussion. I think I'm moving this to the end of the world forum :D

disgusting isn't it!?:mad:

wilbur
09-29-2009, 12:05 AM
disgusting isn't it!?:mad:

You should be comforted - there's at least one thing out there you arent completely wrong about.

PoliCon
09-29-2009, 06:04 AM
You should be comforted - there's at least one thing out there you arent completely wrong about.

Spoken like a true progressive.:rolleyes:

FlaGator
09-29-2009, 08:18 AM
disgusting isn't it!?:mad:

It's pretty scary :eek:

megimoo
09-29-2009, 09:25 AM
You should be comforted - there's at least one thing out there you arent completely wrong about.What an arrogant Limey mutt !

ExLiberal
10-09-2009, 09:47 PM
I think homosexuality is repulsive and immoral (gasp!) and am against any agenda that seeks to "moralize" or promote it (including stupid billboards) but I agree with policon and wilbur that this intense hatred to the point of wanting to "remove" them from society is retarded and equally immoral. I know it's infuriating to have gay people incessantly shoving their gayness in our kids' faces and attempting to prosecute people who don't agree with homosexuality (all part of the Church of Liberalism)...but Hitler-esque comments about removing or destroying homosexuals do nothing to help the situation. You don't go "removing" immoral people from society, else every single human on this earth would have to go.

That said, I respect the people who stand their ground in opposition to homosexuality and the gay agenda, regardless of the harassment they receive. It's a difficult thing to unabashedly stand up for what you believe when you know you're going to be demonized by the media, etc. And I don't agree with people who equate homophobia to racism. There is nothing inherently wrong with being black or brown or white. It's all part of the beautiful diversity of creation. Racism is evil. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is inherently wrong, and needs to be condemned, not promoted. If you disagree, good for you, but don't expect everyone to hop the we-heart-gays bandwagon. Also you can love a homosexual while condemning what they do. If one of my family members were gay I'd still love them...but I'd never accept their homosexuality as "good" or "normal". And I wouldn't try to "remove" them from the family either lol.

It seems there are extremes on both sides, as always.

SarasotaRepub
10-09-2009, 11:05 PM
I think homosexuality is repulsive and immoral (gasp!) and am against any agenda that seeks to "moralize" or promote it (including stupid billboards) but I agree with policon and wilbur that this intense hatred to the point of wanting to "remove" them from society is retarded and equally immoral. I know it's infuriating to have gay people incessantly shoving their gayness in our kids' faces and attempting to prosecute people who don't agree with homosexuality (all part of the Church of Liberalism)...but Hitler-esque comments about removing or destroying homosexuals do nothing to help the situation. You don't go "removing" immoral people from society, else every single human on this earth would have to go.

That said, I respect the people who stand their ground in opposition to homosexuality and the gay agenda, regardless of the harassment they receive. It's a difficult thing to unabashedly stand up for what you believe when you know you're going to be demonized by the media, etc. And I don't agree with people who equate homophobia to racism. There is nothing inherently wrong with being black or brown or white. It's all part of the beautiful diversity of creation. Racism is evil. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is inherently wrong, and needs to be condemned, not promoted. If you disagree, good for you, but don't expect everyone to hop the we-heart-gays bandwagon. Also you can love a homosexual while condemning what they do. If one of my family members were gay I'd still love them...but I'd never accept their homosexuality as "good" or "normal". And I wouldn't try to "remove" them from the family either lol.

It seems there are extremes on both sides, as always.

It's too easy. :D:D

lacarnut
10-10-2009, 01:16 AM
Seriously, you have to be fake - StSinner is probably as left wing and gay-loving as it gets, and is just having some fun... gotta be.



Well no... it only pisses off prejudice assholes who are so ridiculous as to be offended at the mere existence of homosexuals..

When you get kicked out of the Marines or any branch of the military with an undesirable discharge, it is an insult and offensive to those soldiers that served honorably to view a sign of this pervert. If you have never been in the military, you do not know what you are talking about. In other words, STFU asshole.

PoliCon
10-10-2009, 01:57 AM
Where do you get that he got a dishonourable discharge?

lacarnut
10-10-2009, 12:14 PM
Where do you get that he got a dishonourable discharge?

I did not say he got a dishonourable discharge. Under section 15 of the USMCJ, the commander can decide what kind of discharge. Could have been a general. He is an UNDESIRABLE. Got it!

Since you have not been in the military, how about addressing my main point that this ex marine is a disgrace to many that have served. Queer lovers like you are too stupid to understand that. Let me break it down so even you could understand. If a Marine had been convicted of a crime, those of us that have been in the military would be offended if a billboard was put up in his honor.

ExLiberal
10-10-2009, 10:50 PM
I did not say he got a dishonourable discharge. Under section 15 of the USMCJ, the commander can decide what kind of discharge. Could have been a general. He is an UNDESIRABLE. Got it!

Since you have not been in the military, how about addressing my main point that this ex marine is a disgrace to many that have served. Queer lovers like you are too stupid to understand that. Let me break it down so even you could understand. If a Marine had been convicted of a crime, those of us that have been in the military would be offended if a billboard was put up in his honor.

I'm divided on the issue of gays serving. I am definitely NOT a "queer lover", as one could conjecture from my posts, but I guess when I think about it, if homosexuality is a sin, wouldn't all sinners have to be banned from the military? Adultery is a sin, excessive anger is a sin, gluttony is a sin, gossiping is a sin....are adulterers, angry people, gluttons and gossipers kicked out of the military? Should they be? I'm definitely against the gay agenda in this country but I just don't know how I feel about gays serving in the army. Especially if they aren't flambouyant or obnoxious about it. Shouldn't we have as many people as possible fighting for our freedom and safety?

Rockntractor
10-10-2009, 11:02 PM
I'm divided on the issue of gays serving. I am definitely NOT a "queer lover", as one could conjecture from my posts, but I guess when I think about it, if homosexuality is a sin, wouldn't all sinners have to be banned from the military? Adultery is a sin, excessive anger is a sin, gluttony is a sin, gossiping is a sin....are adulterers, angry people, gluttons and gossipers kicked out of the military? Should they be? I'm definitely against the gay agenda in this country but I just don't know how I feel about gays serving in the army. Especially if they aren't flambouyant or obnoxious about it. Shouldn't we have as many people as possible fighting for our freedom and safety?

Gay is an entire lifestyle and is more than just a sexual act.

PoliCon
10-10-2009, 11:11 PM
I did not say he got a dishonourable discharge. Under section 15 of the USMCJ, the commander can decide what kind of discharge. Could have been a general. He is an UNDESIRABLE. Got it!

Since you have not been in the military, how about addressing my main point that this ex marine is a disgrace to many that have served. Queer lovers like you are too stupid to understand that. Let me break it down so even you could understand. If a Marine had been convicted of a crime, those of us that have been in the military would be offended if a billboard was put up in his honor.

Where does it say he was forced out? The way I read it - he did his time and chose not to re-up.

And you know what - I haven't served - so what? This guy for all intents and purposes served with distinction and you're calling him a disgrace because you're threatened by his sexuality. His being gay does not make him either good or bad at being a soldier - it just means that when he has sex he likes men and not women. If being able to recognize the basic humanity and ability of anyone and everyone to contribute to society positively makes me a queer lover - I'd rather be in that boat than the irrational hatred boat you seem intent upon rowing. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
10-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Gay is an entire lifestyle and is more than just a sexual act.

not for everyone.

ExLiberal
10-10-2009, 11:17 PM
Gay is an entire lifestyle and is more than just a sexual act.

True but what about the gays who don't try to make it a lifestyle? Should they be barred from serving if someone finds out they're gay? There are actually some gays who are against the gay agenda themselves. Rare, but existent.

Rockntractor
10-10-2009, 11:20 PM
True but what about the gays who don't try to make it a lifestyle? Should they be barred from serving if someone finds out they're gay? There are actually some gays who are against the gay agenda themselves. Rare, but existent.
Thats why they did the don't ask don't tell, it worked well for people that don't define themselves by how they prefer to have sex.

lacarnut
10-10-2009, 11:41 PM
Where does it say he was forced out? The way I read it - he did his time and chose not to re-up.

And you know what - I haven't served - so what? This guy for all intents and purposes served with distinction and you're calling him a disgrace because you're threatened by his sexuality. His being gay does not make him either good or bad at being a soldier - it just means that when he has sex he likes men and not women. If being able to recognize the basic humanity and ability of anyone and everyone to contribute to society positively makes me a queer lover - I'd rather be in that boat than the irrational hatred boat you seem intent upon rowing. :rolleyes:

He got kicked out. Are you stupid or just can not read. No wonder our school system is f. up with queer loving union teachers like you.

He disgraced the service and then has a billboard of him in a uniform. I call that a insult to everyone that has served. Like I said, if you have not served, you should STFU.

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 08:16 AM
He got kicked out. Are you stupid or just can not read. No wonder our school system is f. up with queer loving union teachers like you.

He disgraced the service and then has a billboard of him in a uniform. I call that a insult to everyone that has served. Like I said, if you have not served, you should STFU.

You argue like an idiot leftist" 'if you aren't a woman you can't have an opinion on abortion' - 'if you're not black you can't have an opinion on race' - if you haven't served in the military . . . .BULLSHIT. :rolleyes:

Now as for his service - seems the man didn't ask and didn't tell but was outed by a minister.:rolleyes: ďA former head of the Chaplin corps retired and became a local minister and when I refused his help to enter a change ministry he pushed my command to discharge me from the Marine corps,Ē Smith told the radio program 'The Takeaway'. FROM (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hundreds+Gather+To+Hear+Gay+Marine+In+Memphis-a01612018020) That minister is the one who needs to be drummed out. :mad:

stsinner
10-11-2009, 10:02 AM
You argue like an idiot leftist" 'if you aren't a woman you can't have an opinion on abortion' - 'if you're not black you can't have an opinion on race' - if you haven't served in the military . . . .BULLSHIT. :rolleyes:



Bullshit.. If you haven't served you have no say in what the military should or should not allow.. Guys have to shower together, guys have to live together.. Why the hell should they be subjected to a faggot looking at their junk while they're in the shower and fantasizing about it later as he jacks off? Why not just make men and women shower together... It's disgusting to think that fags are in the military, and if they are they should be kicked out.. I'm sick of the downward spiral of this once great nation, and we have to draw the line somewhere.

djones520
10-11-2009, 10:42 AM
Bullshit.. If you haven't served you have no say in what the military should or should not allow.. Guys have to shower together, guys have to live together.. Why the hell should they be subjected to a faggot looking at their junk while they're in the shower and fantasizing about it later as he jacks off? Why not just make men and women shower together... It's disgusting to think that fags are in the military, and if they are they should be kicked out.. I'm sick of the downward spiral of this once great nation, and we have to draw the line somewhere.

You are a perfect example of why I'm against gays openly serving in the military. Thank you for show casing it.

lacarnut
10-11-2009, 12:51 PM
You argue like an idiot leftist" 'if you aren't a woman you can't have an opinion on abortion' - 'if you're not black you can't have an opinion on race' - if you haven't served in the military . . . .BULLSHIT. :rolleyes:

Now as for his service - seems the man didn't ask and didn't tell but was outed by a minister.:rolleyes: “A former head of the Chaplin corps retired and became a local minister and when I refused his help to enter a change ministry he pushed my command to discharge me from the Marine corps,” Smith told the radio program 'The Takeaway'. FROM (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hundreds+Gather+To+Hear+Gay+Marine+In+Memphis-a01612018020) That minister is the one who needs to be drummed out. :mad:

You are either stupid or can not read. He was kicked out of the service. He is an undesirable. In most cases sexual perverts discharged can not collect GI benefits. He disgraced the uniform and queer lovers like you are too retarded to understand that a billboard of him dressed as Marine is disgusting.

Secondly, it is against the military code of justice to be openly gay. You got that dumb ass. This is not private enterprise; it is the military. A whole new world of rules and regulations. I can understand your stupidity in stating the minister should be drummed out. He was just following the code. Therefore, you should STFU cause you have zero expertise in this area which makes you look like a fool.

Did a little research on your queer buddy. He was in the Marines from June 15, 2005 to August 16, 2005; TWO WHOLE MONTHS. Plus, he had orders to ship out to Iraq a month before. Also, this homo posted personal ads on the Internet. The minister gave him a chance to change his lifestyle. When he refused, he was reported.

stsinner
10-11-2009, 12:58 PM
You are a perfect example of why I'm against gays openly serving in the military. Thank you for show casing it.

I don't understand your message to be sufficiently insulted, but I'm sure it's an insult, judging by your past stupidity. Try again in plain English, and when using the word, "Showcase," in the future, please be advised that it's one word to avoid appearing uneducated when attempting to insult someone. Thank you.

djones520
10-11-2009, 01:02 PM
You are either stupid or can not read. He was kicked out of the service. He is an undesirable. In most cases sexual perverts discharged can not collect GI benefits. He disgraced the uniform and queer lovers like you are too retarded to understand that a billboard of him dressed as Marine is disgusting.

Secondly, it is against the military code of justice to be openly gay. You got that dumb ass. This is not private enterprise; it is the military. A whole new world of rules and regulations. I can understand your stupidity in stating the minister should be drummed out. He was just following the code. Therefore, you should STFU cause you have zero expertise in this area which makes you look like a fool.

