How Homophobic Are You?

[brightmorningstar]

Polycap fan,

May I?

Most certainly you may ... and amen to what you have written.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Polycap fan,
Most certainly you may ... and amen to what you have written.

You heretic you. And meanie. Just joking. Science and the Bible are quite good friends. Stay on the path of reason, apostolic truth and calm response and things will always work out just fine. God's not afraid of questions, we shouldn't be either. This is all been discussed many times throughout the history of the Church.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp fan,
I agree homosexuality is going against evolution, but it is going for extinction.
It has been claimed on these boards that homosexuality is passed on in genes, though homosexual genes haven’t yet been widely accepted as even existing. So I suggest the homosexual ideas are as you suggest being forced on people to accept even if they aren’t justified. I wonder how much they are being advanced by people fearful of speaking out?
I fail to see how a species can evolve if it naturally selects non reproductive offspring. To me this is 2 + 2 = 3

 

[HaloHope]

BMS,

May I?

We see throughout the history of mankind, that sexual "tastes" do not stay between "willing participants." In fact insatible sexuality of certain kinds of individuals thrust onto all, is a cliche/fact that has held firm throughout history. This is the case with gay "activism." ALL must submit to gay will.

Nonsense, if someone has a problem with my sexuality then its there right to have a problem with it and my right to think they are an idiot for doing so. Im not forcing anyone to do anything, but what I feel is my right is to be able to have my relationship legally recongised, be able to be who I am without fear of abuse, and live my life without having my rights restricted due to my sexuality.

Fast forward to western world 2008, and you see "homosexuals" demanding to teach "children" all about the in's and out's of gay sex, "and" the people that choose this style of sexual activity. If this were, an issue that stayed within the confines of "personal taste," there would be no issue at all between people that desire a sexual behavior defining them and attached to themselves, and those that disapprove of that and them.

When I was ooo about 12 I guess I had my first sex ed class explaining the basics about hetrosexual sex. I remember beign spectacularly uinterested (as im sure most 12 year olds would be), at age 14-15 I had a more advanced class dealing with STDs and the like. Seeing as I havent had and never will have hetrosexual intercourse these classes were useless to me. When it came to same-sex intercourse I obviously had to work out what to do (granted most of this was common sense) and it would have been nice to have this mentioned in my sexual education which I may as well have not had as biology covered everything in far more depth anyway.

There is ALSO a natural aversion TO homosexuality.

Nonsense. There may be a preference against homosexuality if your mostly hetrosexual, but there is no evidence to back up your statement here.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Nonsense, if someone has a problem with my sexuality then its there right to have a problem with it and my right to think they are an idiot for doing so.

Not if they have very good reasons for opposing your sexual tastes get blaired all over society. Once you make your sexual tastes know publically, then everyone and anyone can take issue with you. It is nonsense to create a minority classification based on sex acts. And certainly, how a person "thinks" in their own mind is a horrible place to find a defining feature. There are people that really think they are a Vulcan.

Im not forcing anyone to do anything, but what I feel is my right is to be able to have my relationship legally recongised, be able to be who I am without fear of abuse, and live my life without having my rights restricted due to my sexuality.

What YOU FEEL, is your right. I feel your sexual tastes have no business altering all of society AND ALTERING the Christian Church. Yet, we see "you gays" demanding everyone support your sexual proclivities or else get charged with a newly invented set of laws to support how YOU FEEL about your sexual tastes.

When I was ooo about 12 I guess I had my first sex ed class explaining the basics about hetrosexual sex. I remember beign spectacularly uinterested (as im sure most 12 year olds would be), at age 14-15 I had a more advanced class dealing with STDs and the like. Seeing as I havent had and never will have hetrosexual intercourse these classes were useless to me.

Your sexual preferences are just personal choices.

When it came to same-sex intercourse I obviously had to work out what to do (granted most of this was common sense) and it would have been nice to have this mentioned in my sexual education which I may as well have not had as biology covered everything in far more depth anyway.

Teaching children gay sex is inappropriate in a public school situation. You need to do two things, create your own schools AND create your own gay denominations for your alterations of Christian life.

Nonsense. There may be a preference against homosexuality if your mostly hetrosexual, but there is no evidence to back up your statement here.

I've owned horses. The stallions were wild and crazy when smelling a female in season. When these stallions tried to mount other males, INCLUDING geldings (eunuchs) they were shown aversion to homosexuality by the other males. In fact I've seen a stallion get a hole kicked in his chest by one of those eunuchs. He didn't get charged with a hate crime though. Luckily.

The mares waited patiently for the stallion "to come to his senses." I can't go into detail, the last time I proved the reality of gay culture with facts, I came close to getting banned. Why, I don't know . . . but it was close. Usually truth accompanied by facts doesn't get one in trouble. But when dealing with gay culture, telling the truth gets you attacked.

 

[David Brider]

Your sexual preferences are just personal choices.

I've yet to find anyone who chose who to be physically attracted to.

So no, sexual preferences don't seem to be "just personal choices".

David.

 

[HaloHope]

Not if they have very good reasons for opposing your sexual tastes get blaired all over society. Once you make your sexual tastes know publically, then everyone and anyone can take issue with you. It is nonsense to create a minority classification based on sex acts. And certainly, how a person "thinks" in their own mind is a horrible place to find a defining feature. There are people that really think they are a Vulcan.

The mindority was created due to persecution of a minority. Minorities tend to rise up and make themselves heard when there is tyranny of the majority (something we dont really have here in the UK in terms of sexuality, as most of the things you seem to be afraid of have happened here and society hasnt crashed down). But something that seems very prevelant in the US still.

