June 16, 2024, 12:53:49 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - pecan

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 228
61


Socapro, what happen to "freedom of speech" as you were so quick to bring up in the other thread? Sam could voice his opinion but Tiresais can't voice his opinion on the video you posted? If you want to keep your post exclusive, use another venue.



btw, are you going to let Bakes dismantle the World Congress of Families communications director arguments without a rebuttal?

62
General Discussion / Anybody need a hug?
« on: March 20, 2014, 06:18:54 AM »

It have a few people on this thread who need a hug.


From UpWorthy

What If You Stick A Gay Person And An Anti-Gay Straight Person In A Room And Ask Them To Hug?
Adam Mordecai Adam Mordecai

Not sure if you heard, but there was a big craze around the "First Kiss" video where a filmmaker set up two strangers to meet and kiss like they'd just finished drinks and were heading back to someone's apartment. The Gay Women Channel on YouTube decided to have a little fun with it. They found some mildly homophobic but open volunteers to meet gay people and have a very safe, platonic hug. The results were surprisingly heartwarming. Especially at 2:07. And 2:31. And 2:44. And then at 3:00, I

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/j1WEtFFPVBU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/j1WEtFFPVBU</a>

63
  This thread is about the president of Uganda criminalizing homos , 
 This is  Uganda business  and Uganda business alone   
 The Americans or   no one   for that matter are in a  position to lecture Uganda on morality.
 

just curious .. where do you draw the line when interference or non-interference is warranted regarding policies/behaviour of foreign governments? Should other countries ignore the Russia/Crimea/Ukraine issue because that is "Russia business alone"?

64
@Pecan. I have lived away and interacted with gay people there do seem to live very productive lives. I have never had any problems with gay people away. I'm talking about people who come to school with pink highlights in their hair gay. They go about their lives and don't seem to bother anyone etc. I have never been hit on by a gay person while I was away. No one ever tried to sneak up on me or anything like that. My beef is with this hidden community here at home. The ones at home here tend to be aggressive and out of place at times. I am not the only person who has been harrassed by members of this community. The women also do it as well. I have heard about girls being touched and kissed by other girls on the sly etc. I don't know if its' the trini in them that makes them so aggressive or frontish but the people of the community are definitely more aggressive than the ones I have encountered overseas. What I honestly can't stand is not knowing. That's why I say they are "conveniently gay". They parade themselves for carnival etc, they get close to the women as make up artists etc but get them to march for their own rights, they become invisible.

PS. My action against the lecturer wasn't a result of him being gay. It was more a result of him becoming aggressive and threatening to me. Had it been some other person who put a knife to my throat and stole my phone I would have reacted the exact same way. He crossed the line and needed to be dealt with in a serious manner. It's a jungle in this island and I make no apologies for my action.

Congo, you have been consistent with what you call the "conveniently gay" people in Trinidad and their reluctance to march for their rights. But consider this: perhaps the reason why they are not more visible is due to potential backlash they might experience in Trinidad?


65
Answer me this first were you always of the belief that being gay is fine , since a teen or were you desensitized into it being normal from media?

Sure. But I might ramble on a bit ...

As a pre-adolescence growing in T&T, we used to make jokes about 'buller men". In fact I though the word "buller" was only associated with having sex with a man (somebody on this forum a few yeas ago said it applied to heterosexual sex as well). In Canada, the jokes continued but I can say the issue of homosexuality was never something that I consciously though about. The same way it was never an issue of someone being tall or short, fat or thin, black or white, male or female. I would comment on the differences, make jokes about the differences but never consciously discriminated against anyone. I have to thank my parents for this attitude and they came from bush in Trinidad.

In the early '80s, though my wife's workplace, I was introduced to more gay folk - men and women and again, it was never an issue. But I began to think more on the issue when my wife's cousin came out as being gay to us in early '90s.  He described growing up in Jamaica and how he always knew that he was "different' from the other boys but could not define what it was. When he emigrated to the USA, he eventually realized he was gay. And here is the interesting part, as soon as he could, he left home and moved across the country so that he would not have to tell his father and brothers that he was gay; they simply would not accept it. His experiences began to shape my thoughts - the media had nothing to do with it.