Negative bud. The UCMJ does not make it illegal to be gay. It is only illegal to commit sexual acts associated to homosexuality, such as anal and oral sex (and yes, this can be applied to straight people as well).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

That is what lays out the law for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

djones520
10-11-2009, 01:05 PM
I don't understand your message to be sufficiently insulted, but I'm sure it's an insult, judging by your past stupidity. Try again in plain English, and when using the word, "Showcase," in the future, please be advised that it's one word to avoid appearing uneducated when attempting to insult someone. Thank you.

Gays should not be allowed in the military because of intolerant assholes like yourself who would cause more problems then they would.

Clear enough?

stsinner
10-11-2009, 01:06 PM
Gays should not be allowed in the military because of intolerant assholes like yourself who would cause more problems then they would.

Clear enough?

That's clear, and I concur..

linda22003
10-11-2009, 01:13 PM
Why the hell should they be subjected to a faggot looking at their junk while they're in the shower and fantasizing about it later as he jacks off?

Most straight men have WAY too high an opinion of their own attractiveness. :D

stsinner
10-11-2009, 01:15 PM
Most straight men have WAY too high an opinion of their own attractiveness. :D

Fags aren't looking at their face.. I could be in the shower with some butt-ugly women, and I guarantee you I'd see fapping material below the neckline all around me... :)

linda22003
10-11-2009, 01:16 PM
I wasn't talking about faces. What is "fapping"??

stsinner
10-11-2009, 01:18 PM
I wasn't talking about faces. What is "fapping"??

Fapping would be pleasuring ones self.

linda22003
10-11-2009, 01:23 PM
Fapping would be pleasuring ones self.

How funny. Boys are so weird. :p

lacarnut
10-11-2009, 01:42 PM
Negative bud. The UCMJ does not make it illegal to be gay. It is only illegal to commit sexual acts associated to homosexuality, such as anal and oral sex (and yes, this can be applied to straight people as well).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

That is what lays out the law for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Wrong Bud. An attempt or soliciation makes it illegal. The actual act does not have to ensue. Read it again Bud.

This Marine was kicked out of the service because he was solicitating on the Internet. He had only been in the service for 2 months and in a month had orders to go to Iraq. Guess the queer did not want to get his ass shot off.

djones520
10-11-2009, 01:48 PM
Wrong Bud. An attempt or soliciation makes it illegal. The actual act does not have to ensue. Read it again Bud.

This Marine was kicked out of the service because he was solicitating on the Internet. He had only been in the service for 2 months and in a month had orders to go to Iraq. Guess the queer did not want to get his ass shot off.

It is illegal. But not under the UCMJ.


925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

That is the only punitive article under the UCMJ that addresses homosexual activities. Solicitation has nothing to do with it. That involves the US Code that I linked to, which is not a part of the UCMJ. There is not a single mention of "Homosexual" or "Gay" in the entire UCMJ.

stsinner
10-11-2009, 01:52 PM
It is illegal. But not under the UCMJ.



That is the only punitive article under the UCMJ that addresses homosexual activities. Solicitation has nothing to do with it. That involves the US Code that I linked to, which is not a part of the UCMJ. There is not a single mention of "Homosexual" or "Gay" in the entire UCMJ.

You think this will save a fag that's known to be a fag? If you're known to be gay, your military career is coming to a swift end.. I served 8 years active duty in the Army, so don't to educate me on the military.. I know the Air Force is a little more limp-wristed than the Army because the marines need bitches in the field, but in the Army you will not be serving long if you're known to be gay, sodomy, or not.

djones520
10-11-2009, 01:56 PM
You think this will save a fag that's known to be a fag? If you're known to be gay, your military career is coming to a swift end.. I served 8 years active duty in the Army, so don't to educate me on the military.. I know the Air Force is a little more limp-wristed than the Army because the marines need bitches in the field, but in the Army you will not be serving long if you're known to be gay, sodomy, or not.

WTF are you talking about?

I'm addressing the point that Lacarnut said that the the guy was kicked out for violating the UCMJ, which he did not.

Will you shut up now?

stsinner
10-11-2009, 01:59 PM
WTF are you talking about?

I'm addressing the point that Lacarnut said that the the guy was kicked out for violating the UCMJ, which he did not.

Will you shut up now?

Yes. Yes, I will shut up little fella, because I have some errands to run.. lacarnut, go easy on the little fella.. He's a little over-sensitive today for some reason. I think the topic hits a little close to home.

djones520
10-11-2009, 02:01 PM
Yes. Yes, I will shut up little fella, because I have some errands to run.. lacarnut, go easy on the little fella.. He's a little over-sensitive today for some reason. I think the topic hits a little close to home.

Hurr hurr hurr... you insult good. :rolleyes:

stsinner
10-11-2009, 02:11 PM
Hurr hurr hurr... you insult good. :rolleyes:

I'm just yanking yer chain.. You're in the Air Force, right? If so, thanks for your service.

djones520
10-11-2009, 02:12 PM
I'm just yanking yer chain.. You're in the Air Force, right? If so, thanks for your service.

Yes, I am. And thank you, if you're actually being serious.

stsinner
10-11-2009, 02:15 PM
Yes, I am. And thank you, if you're actually being serious.

I never joke about that. You have my sincere appreciation for serving our country.

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 06:38 PM
Bullshit.. If you haven't served you have no say in what the military should or should not allow.. right and only women have the right to have an opinion on abortion and only minorities have a right to an opinion on affirmative action. :rolleyes: How very leftist of you.


Guys have to shower together, guys have to live together.. And you're afraid that they're going to see your pee pee?


Why the hell should they be subjected to a faggot looking at their junk while they're in the shower and fantasizing about it later as he jacks off? Right because every gay guy who looks at you always fantasizes about you - huh?


Why not just make men and women shower together... They do it in other countries where their service men and women are GROWN UP ENOUGH to shower without every thought being about sex . . . . Or better still - instead of wide open communal showers - go with STALLS - HOLY SHIT!? PRIVACY??


It's disgusting to think that fags are in the military, and if they are they should be kicked out.. You're only argument so far is that they threaten your sexuality - and based on that you don't feel they should be allowed to serve eh?

I'm sick of the downward spiral of this once great nation, and we have to draw the line somewhere.

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 06:39 PM
You are a perfect example of why I'm against gays openly serving in the military. Thank you for show casing it.

I fully understand the need for don't ask don't tell. And as long as they are keeping to that - I see no reason to not let them serve.

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 06:41 PM
Wrong Bud. An attempt or soliciation makes it illegal. The actual act does not have to ensue. Read it again Bud.

This Marine was kicked out of the service because he was solicitating on the Internet. He had only been in the service for 2 months and in a month had orders to go to Iraq. Guess the queer did not want to get his ass shot off.

Dumbass - I posted why he was removed - because an asshole chaplain outed him.

Rockntractor
10-11-2009, 06:41 PM
I fully understand the need for don't ask don't tell. And as long as they are keeping to that - I see no reason to not let them serve.
Here's the deal dude. They are getting ready to change that!

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 06:43 PM
Here's the deal dude. They are getting ready to change that!

Perhaps. Obama has been really good at following through on his campaign promises right?

Rockntractor
10-11-2009, 06:47 PM
Perhaps. Obama has been really good at following through on his campaign promises right?
It would be a mistake to underestimate Obama in any way. He has only been in office 8 months!

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 06:49 PM
Can I point out as well - that classically some of the greatest military minds in western civilization have been 'fags.' Men such as Alexander the Great, the entire Spartian Army, Richard Lionheart, and Baron Frederich von Steuben who served in the Continental Army as an open homosexual.

Rockntractor
10-11-2009, 06:57 PM
Can I point out as well - that classically some of the greatest military minds in western civilization have been 'fags.' Men such as Alexander the Great, the entire Spartian Army, Richard Lionheart, and Baron Frederich von Steuben who served in the Continental Army as an open homosexual.
I am at a loss as to why you have chosen this side of the debate.

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 07:09 PM
I am at a loss as to why you have chosen this side of the debate.

I will not but the lie that gays cannot be Christians, that they cannot be Americans, that they cannot be good soldiers. They are people like you and I and deserving of the same levels of basic human respect we ourselves want. And lets face facts - you're not getting the mincing prancing faerie cake gays in the military. You're getting guys who fit in with other straights quite easily they just happen to get turned on by other men and not by women.

Look - I don't agree with homosexuality as an agenda. I do not agree that it is anything other than deviant. But I do not and will not condemn people for being gay. Sorry. There but for the grace of God go I. But when you interact with victims of child sexual abuse - you meet lots of people who don't fit the stereo type limp wristed gay man.

Rockntractor
10-11-2009, 07:21 PM
I will not but the lie that gays cannot be Christians, that they cannot be Americans, that they cannot be good soldiers. They are people like you and I and deserving of the same levels of basic human respect we ourselves want. And lets face facts - you're not getting the mincing prancing faerie cake gays in the military. You're getting guys who fit in with other straights quite easily they just happen to get turned on by other men and not by women.

Look - I don't agree with homosexuality as an agenda. I do not agree that it is anything other than deviant. But I do not and will not condemn people for being gay. Sorry. There but for the grace of God go I. But when you interact with victims of child sexual abuse - you meet lots of people who don't fit the stereo type limp wristed gay man.
All of that will end with the end of don't ask don't tell.

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 07:26 PM
Do you honestly think the military will be fludded with swishy limp-wristed fags if they change don't ask don't tell?

Rockntractor
10-11-2009, 07:36 PM
Do you honestly think the military will be fludded with swishy limp-wristed fags if they change don't ask don't tell?
It will be weakened.

stsinner
10-11-2009, 08:03 PM
I will not but the lie that gays cannot be Christians, that they cannot be Americans, that they cannot be good soldiers. They are people like you and I and deserving of the same levels of basic human respect we ourselves want. And lets face facts - you're not getting the mincing prancing faerie cake gays in the military. You're getting guys who fit in with other straights quite easily they just happen to get turned on by other men and not by women.

Look - I don't agree with homosexuality as an agenda. I do not agree that it is anything other than deviant. But I do not and will not condemn people for being gay. Sorry. There but for the grace of God go I. But when you interact with victims of child sexual abuse - you meet lots of people who don't fit the stereo type limp wristed gay man.

Who said gays can't be Christians? They just can't be good Christians...

stsinner
10-11-2009, 08:07 PM
right and only women have the right to have an opinion on abortion and only minorities have a right to an opinion on affirmative action. :rolleyes: How very leftist of you.
And you're afraid that they're going to see your pee pee?
Right because every gay guy who looks at you always fantasizes about you - huh?
They do it in other countries where their service men and women are GROWN UP ENOUGH to shower without every thought being about sex . . . . Or better still - instead of wide open communal showers - go with STALLS - HOLY SHIT!? PRIVACY??
You're only argument so far is that they threaten your sexuality - and based on that you don't feel they should be allowed to serve eh?

The fact that they are queers demonstrates that their brain is not healthy or normal.. Nobody in their right mind would decide to imitate the opposite sex or say that God made a mistake and get their sex changed.. It's mental illness, and we need our service members to be fit, both mentally and physically.

Why don't you move your pussy, fag-sympathizing ass to Europe, since you so closely align with their fucked up way of living.. There you can take showers with women with no problem with your flaccid, useless prick just hanging there, but for a normal man we'd get a raging boner because there's a naked woman in front of us.. Any man that can shower with women and not get aroused has some issues.. That's why Europeans are rated as such shitty lovers-they see boobies on billboards, and sex is all around them because they're so much more sophisticated-you'd say.. Well, no thanks! I like sex to be special and sexuality special that you see behind closed doors.. I like that boobies are forbidden and that you only see them when you're with your lover of at a gentleman's establishment of anatomical learning. I lived in Europe for 2.5 years, and you see boobs on public television constantly after 10pm... and topless chicks on billboards for things as mundane as milk ads...

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 08:12 PM
Who said gays can't be Christians? They just can't be good Christians...

OY VEY. Why? Is being gay a worse sin than gossip or lack of charity?

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 08:16 PM
The fact that they are queers demonstrates that their brain is not healthy or normal.. Nobody in their right mind would decide to imitate the opposite sex or say that God made a mistake and get their sex changed.. It's mental illness, and we need our service members to be fit, both mentally and physically.

Why don't you move your pussy, fag-sympathizing ass to Europe, since you so closely align with their fucked up way of living.. There you can take showers with women with no problem with your flaccid, useless prick just hanging there, but for a normal man we'd get a raging boner because there's a naked woman in front of us.. Any man that can shower with women and not get aroused has some issues.. That's why Europeans are rated as such shitty lovers-they see boobies on billboards, and sex is all around them because they're so much more sophisticated-you'd say.. Well, no thanks! I like sex to be special and sexuality special that you see behind closed doors.. I like that boobies are forbidden and that you only see them when you're with your lover of at a gentleman's establishment of anatomical learning. I lived in Europe for 2.5 years, and you see boobs on public television constantly after 10pm... and topless chicks on billboards for things as mundane as milk ads...

Ya know someone said to me a while ago that I was wasting my time with you and I said - nah that there is a decent person in there who can be reached. I see I was engaging in wishful thinking and I owe them an apology.

stsinner
10-11-2009, 08:18 PM
Ya know someone said to me a while ago that I was wasting my time with you and I said - nah that there is a decent person in there who can be reached. I see I was engaging in wishful thinking and I owe them an apology.

I'm not decent because queers repulse me and I don't want them serving in the military because I don't consider them mentally stable? Got it.. What a joke.. And good rebuttal.