Hetrosexuals make their sexual tastes public all the time, holding hands in public, having marriage ceromonies, weraing wedding rings and talking about their partner. If I can't do the same without facing hate then its discrimination. Simple as.

What YOU FEEL, is your right. I feel your sexual tastes have no business altering all of society AND ALTERING the Christian Church. Yet, we see "you gays" demanding everyone support your sexual proclivities or else get charged with a newly invented set of laws to support how YOU FEEL about your sexual tastes.

As I say most of the things you fear have happened here already and not radically changed society. We should have sexual freedom and equality to allow ALL consensual relationships to be legally recognised imho. Otherwise its not a free society.

Your sexual preferences are just personal choices.

As are yours, why should laws back you up and not me. Who I sleep with is a choice of course, my sexuality isnt.

Teaching children gay sex is inappropriate in a public school situation. You need to do two things, create your own schools AND create your own gay denominations for your alterations of Christian life.

Variety is the spice of life theres no need to divide schools or denominations, thats akin to the "seperate but equal" racial divide. Completely unacceptable. I think hetrosexual and homosexual preferences should be detailed in all public schools (which I think is the norm here now in the UK - my mothers a teacher and its now in her curriculum) as guss what some people are hetrosexual and some people are homosexual and all need to be catered for.

I've owned horses. The stallions were wild and crazy when smelling a female in season. When these stallions tried to mount other males, INCLUDING geldings (eunuchs) they were shown aversion to homosexuality by the other males. In fact I've seen a stallion get a hole kicked in his chest by one of those eunuchs. He didn't get charged with a hate crime though. Luckily.

When I have the misfortune of seeing a man even partially undressed I want to vomit. Perhaps Id have a natural aversion to hetrosexuality?

The mares waited patiently for the stallion "to come to his senses." I can't go into detail, the last time I proved the reality of gay culture with facts, I came close to getting banned. Why, I don't know . . . but it was close. Usually truth accompanied by facts doesn't get one in trouble. But when dealing with gay culture, telling the truth gets you attacked.

Theres no truth here, just your opinions.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

The minority was created due to persecution of a minority.

Oh really, blacks and hispanics and Muslims and asians can't be British citizens? What any person doe sexually should also define them.

Minorities tend to rise up and make themselves heard when there is tyranny of the majority (something we dont really have here in the UK in terms of sexuality, as most of the things you seem to be afraid of have happened here and society hasnt crashed down). But something that seems very prevelant in the US still.

Seems the Christians are hiding out now. I notice that in England the rise of atheism coincided with the acceptance of gay sex. Of course.

Hetrosexuals make their sexual tastes public all the time, holding hands in public, having marriage ceromonies, weraing wedding rings and talking about their partner. If I can't do the same without facing hate then its discrimination. Simple as.

No need to create a minority classification for your personal sexual tastes though. No one has labeled themselves as straight. You gays do that.

As I say most of the things you fear have happened here already and not radically changed society.

Oh really. There is a large growing Evangelical church movement in England? Last time I heard about the other side of the pond, was that perversion and sexual lascivious was on public TV. Of course.

We should have sexual freedom and equality to allow ALL consensual relationships to be legally recognised imho. Otherwise its not a free society.

Why should others have to pay for the sickness and disease caused by these choice sexual practices then? It seems the sexually licentious crowd does in fact demand that everyone support tham without choice about it. Again, if "you gays" were to leave your sexual tastes at the front door, there would be no cause to oppose you. Are there adultery pride parades in England? Any divorce celebration marches?

As are yours, why should laws back you up and not me. Who I sleep with is a choice of course, my sexuality isnt.

Who you sleep with is what you demand all to approve of. That is gay culture described quite well.

Variety is the spice of life theres no need to divide schools or denominations, thats akin to the "seperate but equal" racial divide. Completely unacceptable.

You may rule the secular "world" but there is no such thing as promotable gay sex "in the Church." What I hear you saying, is that indeed, you are going to force Christians to submit to gay rule over them. THAT will never happen. Ever. You can have the buildings for whatever lascivious pruposes you people desire, but the Church, you will never rule.

I think hetrosexual and homosexual preferences should be detailed in all public schools (which I think is the norm here now in the UK - my mothers a teacher and its now in her curriculum) as guss what some people are hetrosexual and some people are homosexual and all need to be catered for.

In public schools "anything goes" is quite the norm. Of course, the fruit of atheistic humanism. You claim to be a Christian, gay sex is not promotable in Christian reality. You can live "in the world," and you can (and should) create a new religion or denomination, but the Church has already been established. And, in contrary to the humanist view that morality is fluid, the Apostles did not create this environment in Christian truth.

When I have the misfortune of seeing a man even partially undressed I want to vomit. Perhaps Id have a natural aversion to hetrosexuality?

I did not need to know anything about your personal feelings about men.

Theres no truth here, just your opinions.

Interesting, that is the only foundation of gay activism, is "opinion." I, on the other hand, have the New Testament witness and the "opinions" of every writer of scripture supporting my position, nature and science to support my "opinions" on sexuality as a matter of course.

It is highly rude of gays and lesbians to march into The Church and demand "it" and Christians, alter Biblical truth and reality based on gay and lesbian "opinions" on their personal sexual preferences. It is actually far worse than just rude, but that is for another thread some day.

Why won't you allow Christians (other Christians) to stand firmly opposed to homosexualizing the Christian Church. You have not one single voice in all of scripture to support your choice to do that. A gay (GLBT) denomination at the most extreme and the bottom line, would be the proper thing to do.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Have we forgotten so soon OllieFranz and the attempt to gay-ize David and Jonathan . . . . and being soundly disproven? Another example of gay culture.