I have since become acquainted with openly gay men and women. They want love and acceptance as much as anyone else wants. Being gay is not about physical sex as so many people insist. It has nothing to do with "shit stabbing" as Sam so eloquently put it. yes there are elements in the gay community that engage in risky behaviour - but no more so than some many heterosexuals - just look at the number of escort services, massage parlors and other aspects of the sex trade that cater to heterosexuals. I mean, there is a web site (Ashley Madison) that caters to people who want to have extramarital affairs!

These folk do not prey on anyone. The media has not been the major factor that influenced by opinion. The second factor that shaped my opinion was religion and those in the Anglican Church of Canada. These priests have been leading the charge for same sex acceptance within the church. The question they raised was: "what did it mean to be around and experience Jesus?" Jesus was an includer: adulterers, tax collectors, racially impure, the mentally ill, etc. Therefore, it is unreasonable and inconsistent to suggest that Jesus would have excluded gays and lesbians.

So my "desensitization" as you put it if far from my reality. In fact, I am more sensitive to those who are being ostracized just because of who they are.  And perhaps that is why I have a difficult time staying away from the threads.

The use of the Bible or Natural Law to argue against Gays is just a smoke screen for those who, for whatever reason, cannot come to grip with the diversity within our society.

66
@ Congo: Serious stuff. What you described is sexual harassment (the text messages) and assault (when he grabbed you). That man needs to be held accountable for his actions. No question. I would not be surprised that this traumatic experience is a factor in moulding your views and opinions about the gay community. I just hope that your support network is helpful in dealing with the event and that you have found ways to cope. Best wishes man. From what I have heard from support groups who help women in equivalent situations, many victims have a difficult time coming to terms with what happened to them.

Realize though, what you described is not representative of homosexuals per se. And that it is exactly the stereotype that is perpetuated by the anti-gay activists when it comes to their agenda.

@those
who think that Tiresais is completely off-base

You all seem to conveniently ignore his comment

If true, it's clear the lecturer is in the initial wrong ...  The lecturer is gay, but his actions were not the product of this, just like rape is not a crime of heterosexuality if it's a woman being assaulted by a man. ...  but it wasn't his homosexuality that made him sexually assault Congo, just as heterosexuality is no the cause of the sexual assault of women


All the LBGT community want is to live a life free from hate and bigotry.  That is their Agenda.

The anti-gay activists are hell bent on linking sexual assault, pedophilia and other sex crimes to homosexuals. Homosexuals are no more or less prone to committing sex crimes as their heterosexuals counterparts.

@ Qmire: show me peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate that homosexuals are predisposed to committing sex crimes at higher rates that heterosexuals. Until I see that, I will not hold much faith in generalized statements and anecdotes, skewed by personal biases, prejudices and related agendas, that portray homosexuals as evil sexual deviants.

67
I am throwing a question out.

Both Congo and Socapro claim to be the victims of sexual harassment or even sexual assault (my words). The perpetrators are "in the closet" gays.

QUESTION: Has any other other male heterosexual on this forum been the victim of sexual harassment/assault committed by a male homosexual?


I am heterosexual but I have never had a gay person proposition me - and I have been around for several decades.

While we await the findings ... what signficance do you attach to the question?

I suspect that my wait will be in perpetuity and uneventful, but nevertheless ...

I have a hypothesis that one factor (and there are others) that forms one's opinions regarding a segment of our society (ex. race, culture, gender, religion, ethnicity, and in this case sexual orientation), may be negative or traumatic experiences with members of that segment.

Two examples:
A female rape victim may have a difficulty time with men, generally speaking; or a bad experience with a member(s) of a religious faith may lead you to conclude that all members of that faith are to be avoided.


Both Socapro and Congo stated that they were victims of unwanted sexual attention originally disguised as benign socialization. And I think that they both responded with the threat of violence if not violence, against the offender. And they have both made their positions clear on homosexuality.

I am curious if there are forum members who feel that they have been victimized. I have never been victimized and my views on homosexuals are liberal. Congo and Socapro have been victimized and their views are conservative, some would argue, even hateful and bigoted.

Just curious if anecdotal data supports my hypothesis. That's all.

68
We can infer from Congo's post that at minimum, he participated in putting "some chrome to his temple". Whether he or another member of the "carload" he picked up did it still speaks to his state of mind

Even if we believe his claim that the other party became violent and threatened him academically, there are other avenues for relief.


