Gays!!!

[Beanieboy]

I totally agree with the OP, btw. If we would stop discussing homosexuality, and worked together to figure out what we could do to work world wide on ending hunger, or countries working together to deal with Global Warming, or AIDs, we could accomplish so much. Instead, there is a lot of infighting, and wasting of time.

 

[Ryal Kane]

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
-Anne Lamott

 

[Jessica Lauren]

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
-Anne Lamott

Love that quote... Incase no one could tell.

Seriously, we have bigger problems to fix. Take alllll the time you use trying to condemn those that are gay and put it to something worth your time.

 

[Jase]

Love that quote... Incase no one could tell.

Seriously, we have bigger problems to fix. Take alllll the time you use trying to condemn those that are gay and put it to something worth your time.

Come on now, why would fundamentalists actually want to do that? Then they might actually act like Christians, and we know that would be a bad thing...

 

[Beanieboy]

Okay, 1 more:
The Electric Company: HEEEEEY YOUUUUUU GAAAAAAAAAAYS!!!!!

yeah?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Okay, 1 more:
The Electric Company: HEEEEEY YOUUUUUU GAAAAAAAAAAYS!!!!!

yeah?

***Havin' a flashback***

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Come on now, why would fundamentalists actually want to do that? Then they might actually act like Christians, and we know that would be a bad thing...

It's all about who is attacking the Church in regards to actions being set in motion.

Christians opposing gay sex and gay culture are doing the same things as the Apostles did. Christians holding to marriage as a man and a woman are defending Christ Jesus and the importance He had for man-woman marriage.

Those hat are not Christians that support marriage as exclusively a man and a woman, also are doing what is right for them.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You've got it backwards, friend. God (nor Jesus) has said NOT A WORD of condemnation toward the homosexual so why would they assume to hate God?

How wrong is that? 100%.

It's what professed CHRISTIANS have done with THEIR version of 'the word of God' that just might be responsible for any animosity toward THEM by homosexuals.

The Apostles and Disciples BROUGHT US the version of "the word of God" that has many condemnations of homosexuality. 21st century political correctness is not going to cloud biblical truth.

GOD is not the issue here.

"God" gave them up. It most certainly is between God and them.

Professed Christians ARE. Homosexuals have no reason to have a beef with God.

That is YOUR version of the Bible speaking. The version written by the Apostles does not agree with yours though.

Furthermore, I would ask any professed Christian to step forward and relate to we on the forum when they last heard an AUDIBLE message from God pertaining to homosexuality ...with proof, of course.

None here. Yet. And none changing all of the prohibitions and condemnations of it written by the Apostles and scribes of Israel either.

Misinterpreted and biased scriptures just don't cut it with me any more.

Show one place anywhere IN THE BIBLE, where there is any promoting of gay sex for Israelites or Christians to engage in?

Your version of the Bible can even be offered if you'ld like. It will be just as easy to contend for the faith against that one as well.

 

[KCKID]

Well, as you requested, PC_F, I’ll see what I can do with your post #91.

There is no place in the scriptures that promotes, supports, condones, celebrates, or champions gay sex or same-gender marriages for believers. See? I told you I was an expert on theology! While we're about it though, I can't see anything in the scriptures to support recreational heterosexual sex either.

You need to read more.

Sex was intended for procreation ...hence the male and female coupling thing. It was intended solely to 'be fruitful'.

Oh really? You've never been er, uh, well you know, "uncomfortable in a groin-area kind of way?"

Well, I was kicked in that area once while playing soccer. And yes, it WAS pretty darned uncomfortable. Ah, you mean have I ever felt ‘horny’? Why didn’t you say that? Um, yes, I guess I have once or twice. Why do you ask ...are you trying to come on to me ...?

Let's see what God has to say about that:

Oh please, let’s do.

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

So, are we to understand that ‘a suitable helper’ was first sought from among the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air? Sounds a bit weird when you think about it. Wouldn't they be considered more a 'pet' than a 'helper'? Anyway, continue . . .