For those with selective memory:

{quote]Originally Posted by OllieFranz

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar

• and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

Once again I must point out that while the text does not state that Jonathan and David were lovers in the "marriage" sense, or that their relationship was a marriage, it is very suggestive of the likelihood. [/quote]
​

Men can love each other intensely without any carnal aspect to it at all. Many soldiers have a lifetime commitment to their fellow soldiers. Athletes also love their teammates even through marriages (to woman) that fail.

David and Jonathan is nothing more than this type of friendship.

Examples:

1. Many Christians try to use Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.") to define marriage. Well, Jonathan 's soul was knit with David's and they became one and David left his father's house to live with Jonathan (1 Sam 18: 1-2)

Actually, "Christians" use Jesus on marriage. He includes "What God has joined, let no man seperate." It is Jesus using Genesis reality. John and Dave entered into a private pact. In fact, as two Israelites, "marriage" and gay sex, was inappropriate and an abomination to them both. It is also inappropriate to homosexualize the love these two men had for each other. Gay theologians do even worse things to Ruth and Naomi, and a boy slave owned by a Roman soldier.

1. [/quote]A marriage is a covenant contracted between two people. 1 Sam 18:3 reads: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."[/quote]
   ​

Reading gay culture and its obvious gay erotica into the text is a stretch into the perverse for no good reason. Both David and Jonathan married women.

A marriage includes the concern of raising the next generation. As part of their covenant, Jonathan and David pledged to help raise one another's children. (1 Samuel 20:42 -- "And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.") David honored that commitment as far as he was able with Jonathan's son Mephibosheth.

As a soldier once myself, this is a common pact between two men that could be killed at any time. It is a very common pact.

Although the Bible does not require love to contract a marriage, it expects love within the marriage. Both the first verses about their relationship in 1 Samuel 18 and the last verses in 2 Samuel 1, as well as the passage where David adopts Mephibosheth into his household, focus on the love between Jonathan and David.

Nothing less and nothing more. Sodomizing this relationship is absolutely inappropriate.

Saul seems to have considered their relationship a marriage. He is the one who insisted that David make his home in the king's house with Jonathan.

Saul wanted to kill David. Close proximity makes that an easy task. Saul was soldier too.

When he arranged the marriage with his daughter Michal, he thought of how this marriage would make David his son-in-law twice over. (1 Samuel 18:21)

Why the outright deception? Here's reality:

17 Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD." For Saul said to himself, "I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!"

18 But David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my family or my father's clan in Israel, that I should become the king's son-in-law?"

19 So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.
20 Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."​

​

There is no such things as same-gender "marriage."

[/quote]He also seems to believe that Jonathan and David have consummated that marriage. In a drunken and perhaps mad rage he accuses Jonathan of "confusing his mother's nakedness" with David (1 Samuel 20:30).[/quote]
​

If it were same "gender" sex, it would have been exposing Saul's nakedness. Remember Noah and his sons?

The construction is similar to that used in the "incest" verses of Leviticus 18 and 20 to indicate adultery within the family. Saul seems to be accusing Jonathan and David of cheating on their wives with one another. If he originally felt that Jonathan's and David's relationship was a marriage, perhaps he assumed that the later marriage to Michal annulled it. Who knows? By that time Saul was far gone in his madness.

​

Here's the text:

[/quote]28 Jonathan answered, "David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. 29 He said, 'Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.' That is why he has not come to the king's table."
30 Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!" 32 "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?" Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.[/quote]
​

This proves that David was a Torah observant Israelite, and that Saul was indeed desiring to kill David.

Here's the Tanakh version:

30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: 'Thou son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?
31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the earth, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he deserveth to die.'

Jonathan has recognized David as the rightful heir to the throne. This, Saul says, shames Jonathan's mother who, like Bathsheba to come later, would have desired ONLY her son as king.

There is no substance that supports the homosexualization of David and Jonathan.

Added:

How soon to forget.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, using evolution as a guide. "homosexuality" is literally going against nature. It serves no purpose other than culling the herd of undesirable genes.

Unjustified assumption. The very existence of kin selection belies your claim: homosexuality is an altruistic trait, and like all altruistic traits it serves to increase the reproductive odds of one's kin, not oneself.

That is why the aversion to homosexuality is a natural reaction of a healthy individual and not any kind of phobia.

Just as a white person's aversion to black people is not a phobia, but instead a perfectly healthy reaction? Or a paedophile's perversion towards children is a perfectly healthy reaction?

I am revolted by Marmite. Do I eschew that as an abominable sin? I have feelings of revolution against a number of things, including the idea of heterosexual sex. Do I denounce them all as abominable sins? A few centuries ago, people were averse to the notion of Africans on an intellectual par with Europeans. Do we therefore re-enforce slave laws and banish all people of African descent from our respective countries?

Of course not. It is absurd to base one's morality on gut feelings. Indeed, to do so defies the whole point of morality.

That statement defies logic. It also defies laws put into place to protect people from other people that do not choose to do the right thing.

Which begs the question (indeed , it begs the question overarching all ethical debates): what is "the right thing"?

Um, sorry to teach you another lesson, but "human women" incubate their eggs inside of them.

But we do not lay eggs, which is what Andreusz said.

And we see the consequences of defying natural fact when the tanks run out of air. Sperm and ovum are "designed" only for each other. Two ovums searching for each other defies reason and nature. Sperm in a throat, or rectum, is worthless sex by the very use of nature to decide reality.

Assuming, of course, sex has only one purpose: procreation. Undoubtedly, this is its primary function, but it is by no means its only.

It is always aberrant behavior.