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 08:24 PM
I'm not decent because queers repulse me and I don't want them serving in the military because I don't consider them mentally stable? Got it.. What a joke.. And good rebuttal.

no - because you're clearly an embodiment of every bullshit charge the left likes to throw at conservatives.

Rockntractor
10-11-2009, 08:30 PM
With the desire of our president and Democrats to turn against our allies and turn our military into some kind of new version of the peace corps maybe the best thing would be for our finest to come home and gays and transvestites can take over. Then when it all falls apart we will have our best men here to protect us and help put things back together again!

karlschneider
10-11-2009, 10:48 PM
Gee, and you wonder why some people think conservatives are just hateful asshole bigots. Now I get it.

karlschneider
10-11-2009, 10:50 PM
Okay, I got your deal...you're a self-hating cocksucker.
Way to go.

Rockntractor
10-11-2009, 10:52 PM
Okay, I got your deal...you're a self-hating cocksucker.
Way to go.

You need to refer to a post specifically. We don't know what poster you mean!

PoliCon
10-11-2009, 11:22 PM
You need to refer to a post specifically. We don't know what poster you mean!

It is - but the guy is clearly used to the prehistoric set up they us at the DUmp.

lacarnut
10-12-2009, 12:08 AM
Dumbass - I posted why he was removed - because an asshole chaplain outed him.

Rules and regulations in the military are different from private life. Since you have never been in the military, you are too stupid to understand.

BTW, your queer buddy was only in the service for 2 months and he's acting like some kind of patriot. Him and Kerry have something in common. Both figured a way to get out of the service early.

For a teacher, you are a dumb ass (not dumbass). FCS, no wonder our education is screwed up.

stsinner
10-12-2009, 12:17 AM
Okay, I got your deal...you're a self-hating cocksucker.
Way to go.

I can see you, with your 9 posts to date, goin' and fuckin' yourself...

stsinner
10-12-2009, 12:18 AM
Gee, and you wonder why some people think conservatives are just hateful asshole bigots. Now I get it.

The alternative is to be what, an all-accepting, no morals, not rules, no conscience Liberal who thinks that faggotry is normal and fine? No thanks..

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 12:19 AM
Vulgarity aside, stsinner makes a good point. Homosexual men are attracted to other men in the same way that women are attracted to men. And if you put a woman in the shower with a bunch of men, it's going to be pretty impossible for her not to lust. Doesn't mean she has to be "attracted to all men" (the argument being used here). She's a human being with a sexual drive, and will be aroused at the sight of a naked man and it'll create an bad situation. Same thing with a gay man. It's just inappropriate to have gay men, who are attracted to men, showering with men. In the same way that it'd be inappropriate to have a woman, who's attracted to men, showering with men. I think it's a valid argument. (that can be made without using the word faggot;))

stsinner
10-12-2009, 12:21 AM
Vulgarity aside, stsinner makes a good point. Homosexual men are attracted to other men in the same way that women are attracted to men. And if you put a woman in the shower with a bunch of men, it's going to be pretty impossible for her not to lust. Doesn't mean she has to be "attracted to all men" (the argument being used here). She's a human being with a sexual drive, and will be aroused at the sight of a naked man and it'll create an bad situation. Same thing with a gay man. It's just inappropriate to have gay men, who are attracted to men, showering with men. In the same way that it'd be inappropriate to have a woman, who's attracted to men, showering with men. I think it's a valid argument. (that can be made without using the word faggot;))

Very eloquent... Thank you.

lacarnut
10-12-2009, 12:27 AM
I can see you, with your 9 posts to date, goin' and fuckin' yourself...

Or letting a donkey do it.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 12:39 AM
I can see you, with your 9 posts to date, goin' and fuckin' yourself...

He may have been referring to me stinner.

stsinner
10-12-2009, 12:40 AM
He may have been referring to me stinner.

I doubt that. . Nobody disagrees with your neutral positions.... You don't make waves.. I do... and proudly!!!

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 12:43 AM
I doubt that. . Nobody disagrees with your neutral positions.... You don't make waves.. I do... and proudly!!!
Post #93 was neutral?

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 01:01 AM
I guess I didn't make my view clear. I agree with don't ask don't tell. It keeps the openly activist gays out while allowing gays that don't define themselves by how they have sex to join the service. Anymore that is not enough for the liberals and they plan on allowing openly gay individuals to join. This will cause a lot of trouble and will ultimately weaken our military.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 01:03 AM
OY VEY. Why? Is being gay a worse sin than gossip or lack of charity?

It's not worse, it's just that gossipers and greedy people don't go around trying to moralize and promote their sins. Or if they do- people (should) condemn it. You don't see murderers, thieves, prostitutes going around forming murderer and thief pride parades or prostitute rights campaigns. There's a big difference between a sinner who hates and struggles with his sin, and a sinner who's proud of his sin. That being said, there are also proud druggies, drunkards, fornicators, gluttons, etc that don't receive the same condemnation that homosexuals do. Which they should. I think the reasons for this are: a. many people hypocritically pick and choose which sins they like and which ones they don't (I am guilty of this)....and b. homosexuality is easier to hate because it has a certain repulsiveness to the human eye that other sins don't.

djones520
10-12-2009, 09:50 AM
Rules and regulations in the military are different from private life. Since you have never been in the military, you are too stupid to understand.

BTW, your queer buddy was only in the service for 2 months and he's acting like some kind of patriot. Him and Kerry have something in common. Both figured a way to get out of the service early.

For a teacher, you are a dumb ass (not dumbass). FCS, no wonder our education is screwed up.

Anyone who takes that oath is. My wife never made it through Basic Training (she tried twice) due to medical conditions. Does that not make her a Patriot?

And where are you getting your two month timeline from? He was less then a month from deploying to Iraq when he was discharged. Your two months would have just put him just 2/3rds the way through Boot Camp. A basic Infantry Marine will spend more then 5 months in training before their even released to the regular Corp. Also, by looking at his picture in Uniform, he was a Corporal. That means at MINIMUM he had to have been in for atleast a year. So you might want to check your source on that time frame again.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 11:27 AM
Rules and regulations in the military are different from private life. Since you have never been in the military, you are too stupid to understand. Do you always argue like a democrat?


BTW, your queer buddy was only in the service for 2 months and he's acting like some kind of patriot. Him and Kerry have something in common. Both figured a way to get out of the service early. Anyone who willingly serves - no matter how short or how long - is a patriot.


For a teacher, you are a dumb ass (not dumbass). FCS, no wonder our education is screwed up. Gee that's scathing coming as it does from someone who argues like your typical DUmmy. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 11:29 AM
Vulgarity aside, stsinner makes a good point. Homosexual men are attracted to other men in the same way that women are attracted to men. And if you put a woman in the shower with a bunch of men, it's going to be pretty impossible for her not to lust. Doesn't mean she has to be "attracted to all men" (the argument being used here). She's a human being with a sexual drive, and will be aroused at the sight of a naked man and it'll create an bad situation. Same thing with a gay man. It's just inappropriate to have gay men, who are attracted to men, showering with men. In the same way that it'd be inappropriate to have a woman, who's attracted to men, showering with men. I think it's a valid argument. (that can be made without using the word faggot;))

Are you a slave to your lusts? Just because one person is a slave to their passions and lusts does not mean that all have that problem. What you're saying is paramount to saying it's impossible for anyone to be celibate because you could not be celibate yourself. Sorry - that's not the case.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 11:37 AM
It's not worse, it's just that gossipers and greedy people don't go around trying to moralize and promote their sins.PUL-EEZ! Sure they do. Perhaps you just don't recognize it when it happens.


Or if they do- people (should) condemn it. Condemnation? See there is half the problem with the half of Christianity. God does not bring condemnation. He brings CONVICTION - there is a difference and the sooner people learn it the sooner they can stop being tools for the devil inside the body of Christ.


You don't see murderers, thieves, prostitutes going around forming murderer and thief pride parades or prostitute rights campaigns.And who do you see defending the gay AGENDA?


There's a big difference between a sinner who hates and struggles with his sin, and a sinner who's proud of his sin. Proud of their sin? You're making the fatal assumption that they know it is a sin. Like it or not lady - we all have sins in our lives that we are blind to - either in the short term or in the long term. Whether that blindness comes through ignorance or willfulness it doesn't matter - the reality is we're blind. Take the catholic protestant divide as an example - ignoring the hot headed idiots on both sides - the general teaching of each side is that the other is in ignorance of their doctrinal sins.


That being said, there are also proud druggies, drunkards, fornicators, gluttons, etc that don't receive the same condemnation that homosexuals do. Which they should. I think the reasons for this are: a. many people hypocritically pick and choose which sins they like and which ones they don't (I am guilty of this)....and b. homosexuality is easier to hate because it has a certain repulsiveness to the human eye that other sins don't. Homosexuality is a sin of the flesh. Do not confuse the sins of the flesh with the sins of the spirit.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 12:56 PM
Are you a slave to your lusts? Just because one person is a slave to their passions and lusts does not mean that all have that problem. What you're saying is paramount to saying it's impossible for anyone to be celibate because you could not be celibate yourself. Sorry - that's not the case.

LOL. You're implying homosexuals aren't slaves to their lusts? Homosexuality IS a sinful lust, and the bible says sinners ARE slaves to their sinful nature. Of course gays are slaves to their lusts, else they wouldn't be gays. Or do we have yet another christian here who's bought into the whole "gays are born with it" lie? Wouldn't be surprising. Anyways, back to my argument. I said it is natural and normal for women to lust after men, and men to lust after women, which is why they do not shower together in a public environment. It is not natural or normal, however, for women to lust after women, or for men to lust after men...so the two sexes may shower with their OWN sex, without any problems Surely you're not going to cry "unfair" thusfar? Don't think so. So, using this logic, as it is "natural" and "normal" for gay men to lust after other men....it is as inappropriate for the two to shower as it is the two sexes. The whole "gay men aren't attracted to every man they see" argument doesn't work, because neither do women. Yet it is still inappropriate to have women showering with men.

lacarnut
10-12-2009, 12:56 PM
Anyone who takes that oath is. My wife never made it through Basic Training (she tried twice) due to medical conditions. Does that not make her a Patriot?

And where are you getting your two month timeline from? He was less then a month from deploying to Iraq when he was discharged. Your two months would have just put him just 2/3rds the way through Boot Camp. A basic Infantry Marine will spend more then 5 months in training before their even released to the regular Corp. Also, by looking at his picture in Uniform, he was a Corporal. That means at MINIMUM he had to have been in for atleast a year. So you might want to check your source on that time frame again.

You are correct; he was in the marines for 4 years from 2001 to 2005. The article also said he was married and that was why he was kicked out.

Like I said, there are different rules and regulations for the military. You violate them and you get your ass kicked out. Military service is not a right. Queers do not belong in the military in my opinion.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 01:11 PM
LOL. You're implying homosexuals aren't slaves to their lusts? Homosexuality IS a sinful lust, and the bible says sinners ARE slaves to their sinful nature. Of course gays are slaves to their lusts, else they wouldn't be gays.

How many Gay people do you interact with on a day to day basis? How many Gays do you personally know IRL? Are your basing your claims on observations or assumptions?



Or do we have yet another christian here who's bought into the whole "gays are born with it" lie? Wouldn't be surprising. OY VEY. How long have you been 'saved'? :rolleyes:



Anyways, back to my argument. I said it is natural and normal for women to lust after men, and men to lust after women, which is why they do not shower together in a public environment. It is not natural or normal, however, for women to lust after women, or for men to lust after men...so the two sexes may shower with their OWN sex, without any problems Surely you're not going to cry "unfair" thusfar? Don't think so. So, using this logic, as it is "natural" and "normal" for gay men to lust after other men....it is as inappropriate for the two to shower as it is the two sexes. The whole "gay men aren't attracted to every man they see" argument doesn't work, because neither do women. Yet it is still inappropriate to have women showering with men. Are you a slave to your lusts?

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 01:14 PM
You are correct; he was in the marines for 4 years from 2001 to 2005. The article also said he was married and that was why he was kicked out.

Like I said, there are different rules and regulations for the military. You violate them and you get your ass kicked out. Military service is not a right. Queers do not belong in the military in my opinion.

Who said it was a right? If anything I'd call it a duty.

As for the guy in question - seems to me that he operated within the rules of the military - he did not ask or tell. He was OUTED.

djones520
10-12-2009, 01:23 PM
LOL. You're implying homosexuals aren't slaves to their lusts? Homosexuality IS a sinful lust, and the bible says sinners ARE slaves to their sinful nature. Of course gays are slaves to their lusts, else they wouldn't be gays. Or do we have yet another christian here who's bought into the whole "gays are born with it" lie? Wouldn't be surprising. Anyways, back to my argument. I said it is natural and normal for women to lust after men, and men to lust after women, which is why they do not shower together in a public environment. It is not natural or normal, however, for women to lust after women, or for men to lust after men...so the two sexes may shower with their OWN sex, without any problems Surely you're not going to cry "unfair" thusfar? Don't think so. So, using this logic, as it is "natural" and "normal" for gay men to lust after other men....it is as inappropriate for the two to shower as it is the two sexes. The whole "gay men aren't attracted to every man they see" argument doesn't work, because neither do women. Yet it is still inappropriate to have women showering with men.

Your argument against this is based apon the Christian view of Homosexuality.