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

It sounds as though this was an afterthought on God’s part. The ‘woman’ was obviously not part of the original plan. Also, she didn't turn out to be much of a 'helper' as we find out once the story unfolds! Adam MIGHT have been better off having adopted a bird or an animal.

The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Now, KCKID, I don't know about you, BUT being around my woman when we are both naked usually can lead to non-procreative sort of er, um, behavior. I'm thinking God is not an idiot about all of this.

I’m not sure what your point is here, PC_F. Of course one needs to be sexually stimulated so that procreation can take place. I mean, even legalists such as yourself are not going to ‘procreate’ simply because you’re commanded to do so, now are you? Naturally you will be ‘turned on’ otherwise procreation would never occur.
I’ve also got news for you. The very same kind of dynamic can and does occur between ‘gay’ couples. Tell me, why is one considered ‘fine’ and the other considered ‘evil’? Can you not understand the dilemma here? We’re talking about sexual attraction and sexual stimulation that can and does lead to the act of (recreational) sex. Again, why DOES recreational sex HAVE to be between a male and a female? You simply CANNOT answer that question without referring to some ancient and superstitious words from a book.

And notice a suitable helper meant a woman. Do the math OK.

Are you telling me that a suitable helper’ needs to be someone of the opposite sex? Why? Sounds like one huge 'foul-up' to me.

Actually it didn't take any math to figure it out. I read the Adam and Eve story. It's fairly hilarious ...kinda like the very first "I Love Lucy" Show ...the "Garden of Eden" edition. If Eve was supposed to the epitome of a 'suitable helper' simply because she was a woman then someone fouled up somewhere. I can just imagine Adam sitting with his head in his hands bemoaning the fact that 'his helper' had been little more to him than a 'hindrance'. I can just imagine God ruefully saying to Adam (concerning future women), "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

Yep, Genesis tells a nice story. It’s almost fable-like. Have you read the part where the serpent talks to Eve and gets her and her rather dense husband, Adam, to take a bite of the forbidden fruit? Hey, it IS a fable! Obviously the moral of the fable is that neither Adam nor Eve were suitable helpers for each other after all. Neither of them seemed to have a brain between them. It also turns out that their ‘perfect union’ became the ruination of future humankind …such role models indeed!
Have you ever considered the moral to the Creation Story, PC_F, or is there even a moral? It IS a fable, by the way. Don’t take everything so literally.

You see, if recreational sex had been intended by God (sex for pure pleasure) then it wouldn't matter whether the pleasurable experience was being provided by 'whatever' the gender ...now would it? Seriously?

Eating fruit is very enjoyable and it definately leads to multiplying.

Just as well. Otherwise you and I wouldn’t be here debating with each other.

(Cont'd next post)

 

[KCKID]

(Response to Post #91 Cont'd)

And oh my dear brother here is a bit of Cosmo in the Bible.
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
for your love is more delightful than wine.
Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes;
your name is like perfume poured out.
No wonder the maidens love you!
Take me away with you—let us hurry!
Let the king bring me into his chambers.

Friends: We rejoice and delight in you;
we will praise your love more than wine.-----

Tell me what opening lines of what book that's from?

Some Mills & Boone publication, isn’t it?

Obviously it’s from Song of Songs much of which is thought to be an allegory of the love relationship between God and Israel, or between Christ and the church (or the soul). No one seems to know for sure whether Solomon was the author even though credit for the book is usually ascribed to Solomon.
But, your point is that sex is for recreation as well as for procreation. One oftentimes leads to the other anyway. I don’t think any of us are disputing that; however, GOD appears to have ‘invented’ sex purely for ‘clinical’ reasons.

Even though God gave us Adam and Eve (the original (2) Stooges way before Larry, Shemp and Moe, one might say) God doesn’t generally seem to have a great sense of humor, nor does He appear to enjoy life as a human would. Therefore, recreational sex (sex for the sheer pleasure of sex) would hardly be a part of His thinking. After all, He IS a Spirit-being who could hardly relate to ‘human-ness’. And, if you’re going to say that God came to earth through Jesus to actually experience ‘human-ness’ then since Jesus never married or had a sexual experience God would have learned nothing of ‘sex’ through Jesus, now would He?