Aberrant by what standard? Yours? Of course it is: you're heterosexual! To me, a homosexual, heterosexuality is aberrant and contrary to nature. If you are revolted by homosexuality, fine: don't have same-sex sex.

Accoding to the truth we see in the natural world. It is a sin because it is perversion.

On the contrary, it is as evolved a trait as red-headedness or skin colour.

Not one place in the Biblical witness do we see homosexuality supported or promoted.

*cough* 1 & 2 Samuel *cough*

And again, using nature as a guide, homosexuality is never "promoted." It is just a condition we observe in an animal that will never be able to reproduce. There must be a lesson in that, as nature is a guide to reason and logic.

Since when?

A gay community of gazelles disappears as quickly as it developes.

As does an all-female community of gazelles. What's your point? Homosexuality has evolved to not engulf the population, but it has also evolved to not die out itself: in humans, the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is approximately 19:1. Fancy that.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Unjustified assumption. The very existence of kin selection belies your claim: homosexuality is an altruistic trait, and like all altruistic traits it serves to increase the reproductive odds of one's kin, not oneself.

That sound homophobic if were to come from a "straight" person. Then again, it could be used to support gays and lesbians from not adopting children. It is an unnatural act.

Just as a white person's aversion to black people is not a phobia, but instead a perfectly healthy reaction?

European domination has been over far more people groups than just africans. Bark up another tree, there is no squirrell in this one. Blame european's for their history. I'm a Christian, all are equal in Christ.

Or a paedophile's perversion towards children is a perfectly healthy reaction?

It's just an innate sexual orientation. Ask one. Guess what is coming down the slippery slope next.

I am revolted by Marmite. Do I eschew that as an abominable sin?

Rather, healthy taste buds.

I have feelings of revolution against a number of things, including the idea of heterosexual sex.

Your mindset shouldn't become a minority clasification.

Do I denounce them all as abominable sins?

"Biblically," or in your mind.

A few centuries ago, people were averse to the notion of Africans on an intellectual par with Europeans.

Blame Darwinists, Aryans and Atheists for that please. You can read what the Apostles thought of everyone. EQUAL!

Do we therefore re-enforce slave laws and banish all people of African descent from our respective countries?

We should continue the works of Christian white men known as Abolitionists.

Of course not. It is absurd to base one's morality on gut feelings. Indeed, to do so defies the whole point of morality.

"Anything goes," the morality of gay culture (which I have proven beyond any doubt, thought or imagnination) is antithetical to the Apsotolic witness and many secular laws. While they exist.

Which begs the question (indeed , it begs the question overarching all ethical debates): what is "the right thing"?

For you Pagans???? You do as you wilteh. For we Christians, we have a different set of guidelines. I notice with fascination, that the gays calling themselves Christians here, take your support willingly.

But we do not lay eggs, which is what Andreusz said.

I was responding to his error and spin.

Assuming, of course, sex has only one purpose: procreation. Undoubtedly, this is its primary function, but it is by no means its only.

Pual would agree with you. He - by the way - wrote most of the New testament letters. Lust should be dealt with in a marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman in the New Testament. You pagans are free to ignore that. That is your right according to Jesus.

Aberrant by what standard? Yours? Of course it is: you're heterosexual! To me, a homosexual, heterosexuality is aberrant and contrary to nature.

That is actualy absurd. Even a person liking gay sex can see what nature is. You are clouding reality through your gay lens.

If you are revolted by homosexuality, fine: don't have same-sex sex.

I don;t want to see it or hear about it, but "you gays" are forcing the issue into our schools and Churches. As we said you would. The slippery slope is no longer a theory, but a proven fact.

On the contrary, it is as evolved a trait as red-headedness or skin colour.

Evolution sends a very fierce message about homosexuality.

*cough* 1 & 2 Samuel *cough*

Refer to post 189. That gay myth was shattered for what it is. Goofy propaganda with an ulterior motive. Gay culture its goal.

As does an all-female community of gazelles. What's your point? Homosexuality has evolved to not engulf the population, but it has also evolved to not die out itself: in humans, the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is approximately 19:1. Fancy that.

There is no need nor any moral support to put a minority classification on a sex act. ALL colors and nationalities already are covered.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Blame Darwinists, Aryans and Atheists for that please. You can read what the Apostles thought of everyone. EQUAL!

What do Darwinists have to do with this? Evolution specifically invalidates the notion of racism.

We should continue the works of Christian white men known as Abolitionists.

And ignore the non-white, non-Christian ones?

If we are to continue their work of seeking freedom and equality, why are you specifically arguing against the homosexuals' rights to marry as they please?

"Anything goes," the morality of gay culture (which I have proven beyond any doubt, thought or imagnination) is antithetical to the Apsotolic witness and many secular laws. While they exist.

Please demonstrate the validity of your claim.

For you Pagans???? You do as you wilteh. For we Christians, we have a different set of guidelines. I notice with fascination, that the gays calling themselves Christians here, take your support willingly.

What is "wilteh"?

Pual would agree with you. He - by the way - wrote most of the New testament letters. Lust should be dealt with in a marriage.

Horribly untrue. Lust must be dealt with all the time. You must always be on your guard. Lust, be it homosexual or heterosexual in nature, is sinful.

Marriage is a man and a woman in the New Testament. You pagans are free to ignore that. That is your right according to Jesus.

Does the state determine a marriage to be valid, or God?

I don;t want to see it or hear about it, but "you gays" are forcing the issue into our schools and Churches. As we said you would. The slippery slope is no longer a theory, but a proven fact.

There's a small problem; freedom. You are free to practice heterosexual acts and marriage. Suppose if a gay person was revolted by that idea - would it be fair for them to suggest that heterosexual marriage be abolished, too?