You do realize that the Military cannot make it's regulations based apon religious doctrine, right? Just because you try to compair it to other sins, does not mean the Military will view it so.

djones520
10-12-2009, 01:24 PM
Who said it was a right? If anything I'd call it a duty.

As for the guy in question - seems to me that he operated within the rules of the military - he did not ask or tell. He was OUTED.

By a Chaplain who broke confidentiality. If there is anyone in the military that should have been safe with, it should have been a Chaplain. Personally, I hope he got nailed to the wall as well.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 01:25 PM
Who said it was a right? If anything I'd call it a duty.

As for the guy in question - seems to me that he operated within the rules of the military - he did not ask or tell. He was OUTED.

Sucks to be him!

lacarnut
10-12-2009, 01:29 PM
.

As for the guy in question - seems to me that he operated within the rules of the military - he did not ask or tell. He was OUTED.

Not when you are advertising for sex on the internet.

djones520
10-12-2009, 01:29 PM
Not when you are advertising for sex on the internet.

Where are you seeing this? All I've read is that the information was reported by a Chaplain.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 01:30 PM
Your argument against this is based apon the Christian view of Homosexuality.

You do realize that the Military cannot make it's regulations based apon religious doctrine, right? Just because you try to compair it to other sins, does not mean the Military will view it so.

Correction - her argument is based on a fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 01:31 PM
By a Chaplain who broke confidentiality. If there is anyone in the military that should have been safe with, it should have been a Chaplain. Personally, I hope he got nailed to the wall as well.

The chaplain in question did it after he had retired and gone into 'private practice' if you will. Even so - I have more contempt for that chaplain who broke confidentiality than I do for the gay man.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 01:40 PM
PUL-EEZ! Sure they do. Perhaps you just don't recognize it when it happens.
Condemnation? See there is half the problem with the half of Christianity. God does not bring condemnation. He brings CONVICTION - there is a difference and the sooner people learn it the sooner they can stop being tools for the devil inside the body of Christ.
And who do you see defending the gay AGENDA?
Proud of their sin? You're making the fatal assumption that they know it is a sin. Like it or not lady - we all have sins in our lives that we are blind to - either in the short term or in the long term. Whether that blindness comes through ignorance or willfulness it doesn't matter - the reality is we're blind. Take the catholic protestant divide as an example - ignoring the hot headed idiots on both sides - the general teaching of each side is that the other is in ignorance of their doctrinal sins.
Homosexuality is a sin of the flesh. Do not confuse the sins of the flesh with the sins of the spirit.

Oh boy. Liberal Christianity, spreading like a virus through the church. No wonder you called me a "Puritan" for condemning immodesty. Now I'm probably a Puritan for condemning homosexuality too, huh? I didn't say we should condemn the sinner. I said we should condemn the sin. Including, and especially, our own. You can't let someone know how bad their sin is, THAT THEY MAY REPENT, without condemning it. We love the sinner (because we are all sinners), hate the sin, and condemn it. It, not them. You question "who do I see defending the gay" agenda is just...remarkable. I can't believe you even asked that. Who in this country do I see defending the gay agenda? You mean...other than the gays, the media, the liberals, the conservatives, the schools, the government, the current administration, the liberal church, etc? Yes, proud gays do not know that they are in sin. So what are we to do? TELL THEM. And are we to sugar coat the truth so that they'll be less hurt? NO! Spreading the gospel to the lost means being brutally honest. This doesn't mean you attack them on a trivial level or get mean-spirited. But you speak in truth and boldness and don't try and water it down so that you'll feel more "in with the times". Homosexuality is a sin, period, and it doesn't matter if it's a sin in thought or in deed, for God says sin starts in the heart and both thoughts and deeds will be judged on judgment day. Do you not believe God when he says this? Do you not believe him when he says not to cause another brother to stumble into sin? So if a gay man lusting over another man is a sin, one so abhorrant to God that it's punishable by hell....why would you, acting like the loving Christian, EVER want to cause another man to stumble into such a sin? Why would you EVER want to encourage it by supporting them being in the position to do so? If you knew that men lust over women, and lusting over women is a sin, would you find it a good idea to have men showering with women, knowing the inevitable lust that will abound in such situation? Well, I'd better hope not. Being a loving Christian and all.

What is your definition of love? Is it the man-made definition of being nice to everyone and telling them what they want to hear, letting them do whatever they want so that they won't be hurt emotionally...even if they end up perishing in hell? Or is your definition of love the biblical one- that is, telling the pure, hard, unadulterated, un-sugar-coated, un-watered-down truth of the dilemma of their sin, God's holiness, and God's justice....so that they may repent, be forgiven, and be saved? This is what loving your neighour as you love yourself truly is. Telling them the ugly truth- because it's the ugly truth that saves. And you must desire for your neighbour what you have or desire for yourself...salvation. If you truly hated sin and cared as much about your fellow man as you do yourself....if you do unto him as you would have him do unto you, you would be discouraging that sin in every way possible. You would speak out against the promoting or encouraging of it. This is what true Christian love (Agape) is. But I know more and more theologically liberal Christians are "removing the ancient landmarks" (as warned not to do in the bible) because they want to go with what their own foolish heart and "reasoning" tells them, instead of what God tells them. You cannot try and mix secular morals with biblical morals. If you claim the be a Christian, then your allegiance is to God, not man. Your fear is of God, not man. You answer to God...not man.

linda22003
10-12-2009, 01:43 PM
Paragraphs are our friends. :)

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 01:47 PM
Correction - her argument is based on a fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality.

Fundamentalist Christian is a term given by liberal modern-day Christians to other Christians who hold deeply to the truths in the bible, and don't try to "update" or toy with God's word to fit their own viewpoints. You think my views on homosexuality are too strict? My dear christian...would you like me to show you what God's views on homosexuality are? Do you think you can stomach it? Or will you cry "Puritan!!!" at God too.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 01:48 PM
Paragraphs are our friends. :)

Not when you've pulled an allnighter!

linda22003
10-12-2009, 01:49 PM
This is by no means a hyper-religious board, as FR tends to be in spots. We're pretty live-and-let-live with each others' theology.

What's this fixation with everyone taking showers together?

FlaGator
10-12-2009, 01:49 PM
Correction - her argument is based on a fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality.

What is the fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality? As one who considers himself a fundamentalist Christian I would like to know how you define the the fundamentalist viewl.

linda22003
10-12-2009, 01:50 PM
Not when you've pulled an allnighter!

Ahhh, I used to do that in college. It helped having a boyfriend whose brother owned a pharmacy. :cool:

djones520
10-12-2009, 01:51 PM
What is the fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality? As one who considers himself a fundamentalist Christian I would like to know how you define the the fundamentalist viewl.

How are you? Fundamentalist Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. You've more then admitted to me that you don't.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 01:56 PM
Oh boy. Liberal Christianity, spreading like a virus through the church. You make lots and lots of assumptions. It's kinda scary.



No wonder you called me a "Puritan" for condemning immodesty. I called you a puritan for your sexual hang ups and seeing every little thing as something to get worked up over.


Now I'm probably a Puritan for condemning homosexuality too, huh? I didn't say we should condemn the sinner. I said we should condemn the sin. Including, and especially, our own. You can't let someone know how bad their sin is, THAT THEY MAY REPENT, without condemning it. We love the sinner (because we are all sinners), hate the sin, and condemn it. It, not them.
With respect - wake up and get a clue. When did Jesus ever speak condemnation to anyone or against anything? He spoke against sin - but NEVER did he offer condemnation. He leaves the condemnation to the enemy of our souls. Jesus Spoke CONVICTION not CONDEMNATION and the sooner you learn the difference - the faster you will grow in Christ. let me offer you a suggestion. Do a Character study in the bible and you find for me one - JUST ONE person in that book that God used that did not have a personality flaw of some sort. David a man after God's own heart had is troubles with lust - and it wasn't until he committed MURDER that God turned on him. :rolleyes:




You question "who do I see defending the gay agenda is just...remarkable. I can't believe you even asked that. Who in this country do I see defending the gay agenda? You mean...other than the gays, the media, the liberals, the conservatives, the schools, the government, the current administration, the liberal church, etc? Yes, proud gays do not know that they are in sin. So what are we to do? TELL THEM. Lady - get out of the ether and come back to earth. Who on in THIS CONVERSATION do you see defending the gay agenda? This discussion is not about the GAY AGENDA. It's about whether or not a gay man can and should serve in the military. :rolleyes:


And are we to sugar coat the truth so that they'll be less hurt? NO! Spreading the gospel to the lost means being brutally honest. Right because when they came to Christ with the woman taken in adultery he screamed YOU'RE A WHORE! right? :rolleyes:


This doesn't mean you attack them on a trivial level or get mean-spirited. But you speak in truth and boldness and don't try and water it down so that you'll feel more "in with the times". You are very good a parroting fundamentalist talking points.



Homosexuality is a sin, period, and it doesn't matter is it's a sin in thought or in deed, for God says sin starts in the heart and both thoughts and deeds will be judged on judgment day. Do you not believe God when he says this? Do you not believe him when he says not to cause another brother to stumble into sin? So if a gay man lusting over another man is a sin, one so abhorrant to God that it's punishable by hell....why would you, acting like the loving Christian, EVER want to cause another man to stumble into such a sin? Why would you EVER want to encourage it by supporting them being in the position to do so? If you knew that a men lust over women, and lusting over women is a sin, would you find it a good idea to have men showering with women, knowing the inevitable lust that will abound in such situation? Well, I'd better hope not. blah blah blah blah blah blah . . . .You're one of those damn fools who think if you're gay you're going to hell no matter what aren't ya. :rolleyes: One of those gays can't be Christians people - huh?

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 01:58 PM
Fundamentalist Christian is a term given by liberal modern-day Christians to other Christians who hold deeply to the truths in the bible, and don't try to "update" or toy with God's word to fit their own viewpoints. You think my views on homosexuality are too strict? My dear christian...would you like me to show you what God's views on homosexuality are? Do you think you can stomach it? Or will you cry "Puritan!!!" at God too.

Like I said - the fundamentalist Christian view. :rolleyes: They have their world view and interpret Scripture to fit that world view.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:00 PM
This is by no means a hyper-religious board, as FR tends to be in spots. We're pretty live-and-let-live with each others' theology.

What's this fixation with everyone taking showers together?

people who are slaves to given impulses are fixated on the idea that everyone in the world MUST ALSO be fixated on those same impulses. It's the same idea that makes people believe that celibacy is impossible and anyone who claims to be celibate must be diddling someone - or at least lusting after that idea . . . .

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:02 PM
What is the fundamentalist Christian view of homosexuality? As one who considers himself a fundamentalist Christian I would like to know how you define the the fundamentalist viewl.

On homosexuality? I'll strip it down to the basics:

1 - everyone who is 'gay' chooses to be gay and that's it.

2 - everyone who is gay is lusting over everyone they look at all the time.

3 - gays cannot be Christians

4 - homosexuality is the worst sin ever!!!11!1!1111!11!

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 02:13 PM
Haha, wow. In one ear, out the other.

All I can say is, if you think I am too "fundamentalist" or "strict" or "puritanical"....I really have no idea how you can stomach the Bible. Do you know how God punished gays for sodomy in Israel, Poli? It wasn't very politically correct or "nice", but guess what...it was God. Kind of trumps our feeble little man-made morals, doesn't it?

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:18 PM
Haha, wow. In one ear, out the other.

All I can say is, if you think I am too "fundamentalist" or "strict" or "puritanical"....I really have no idea how you can stomach the Bible.

My dear - I stomach the bible quite well thank you. Not only do I stomach it - I'm qualified to teach it.

FlaGator
10-12-2009, 02:18 PM
How are you? Fundamentalist Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. You've more then admitted to me that you don't.

See, that is a misconception of fundamentalism that we take take every thing at face value and question nothing. What we take as literal are the laws by which the God and Jesus say we should live. The bans against homosexual behavior we do not question nor the the commission to share the Gospel. We have no doubts about the existence, life and experiences of the writers of the bible and that the people that are spoken of are real people. I accept the existence of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. I accept Noah and the flood althought I tend to believe that it wasn't necessarily a world wide event. That said, I do find it intriging that so many cultures have flood stores. Maybe did happen. Whether it really happened or is allegorical in nature does nothing to hinder my faith. It is what Paul calls "disputable matters"

As a fundamentalist, I take the word and commands of Christ literally. More literally than some like but hey, it's my life and my veiws harm no one. The Bible teaches me not to commit adultery or engage in sex outside of marriage so this I do. It tells me to help those in need and to love my neighbor and pray for my enemies so I do. The Bible tells me to forgive so I forgive. Christ tells me to be concerned about all people and their salvation so I do. Living the word is what real fundamentalists do. Christ told us we should be light and salt to the world so I try to be that. I try to make my life an example so that others might see that there is another way to live than what the world teaches. Treat others as you would like to be treated not as you are treated and trust in God. That, to me, is fundamentalism.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 02:23 PM
On homosexuality? I'll strip it down to the basics:

1 - everyone who is 'gay' chooses to be gay and that's it.

2 - everyone who is gay is lusting over everyone they look at all the time.

3 - gays cannot be Christians

4 - homosexuality is the worst sin ever!!!11!1!1111!11!

Let me refute that.