Just think about that for a while while I fix some herbal tea.

A Bible expert doesn't have to think about scriptural truth for more than a moment if he's a Bible expert.

I’m not a Bible expert. My ‘boasting’ of such is just my attempt to get a rise out of you. I do, however, have a fair knowledge of scriptural issues that I’ve gained over the years.

In fact, mull the common sense statement that I just made over in your mind for as long as it takes for 'reason' to kick in.

It took two-seconds, but only because I was yawning. But I woke up right away after reading what I posted.

Excellent comeback. I appreciate your wit.

My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh
resting between my breasts.

My lover is to me a cluster of henna blossoms
from the vineyards of En Gedi. Lover

How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes are doves.
Beloved

How handsome you are, my lover!
Oh, how charming!
And our bed is verdant.

The lovers are male-female by the way.

This is Biblical erotica after all.

Oh let's continue. And does the following couple seem concerned about a baby?
Beloved
I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys.
Lover
Like a lily among thorns
is my darling among the maidens.
Beloved

Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest
is my lover among the young men.
I delight to sit in his shade,
and his fruit is sweet to my taste.

He has taken me to the banquet hall,
and his banner over me is love. Strengthen me with raisins,
refresh me with apples,
for I am faint with love.
His left arm is under my head,
and his right arm embraces me.

Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires.
Listen! My lover!
Look! Here he comes,
leaping across the mountains,
bounding over the hills.
My lover is like a gazelle or a young stag.
Look! There he stands behind our wall,
gazing through the windows,
peering through the lattice. My lover spoke and said to me,
"Arise, my darling,
my beautiful one, and come with me.

Well, I’m sure that when one is sexually stimulated and in the frame of mind to procreate (which was the original purpose for sex) this would be the typical line to use. Or not. I’ve heard of similar prose used by ‘horny’ guys who only just met the female a moment ago, probably not quite as poetic as the above, however. But, your point is made that sex or ‘passionate petting’ IS a perversion of the original intent of sex by God. The Bible DOES talk about lust quite a lot so, obviously, sex for non-procreation purposes DOES occur with or without God's approval. Hey, maybe that’s what the REAL definition of lust is …the desire to have sex for non-procreation purposes? Hmmm . . .

Hey wife? My little sugar dumpling, er I mean, lily among thorns!

Come here baby!

Oh my. Your wife actually responds favorably to that . . .? Where is the 'sticking one's finger down one's throat' smiley when one needs it?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well, as you requested, PC_F, I’ll see what I can do with your post #91.

Well, I was kicked in that area once while playing soccer. And yes, it WAS pretty darned uncomfortable. Ah, you mean have I ever felt ‘horny’? Why didn’t you say that? Um, yes, I guess I have once or twice. Why do you ask ...are you trying to come on to me ...?

Are you really a good looking woman?

Oh please, let’s do.

So, are we to understand that ‘a suitable helper’ was first sought from among the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air? Sounds a bit weird when you think about it. Wouldn't they be considered more a 'pet' than a 'helper'? Anyway, continue . . .

Suitable as in sexually "too." If we continue with your logic, then sex with animlas has to be weighed and decided upon as to being appropriate.

It sounds as though this was an afterthought on God’s part. The ‘woman’ was obviously not part of the original plan.

And you got all that out of the text there in Genesis?

Also, she didn't turn out to be much of a 'helper' as we find out once the story unfolds! Adam MIGHT have been better off having adopted a bird or an animal.

So bestiality IS OK with you?

I’m not sure what your point is here, PC_F. Of course one needs to be sexually stimulated so that procreation can take place.

My point is that there is no way to promote gay sex FROM the Bible.

[quote[I mean, even legalists such as yourself[/quote]

Legalist? You need to prove your accusation there. I'm a believer in the Apostolic witness and the words of the Prophets. You jab is little else than just a petty insult.