Evolution sends a very fierce message about homosexuality.

Which is...?

Refer to post 189. That gay myth was shattered for what it is. Goofy propaganda with an ulterior motive. Gay culture its goal.

I agree that the claim that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship is grossly revisionistic... but there's nothing in your posts that is shattering anything other than that claim.

Incidentally, did you get a chance to respond to my posts (114 and 117 on this thread, and 120 on the "gay agenda?" thread, found here - http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48141113#post48141113 )

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That sound homophobic if were to come from a "straight" person.

How so?

Then again, it could be used to support gays and lesbians from not adopting children. It is an unnatural act.

How so? One of the reasons homosexuality evolved in the first place was to ensure childless couples existed to adopt orphan children; without such couples, the orphans would be much more likely to die.

European domination has been over far more people groups than just africans.

Indeed, but that wasn't my point.

It's just an innate sexual orientation.

Arguably. The difference between paedophilia and homosexuality is that the former does not have consent and harms at least one of the participants. Homosexuality does not (at least, no more than heterosexuality).

Rather, healthy taste buds.

Ah, then we condemn those who do like Marmite. Do we send them to 'conversion therapy' camps? Do you picket the funerals of Marmite-ists and their families?

Your mindset shouldn't become a minority clasification.

How so? My point is that my morality isn't based on gut feelings.

Blame Darwinists, Aryans and Atheists for that please.

1) Darwin was born in 1809, and neither slavery nor racism are based on evolutionary theory (how could they? Darwin only published his ideas in 1859!)
2) Aryans claim to be doing the Lord's work (read Hitler's Mein Kampf). Blame your own faith for that.
3) Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. How does this lend one towards racism?

You can also blame Abraham Lincoln:

You can read what the Apostles thought of everyone. EQUAL!

I can read what they said, but equality is hardly on the top of their priorities:


Galatians 4:28-31
"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."

Philemon 15-19
"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back not to mention that you owe me your very self."

1 Corinthians 7
"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."

1 Timothy 6:1
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

Matthew 10:24
"A student is not greater than the teacher. A slave is not greater than the master."

1 Peter 2:18
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Colossians 3:22
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

Time and time and time again, the message is clear: slaves are NOT equal to their master, or even with the average human.

We should continue the works of Christian white men known as Abolitionists.

Why? According to you, the racist man has a perfectly healthy aversion to one ethnic group or another, and, since we're basing our morality on gut feelings, we should abhor and torment said group.

"Anything goes," the morality of gay culture (which I have proven beyond any doubt, thought or imagnination) is antithetical to the Apsotolic witness and many secular laws. While they exist.

Anything goes? I think not. Paedophilia, bestiality, rape (gang or otherwise), 'buggers', etc, are all abhorred by the gay community in the same what they are abhorred by everyone else.

I find it amusing that you think you've "proven" something as nuanced as that. Have you also proven apples?

For you Pagans???? You do as you wilteh.

You're conflating Thelema with all of Paganism. In Wicca, for instance, we "An it harm none, do what ye will". Harming none is paramount.

In any case, this is just one moral code among many. Which is right?

For we Christians, we have a different set of guidelines. I notice with fascination, that the gays calling themselves Christians here, take your support willingly.

And I note that it is only the anti-gay Christians who highlight my religion, instead of sticking to the topic. If I had a pound for every time that's happened...

I was responding to his error and spin.

By being facetious? Do stay on topic.

Pual would agree with you. He - by the way - wrote most of the New testament letters. Lust should be dealt with in a marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman in the New Testament.

Marriage is described as one man, one woman, yes, but where is it given as only one man and one woman? Where is it explicitly stated that two men or two women cannot be considered married, even if God himself came down and blessed the union (which, I've noticed, both some homosexual and heterosexual couples have claimed)?

You pagans are free to ignore that. That is your right according to Jesus.

Sweet deal.

That is actualy absurd. Even a person liking gay sex can see what nature is. You are clouding reality through your gay lens.

My gay lens? That's going in my sig.

I don;t want to see it or hear about it, but "you gays" are forcing the issue into our schools and Churches.

Me? I couldn't care less what your priests teach in church. If they want to preach hate, be my guest. It's when they start bringing religion into the government and education system that I have a problem. If you have a problem with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, then put it to your government. If your only objection is religious, then save your breath.

As we said you would. The slippery slope is no longer a theory, but a proven fact.

Why do some Christians have a hard time understanding the meaning of the words 'theory' and 'fact'?

Evolution sends a very fierce message about homosexuality.

Please, I can't wait to hear this.

Refer to post 189. That gay myth was shattered for what it is. Goofy propaganda with an ulterior motive. Gay culture its goal.

Your post gave me a chuckle, but nothing was shattered except... no, nothing.

There is no need nor any moral support to put a minority classification on a sex act. ALL colors and nationalities already are covered.

What are you on about?

 

[HaloHope]

Oh really, blacks and hispanics and Muslims and asians can't be British citizens? What any person doe sexually should also define them.

Truth be told? Id prefer not to be defined by my sexuality, but until theres an end to persecution against people for their sexuality it's something most gay people have to face at some point in their lives.

Seems the Christians are hiding out now. I notice that in England the rise of atheism coincided with the acceptance of gay sex. Of course.

I think it was a rise of common sense and love for our fellow humans rather than a "rise of athiesm"

No need to create a minority classification for your personal sexual tastes though. No one has labeled themselves as straight. You gays do that.

Erm plenty of people I know who are hetrosexual label themselves as such, its fairly well.. usual.

Oh really. There is a large growing Evangelical church movement in England? Last time I heard about the other side of the pond, was that perversion and sexual lascivious was on public TV. Of course.