Re: the first bold ... No disagreement here. At least that. In a post above, I used the language "tacitly perhaps". I don't know enough to assert more.

Re: the second bold ... his state of mind as the victim of an unwanted sexual advance from one who is alleged to have abused a position of authority (lecturer/student) or as an actor who could not/did not respond to the events on his own?

Unquestionably other avenues of relief other than the threat of deadly force existed ...

I am prone to reading posts hastily and admittedly, do not always grasp all the nuances of said posts. But I usually walk away with an overall sense/impression of the poster based on the image that is projected in these posts.

With Congo, I am not left with the sense that he would be cowed by the actions of people whose actions he describes as "nastiness". 

Are you suggesting that he was so emotionally distraught that his reaction is defensible? In any event, the suggestion that he seek help is not without merit.

69
I am throwing a question out.

Both Congo and Socapro claim to be the victims of sexual harassment or even sexual assault (my words). The perpetrators are "in the closet" gays.

QUESTION: Has any other other male heterosexual on this forum been the victim of sexual harassment/assault committed by a male homosexual?


I am heterosexual but I have never had a gay person proposition me - and I have been around for several decades.
 

70
We can infer from Congo's post that at minimum, he participated in putting "some chrome to his temple". Whether he or another member of the "carload" he picked up did it still speaks to his state of mind. 

Even if we believe his claim that the other party became violent and threatened him academically, there are other avenues for relief.


71
yeah... I decided not to engage.

72
General Discussion / Re: Tapatalk
« on: March 13, 2014, 12:04:32 PM »
Seems to be working!

73
General Discussion / Re: Tapatalk
« on: March 13, 2014, 12:03:27 PM »
when I first looked at this App, it was not free. Look like that has changed. This reply was entered with Tapatalk on my smart phone.

74
This group was living just an hour's drive from me. Now they run to Trinidad.


WINDSOR, ONTARIO, CANADA • Members of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect at the centre of a child custody battle have vanished just before a Chatham, Ont., judge was to decide if they must give up their kids. It’s unclear where all the 13 children and their parents — members of the Lev Tahor fringe group — have gone. But an official at Piarco International Airport in Trinidad confirmed Wednesday that nine people were detained there.

Trinidad’s Security Ministry said Wednesday that Lev Tahor members arrived aboard a Monday flight from Toronto. They wanted to transit to Guatemala. Members of the group still in Chatham weren’t saying Wednesday where the families had gone.

“They’re not in the community,” spokesman Uriel Goldman said. “I cannot respond to their situation. They decide whatever they decide. They decide to leave, that’s it. I cannot respond to that. That’s their decision.

“I’m really not concerned where they are, really not. They are, both families, really responsible parents. They know exactly what they are doing.”

It’s the second time that members of the ultra-Orthodox group have apparently skipped town to avoid facing a judge. The families, including a teenaged mom and her infant, were supposed to appear in a Chatham court Wednesday.

A judge was set to rule on their appeal of a previous decision that their children be put into Quebec foster care. About 200 members of the group — half of which are children — fled Quebec in the middle of the night last November just before a judge there ordered the children be placed in foster care.

The Quebec judge made the ruling based on allegations that children under the age of 16 were forced into marriage, their health was being neglected, they weren’t receiving adequate education and they were subjected to corporal punishment.

When they first arrived in Chatham, where they set up a small community, group members told The Windsor Star they had no intention of returning. After the group landed in Chatham, children’s services lobbied for permission to enforce the Quebec judge’s decision and deliver the children to child welfare authorities in that province.

Chatham Justice Stephen Fuerth ruled last month that the 13 children must be returned to Quebec and placed in foster care. But instead of immediately enforcing his ruling, he gave the parents 30 days to appeal.

That was supposed to happen Wednesday, but the families didn’t show up and the hearing was postponed. A lawyer for children’s services brought an emergency motion after the families didn’t show up. But media were barred from the courtroom, so the subject of the motion is unknown.

Stephen Doig, executive director of Chatham-Kent Children’s Services, said, “Before we knew they were actually out of the country, we did alert our sister agencies where they have jurisdiction where there are Canadian-American border crossings,” he said.