And you are not really answering my positions as much as you are presenting your OP/ED and personal emotional pandering.

. . . are not going to ‘procreate’ simply because you’re commanded to do so, now are you? Naturally you will be ‘turned on’ otherwise procreation would never occur.

Hand in glove, so to speak.

I’ve also got news for you. The very same kind of dynamic can and does occur between ‘gay’ couples.

Aberrant behavior is not making your theological gymnastics look very sound.

Tell me, why is one considered ‘fine’ and the other considered ‘evil’?

Cause and effect.

Can you not understand the dilemma here? We’re talking about sexual attraction and sexual stimulation that can and does lead to the act of (recreational) sex.

Pagans can do what they wilteth pal. I can't go to the predator/initiate thing here or the usual suspects will report that crap out of me.

Again, why DOES recreational sex HAVE to be between a male and a female? You simply CANNOT answer that question without referring to some ancient and superstitious words from a book.

Sexual deviants are a fairly common thing. My Bible aside, my anatomy, biology and physiology books in hands and same-gender sex is 100% deviant behavior.

Are you telling me that a suitable helper’ needs to be someone of the opposite sex? Why? Sounds like one huge 'foul-up' to me.

The huge fould-up is the attempts of same-gender matings.

Actually it didn't take any math to figure it out. I read the Adam and Eve story. It's fairly hilarious ...kinda like the very first "I Love Lucy" Show ...the "Garden of Eden" edition.

It to me also sounds very plausible. Typical human story happeing all the time. So common in fact, it can't possibly be a fable.

If Eve was supposed to the epitome of a 'suitable helper' simply because she was a woman then someone fouled up somewhere.

Are you implying that Even was not a human? Humans and fouling up are as common and typical an occurence as there is.

I can just imagine Adam sitting with his head in his hands bemoaning the fact that 'his helper' had been little more to him than a 'hindrance'.

He didn't waste any time pushing the blame for his actions off on God: "Hey, YOU gave me the chick."

No possible way is that story not perfectly true.

I can just imagine God ruefully saying to Adam (concerning future women), "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

Or rather, saying that about the sons of Adam. We're still using the same excuse line of reasoning and in far more places than just our sex lives.

Yep, Genesis tells a nice story. It’s almost fable-like.

Not even close. You can see US replaying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And???? Telling God it's His fault for what we do.

Have you read the part where the serpent talks to Eve and gets her and her rather dense husband, Adam, to take a bite of the forbidden fruit? Hey, it IS a fable!

Hey, you hang on to that belief if it makes you sleep better.

Obviously the moral of the fable is that neither Adam nor Eve were suitable helpers for each other after all.

They were quite successful actually as a couple. I didn't think debating theology with you would be all that challenging.

Neither of them seemed to have a brain between them.

They were of the same flesh. Literally.

You took all that time and came up with this apologia?

It also turns out that their ‘perfect union’ became the ruination of future humankind …such role models indeed!

We look like we are pretty successful. And looking back on the history of mankind, A & E's kids did some great things. Do you ever study history or get out much?

Have you ever considered the moral to the Creation Story, PC_F, or is there even a moral?

Yes. Marriage is a man and a woman. And other things.

It IS a fable, by the way. Don’t take everything so literally.

Jesus took it literally. I'm not quick with calling Him a liar.

Just as well. Otherwise you and I wouldn’t be here debating with each other.

Umm, Adam and Eve ARE the ONLY reason we are here debating. It certainly isn't by the myth of mud to monkeys to man.

(Cont'd next post)

I'n not as excited to see it as I thought I would be.

 

[morningstar2651]

I have answered this many times:

What have you done to help the poor?
What have you done to help the homeless?
What have you done to reduce violent crime?
What have you done to cure cancer?
What have you done to cure AIDS?
What have you done to give homes to orphans?
What have you done to reduce the number of wars?

Follow the Apostolic teachings.