1. Everyone who's gay DOES choose to be gay, according to the bible. But not according to poli!

2. Everyone who's gay is not constantly lusting over everyone they look at (nor was this ever implied).

3. Gays, like all other sinners, can be forgiven and saved if they repent. Christians cannot, however, remain
unrepentedly gay after being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Can they struggle with homosexuality? Absolutely! Can they fall into their old sinful habits ( just as David did)? Absolutely! Do they repent afterwards and strive toward godliness? Absolutely! Did David repent? Absolutely! Did he try to justify his sin and continue in it unrepentedly? Absolutely not! Does a Christian, now filled with a spirit of God, have a general hatred for
sin, because he loves God, and God hates sin? Absolutely. Solomon strayed for alittle bit. He repented. David fell into grave sin. He repented. Repentance is key in the life of a Christian.

4. Incorrect, the unforgivable sin (Judas) would be the worst sin ever, as mentioned in the new testament. I haven't heard anyone claim homosexuality is.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 02:33 PM
Let me refute that.

1. Everyone who's gay DOES choose to be gay, according to the bible. But not according to poli!

2. Everyone who's gay is not constantly lusting over everyone they look at (nor was this ever implied).

3. Gays, like all other sinners, can be forgiven and saved if they repent. Christians cannot, however, remain
unrepentedly gay after being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Can they struggle with homosexuality? Absolutely! Can they fall into their old sinful habits ( just as David did)? Absolutely! Do they repent afterwards and strive toward godliness? Absolutely! Did David repent? Absolutely! Did he try to justify his sin and continue in it unrepentedly? Absolutely not! Does a Christian, now filled with a spirit of God, have a general hatred for
sin, because he loves God, and God hates sin? Absolutely. Solomon strayed for alittle bit. He repented. David fell into grave sin. He repented. Repentance is key in the life of a Christian.

4. Incorrect, the unforgivable sin (Judas) would be the worst sin ever, as mentioned in the new testament. I haven't heard anyone claim homosexuality is.
12 years ago I did prison ministry one of the inmates I counciled was an admitted homosexual. I was never judgmental to him for this specific sin but after two years of counciling and bible study he quit the homosexual life style and decided for himself that it was wrong. He is happily married to a woman now and is a successful web page designer.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 02:33 PM
See, that is a misconception of fundamentalism that we take take every thing at face value and question nothing. What we take as literal are the laws by which the God and Jesus say we should live. The bans against homosexual behavior we do not question nor the the commission to share the Gospel. We have no doubts about the existence, life and experiences of the writers of the bible and that the people that are spoken of are real people. I accept the existence of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. I accept Noah and the flood althought I tend to believe that it wasn't necessarily a world wide event. That said, I do find it intriging that so many cultures have flood stores. Maybe did happen. Whether it really happened or is allegorical in nature does nothing to hinder my faith. It is what Paul calls "disputable matters"

As a fundamentalist, I take the word and commands of Christ literally. More literally than some like but hey, it's my life and my veiws harm no one. The Bible teaches me not to commit adultery or engage in sex outside of marriage so this I do. It tells me to help those in need and to love my neighbor and pray for my enemies so I do. The Bible tells me to forgive so I forgive. Christ tells me to be concerned about all people and their salvation so I do. Living the word is what real fundamentalists do. Christ told us we should be light and salt to the world so I try to be that. I try to make my life an example so that others might see that there is another way to live than what the world teaches. Treat others as you would like to be treated not as you are treated and trust in God. That, to me, is fundamentalism.

The fact that many Christians take God's word very seriously does not make them wacko old-fashioned fundamentalists. It makes them humble, God-fearing Christians who want to please God and dedicate their lives to him....obeying his commands, not because they have to, but because they love him and love to obey him. They are eternally grateful for his salvation bestowed upon them....so they revel in following his word and becoming holier through sanctification. Christ said "be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect". He also said "anyone who says he loves me, but obeys not my commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him". Yikes! That's pretty fundamentalist of Jesus, isn't it?

djones520
10-12-2009, 02:34 PM
See, that is a misconception of fundamentalism that we take take every thing at face value and question nothing. What we take as literal are the laws by which the God and Jesus say we should live. The bans against homosexual behavior we do not question nor the the commission to share the Gospel. We have no doubts about the existence, life and experiences of the writers of the bible and that the people that are spoken of are real people. I accept the existence of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. I accept Noah and the flood althought I tend to believe that it wasn't necessarily a world wide event. That said, I do find it intriging that so many cultures have flood stores. Maybe did happen. Whether it really happened or is allegorical in nature does nothing to hinder my faith. It is what Paul calls "disputable matters"

As a fundamentalist, I take the word and commands of Christ literally. More literally than some like but hey, it's my life and my veiws harm no one. The Bible teaches me not to commit adultery or engage in sex outside of marriage so this I do. It tells me to help those in need and to love my neighbor and pray for my enemies so I do. The Bible tells me to forgive so I forgive. Christ tells me to be concerned about all people and their salvation so I do. Living the word is what real fundamentalists do. Christ told us we should be light and salt to the world so I try to be that. I try to make my life an example so that others might see that there is another way to live than what the world teaches. Treat others as you would like to be treated not as you are treated and trust in God. That, to me, is fundamentalism.


fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism  /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
Use fundamentalism in a Sentence
See web results for fundamentalism
See images of fundamentalism
Ėnoun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

Thats where I'm getting my definition.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:38 PM
Let me refute that.

1. Everyone who's gay DOES choose to be gay, according to the bible. But not according to poli!

2. Everyone who's gay is not constantly lusting over everyone they look at (nor was this ever implied).

3. Gays, like all other sinners, can be forgiven and saved if they repent. Christians cannot, however, remain
unrepentedly gay after being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Can they struggle with homosexuality? Absolutely! Can they fall into their old sinful habits ( just as David did)? Absolutely! Do they repent afterwards and strive toward godliness? Absolutely! Did David repent? Absolutely! Did he try to justify his sin and continue in it unrepentedly? Absolutely not! Does a Christian, now filled with a spirit of God, have a general hatred for
sin, because he loves God, and God hates sin? Absolutely. Solomon strayed for alittle bit. He repented. David fell into grave sin. He repented. Repentance is key in the life of a Christian.

4. Incorrect, the unforgivable sin (Judas) would be the worst sin ever, as mentioned in the new testament. I haven't heard anyone claim homosexuality is.

lady - provide scripture where God says gays choose to be gay. Thanks.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 02:38 PM
12 years ago I did prison ministry one of the inmates I counciled was an admitted homosexual. I was never judgmental to him for this specific sin but after two years of counciling and bible study he quit the homosexual life style and decided for himself that it was wrong. He is happily married to a woman now and is a successful web page designer.

That's wonderful :). I love hearing stories of healing. Are you a pastor btw?

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 02:39 PM
lady - provide scripture where God says gays choose to be gay. Thanks.
All sin is a choice YOU KNOW THAT AND DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD!

djones520
10-12-2009, 02:41 PM
All sin is a choice YOU KNOW THAT AND DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD!

Can you point out what scripture says it is a Sin? The only thing I've read in the bible regarding, calls it abomination.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 02:41 PM
That's wonderful :). I love hearing stories of healing. Are you a pastor btw?
No, A Christian who has had personal experience with alcohol abuse.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:41 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

Thats where I'm getting my definition.

here's what's funny. When it comes to the history - I'm 100% right there. I believe genesis is 100% Chronological history. I may disagree with how that is or has been classically interpreted - but I do not believe it to be allegorical. BUT - at the same time - I am not as ridged or exclusive as fundamentalists tend to be in the interpretation of what is not historical information.

djones520
10-12-2009, 02:43 PM
here's what's funny. When it comes to the history - I'm 100% right there. I believe genesis is 100% Chronological history. I may disagree with how that is or has been classically interpreted - but I do not believe it to be allegorical. BUT - at the same time - I am not as ridged or exclusive as fundamentalists tend to be in the interpretation of what is not historical information.

You and I need to have a talk about geological records someday...

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 02:44 PM
lady - provide scripture where God says gays choose to be gay. Thanks.

God says we are responsible for our sins, because, although we are slaves to them...we are WILLFUL slaves, because we choose. Just like Eve chose to disobey God. Even though she had been deceived by a strong lie, she still was responsible for the choice. All sinthat we commit, we choose to commit it, else God could not hold us responsible and punish us for it. Homosexuality is no different.

djones520
10-12-2009, 02:45 PM
God says we are responsible for our sins, because, although we are slaves to them...we are WILLFUL slaves, because we choose. Just like Eve chose to disobey God. Even though she had been deceived by a strong lie, she still was responsible for the choice. All sinthat we commit, we choose to commit it, else God could not hold us responsible and punish us for it. Homosexuality is no different.

Again, please show where the bible lables homosexuality as something other then abomination. I'm not tying to say your wrong, just saying I'VE never seen it.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:46 PM
All sin is a choice YOU KNOW THAT AND DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD!

That's not the argument. Where does scripture say that gays choose to be gay? I can point to scripture that verifies a propensity towards a given sin can be inherited - ie genetically encoded. IN FACT - its written right into the Decalogue that sin can be genetically encoded.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:46 PM
You and I need to have a talk about geological records someday...

I'm not a young earth Christian. :p

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 02:47 PM
Can you point out what scripture says it is a Sin? The only thing I've read in the bible regarding, calls it abomination.
What part of abomination is unclear to you? Anything that doesn't please God is sin. There are no gray areas with God. That is an understanding you get from reading the bible many times cover to cover not just dwelling on a few select texts. Discover for yourself, I can't put myself in your shoes.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:47 PM
God says we are responsible for our sins, because, although we are slaves to them...we are WILLFUL slaves, because we choose. Just like Eve chose to disobey God. Even though she had been deceived by a strong lie, she still was responsible for the choice. All sinthat we commit, we choose to commit it, else God could not hold us responsible and punish us for it. Homosexuality is no different.

Where does it say that being gay is a sin? Where does it say you choose to be gay?

Chapter, verse and translation please.

djones520
10-12-2009, 02:53 PM
What part of abomination is unclear to you? Anything that doesn't please God is sin. There are no gray areas with God. That is an understanding you get from reading the bible many times cover to cover not just dwelling on a few select texts. Discover for yourself, I can't put myself in your shoes.

You do realize that right next to where it calls the action abomination (in the same section that it says eating pig is the same thing) that they should be put to death, right?

I also find it interesting that the translation specifically only points to male on male sex. There seems to be no such taboo against female homosexuality. Or am I just taking it to literally?


And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 02:54 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

Thats where I'm getting my definition.

That's a pretty perfect definition, I think. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible being foundational...

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 02:55 PM
What part of abomination is unclear to you? Anything that doesn't please God is sin. There are no gray areas with God. That is an understanding you get from reading the bible many times cover to cover not just dwelling on a few select texts. Discover for yourself, I can't put myself in your shoes.

THANK YOU!

djones520
10-12-2009, 02:56 PM
That's a pretty perfect definition, I think. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible being foundational...

I'm going to have to create a differant thread where we can talk about Fundamentalism in a few days. Lets hold onto it till then.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:56 PM
You do realize that right next to where it calls the action abomination (in the same section that it says eating pig is the same thing) that they should be put to death, right?

I also find it interesting that the translation specifically only points to male on male sex. There seems to be no such taboo against female homosexuality. Or am I just taking it to literally?

you notice though - that the "abomination" is the ACTION not the attraction - the act must be done. Amusing as well how as you point out - that part is picked for retention while other aspects of that passage are passed off . . . .

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:57 PM
That's a pretty perfect definition, I think. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible being foundational...

ain't NOTHING infallible but God. :rolleyes: And do I need to point out the verifiable historical errors inerrantly recorded in scripture as infallible truth?

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 02:57 PM
This is not a theocracy and sin has no bearing on my opinion concerning gays in the military. Everyone in the military is their to protect our nation, it was never intended to be a place for people to promote their sexual lifestyles, anything that weakens our military in any way costs lives. Don’t ask don’t tell works well in most cases. If it didn’t for you all I can say is life isn’t always fair. Get over it.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 02:59 PM
This is not a theocracy and sin has no bearing on my opinion concerning gays in the military. Everyone in the military is their to protect our nation, it was never intended to be a place for people to promote their sexual lifestyles, anything that weakens our military in any way costs lives. Donít ask donít tell works well in most cases. If it didnít for you all I can say is life isnít always fair. Get over it.

You realize that gays have only been banned in the military since 1947?

djones520
10-12-2009, 03:00 PM
This is not a theocracy and sin has no bearing on my opinion concerning gays in the military. Everyone in the military is their to protect our nation, it was never intended to be a place for people to promote their sexual lifestyles, anything that weakens our military in any way costs lives. Donít ask donít tell works well in most cases. If it didnít for you all I can say is life isnít always fair. Get over it.

Allowing homosexuals to serve in the military will in no way allow them to "promote" their sexuality. Do you realize how stringent the AF is regarding things like that? There would be zero tolerance at all to gays trying to act out.

You are right in the aspect of it weakening the military though. But that would only be in the sense that I pointed out with Stinner. It'll only be weakened by those who cannot tolerate gays.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 03:00 PM
You do realize that right next to where it calls the action abomination (in the same section that it says eating pig is the same thing) that they should be put to death, right?

I also find it interesting that the translation specifically only points to male on male sex. There seems to be no such taboo against female homosexuality. Or am I just taking it to literally?
I'm not going to show you where food laws were lifted, I will tell you that it is in Acts. Homosexual prohibition is reaffirmed in the new testament though.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 03:02 PM
So no one on this conservative board agrees with don't ask don't tell?