    6 Mar 2014
    National Post - (Latest Edition)
    By Trevor Wilhelm
    Postmedia News, with files from The Associated Press

75


congo, yuh highlight a real issue with society. the scale on which we weigh important vs irrelevant issues has been corrupted even inverted. some gays get offended in a socially conservative country and is 24/7 coverage from all de homos in de media. not a peep about real devestation being wrought by de arms industry, illicit trades, etc.. not a 4king peep. a gay's feeling worth more than the life of some of dese children in syria, africa, etc..

Ribbit / Congo

Some observations


1) This thread is about homosexuality, so naturally you will not find debates about blood diamonds, syria, and other issues. I am sure if you glance at major news feeds, you will not find dis-proportionate airplay that favours homosexuality above any other topic.

2) I searched this forum and found at least 13 distinct threads that broached homosexuality directly and indirectly. Here are 12 of them:
http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=61515.msg883751#msg883751

Plus this one makes thirteen.

I think the obsession with homosexuality seems predisposed to those who object to it.

Based on my sampling of 13 threads, here if the frequency of forum members who started a thread pertaining to homosexuality: 

Trini_2018: 4
Socapro: 3
War: 2
Preacher: 1
Airman: 1
Weary1969: 1
Tallman: 1
pecan: 1

At least 10 out of 13 threads were started by members who have certainly made it know that they disapprove of homosexuality.

So at least on this forum, the "24/7 coverage from all de homos in de media" (to quote you), is not coming from self proclaimed homos ....





76
Entertainment & Culture Discussion / Re: Carnival 2014
« on: March 05, 2014, 09:43:34 PM »
Wikipedia have Machel Montano’s Ministry of Road listed as Roadmarch 2014. Can't find any definitive results.

Is that correct?

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if that entry was made before Carnival.
:rotfl:

I checked it .. was added at 4:05 on March 5th, 2014

77
Entertainment & Culture Discussion / Re: Carnival 2014
« on: March 05, 2014, 01:51:51 PM »
Wikipedia have Machel Montano’s Ministry of Road listed as Roadmarch 2014. Can't find any definitive results.

Is that correct?

No real debate needed there. You don't need a count to know that is the winner

thanks

78
Entertainment & Culture Discussion / Re: Carnival 2014
« on: March 05, 2014, 01:28:15 PM »
Wikipedia have Machel Montano’s Ministry of Road listed as Roadmarch 2014. Can't find any definitive results.

Is that correct?

79
Putin, the poster boy for democracy. I want to emigrate to the Crimea. It doh have homos there.

80
Read my post again. Sam is entitled to his opinions.  But there is no need to direct that type of language at another poster.  The right to free speech comes with responsibility and decorum, both of which have been tossed out the window in the post that I responded to. I will have to review the forum rules. But calling a man a  "nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea" is a fine example of a comment that should not be tolerated.  Dick all to do with freedom of speech. So don't give me that crap comment about democracy.  When some of us express our opinions (i.e. Free Speech), Sam responds with derogatory comments that have little to do with rationale debate. Just personal attacks.  Free speech and democracy.  Yeah. Right.

This thread was about the situation in Uganda.  Whether you agree/disagree on the gay issue, imprisoning people for being gay is morally repugnant and a violation of human rights.

81
Go foock yuhself with that shit.

You believe what you want and I will believe what I want.

F00cking shit stabbers.

I pity your hatred and ignorance.

Doh pity me, pity de man who yuh bulling, yuh nasty f00cker, stabbing shit, only shit on yuh prick, yuh go get Gonorrhea.

Child molesters and rapest in de same boat.



Sam, who are you? Truetrini once told me you and a couple other posters were actually the same person. Furthermore the the posts made by these three accounts were being done by a prominent forum member.  If this is the case, then you just trolling to stir the pot. In either case, these comments are just reason for suspending your account.

82
@ Terisais -

Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?

Toppa explained her rationale to me once. It is Mosaic law.

Please do not lie. I have never said that.
Sorry Toppa, that is what I took away from the debate we had before. If that is not the case, I sincerely apologize.


Toppa, I found the post you made about Mosaic Law. It was response to DHW stating that "people pick and chose" what they want from the Bible, not unlike what Tiresais stated. DHW was replying to your response to quotes I had made listing many prohibitions in the Bible.  But then you replied

"It is not a matter of people picking and choosing. The Mosaic Law became obsolete once the new covenant was made through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Which is also why it is no longer necessary to observe the sabbath amongst other things. You cannot compare day-to-day life of the jewish people under Mosaic law to the actual commands of the Bible. Bit ridiculous, methinks."