With the exception of cancer, though, one would have to say: Follow the Apostolic teachings BY being an honest reasearcher. And AIDS is 100% PREVENTABLE, so no need for a cure, by "Following the Apostolic teachings."

Everything mentioned above was handled by the Apostles.

Duh.

I'm sure Einstein used that word in the same way.

That's all you guys got?

Are the 33,000,000 people that have AIDS worthless to you? Are they not worth curing?

Now, I repeat the questions, since you have misread them.

What have you done to help the poor?
What have you done to help the homeless?
What have you done to reduce violent crime?
What have you done to cure cancer?
What have you done to cure AIDS?
What have you done to give homes to orphans?
What have you done to reduce the number of wars?

What have YOU done?
I'm not asking what you should do or would do or could do or might do. I'm asking what you have already done.

 

[nesian]

^Probably as much as the average person. NOTHING.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

(Response to Post #91 Cont'd)

Some Mills & Boone publication, isn’t it?

Obviously it’s from Song of Songs much of which is thought to be an allegory of the love relationship between God and Israel, or between Christ and the church (or the soul). No one seems to know for sure whether Solomon was the author even though credit for the book is usually ascribed to Solomon.

But, your point is that sex is for recreation as well as for procreation. One oftentimes leads to the other anyway. I don’t think any of us are disputing that; however, GOD appears to have ‘invented’ sex purely for ‘clinical’ reasons.

Obviously not according the the allegorical Song of Songs. Some orthodox scribe added it to Holy Scripture for a reason. It is about lust as much as it is about baby-making.

Even though God gave us Adam and Eve (the original (2) Stooges way before Larry, Shemp and Moe, one might say)

You denigrate a very successful couple. A couple by the way, that were given everything by God and then had to fend for themselves and yet, did amazingly well anyway. Where do you get the justification for such a deriding opinion of them? It seems very unwarranted.

God doesn’t generally seem to have a great sense of humor, nor does He appear to enjoy life as a human would.

Your God maybe. God, in the Bible COMMANDED festivals of celebrations. Party. party, party. Wine and all. Dude, my kind of God.

Therefore, recreational sex (sex for the sheer pleasure of sex) would hardly be a part of His thinking.

"Let us make man after our image, after our likeness."

And I know what I think about a lot. And I have not fathered seven-thousand kids. But . . .

After all, He IS a Spirit-being who could hardly relate to ‘human-ness’.

The Israelites had to bury their excrement because "the Lord walks to and fro among the camp." And doesn't want to see the you-know-what.

Dude, you don't get any more personhood than that. Gos as a person walking and talking with people is a Biblical fact. Maimonides can shove his theology.

And, if you’re going to say that God came to earth through Jesus to actually experience ‘human-ness’ then since Jesus never married or had a sexual experience God would have learned nothing of ‘sex’ through Jesus, now would He?

Jesus is God. But anyway, I proved how God as a person is written about in the Bible. Jacob's name cnahge proves that beyong all doubt. He didn;t wrestle with a dream.

I’m not a Bible expert. My ‘boasting’ of such is just my attempt to get a rise out of you. I do, however, have a fair knowledge of scriptural issues that I’ve gained over the years.

I'm cool with jabs. I know you are not a Bible expert.

Excellent comeback. I appreciate your wit.

So do I.


CONTINUED . . .

 

[Polycarp_fan]

CONTINUED:

My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh

resting between my breasts.

My lover is to me a cluster of henna blossoms
from the vineyards of En Gedi. Lover

How beautiful you are, my darling!
Oh, how beautiful!
Your eyes are doves.
Beloved

How handsome you are, my lover!
Oh, how charming!
And our bed is verdant.

The lovers are male-female by the way.

This is Biblical erotica after all.

Oh let's continue. And does the following couple seem concerned about a baby?
Beloved
I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys.
Lover
Like a lily among thorns
is my darling among the maidens.
Beloved

Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest
is my lover among the young men.
I delight to sit in his shade,
and his fruit is sweet to my taste.