It depends what you mean by "perversion and sexual lascivious" really. I wouldnt believe everything you "hear". From what I see of American TV its pretty similar theres just a lot more tolerance here.

Why should others have to pay for the sickness and disease caused by these choice sexual practices then? It seems the sexually licentious crowd does in fact demand that everyone support tham without choice about it. Again, if "you gays" were to leave your sexual tastes at the front door, there would be no cause to oppose you. Are there adultery pride parades in England? Any divorce celebration marches?

Youve moved on to nationalized healthcare? Personally I think free healthcare paid for by taxes is the only way for a civilized society to function but thats another topic. People make mistakes, and if it means saving someones life even if its their fault id happily help and pay, its the Christian thing to give anyone another chance.

Of course there arent adultary pride marches here, adultry as a rule hurts people. Homosexual relationships as a rule do not.

Who you sleep with is what you demand all to approve of. That is gay culture described quite well.

What I demand, is the freedom to speak about my relationship and partner as ALL hetrosexuals do without fear of violence, threat or abuse. Fortunately I more or less get that here now, so it's time to help influence the situation in other countries.

You may rule the secular "world" but there is no such thing as promotable gay sex "in the Church." What I hear you saying, is that indeed, you are going to force Christians to submit to gay rule over them. THAT will never happen. Ever. You can have the buildings for whatever lascivious pruposes you people desire, but the Church, you will never rule.

Fact:- Plenty of churches here accept gay people without being "gay denominations"
Fact:- They are Christian churches
Fact:- Fact, churches will help to promote monogamy and strengthen ties between gay couples.
Fact:- This dosent stop the churches who want to keep the "evil gays" out from doing so.
Fact:- Contrary to the bizarre point you claim to be making when I go to church I tend to.. well.. sing and pray, oddly enough theres no sex happening in the church. BECAUSE ITS A NORMAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

In public schools "anything goes" is quite the norm. Of course, the fruit of atheistic humanism. You claim to be a Christian, gay sex is not promotable in Christian reality. You can live "in the world," and you can (and should) create a new religion or denomination, but the Church has already been established. And, in contrary to the humanist view that morality is fluid, the Apostles did not create this environment in Christian truth.

It is infinately acceptable to God whether you believe that or not has no bearing on my relationship with God and how I feel on the matter. Theres no need to create a new denomination as many are realizing the idiocy in shunning gay people due to some scripture that can't even be proven to condemn gay people. We are part of the Body Of Christ now, and while your perfectly free to ignore us (and in return id ignore yourselves) you seem intent to drum us out. It'll never happen because whatevers done to me my relationship with God can never be broken.

I did not need to know anything about your personal feelings about men.

I thought it might drum into you the fact Im not changing and this is natural for me.

Interesting, that is the only foundation of gay activism, is "opinion." I, on the other hand, have the New Testament witness and the "opinions" of every writer of scripture supporting my position, nature and science to support my "opinions" on sexuality as a matter of course.

You have no proof you have the authors of scripture on your side, spoken to any of them lately?

It is highly rude of gays and lesbians to march into The Church and demand "it" and Christians, alter Biblical truth and reality based on gay and lesbian "opinions" on their personal sexual preferences. It is actually far worse than just rude, but that is for another thread some day.

God welcomed me, the church welcomed me. I didnt push my way in anywhere. In fact really the main place I encounter Christians being opposed to homosexuality is this forum, irl its relatively alien to me.

Why won't you allow Christians (other Christians) to stand firmly opposed to homosexualizing the Christian Church. You have not one single voice in all of scripture to support your choice to do that. A gay (GLBT) denomination at the most extreme and the bottom line, would be the proper thing to do.

You just reject the voices in scripture we claim. As we reject the ones you claim. Only God will inform us who is right, I'm just convinced (as you are I'm sure) I am correct on this matter. We dont need a GBLT denomination , the body of Christ welcomes ALL, because God is all welcoming, accepting love.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To Andreusz,
If its misuse of the sexual reproductive organs, if animals do its also against nature for animals.

"Nature". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Evolution sends a very fierce message about homosexuality.

Indeed it does. The universality of homosexuality as an observed trait among all higher mammals and many other species besides, and the universal rate of homosexuality across all human populations indicates that homosexuality provides a clear evolutionary advantage.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Good job to Wiccan Child, Halo Hope and EnemyPartyII for standing up to hatred so effectively

 

[Polycarp_fan]

How so?


How so? One of the reasons homosexuality evolved in the first place was to ensure childless couples existed to adopt orphan children; without such couples, the orphans would be much more likely to die.

Non lactating females are death to orphaned offsrping. Evolution to homosexuality means the individual is removed from the species. That's how it would work. Evolution/Darwinism shows that the homosexual individual does not fit in.

Arguably. The difference between paedophilia and homosexuality is that the former does not have consent and harms at least one of the participants.

NOT according to pedophiles.

Homosexuality does not (at least, no more than heterosexuality).

Not according to physiology and anatomy. STD's have shown to be extremely deadly.

Ah, then we condemn those who do like Marmite. Do we send them to 'conversion therapy' camps? Do you picket the funerals of Marmite-ists and their families?

Please do not intimate that I am like Fred Phelps. That would be baiting and a violation of the rules here.

quote]How so? My point is that my morality isn't based on gut feelings.[/quote]

Morality is exclusively based on emotions and emotionalism. If we use pure reasoning on gay activism for example, nothing is immoral. Whatever a group of participants "feels" is right, becomes a new civil right.

1) Darwin was born in 1809, and neither slavery nor racism are based on evolutionary theory (how could they? Darwin only published his ideas in 1859!)