So I concluded that it was because of Mosaic Law (i.e the lack thereof) that we could ignore these prohibitions but not ignore the others (i.e Homosexuality) because of the new covenant with God. So I did not lie. as you stated. Your rationale was based on the notion of Mosaic Law. 

here is is the thread history with your quote ...

Well I like to support what God set originally.........  The old testament has a lot of old world history and practices in it that simply doesn't apply today.  Many of it were just people doing stuff as they saw it.   

Where does God say anything about 'marriage'... or that it's exclusively between man and woman?

Evidence abounds that God homosexual relationships are prohibited in the Bible. That should clue everyone is on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyway...

Genesis 2:4

“A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.”

Matthew 19:4
In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?

The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.”

Hebrews 13:4
'Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.'

God commands that the marriage should be 'honourable amongst all.' Would a homosexual 'marriage' be viewed as honourable to the Creator? No. He regards homosexuality as something 'detestable'.

Evidence abounds that many God homosexual relationships things are prohibited or endorsed in the Bible.  But we don't observe them. The following might be food for thought from a woman's perspective:

Genesis 2:18: NIV
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 

Yep. those women are help, not equals

Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

maybe we should be quarantining women when dey menstruating or just give birth - they are so unclean!! - and look thing - 2 weeks if the baby is female and then another 66 days to be purified!

So if one insists on using the Bible to define marriage, then I maintain these statements about women should be enforced too.
First time i seeing this. Goes to show people pick and choose from the Bible to suit their needs.

It is not a matter of people picking and choosing. The Mosaic Law became obsolete once the new covenant was made through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. Which is also why it is no longer necessary to observe the sabbath amongst other things. You cannot compare day-to-day life of the jewish people under Mosaic law to the actual commands of the Bible. Bit ridiculous, methinks.

83
@ Terisais -




Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?

Toppa explained her rationale to me once. It is Mosaic law.

Please do not lie. I have never said that.

Sorry Toppa, that is what I took away from the debate we had before. If that is not the case, I sincerely apologize.

84
To bring this thread back to the title and to quote a Priest that I know:

"Regardless of whether you stand in favour or in opposition to the hot button issues in the Church today – whether you agree with the blessing of same sex marriage or whether you don’t believe its God’s will – there is no argument that can justify seeking to somehow purify God’s world through hatred and persecution. God invites us to join with Him to transform His world through compassion, through love, and through daily intentional action."

I have signed this petition to support freedom. Even if you stand against homosexuality, this is not the way to treat fellow beings.

Uganda's infamous anti-gay bill has been signed into law by President Museveni. Our friends in Uganda are calling for the whole world to make noise to not let this awful law go unnoticed.

If thousands and thousands of us speak out right now we can get world leaders, major corporations, and religious institutions with sway in Uganda to use their influence as our friends on the ground challenge this bill in court.

Sign now to show Uganda's leaders that we will not stay silent while innocent people are being attacked and locked up forever.

Will you join me and sign the petition against the law now?

www.allout.org/kill-the-bill

https://www.allout.org/en/actions/kill-the-bill



85
@ Terisais -




Or maybe you have some rationale for why you accept some passages and reject others in the bible?

Toppa explained her rationale to me once. It is Mosaic law.

86
Congo, exactly where you does lime where yuh get this unwanted sexual attention from men?

Unwanted sexual advances is to be decried, whether it is  man-on-woman, man-on-man, woman-on- woman or woman-on-man or any other gender-on-gender. It is unwanted and is therefore sexual harassment. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sexual predators come in all orientations and no one group has a monopoly.



I don't lime in any particular place. They are all over. Now overseas if you don't want to interact with gay people you avoid certain bars etc. They have basically segregated themselves from society to protect their community and enjoy each other's company. In Trinidad it's not like that.