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 03:06 PM
So no one on this conservative board agrees with don't ask don't tell?

I do. I thought I made that clear . . . . :confused: . . . hell that's my view on homosexuality in general. I won't ask - and I don't want to be told!

djones520
10-12-2009, 03:08 PM
I'm not going to show you where food laws were lifted, I will tell you that it is in Acts. Homosexual prohibition is reaffirmed in the new testament though.

And the New Testament still holds that they should be put to death.

Romans 1:26-32

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 03:09 PM
Here's some:

Lev. 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them

1 Cor. 6:9-1: Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Rom. 1:26-28: For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

djones520
10-12-2009, 03:09 PM
So no one on this conservative board agrees with don't ask don't tell?

I agree that it is the best system for today. Maybe eventually America will progress socially enough to accept open homosexuality in the military like many other countries in this world (Israel, Japan, etc...).

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 03:15 PM
And the New Testament still holds that they should be put to death.

Romans 1:26-32

Not by man there was no longer a Jewish theocracy. Take it up with God, he is the executioner now, He will judge us all and I for one do not want to be responsible for adding or taking away from his law. you study for yourself you will stand naked before his judgment.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 03:15 PM
So no one on this conservative board agrees with don't ask don't tell?

I am. Like I said before, if you're going to ban gays, you'll have to ban drunkards, thieves, idolators, cursers, gossipers, angry people, and anyone who's not Christian for that matter.

stsinner
10-12-2009, 03:16 PM
So no one on this conservative board agrees with don't ask don't tell?

I do.

stsinner
10-12-2009, 03:17 PM
I do. I thought I made that clear . . . . :confused: . . . hell that's my view on homosexuality in general. I won't ask - and I don't want to be told!

Exactly!

stsinner
10-12-2009, 03:19 PM
I agree that it is the best system for today. Maybe eventually America will progress socially enough to accept open homosexuality in the military like many other countries in this world (Israel, Japan, etc...).

Disgusting to think of immorality being accepted in the military. Hopefully we'll regress to where they're ashamed of their immoral lifestyle and stop forcing us to tolerate their parades and other shenanigans and take their sexuality back where it belongs-in the bedroom.. That, and we'll hopefully learn to read again and know that homosexuality involves sodomy, which is disgusting, and I don't care, Linda, that straight people do it, too.. Not this straight person.. ..

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 03:19 PM
Here's some:

Lev. 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." that's an action. BTW - I remember asking for the TRANSLATION also. :rolleyes:


Lev. 20:13: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them again action.


1 Cor. 6:9-1: Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.Interesting - Youngs Literal translations reads thus:

1Co 6:9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.



Rom. 1:26-28: For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

I still see nothing in there that says that people choose to be gay.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 03:21 PM
that's an action. BTW - I remember asking for the TRANSLATION also. :rolleyes:
again action.
Interesting - Youngs Literal translations reads thus:

1Co 6:9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.



I still see nothing in there that says that people choose to be gay.

This troubles me Poli.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 03:24 PM
Not by man there was no longer a Jewish theocracy. Take it up with God, he is the executioner now, He will judge us all and I for one do not want to be responsible for adding or taking away from his law. you study for yourself you will stand naked before his judgment.

He had people put to death for various sins- sodomy, adultery, disobedient children, blasphemy....and the reason for this was to show exactly how abhorrant these sins are to God. I spared not even children. This is how holy God is. He wasn't kidding when he talked about how wicked and evil sinners are. Jesus even called his own children evil, and called Peter Satan when he was being adversial. God takes sin MUCH more seriously than we fallible men do. But anyways...as I was saying...the death penalties were there to foreshadow the REAL death penalty (judgment), and to show how seriously God hates sin. Which in turn makes the Christian eternally grateful for the fact that they were actually forgiven, freely, for their thousands of abhorrant sins. This is the beauty of salvation...redemption.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 03:33 PM
This troubles me Poli.

why? Because it does not fit your world view?

MEANWHILE - I can scripturally demonstrate that the propensity towards sin is passed hereditarily:


Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


Deu 5:6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Deu 5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Deu 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 03:38 PM
It troubles me, too. Poli...if you're looking for the exact words "gays choose to be gay", then no, you won't find that in the bible...just like you won't find the word abortion in the bible. You are REALLY stretching it here. If you're bent on not believing something, you'll find a way to it believe it, no matter what we show you.

I'll say it one last time, as rock has said it too. EACH sin that we commit is a choice, even if it's in our minds only. God is not fooled by people saying "oh it's only action!". Remember how all the arrogant Pharisees thought it was only the physical open sins that mattered, and thus they tried to appear holy on the outside? Jesus TORE them apart with condemnation (yes- condemnation. From Christ himself) because God sees the sinful heart, unlike man who only sees the outward sin. Here's a good example. People were stoned for adultery in the OT (for the reason I explained above). Now this was only for physical adultery. But then Jesus challenged the people in the NT, and had a surprise for them when he said that even lusting after a woman FROM THE HEART is considered a adultery to God. No action needed! Now they wouldn't been stoned to death for inward sins...but they were still sins to God that must be repented of. THAT is how depraved we are, and THAT is how holy God is. And it's the same thing for all sins. It doesn't matter if I don't curse outloud...if I curse in my head, it is sin. God reads and tries the heart. He's not fooled.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 03:43 PM
any you continue to lump ATTRACTION in with the ACTION. You cannot help who you are attracted to - you can help how you act on those attractions.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 03:45 PM
why? Because it does not fit your world view?

MEANWHILE - I can scripturally demonstrate that the propensity towards sin is passed hereditarily:


Exo 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


Deu 5:6 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Deu 5:7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
Deu 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

That was passing judgment from the iniquities of the father to the son. God sometimes (many times) punishes people collectively, to prove a point. Just as he took david's baby son from him...though the son was innocent. The son did not inherit david's sins...only his punishment. It is entirely antithetical to the very nature of God, who is just and righteous, to give someone a sin and then punish them for it.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 03:54 PM
any you continue to lump ATTRACTION in with the ACTION. You cannot help who you are attracted to - you can help how you act on those attractions.

Not according to God. According to God we are held accountable for even our sinful thoughts. Scary, but true. I wish I could agree with you, because I struggle with lustful thoughts too...but I can't negate God's word for what I think is right. Man does not know better than God.

Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

We just have to trust that he will judge righteously, and that his ways are right, whether we understand them or not.

FlaGator
10-12-2009, 04:46 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

Thats where I'm getting my definition.

I agree pretty much with that. I do view the bible as an accurate historical record. It is not a complete historical record but then again I don't read the bible for history. I read the bible in order to understand the character of God and to learn what he would have me do in life and with my life. I also set my moral compass to the teachings of the Bible.

Belief is a funny thing. Some believe that the creation story is an exact description of what occurred. At best I say I am not sure if it is or not. With God anything is possible and even more so when you factor in the potential faulty preceptions of the human senses (that's my philosopher side coming through). Either way whether I believe it or not it does not affect the state of my salvation. Again, another disputable matter that people get all worked up over and in the end it matters not at all. Salvation requires only one thing, truth believe that Christ died for my sins. That's it. As long as I keep that set as the focal point of my life then everything else seems to take care of itself.

FlaGator
10-12-2009, 04:52 PM
You and I need to have a talk about geological records someday...

You and I should discuss Immanel Kant's view of sensory human preception.

FlaGator
10-12-2009, 04:55 PM
That was passing judgment from the iniquities of the father to the son. God sometimes (many times) punishes people collectively, to prove a point. Just as he took david's baby son from him...though the son was innocent. The son did not inherit david's sins...only his punishment. It is entirely antithetical to the very nature of God, who is just and righteous, to give someone a sin and then punish them for it.

Technically the son was born with original sin and is thus born incapable of living a life pleasing to God. Original sin causes all to be tainted.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 04:58 PM
That was passing judgment from the iniquities of the father to the son. God sometimes (many times) punishes people collectively, to prove a point. Just as he took david's baby son from him...though the son was innocent. The son did not inherit david's sins...only his punishment. It is entirely antithetical to the very nature of God, who is just and righteous, to give someone a sin and then punish them for it.

Do a little study into the hebrew of that passage - the term being translated as iniquity is defined as perversity, evil, sin. Not punishment - the sin itself. The sin enters the bloodline. We see a more 'acceptable' example in alcoholism and how the children of alcoholics are very apt to becoming alcoholics even when they are not exposed to alcoholic behavior. NOW - is that an excuse to sin? NOPE. But it's not a choice either. And that's completely disregarding those who are TAUGHT homosexuality through sexual abuse or even culture (ie Spartans).

FlaGator
10-12-2009, 04:59 PM
Do a little study into the hebrew of that passage - the term being translated as iniquity is defined as perversity, evil, sin. Not punishment - the sin itself. The sin enters the bloodline. We see a more 'acceptable' example in alcoholism and how the children of alcoholics are very apt to becoming alcoholics even when they are not exposed to alcoholic behavior. NOW - is that an excuse to sin? NOPE. But it's not a choice either. And that's completely disregarding those who are TAUGHT homosexuality through sexual abuse or even culture (ie Spartans).


Very well said!

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 05:02 PM
Not according to God. According to God we are held accountable for even our sinful thoughts. Scary, but true. I wish I could agree with you, because I struggle with lustful thoughts too...but I can't negate God's word for what I think is right. Man does not know better than God.

Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;

We just have to trust that he will judge righteously, and that his ways are right, whether we understand them or not.

OY VEY!!:rolleyes: So every thought that comes into your head unbidden you are responsible for? The devil doesn't ever give you thoughts? :rolleyes:

But at least you are being honest now - you struggle with lust and since that is your struggle your first inclination is to assume that everyone else must have the self same struggles you do. That is not the case. Oh sure there are people who struggle with lust - but there are also those who don't. Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins - but not everyone is going to fall victim to the same ones.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 05:49 PM
Technically the son was born with original sin and is thus born incapable of living a life pleasing to God. Original sin causes all to be tainted.

I didn't say he was sinless, I said he was innocent, meaning innocent of his father's guilt. Everyone pays for their own sins on judgment day.

Ezekiel 18:20: *The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

linda22003
10-12-2009, 06:05 PM
That's not the argument. Where does scripture say that gays choose to be gay? I can point to scripture that verifies a propensity towards a given sin can be inherited - ie genetically encoded. IN FACT - its written right into the Decalogue that sin can be genetically encoded.

I think it is inborn because years ago, I had a conversation with a man I was just getting to know (as a friend), and he was gay. I asked if he thought it was inborn and with some anguish he said, "Would we choose to be hated? Would we choose not to have families?" He would have loved to have the Ward and June Cleaver family, but he loved a man (one man) for over twenty years.

linda22003
10-12-2009, 06:07 PM
I also find it interesting that the translation specifically only points to male on male sex. There seems to be no such taboo against female homosexuality. Or am I just taking it to literally?

You are NOT taking it too literally. This is why Queen Victoria signed the law against male homosexuality which stood until it was repealed in 1967. There was never a British law against female homosexuality; the Queen was quite convinced, Biblically, that there was no such thing. :D

linda22003
10-12-2009, 06:09 PM
I do. I thought I made that clear . . . . :confused: . . . hell that's my view on homosexuality in general. I won't ask - and I don't want to be told!

That's my view on heterosexuality as well. People oughta keep the bedroom things IN the bedroom. :p

linda22003
10-12-2009, 06:10 PM
homosexuality involves sodomy, which is disgusting, and I don't care, Linda, that straight people do it, too.. Not this straight person.. ..

State statutes against "sodomy" includes oral sex, in most cases. You have my condolences.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 06:14 PM
I think it is inborn because years ago, I had a conversation with a man I was just getting to know (as a friend), and he was gay. I asked if he thought it was inborn and with some anguish he said, "Would we choose to be hated? Would we choose not to have families?" He would have loved to have the Ward and June Cleaver family, but he loved a man (one man) for over twenty years.

As someone who never ever though I could ever possibly find someone whom I could love and who would love me thanks to the damage I took as a kid - I can completely relate to that - and I can completely sympathize with those who make what peace they can in themselves with who and what they are.

linda22003
10-12-2009, 06:15 PM
As someone who never ever though I could ever possibly find someone whom I could love and who would love me thanks to the damage I took as a kid - I can completely relate to that - and I can completely sympathize with those who make what peace they can in themselves with who and what they are.

At the very real risk of compromising my "bitch" title here.... {{{hugs}}} to you.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 06:16 PM
OY VEY!!:rolleyes: So every thought that comes into your head unbidden you are responsible for? The devil doesn't ever give you thoughts? :rolleyes:

But at least you are being honest now - you struggle with lust and since that is your struggle your first inclination is to assume that everyone else must have the self same struggles you do. That is not the case. Oh sure there are people who struggle with lust - but there are also those who don't. Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins - but not everyone is going to fall victim to the same ones.

Oh, if your whole point this entire time has been that the devil is the one that gets us to sin initially, you're absolutely right. And we are perfectly WILLING slaves of the devil (as Christ said), so we are responsible for those thoughts. If we were in our originally perfect condition, then any thought that came
into our head, if it were from the serpent...would be repulsive to us. But we're not. We're fallen, therefore our sinful thoughts don't bother us, they become our normal thoughts, and we eat up our lusts like candy. And I don't get why you keep using this worthless argument of "not everyone's like you". What on earth does that have to do with gay men showering with other men? I explained it to you like 5 times. Just because a gay man doesn't lust after men all the time... does NOT mean he should be in the shower with other men. IN THE SAME WAY that just because a woman does not lust after men all the time, does NOT mean she should be in the shower with them. It's just common sense. This is the point stsinner was trying to make.