True, true, and Darwin hated slavery, I was thinking on the lines of eugenics.

2) Aryans claim to be doing the Lord's work (read Hitler's Mein Kampf). Blame your own faith for that.

Aryanism is a different religion. These white supremists got things mixed up. The Apostolic witness also disapprove of violence and supremacy over others.

3) Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. How does this lend one towards racism?

No morals. Atheism is far more powerful and influential than just "whatever!" It is being hailed as the ONLY way laws can be created.

You can also blame Abraham Lincoln:

He came around. Read his Second Inaugural Speech.

I can read what they said, but equality is hardly on the top of their priorities:

Fascinating "you" quoting scripture to prove your point. Let's see.

Galatians 4:28-31

"Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."

This is referring to the descent from Abraham to Jesus. Abraham, Isaac and jacob, lead to Jesus. Ishmael leads to wherever he was led.

Philemon 15-19

"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back not to mention that you owe me your very self."

This letter highlights how in the Church, there are no slaves and masters. Why would you use Philemon to prove that Christians desire UNequality. The letter proves the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 7

"Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."

This is referring to Christians living a Christian life? Your point is not proven with this scripture.

1 Timothy 6:1

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."

Asking someone to be honest and moral is good advice. This behavior literally spread Christianity throughout the Roman empire. This doesn;t prove your point either.

Matthew 10:24

"A student is not greater than the teacher. A slave is not greater than the master."

Matthew is quoting Jesus.

International Standard Version:
Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.

New American Standard Bible:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
GOD'S WORD translation:
There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.
King James Bible:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
American King James Version:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. American Standard Version:
There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 2:18

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

Here is Peter just before . . .:

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Colossians 3:22

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

And . . .:

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. 22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

Time and time and time again, the message is clear: slaves are NOT equal to their master, or even with the average human.

You want to reread Philemon? How about the reasoning that slaves and their masters are to treat each other, well, the same. Equality is the Christian message.

Why? According to you, the racist man has a perfectly healthy aversion to one ethnic group or another, and, since we're basing our morality on gut feelings, we should abhor and torment said group.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I base my Biblical views on the Bible.

Anything goes? I think not. Paedophilia, bestiality, rape (gang or otherwise), 'buggers', etc, are all abhorred by the gay community in the same what they are abhorred by everyone else.

What's the etc., represent?

I find it amusing that you think you've "proven" something as nuanced as that. Have you also proven apples?

An apple is not a Mercedes Benz.

You're conflating Thelema with all of Paganism. In Wicca, for instance, we "An it harm none, do what ye will". Harming none is paramount.

We have seen where this mantra has taken our cities and our youth. Our youth are promiscuous and diseased, and many, many,many of them have harmed many, many, many other people, all doing what they wilt, thinking it will harm none. They were wrong.

In any case, this is just one moral code among many. Which is right?

Wicca has some good points. Doing anything you please though, is not one of them.

And I note that it is only the anti-gay Christians who highlight my religion, instead of sticking to the topic. If I had a pound for every time that's happened...

Please, do you really have a place in a "Christian" debate?

By being facetious? Do stay on topic.

My facetious days are over. You cannot prove your point using Christian scriptures, that gay sex is OK.

quote]Marriage is described as one man, one woman, yes, but where is it given as only one man and one woman?

From Jesus. Christians think that is good authority. Or rather, Authority.

Where is it explicitly stated that two men or two women cannot be considered married, even if God himself came down and blessed the union (which, I've noticed, both some homosexual and heterosexual couples have claimed)?

Jesus taught the structure of a marriage.

Sweet deal.

Seriously, you can do as you wilteth. But not in a Christian Church.

My gay lens? That's going in my sig.

I want royalities. OK, the by line is cool. I like being known for the truth I bring to these threads.

Me? I couldn't care less what your priests teach in church.

Hmm, it sure looks like you do. Quoting scripture and all. Trying to influence believers even. You definately care. Why I don't know though. And ehy supposedly other Christians yoke themselves with you is an odd thing to behold. I'm not trying to insult you, rather Christians are taught to avoide uniting with unbelievers.

If they want to preach hate, be my guest.

That is not allowed "in the Church." Opposing gay sex is a very loving thing to do.

It's when they start bringing religion into the government and education system that I have a problem.

But its OK to rule everyone by Atheism? Seems rather unequal to me.

If you have a problem with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, then put it to your government.

We Christians have done that, but Gay activists won;t accept democracy. Please refer to California.

If your only objection is religious, then save your breath.

This IS a Christian website. This is where my positions should be applied. I am not a gay sites and Wiccan sites contending for the Faith.

Why do some Christians have a hard time understanding the meaning of the words 'theory' and 'fact'?

You must be referring to the "gay" ones.

Your post gave me a chuckle, but nothing was shattered except... no, nothing.

I am not trying to convert you. I am just presenting my position that gay sex is no where promoted in the New Testament witness.

What are you on about?

Is that baiting?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not according to physiology and anatomy. STD's have shown to be extremely deadly.

STDs are harmful, but STDs are not synonomous with homosexuality (STD is a neologism, by the way)

So you are quite right to worry about STDs, but you are wrong to say that STDs are an inherrant property of homosexuality.

So please, without resorting to "Gays make teh AIDS" rhetoric, can you give any example of how consentual homosexuaitly is inherently harmful?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Truth be told? Id prefer not to be defined by my sexuality, but until theres an end to persecution against people for their sexuality it's something most gay people have to face at some point in their lives.

Asking people not to promote gay sex in the Church is not even close to persecution. It is rather, pure love to oppose gay sex being promoted in the Church. The Apostles opposed gay sex (as we have come to define it).