I think our culture plays a significant part in how gay people conduct themselves. That has never happened to me when I was overseas and interacting with gay people. I think in Tnt they know that there exists a stigma so the person would hardly report it. We also encourage a culture that loves to promote baccanal and confusion so I think they community thrives on that as well. Like I keep saying, no one ever comes out...everyone is just a suspect. The scary thing is that they are all around us and constantly pretending to be straight or "hiding" their gayness. I find that to be unacceptable. I hate that on the low stuff. I should have a choice whether I want to socialize with you or not. This friend of mine had a friend who was his work colleague and ended up being his bedrin. Both of them used to pump all over, that was his riding partner. One day the boy basically got him drunk and came onto him when they were alone. You would never suspect that this guy is gay. Men would be tracking women and all that. Relll hollywood business. That what pisses me off.That was a mad scene. The man never suspected that he was gay. Imagine that. That is scary

this is all very confusing. I live in North America and the gay people I know have not segregated themselves from society. In fact far from it. They belong and interact with the community like anybody else.

As far as Trinidad goes, ever wonder why "they" hide. Maybe it is because of the societal pressures that prevent them from living normal, unfettered lives?

Anyway, you as well, have certainly made your position clear. But what you have described is certainly not my experience.

87
Hi Toppa, you and I have been here before. Not sure if I ever shared this paper with you on Romans 1-18-32

Romans 1:18-32 amidst the gay-debate: Interpretative options
Jeremy Punt, Department of Old & New Testament, University of Stellenbosch
http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/238/172


CONCLUSIONS
The nature of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 suggests that it is in a certain way an elaborated version of the argument found in 1 Thessalonians (1 Th 4:3-6 in particular), and cannot simply be cited in arguing against homosexuality today. Paul is concerned about the purity of followers of Christ from Gentile stock and they should thus avoid the sexual practices of Gentiles who do not know God, inevitably practices in which people are wronged (Stowers 1994:97). Paul did not, however, provide specific directives for either lesbigays who know God or lesbigays in committed relationships that do not exploit anyone (cf Johnson 2006:135), because such identities were not readily available options in the first century CE.

A sexual ethic informed by perspectives from the New Testament challenges the assumptions which make reproductive sex into a norm. For example, when Jesus or Paul talks about marriage, neither of them insists upon procreation “as a rational or functional justification” (Williams 2002:6). Sexual orientation or “constitutional” or “core” homosexuality was not considered options in ancient thinking about sexuality; neither were committed, caring same-sex relationships seriously contemplated in a context where homoerotic acts were necessarily conflated with “immorality, debauchery and licentiousness” (Johnson 2006:136).

In short, Paul’s argument in Romans 1 cannot be applied directly to what modern people know about homosexuality, as much as his instructions about hair lengths and dress codes are also considered inappropriate for direct appropriation today.



Anyway, the point I want to make in this thread is that while your position on the Bible, Homosexuality and God's view on homosexuality, is clear, there are also other differing positions. And many of these are from people who consider themselves to be religious scholars and believers. 

88
Congo, exactly where you does lime where yuh get this unwanted sexual attention from men?

Unwanted sexual advances is to be decried, whether it is  man-on-woman, man-on-man, woman-on- woman or woman-on-man or any other gender-on-gender. It is unwanted and is therefore sexual harassment. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sexual predators come in all orientations and no one group has a monopoly.


89
Tiresais, I am not going to go back and forth with this topic.

Let them be who they are.

Just do not expect me to support this nonesense.

It would be interesting to see all the people who supports this that it comes in their lives in some form. Then you would sing a different song.

The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] - Numbers 14:18 (Generational Curses).

You'll quote the anti-gay text, but when it prices slaves to be sold you're all silent - you're a hypocrite. Tell me what's the conversion rate on a shekle these days Pastor? How much does the bible think I should demand for my slaves?

I have a number of gay friends - it affects me not, and I support their right to love whomever they love. Your passage condones punishing the child for the sins of the father - thanks for making my point about its immorality for me.

When saying so ... hmmm :thinking: ... Pastor Stuart, help me out nah ... introduce Tiresais to 1 Samuel 17:46.

Soon come.

So your response is to threaten me with violence? Stay classy. Sticking to the "love thy neighbour, love thy enemy" eh? Bigots always get violent when their prejudice is challenged.



Having read Asylum's posts for the last few years, I think he was poking at Pastor Stuart. Not you. Not that the articulate Asylum need my help that is.

90
Whenever this topic comes up, I tell myself to stay away.

Then I read a few hateful and bigoted comments and I inevitably find myself responding.

Ok, I think I got it out of my system.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 228
1]; } ?>