Also, there is no such thing as the "7 deadly sins". That's folklore. All sins result in death.

Also, you say I'm "at least being honest now". What exactly was I lying about before?

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 06:18 PM
At the very real risk of compromising my "bitch" title here.... {{{hugs}}} to you.

You have never scared me hun ;) and besides - I know how incredibly lucky I have to have the wife I have. :) We click on sooooo many levels it's not even funny and she's able to deal with my baggage - what more could a guy ask for?

linda22003
10-12-2009, 06:21 PM
I demand that any and all baggage be restricted to things that can easily fit in the overhead compartment. ;)

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 06:22 PM
Poli...and anyone else desperate to believe that homosexuality is not a sin, please read this: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/homosex.shtml

Says it way better than I do.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 06:30 PM
You are NOT taking it too literally. This is why Queen Victoria signed the law against male homosexuality which stood until it was repealed in 1967. There was never a British law against female homosexuality; the Queen was quite convinced, Biblically, that there was no such thing. :D

*Romans 1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

*27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Nice try, though.

Goldwater
10-12-2009, 06:33 PM
Nice try you LESBIAN!

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 06:41 PM
Nice try you LESBIAN!

Can I take this time to slip in a quick off-topic boast? Barry Goldwater (and his son) were bffs with my grandmother. She was head of either his congressional or presidential campaign (cant remember which one), and Barry Sr. gave her away at her wedding. =)

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 06:54 PM
Oh, if your whole point this entire time has been that the devil is the one that gets us to sin initially, you're absolutely right. And we are perfectly WILLING slaves of the devil (as Christ said), so we are responsible for those thoughts.No - you are responsible for ENTERTAINING those thoughts if you so choose and do. You really need to go back over some of the things you think you know and read what it actually says. Fundies point to Matthew 5:28 as proof that thinking of a sin is the same as being guilty of that sin - and that's NOT what the passage says. Study the Greek and you find that you have to entertain the though - that is you have to spend some time dwelling on the though and if you do that - then you might as well have done the deed. If I look at a woman and without my conscious effort my body responds to what I see - there is no sin in that. It only becomes a sin when I dwell on that response and put EFFORT into it.


And I don't get why you keep using this worthless argument of "not everyone's like you". What on earth does that have to do with gay men showering with other men? I explained it to you like 5 times. Just because a gay man doesn't lust after men all the time... does NOT mean he should be in the shower with other men. IN THE SAME WAY that just because a woman does not lust after men all the time, does NOT mean she should be in the shower with them. You've admitted that you have a problem with lust. I do not. I could care less if you believe me - but I don't. I look at pics of scantily clad or full on naked women and I'm not foaming at the mouth with lust with a raging hard on. I certainly appreciate the beauty of a well formed woman - and I freely admit that my wife has one of the best I have ever seen :) but I'm not motivated by lust.


It's just common sense. This is the point stsinner was trying to make. Only if you assume that people are incapable of controlling their base impulses.


Also, there is no such thing as the "7 deadly sins". That's folklore. All sins result in death. Typical fundie. If you do not understand it - attack it. The 7 deadly sins are the root sins - when you peal away the nuance and subtleties of other 'sins' you always find one of the 7 at the root.


Also, you say I'm "at least being honest now". What exactly was I lying
about before? You don't have to lie to be dishonest.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 06:56 PM
Poli...and anyone else desperate to believe that homosexuality is not a sin, please read this: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/homosex.shtml

Says it way better than I do.www.gaychristian.net can counter any argument your source makes. PLUS - they can do it without condemnation or offering judgment. I highly recommend this essay - http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php which is a call to celibacy for gay Christians.

NOW that being said - WTF? Where the hell do you get that I'm desperate to prove anything??? let alone that homosexuality is not a sin???

karlschneider
10-12-2009, 07:12 PM
Did they actually expect the billboard to survive for very long ?
If you persist in shoving your perversity in my face I am going to shove back !
What an asshole

karlschneider
10-12-2009, 07:15 PM
*Romans 1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

*27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Nice try, though.
That's from Saul, the Terrorist of Tarsus who got his inspiration from eating funny mushrooms and falling off a jackass going to Damascus. Why don't you post something Jesus said about it? Oh, that's right, he never said one fucking WORD about it. He had plenty to say about hypocrites and haters, though.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 07:28 PM
That's from Saul, the Terrorist of Tarsus who got his inspiration from eating funny mushrooms and falling off a jackass going to Damascus. Why don't you post something Jesus said about it? Oh, that's right, he never said one fucking WORD about it. He had plenty to say about hypocrites and haters, though.

The bible says ALL scripture is God-breathed, written by the Holy Spirit through the hands of chosen men. As the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one....anything the Holy Spirit says, Christ says. (i.e. anything Paul says, Christ says).

Also, Christ never said anything about rape or child molestation. Doesn't mean he condoned either of those.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 07:32 PM
www.gaychristian.net can counter any argument your source makes. PLUS - they can do it without condemnation or offering judgment. I highly recommend this essay - http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php which is a call to celibacy for gay Christians.

NOW that being said - WTF? Where the hell do you get that I'm desperate to prove anything??? let alone that homosexuality is not a sin???

Hahahah. Gaychristian.net. Sure thing, sparky.

p.s. I'm still waiting to hear your solid evidence for the charge you made of me being dishonest. Some vague one-liner won't do.

stsinner
10-12-2009, 07:34 PM
What an asshole

Who the hell are you?

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 07:36 PM
Hahahah. Gaychristian.net. Sure thing, sparky.

p.s. I'm still waiting to hear your solid evidence for the charge you made of me being dishonest. Some vague one-liner won't do.

Ah typical of a weak argument - you dismiss the source without even examining the content. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 07:37 PM
Hahahah. Gaychristian.net. Sure thing, sparky.

p.s. I'm still waiting to hear your solid evidence for the charge you made of me being dishonest. Some vague one-liner won't do.

Sparky!:D This is how I picture Poli.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/cute-puppies-demotivational-poster-.jpg?t=1255390577

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 07:49 PM
Ah typical of a weak argument - you dismiss the source without even examining the content. :rolleyes:

Unbelievable! You did the EXACT same thing to me, you moron. Tried not to get involved with trivial name calling but I'm sorry your comments are just getting stupider and stupider. Okay I'll go look at your blasphemous homochristian smut if you go read that "fundi puritan fire & brimstone!' link I sent you, how
about that? An read it ALL, from top to bottom. Deal?

p.s.- You STILL havent backed your pathetic charge. Be a man.

Goldwater
10-12-2009, 07:51 PM
Can I take this time to slip in a quick off-topic boast? Barry Goldwater (and his son) were bffs with my grandmother. She was head of either his congressional or presidential campaign (cant remember which one), and Barry Sr. gave her away at her wedding. =)

I approve. :)

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 07:55 PM
Unbelievable! You did the EXACT same thing to me, you moron. Tried not to get involved with trivial name calling but I'm sorry your comments are just getting stupider and stupider. Okay I'll go look at your blasphemous homochristian smut if you go read that "fundi puritan fire & brimstone!' link I sent you, how
about that? An read it ALL, from top to bottom. Deal?

p.s.- You STILL havent backed your pathetic charge. Be a man.

Moron? :rolleyes: I must really be getting to you if you're resorting to name calling.

FlaGator
10-12-2009, 07:56 PM
Poli...and anyone else desperate to believe that homosexuality is not a sin, please read this: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/homosex.shtml

Says it way better than I do.

I don't think that Poli said that it was not a sin. He said it was not a choice. In many instances I believe this is true. A one size fits all diagnosis does not work here. I am an alcoholic. There is strong evidence that my propensity for addiction is genetic. Do I feel that this makes my drinking to excess not a sinful act? Not on your life. Whether it is genetic or not, it is still a sin and the Lord expects me (with his help of course) to over come it. I feel the same about homosexuality. From my perspective the point is moot as to whether it is nature or nurture. It doesn't matter. It is still as sin and God want the sinner to repent and turn the sin over to Him.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 07:58 PM
Lol poli back up the charge!!! Why do you keep evading my question? I'm beginning to sense you're done arguing and just messing with me now.

Rockntractor
10-12-2009, 08:03 PM
Lol poli back up the charge!!! Why do you keep evading my question? I'm beginning to sense you're done arguing and just messing with me now.

He's just a warm fuzzy puppy.

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 08:05 PM
Also do we have a deal? I'll read what you sent me, you read what I sent you?

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 08:12 PM
Lol poli back up the charge!!! Why do you keep evading my question? I'm beginning to sense you're done arguing and just messing with me now.

I already answered it - and just because you don't like the answer does not mean I'll change it. :)

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 08:17 PM
I don't think that Poli said that it was not a sin. He said it was not a choice. In many instances I believe this is true. A one size fits all diagnosis does not work here. I am an alcoholic. There is strong evidence that my propensity for addiction is genetic. Do I feel that this makes my drinking to excess not a sinful act? Not on your life. Whether it is genetic or not, it is still a sin and the Lord expects me (with his help of course) to over come it. I feel the same about homosexuality. From my perspective the point is moot as to whether it is nature or nurture. It doesn't matter. It is still as sin and God want the sinner to repent and turn the sin over to Him.

My wrists hurt too much (I have carpal tunnel) to keep going in this circular argument about the subject. I and others have provided text and I've even tried to soften my (otherwise aggressive) tone and honestly appeal to these people with apologetics but they react with the same old "that's just ur fundie viewpoint!" defenses. It's pointless arguing anymore. But please...if you are humble or open enough to at least read a comprehensive apologetic piece (laden with scripture) contradicting these claims about homosexuality...click that link. He's far more eloquent than I am. If you end up disparaging it all, so be it. But at lease read it with an open mind and heart and if you really do seek the truth on the subject, and are willing to reject your own emotions or preferences for the truth....pray for wisdom!

ExLiberal
10-12-2009, 08:23 PM
No. You said "you don't have to lie to be dishonest", insinuating that I haven't actually lied, but am still dishonest. So, I asked you to be a man and back up that charge....that even without lying, I am still dishonest. and you're evading the question. Tell me right now, flatout, in plain, unambiguous language why you've come to the conclusion that I am a dishonest person. I want to hear it.

PoliCon
10-12-2009, 09:06 PM
No. You said "you don't have to lie to be dishonest", insinuating that I haven't actually lied, but am still dishonest. So, I asked you to be a man and back up that charge....that even without lying, I am still dishonest. and you're evading the question. Tell me right now, flatout, in plain, unambiguous language why you've come to the conclusion that I am a dishonest person. I want to hear it.

*Yawn* You are so quick to jump at your assumptions about what people say that you just can't read what was actually stated for what it is. Go back and read again.

FlaGator
10-13-2009, 06:01 AM
My wrists hurt too much (I have carpal tunnel) to keep going in this circular argument about the subject. I and others have provided text and I've even tried to soften my (otherwise aggressive) tone and honestly appeal to these people with apologetics but they react with the same old "that's just ur fundie viewpoint!" defenses. It's pointless arguing anymore. But please...if you are humble or open enough to at least read a comprehensive apologetic piece (laden with scripture) contradicting these claims about homosexuality...click that link. He's far more eloquent than I am. If you end up disparaging it all, so be it. But at lease read it with an open mind and heart and if you really do seek the truth on the subject, and are willing to reject your own emotions or preferences for the truth....pray for wisdom!

I am fairly well read on apolgetics starting with Justin Martyr rightup through the modern apologists like Ravi Zacharias, R. C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler. I am also well versed in scripture including learning the original Greek (on goiing process) in order to understand the Epistles in their original form. That being said, it does not matter wihether homosexality is a conscious choice or a genetic imparitive, it is still a sin and the individual more repent of it. To argue the initial causes is a waste of time since neither side will ever agree on the cause. No man knows and the Bible is silent on the subject other than to state that homosexual behavior is a sin. Since God choose not to make the issue of causation clear then I suspect that it doesn't matter to the overall question. That question being, is homosexuality a sin. Yes it is. What more understanding do I need than that?

PoliCon
10-13-2009, 06:06 AM
I am fairly well read on apolgetics starting with Justin Martyr rightup through the modern apologists like Ravi Zacharias, R. C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler. I am also well versed in scripture including learning the original Greek (on goiing process) in order to understand the Epistles in their original form. That being said, it does not matter wihether homosexality is a conscious choice or a genetic imparitive, it is still a sin and the individual more repent of it. To argue the initial causes is a waste of time since neither side will ever agree on the cause. No man knows and the Bible is silent on the subject other than to state that homosexual behavior is a sin. Since God choose not to make the issue of causation clear then I suspect that it doesn't matter to the overall question. That question being, is homosexuality a sin. Yes it is. What more understanding do I need than that?

:eek:STOP TALKING SENSE!!!1!1!1!!!;)

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 06:13 AM
*Yawn* You are so quick to jump at your assumptions about what people say that you just can't read what was actually stated for what it is. Go back and read again.