He has taken me to the banquet hall,
and his banner over me is love. Strengthen me with raisins,
refresh me with apples,
for I am faint with love.
His left arm is under my head,
and his right arm embraces me.

Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires.
Listen! My lover!
Look! Here he comes,
leaping across the mountains,
bounding over the hills.
My lover is like a gazelle or a young stag.
Look! There he stands behind our wall,
gazing through the windows,
peering through the lattice. My lover spoke and said to me,
"Arise, my darling,
my beautiful one, and come with me.

KCKID: Well, I’m sure that when one is sexually stimulated and in the frame of mind to procreate (which was the original purpose for sex) this would be the typical line to use.

Be fruitful.

Oh,

and multiply.

God knows science really good.

Or not. I’ve heard of similar prose used by ‘horny’ guys who only just met the female a moment ago, probably not quite as poetic as the above, however. But, your point is made that sex or ‘passionate petting’ IS a perversion of the original intent of sex by God.

Fun is no perversion. Not in a marriage. God knows about a womans menstrual cycle I'm sure. It's even mentioned. There are only a few days a month a woman can get pregnant. So God, I'm sure, knows that most sex is just for practice.

The Bible DOES talk about lust quite a lot so, obviously, sex for non-procreation purposes DOES occur with or without God's approval.

With AND without Gods's approval.

Hey, maybe that’s what the REAL definition of lust is …the desire to have sex for non-procreation purposes? Hmmm . . .

Gee, ya think.

Oh my. Your wife actually responds favorably to that . . .? Where is the 'sticking one's finger down one's throat' smiley when one needs it?

So you agree, hearing about other people's sexual desires is unappealing. Why in the heck should we make it a minority classifier?

 

[Andreusz]

So you agree, hearing about other people's sexual desires is unappealing. Why in the heck should we make it a minority classifier?

Interesting that you're now beginning to talk about other people's desires. Previously, you claimed that homosexuality consisted only of sexual acts. You're not beginning to change your mind, are you? Nah, that would be out of the question.

Why should it be a minority classifier? Well, because for centuries we have been fired from our jobs and jailed and killed and buried alive and castrated for being what we are: and now we are telling you to stop doing these things and treat us like human beings,even though we differ from you in one important respect. It was you who came up with the classification, not us.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Interesting that you're now beginning to talk about other people's desires. Previously, you claimed that homosexuality consisted only of sexual acts. You're not beginning to change your mind, are you/ Nah, that would be out of the question.

No of course not.

Thoughts on lust are sins according to Jesus, but no one would care anything about GLBT activism if it were just a bunch of people sitting in a room practicing telepathy.



-----

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Interesting that you're now beginning to talk about other people's desires. Previously, you claimed that homosexuality consisted only of sexual acts. You're not beginning to change your mind, are you/ Nah, that would be out of the question.

See this is why I will not give an inch to "you guys." Even a misconstrued word or two and you think I'm joining the bathhouse club.

Why should it be a minority classifier?

Whay should "what" be a minority classifier? OHhhhhh gay sex.

Well, because for centuries we have been fired from our jobs and jailed and killed and buried alive and castrated for being what we are: and now we are telling you to stop doing these things and treat us like human beings, even though we differ from you in one important respect.

Last time I looked at a guy walking down the street that I knew to be into gay sex, looked just like a guy that wasn't into gay sex. It's flippin' creepy to give minority rights to the one guy that likes gay sex.

Are we going for preferred sex positions next?

Is S & M or B & D next?

Serioulsy, where's it end?

Sodom or Gomorrah? We forget about the perversions of Gomorrah huh? What were those folks into?

It was you who came up with the classification, not us.

No, no, no, OH no. Before "you guys" claimed these tiltles "Gay" and "Lesbian" and "Bi-Sexual," you were just into lascivious licenitiousness. Also "Gays" were known by other names. And the one that starts with P is the one that concerns my side of the issue most.

Why aren't "Lesbians" called Sapphoians? "Lesbian" is just silly. All citizens of Lesbos are Lesbians, even the men.

