Don't turn my God-fearing kid gay!

Hey Alex, are you saying that gay people are pedophiles?

Dude, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Let me repeat the question. Do you believe that gay people are pedophiles?

To bring him out of the closet, I'll tell my position. I think gay people should be put on an island to keep them from normal people. It almost worked with another group of parasites.There, now he can state his position without any fear. I'm lying.This message has been edited by Troy, 04-20-2005 09:27 PM

What's MPD?

http://EvC Forum: The bible and homosexualityhttp://EvC Forum: Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality. EvC Forum: The bible and homosexuality: Round 3Written by moi:

quote:

---

Let's start with Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 states, "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."

​

Leviticus is, of course, old testament. Most Christians these days ignore the majority of the teachings in the old testaments for obvious reasons: they're considered outdated to our moral standards today.

​

Leviticus 21:9 states, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."

​

Now really, do you think, with our modern sense of morality, that we can ever justify burning someone alive?

​

Leviticus 12:4-5 states, "and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled. If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she sahll be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood."

​

Ok, to plainly put it, these verses forbids a woman from entering church for 42 days after giving birth. The Catholic church has completely ignored this verse as far as creating their policies go. To our moral standards today, the notion of a woman somehow "unclean" for 42 days after giving birth is absurd.

​

Leviticus 25:44 states, "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations."

​

Leviticus 25:45, 46 states, "You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slavesyou may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."

​

These verses clearly justify slavery, given that slaves are bought from neighboring states. Verse 25:46 clearly states that slaves are property.

​

During the 18th and 19th centuries, many Americans used these verses to justify slavery in this country. In other words, Leviticus was used to justify one of the darkest and most embarrassing part of our history.

​

Let us go back to Leviticus 18:22. If we think that this part of Leviticus in the old testament holds for our modern morality, then why not the other verses that I mentioned above? The verses that I mentioned above are only a few of the examples from the old testament where our modern sense of morality condemns as immoral.

​

If Leviticus 18:22 is the only thing that is telling you that homosexuality is wrong, I hope that you rethink about your position on the issue.

---

This looks like the return/revenge of desdamona. Right off the bat, I can point out at least 3 logical fallacies that he/she just used. Except, I'm staying out of this one. Finals are approaching and I don't want to have high blood pressure during study hours. Peace!

You know, for a newbie you are acting like you know all of us really well. Mind telling us where this anger is coming from?

Haha. I find your posts amusing, actually. But just for kicks, how do you describe the statement I quoted above?

Once again, you've stated some things that are surprisingly... not you. I must admit that I expected more from you.Have you even look at the bill? Foster parents are asked by child services whether they are gay or straight, and the foster parent wannabes have to answer that question.Phatboy, it's posts like this that makes me question your objectiveness in such matter.Added by edit.Reminds me of a joke I recently heard, or read, somewhere.A man name Mr. Gay (yes, there are last names like this out there) boards a flight bound for another state. The thing is he is a passenger that is on the waiting list, meaning he has to give up his seat if there aren't enough seats for everyone. When Mr. Gay went to his assigned seat, he noticed that someone was already sitting there (probably by mistake), so he decided to sit at one of the empty seats, since the plane is about to take off.As it turned out, there aren't enough seat for everyone so a flight attendant went to Mr. Gay's assigned seat and asked the man sitting there, "Are you Gay?" The man embarrassly answered "Yes."Then, the flight attendant said, "I'm sorry, sir, but I have to ask you to give up your seat.Mr. Gay came and tried to explain to the flight attendant of the misunderstanding. He said, "I'm Gay."Suddenly, another man stood up and said, "Hell, I'm gay, too. They can't throw us all off the plane!"A few seconds later, everybody on the plane had started discussing whether or not the airline had the right to throw a person off the plane because he is gay.This message has been edited by Troy, 04-23-2005 01:47 PM

I don't agree. "It is assumed" has absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself. As I explained it, anyone would have to answer the question, gay or straight. Why even mention it if you didn't want to make a point out of it or to justify it of some sense?And sorry, but I don't think anything christian is worth my time anymore, especially a website. Yes, I've given into my anger and is now in the dark side of the force. No chance I'm living in Texas. But if someone asks me, and if it is a friendly environment, I would be honest. However, if it appears to be an unfriendly environment, I'd say, "none of your goddamn bussiness." If it appears to be a very unfriendly environment, I'd say, "none of your goddamn bussiness, you assholes."This message has been edited by Troy, 04-23-2005 01:54 PM

Apparently, our newcomer thought only Americans have access to the internet.

You mean not all homosexuals dressed up as drag queens all the time and drink and party and have sex all the time and all fruity?You know what I see when I read these legislations that are being pushed by the religious rights? I see my dream of having a home, pets, a wonderful man to share my life with, and wonderful children (that nobody wanted in the first place) that we will adopt to raise, nourish, and protect completely shattered.

To be fair, I read the link. It even made my blood pressure higher than before.1) From what I have read by you, I don't think you agree with half of the stuff on there.2) Talking alone won't do jack shit. If there are any christian out there that care, why the hell aren't there legislations to try to suppress the religious right? It's like "don't worry, you have my emotional support, but I'm afraid I won't do anything more than that, so you will have to die... you bastards."If there are christians that care, I'd like to see them try to help with our struggle against the other christians. Slavery didn't end because the slaves had the christians' emotional support.A quote from the website: If anyone remember my statement about christians finding things to condemn, this is a perfect example. This person recognizes that homophobia is an accepted prejudice, but he is so short sighted to say that it is the last accepted prejudice. That's what they said about blacks during the civil rights movement. I am very confident that when this is all over, if it ever get to that, Caldwell himself will try to condemn some other group.There, I've read enough.Here, now you click on my link.This message has been edited by Troy, 04-23-2005 02:35 PM

Just curious. Did you understand why I linked you to that flash video?

Remember when you said "it is assumed" that the public don't want people to be open about their sexuality? Well, I don't see any legislation banning Pink Floyd from writing songs like that.