Omgosh!!! You're still evading my question?!?!

jk, i knew you wouldn't answer.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 06:32 AM
I am fairly well read on apolgetics starting with Justin Martyr rightup through the modern apologists like Ravi Zacharias, R. C. Sproul, Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler. I am also well versed in scripture including learning the original Greek (on goiing process) in order to understand the Epistles in their original form. That being said, it does not matter wihether homosexality is a conscious choice or a genetic imparitive, it is still a sin and the individual more repent of it. To argue the initial causes is a waste of time since neither side will ever agree on the cause. No man knows and the Bible is silent on the subject other than to state that homosexual behavior is a sin. Since God choose not to make the issue of causation clear then I suspect that it doesn't matter to the overall question. That question being, is homosexuality a sin. Yes it is. What more understanding do I need than that?

I would still suggest reading it. Being well versed does not mean you can't learn more, or at least read more. Sanctification is a growing process that happens throughout the entire Christian's life. A Christian should always be open to studying and learning more. If you like apologetics, I think you'll like this piece. It answers a lot of questions posed on this thread...and it's not just the man's viewpoint. He uses sound hermeneutics and it's backed up with lots of scripture.... and you can see he's not twisting scripture just to fit his view.

My argument is that it is not just physical homosexual behaviour that is a sin, but lusts of the heart as well. Jesus plainly stated that sin starts from the heart, and he used adultery as an example. People only thought adulterous BEHAVIOR was a sin. But Jesus corrected them and said anyone who simply lusts over a woman in his heart is committing adultery. So, anyone who lusts over the someone of the same sex (even if there is no physical action) is in sin. That is my point. I'm arguing against the people who say it's only behaviour, not thought, that's a sin.

FlaGator
10-13-2009, 07:19 AM
I would still suggest reading it. Being well versed does not mean you can't learn more, or at least read more. Sanctification is a growing process that happens throughout the entire Christian's life. A Christian should always be open to studying and learning more. If you like apologetics, I think you'll like this piece. It answers a lot of questions posed on this thread...and it's not just the man's viewpoint. He uses sound hermeneutics and it's backed up with lots of scripture.... and you can see he's not twisting scripture just to fit his view.

My argument is that it is not just physical homosexual behaviour that is a sin, but lusts of the heart as well. Jesus plainly stated that sin starts from the heart, and he used adultery as an example. People only thought adulterous BEHAVIOR was a sin. But Jesus corrected them and said anyone who simply lusts over a woman in his heart is committing adultery. So, anyone who lusts over the someone of the same sex (even if there is no physical action) is in sin. That is my point. I'm arguing against the people who say it's only behaviour, not thought, that's a sin.

The piece you listed is not an apologic according to the definition of a Christian apologic which is a defense of the faith. What the article in question is, is a essay on the homosexuality from a Biblical perspective. In some of the points it makes it is a good example of proof texting in that it does pick and choose scripture to make it's point, particularly on the question of possible salvation of homosexuals. I will say that it's a well written piece and I agree with much of it. Much of it I disagree with

I will ask you, what is the basis of one's salvation? Do you believe that salvation is based on faith alone or is it based on faith and works?

linda22003
10-13-2009, 07:51 AM
Can I take this time to slip in a quick off-topic boast? Barry Goldwater (and his son) were bffs with my grandmother. She was head of either his congressional or presidential campaign (cant remember which one), and Barry Sr. gave her away at her wedding. =)

So you're aware that Peggy Goldwater was a founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. :) Politics and strange bedfellows, you know the saying.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 08:29 AM
The piece you listed is not an apologic according to the definition of a Christian apologic which is a defense of the faith. What the article in question is, is a essay on the homosexuality from a Biblical perspective. In some of the points it makes it is a good example of proof texting in that it does pick and choose scripture to make it's point, particularly on the question of possible salvation of homosexuals. I will say that it's a well written piece and I agree with much of it. Much of it I disagree with

I will ask you, what is the basis of one's salvation? Do you believe that salvation is based on faith alone or is it based on faith and works?



The piece you listed is not an apologic according to the definition of a Christian apologic which is a defense of the faith. What the article in question is, is a essay on the homosexuality from a Biblical perspective. In some of the points it makes it is a good example of proof texting in that it does pick and choose scripture to make it's *point, particularly on the question of possible salvation of homosexuals. I will say that it's a well written piece and I agree with much of it. Much of it I disagree with
*
I will ask you, what is the basis of one's salvation? Do you believe that salvation is based on faith alone or is it based on faith and works?

Apologetics doesn't just pertain to defending one's faith in the bible against unbelievers. It also means using biblical evidence to refute false charges or claims against any aspect Christianity or the bible, whether they be made by "christians" or unbelievers.*

I'm gonna answer your question but also make a point alongside it. I believe that salvation is based on nothing other than God's free gift to his people. It is absolutely not based on works, as the bible says by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. The righteous shall live by faith, and are saved THROUGH faith, by God. As the bible says. So no, simply" not sinning" (as if we could) would not save us or earn us salvation. All of our good works are filthy rags, as God says. On this we will agree, I'm sure. But then comes the next question- is grace an excuse to sin? "Shall we sin more, that grace abounds?" God forbid! Can a Christian continue to live in constant unrepentent sin? Does a true Christian humbly accept what the bible tells him about his sins, or does he look for ways to justify them? Does a Christian accept reproof from his brethren, or does he arrogantly scoff at it and continue to find ways to justify what he believes? We are not saved by works...but what does the bible say about faith without works? It says faith without works is dead. (i.e. non-saving faith). The bible says anyone who is saved in Christ is a new creature. It says "sin has no more dominion over him." It says "anyone who commits sin is the servent of sin", but a Christian is a servent of Christ. It warns MANY times against peope who say they're Christ's, yet don't obey his commands. It says anyone who says they know Christ but doesn't obey him is a liar, and the truth is not in him. It also says "be not deceived, God is not mocked, you reap what you sow". It also has some very, very scary verses in Hebrews warning about people who decide to continue sinning willfully after coming to knowledge of Christ.

*It also warns that the time will come when more and more of the church will "no longer endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears will heap to themselves false preahers" and false theology in order to satiate their need for their own modern "enlightened" view of Christianity. Oh there are literally hundreds of verses I can post that warn heavily and gravely against people who call themselves Christian but continue to sin without repentence and people who think they're saved, but are deceived. This is not me making this up to fit my own "fundamentalist" viewpoint. This is STRAIGHT the bible. So, the reason I answered your question that way was to show you WHY it's important to speak out against sin and anything that promotes it. While I do agree that we are absolutely NOT saved by works....works are absolutely the EVIDENCE of salvation. The bible tells people to constantly reprove, rebuke, and teach people who are in error...not to be judgmental....but to let them know the absolute truth and warn them of their ways....that they may repent and be restored. Man is prideful, and there's nothing he in his pride hates more than being corrected or chastened. But a Christian is different from the world. Christians, as said in the bible, are a "special and peculiar people.... a holy people"...set apart from the world for the service of God. Christians are supposed to be able to be distinguished from the world by their words and actions. Therefore true Christians, when they err and are reproved, are humble to receive correction....not arrogant and defensive, mocking whatever reproof they get. We are saved by grace, and obedience to God is evidence of our salvation (by their fruits you shall know them). Grace and obedience are not antagonistic to each other, and they do not contradict each other. They go hand in hand. Christians don't obey God's law in order to get saved. They obey it because they ARE saved, and they delight in obeying His law. And they are told to constantly "reprove, rebuke, and teach the word- in season, and out of season". He also says to exhort one another daily.*So, Christians who do this are not being judgmental or legalistic or puritanical....they're doing exactly what God commanded them to do.

Hebrews 3:12-14

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

But*exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 08:32 AM
So you're aware that Peggy Goldwater was a founder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona. :) Politics and strange bedfellows, you know the saying.

No, I wasn't aware of that, actually.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 08:35 AM
Ugh btw ignore the stars in my post. I don't put them there....they get automatically added and I have no idea why.

linda22003
10-13-2009, 08:37 AM
No, I wasn't aware of that, actually.

Yes, one of the founders, in 1937; she and Barry were big supporters of the organization for many decades.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 08:38 AM
And sorry for quoting you twice. Too lazy to go back and edit.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 08:41 AM
Yes, one of the founders, in 1937; she and Barry were big supporters of the organization for many decades.

Yeah I would've guessed he probably supported abortion, as all good libertarians do.

FlaGator
10-13-2009, 09:36 AM
Does a gay person have to stop being a homosexual before he can be saved or could God, if he chose to, give he gift of grace to a homosexual. If the latter is possible what would happen to the homosexual?

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 09:54 AM
Does a gay person have to stop being a homosexual before he can be saved or could God, if he chose to, give he gift of grace to a homosexual. If the latter is possible what would happen to the homosexual?

Of course homosexuals can be saved! No one ever said they couldn't. As Jesus said, ALL manner of sin and blasphemy will forgiven of men (except for the unforgivable sin). That includes homosexuality. And when they are saved, do they stay the same, and continue unrepentantly in the very sins that they were saved from? The very sins that had them headed to hell in the first place? The answer is no. They will renounce their sin of homosexuality, along with all other sins....and although they will not be sinless while still in the "robe of flesh"....they will abhor their sins and strive with all their heart to be more like Christ.


Psalms 119:10-12

"With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes."


Please make note that I am NOT saying (nor have I ever said) that Christians cannot fall into sin. David stumbled and committed adultery and murder. But the point is...he REPENTED. He felt horrible for his sin. He didn't go search and dig for ways to justify it or make it seem not that bad. He didn't get angry at Nathanial for reproving him. He repented in remorse, and continued to strive toward godliness.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 09:59 AM
And as I said before, they don't renounce their sins TO be saved, they renounce them after they're saved, BECAUSE they're saved. Works are not the way to salvation, but the evidence of salvation. (by their fruit ye shall know them)

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 10:08 AM
Everybody is saved while they are still sinful, yes. You don't try to get well before seeing a doctor! :)

Christianity is a come as you are religion, not a stay as you are religion. Repentence is key.

PoliCon
10-13-2009, 10:19 AM
Omgosh!!! You're still evading my question?!?!

jk, i knew you wouldn't answer.

I won't reanswer. I already answered it once.

PoliCon
10-13-2009, 10:21 AM
And as I said before, they don't renounce their sins TO be saved, they renounce them after they're saved, BECAUSE they're saved. Works are not the way to salvation, but the evidence of salvation. (by their fruit ye shall know them)

Oh so once your are saved - you're perfect and never sin ever again? :rolleyes:

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 10:40 AM
Oh so once your are saved - you're perfect and never sin ever again? :rolleyes:

Hahaha. Wow. Did you not read one line above that where I said "please note I am not saying christians don't sin"? And before that when I emphasized that Christians are not sinless?

Just happened to miss those sentences, right? ;)

PoliCon
10-13-2009, 10:45 AM
Hahaha. Wow. Did you not read one line above that where I said "please note I am not saying christians don't sin"? And before that when I emphasized that Christians are not sinless?

Just happened to miss those sentences, right? ;)


was it in that really long frustrated preacher post you made cause if so - I purposely did not read it. Sorry but I read enough essays without having to read them on here.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 10:50 AM
was it in that really long frustrated preacher post you made cause if so - I purposely did not read it. Sorry but I read enough essays without having to read them on here.

No, it wasn't in the long post, it was in the short post right
above the one you quoted.

PoliCon
10-13-2009, 10:52 AM
No, it wasn't in the long post, it was in the short post right
above the one you quoted.

missed that one. OK - reconcile both statements.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 10:59 AM
missed that one. OK - reconcile both statements.

You want me to reconcile which statements? How Christians aren't perfect, yet they're still commanded and warned heavily in every single book the new testament not to sin?

PoliCon
10-13-2009, 11:08 AM
well you're claimin that Gays can be saved - but then saying that they can't be gay and be saved because homosexuality is a sin they need to repent of . . . .

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 11:20 AM
well you're claimin that Gays can be saved - but then saying that they can't be gay and be saved because homosexuality is a sin they need to repent of . . . .

I'm saying gays can be saved, but AFTER they're saved, they change, and repent of their sins. They do not continue to live unrepentantly in the sins they were saved from. They can and do struggle with sin....but they repent and strive toward godliness and holiness, despite their faults. Their goal is to conquer their sin, and be more like Christ.

FlaGator
10-13-2009, 11:25 AM
Of course homosexuals can be saved! No one ever said they couldn't. As Jesus said, ALL manner of sin and blasphemy will forgiven of men (except for the unforgivable sin). That includes homosexuality. And when they are saved, do they stay the same, and continue unrepentantly in the very sins that they were saved from? The very sins that had them headed to hell in the first place? The answer is no. They will renounce their sin of homosexuality, along with all other sins....and although they will not be sinless while still in the "robe of flesh"....they will abhor their sins and strive with all their heart to be more like Christ.


Psalms 119:10-12

"With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes."


Please make note that I am NOT saying (nor have I ever said) that Christians cannot fall into sin. David stumbled and committed adultery and murder. But the point is...he REPENTED. He felt horrible for his sin. He didn't go search and dig for ways to justify it or make it seem not that bad. He didn't get angry at Nathanial for reproving him. He repented in remorse, and continued to strive toward godliness.

You should read that article you pointed me to a little closer, especially the part where it talks about celibate homosexuals and the church.

ExLiberal
10-13-2009, 11:37 AM
I agree with him completely. In fact he used the exact same example of adultery that I used. And you've told me you don't agree, so I left it at that. Can't force you to believe anything.