Why aren't men that like homosexuality called Malians?

And in regards to "Bi-Sexuals" why are they part of your club at all? I have absoutely no cause to admire that moniker. A declaration of Anything Goes, IN any direction, with immutability, is something to be concerned about. I'm talking CDC concerned about.

And Transgendered? I have the greatest of compassion for anyone in that condition. I don't know why, I just do. It probably stems from them knowing what proper sexuality is all about. And certainly it is far easier to understand them than the other three.

 

[cantata]

And in regards to "Bi-Sexuals" why are they part of your club at all? I have absoutely no cause to admire that moniker. A declaration of Anything Goes, IN any direction, with immutability, is something to be concerned about. I'm talking CDC concerned about.

Immutable sex?

I'm not sure how that'd work, PC_F. Sex is a process.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Are the 33,000,000 people that have AIDS worthless to you? Are they not worth curing?

YOU talking to ME? I don't see anyone else standing here so you must me talkin' to me. You got a problem? HUH? You gotta problem-YOu mutha vuh . . OH OH sorry MS, Flashback to my days walkin' the streets of LA.

Where were we? Oh yeah the accusation of apathy deal . . .

I have friends that are missionaries that I have supported that are AT the places where these people are suffering and they are doing what needs to beb done. But there would be no pandemic if morality CHRSITIAN morality were implemented there too. I have walked the streets and I have helped the poor and I still do help the poor and needy the orphan OF the HUSBADNLESS woman.

M-S: Now, I repeat the questions, since you have misread them.

I didn't misread them Andy. I just can't believe you would ask them to me. We Christians don't like bragging about our outreach efforts. We're told by Jesus to keep thej on the down low.

What have you done to help the poor?

I paid for an African Teenager to make his way all the way through school and now he is in college. He thinks I am some wonderful Christian guy in America. Imagine that. I never wanted him to no my name.

What have you done to help the homeless?

Taken in many homeless people AND I have literally given the clothing off my back to many, many homeless people.A prostitute that stayed in my apartment for a few days once, stole everything she could carry out of the house on a day when I was at work. (I never touched this woman in a physical way, and I hope that I did touch her in a more eternal way.) No biggy.

What have you done to reduce violent crime?

I work with very violent gang members and have for over two-decades. I work with many kinds of people in my off-hours as well.

I speak to youth about my expereinces burying drug addicts that died pursuing hedonism, that I loved with all of my heart. They believed the lies of the secular world and it killed them. All those people would still be alive if they lived their lives for Christ.

What have you done to cure cancer?

Which kind? I send off money but I really don;t know what's happeing with it. I also do not have sex with women for the fun of it anymore. Look up the CAUSE of cervical cancer. Promiscuity is now focused on by a vaccine some idiots think will prevent promiscuity cancer.

What have you done to cure AIDS?

I oppose GLBT culture with thought and deeds. I teach and preach abstinence and good role modeling. I have been speaking to youth groups for so many years a can barely count them.

What have you done to give homes to orphans?

I support Pat Robertson's impressive outreach programs. And many, many, many other Evangelical programs that ARE REALLY working to help the poor and needy. All your side wants is more voters.

What have you done to reduce the number of wars?

I have turned down becoming a mercenary. After my time in the Army, many people recognized my incredible shooting skills and wanted me to use them for big bucks. I don't even own a firearm now. You know waht's facinating about the word mercenary, it applies to non military ways of life as well. I turned down being a rock mercenary too. Now I play and sing for Christ and His followers.

What have YOU done?

I follow my Lord and savior Jesus Christ and the example of WHAT HE DID for me. I in turn do it for others.

I'm not asking what you should do or would do or could do or might do. I'm asking what you have already done.

It is very inappropriate to ask a Christian to puff up about what he has done for the least of these.

The reason I have great disdain for people on your side, is that you have NO respect for us. Your request was a tough one to reply to. May Jesus forgive me.


What have you MORNINGSTAR2651, done to better anyone's life other than to champion gay culture and gay activism?