I think it was a rise of common sense and love for our fellow humans rather than a "rise of athiesm"

I'm standing firm on my statement. From humanism to gay sex in our schools and politics in less than a century.

Erm plenty of people I know who are hetrosexual label themselves as such, its fairly well.. usual.

Gay, straight, arose from the promoting of homosexuality.

It depends what you mean by "perversion and sexual lascivious" really. I wouldnt believe everything you "hear". From what I see of American TV its pretty similar theres just a lot more tolerance here.

I created a new thread proving my position was based on facts, and I was treated incredibly unfair. The driving away of any dissenting voices of gay sex is alarming, but not unexpected. I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I knew what was coming.

Of course there arent adultary pride marches here, adultry as a rule hurts people.

No fault divorce. Now it is common.

Homosexual relationships as a rule do not.

The STD epidemic may disagree with you on that. I can't post facts on that as it is a reason to ban people here.

What I demand, is the freedom to speak about my relationship and partner as ALL hetrosexuals do without fear of violence, threat or abuse.

OK. But I demand to oppose you on Biblical grounds every time you attempt to homosexualize the Church. Tolerance (as you know) does not mean support.

Fortunately I more or less get that here now, so it's time to help influence the situation in other countries.

Gay social power was acheived when the Church was silenced and altered in Britain. Although I do see that there are brothers and sisters in Britain that do still value scriptural truth. This issue will come and go as it has many times before.

Fact:- Plenty of churches here accept gay people without being "gay denominations"
Fact:- They are Christian churches

Jesus said it is a fact that not everyone that calls themself a Christian is a follower of His. We are to watch out for wolves in sheeps clothing. They will not spare the flock. Gay culture is antithetical to the witness and testimomy of the Apostles. I can only go by truth and reality.

Fact:- Fact, churches will help to promote monogamy and strengthen ties between gay couples.

If they want to keep thier property. Gays have created laws to silence any oppostion to gay sex in England. check out this website in the UK: http://www.lgcm.org.uk/

I would rather suffer persecution and gather in someones house as a Church.

Fact:- This dosent stop the churches who want to keep the "evil gays" out from doing so.

Those days are coming to an end. Apostates will come into the Church before he believers have to leave.

Fact:- Contrary to the bizarre point you claim to be making when I go to church I tend to.. well.. sing and pray, oddly enough theres no sex happening in the church. BECAUSE ITS A NORMAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

There must be still, the Gospel preached in that Church. In a "normal Church" everyone is welcome, but their anti-Christian ideologies are not.

It is infinately acceptable to God whether you believe that or not has no bearing on my relationship with God and how I feel on the matter.

That is 100% true. But your views on promoting gay culture in the Church has no support from the biblical witness. All you have is your feelings guiding you. Good luck with that. It never helps error to feel good about it. Whether you believe that or not.

I questioned your walk with Christ once, and I will not do it ever again, but you are very wrong in promoting gay culture in the Church.

Theres no need to create a new denomination as many are realizing the idiocy in shunning gay people due to some scripture that can't even be proven to condemn gay people.

No Church should shun anyone according to the Apostolic witness. But not supporting sin is also a very Christian thing to do.

We are part of the Body Of Christ now, and while your perfectly free to ignore us (and in return id ignore yourselves) you seem intent to drum us out.

I am not intent on driving anyone out of the Church, I am though, going to oppose the promoting of gay sex and gay culture in the Church every day I am alive. There are so many Christians that feel that they are bad people for opposing gay activism and they are not.

It'll never happen because whatevers done to me my relationship with God can never be broken.

That is your right to think as you want to, but it appears, that you will not allow others to dissent of your personal opinions on gay sex in the Church.

I thought it might drum into you the fact Im not changing and this is natural for me.

This the need for a gay denomination or new religion altogether.

You have no proof you have the authors of scripture on your side, spoken to any of them lately?

They have written their positions in the New Testament. I just agree with them.

God welcomed me, the church welcomed me. I didnt push my way in anywhere. In fact really the main place I encounter Christians being opposed to homosexuality is this forum, irl its relatively alien to me.

Christians are a very tolerant lot. But you may have missed the hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide that stand with the Apostolic witness that gay sex and gay activism has no place in the Church.

You just reject the voices in scripture we claim.

That is an unfait statement. I prove that gay theology is really just liberal and progressive thought, and has no support from scripture. I another place on this website, I listed every place where gay theolgy claims to have texts promoting gay sex and gay partnerships, and I have shown the error of their views WITH the scriptures they presented. I did a bit of that here with the David and Jonathan as gay lovers myth.

As we reject the ones you claim. Only God will inform us who is right, I'm just convinced (as you are I'm sure) I am correct on this matter.

And shows that not only schism is the result of gay fruit in the Church, but that a gay denomination is called for in all honesty.

We dont need a GBLT denomination , the body of Christ welcomes ALL, because God is all welcoming, accepting love.

I firmly disagree with you. (And of course this is what gives rise to new and/or other denominations.)

Mormonism as an example, has no place in the Church based on the scriptures they use to promote the religiosity of Joseph Smith. The same is true for what Mel White and Gene Robinson have done. All gay activists have to go on is outside biblical beliefs, liberal and progressive social ideology and mangled and twisted scripture, or just plain discarding of Biblical reality altogether. Or arguing from silence or the ubiquitous "two wrongs" comparisons for allowing gay activism into the Church.

Just like any Bible-affirming Christian Pastor, theologian, apologist, parent and friend, would not allow Latter Day Saints theology to go unchallenged, neither should we allow gay activists to homosexualize the Church without an apologia presented to them and at their agenda.