DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on June 06, 2015, 03:55:31 PM
-
Amazing....we hear so much constantly about the homo agenda
but they are a very small part of the US population even if you
add in homo women.
While only about 4 percent of U.S. males have sex with other men,
they represent about two-thirds of the country's new infections, according to the CDC.
-
The lesson to be learned from this is obvious:
If you wake up gay someday, use a condom.
=======================================
If you want to avoid becoming suicidal, statistically speaking, do not enlist in the military.
Veterans have a much higher rate of suicide.
-
If you wake up gay someday, use a condom.
i'd think i'd prefer suicide rather that staring at some guys ugly hairy ass/poop-shoot.
on second thought...i take that back....I don't think....i know!
-
The lesson to be learned from this is obvious:
If you wake up gay someday, use a condom.
=======================================
If you want to avoid becoming suicidal, statistically speaking, do not enlist in the military.
Veterans have a much higher rate of suicide.
Yes , but this is new.
While Reagan was president the military committed suicide at half the rate of the general public.
The rate is twice the publics now, things have changed , blame what you will.
-
Sexual urges are and will always be just that.....urges. Most choose the opposite sex. Some choose to have sex with other married folk. Some choose to dress up in leather restraints. Some choose to try and have sex with children. All of it, personal choice.
If a person wakes up someday "gay", it means he woke up deciding to choose to be gay that day. There's nothing hardwired, its merely what turns someone on.
-
Sexual urges are and will always be just that.....urges.
I agree with you on some level...
But let's not equate the two "urges"
One "urge" created mankind
Same sex urge did not.
There would be no human history without a man and a woman union
There is no equal....no higher of a sacred union than a man and a woman.
None of us would be here today without it.
-
But of course....that's how we preocreate...the joining of man & woman.....male & female.....of any species. THAT's the only hardwiring that's involved here. My point has to do with the ongoing inferrence that people don't choose to be gay, that they simply are. The fact is, there is no facts to support that claim, be it scientific or biological. Some people, would just rather be with the same sex. It may be immoral, like adultery......but that's their choice.
-
For people to ALWAYS have same sex marriage is NOT necessary for the species to survive.
And face it: the human race is not going extinct: the opposite is true: there are too bloody many of us on this planet.
From a logical point of view, more humans should be gay, so as to stabilize the population.
-
While Reagan was president the military committed suicide at half the rate of the general public.
The rate is twice the publics now, things have changed , blame what you will.
================================================================
It seems pretty clear that the main difference is that Reagan only attacked puny and microscopic countries for short wars which put US troops in little danger (other than the Marines in Lebanon), while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have dragged on for years and the enemy is an actual threat worse than ptomaine poisoning or accidents.
-
I do not see the point of posting this. Obviously, if more gay men have STDs than the straight members of the population, then it would be unwise to have unprotected sex with them. If one has no desire to ever have gay sex, then this is hardly a problem for those people. CU4 does not like gay men and would prefer suicide to having gay sex. That is fine, but I suggest that hardly anyone will ever be faced with the choice of compulsory gay sex or compulsory suicide. This is not a choice that I have ever heard of anyone having. Perhaps in prison there are those faced with this.
It is unclear whether CU4 wants to make gay sex illegal. I doubt that this would make it less frequent. Asa rule, sex is rarely public, and we generally do not feel that it is proper to have the police beat down the doors of individual citizens in their homes.
The figure of 4% of all men being gay is probably accurate, though I doubt that anyone will ever include this in a census questionnaire.
-
I do not see the point of posting this.
The point is to bring perspective to the media blitz of the homo agenda.
Homos are all over the media.
Most would think "gosh there are a lot of them"
When reality and the CDC clearly shows homos are a tiny minority.
CU4 does not like gay men
Ha Ha....what a crock....and a typical liberal assumption.
Liberals can not comprehend that you can hate the sin or the action, but not hate the person,
I don't dislike gay men....i just find their sexual habits disgusting and repulsive
But really I don't wanna know about homos...but the homo agenda is always in the headlines
I have several long term gay men/women friends and employees that I personally hired.
Just like...I don't like liberal's views, but I hire them, have liberal friends, and liberal family members
that I treat great and with respect.
would prefer suicide to having gay sex.
Yes I've always said that if I found myself in prison
i would fight until death against anyone attempting to force gay sex upon me.
SIRS STRAWMAN ALERT:
I have no desire to make homo sex illegal and have never stated or implied that.
There is no reason for the gvt to outlaw homo sex.
-
A point.
Homosexuality is not harmless.
-
Nor is one born gay
-
Nor is one born gay
I agree, but this seems to be opinion.
Is there evidence or proof to point at?
-
Biology of procreation is the proof. What we don't see is any facts or proof of the opposite claim....that we can be born gay
-
Female homosexuality is certainly less harmful than female heterosexuality or male homosexuality. It is not like God decided all this.
It is not like God decided any of this. I mean, people are never born with three eyes or one cyclops type eye in the middle of their heads.
If God wanted to prevent humans from being homosexuality, he could have done so, in the same manner that he did not design cyclopses or three-eyed people.
There are several species of animal in which if there are not enough males, some of the females turn into males, and vice versa.
If a dog humps your leg is is because a dog is designed in such a way that it finds humping your leg pleasurable.
I see no evidence that some people are not born gay. Binabos have been observed having gay sex. There is ample evidence that gay men and women have been present in every civilization we have been able to study in depth.
If anything, the burden of proof should be to prove that some people are NOT born gay.
-
God, did actually decide all of that. Most importantly, he gave everyone the freedom to choose.....to act morally.....or not
And no, there is no burden to prove a negative. The burden is to prove that there is some genetic gay code. Go for it
-
Elephants never give birth to twins and have extremely long pregnancies. Frogs fertilize eggs by the thousands. There is no reason whatever to assume that ALL members of any given species need to achieve maximum efficiency at reproduction.
There are plenty of animals that seem to exhibit "gay" behavior. there is no practical reason for Fido to hum your knee, and yet, he does.
Do you think he does it because he is sinful, possessed by demons, or it is just something some dogs do by instinct?
If it is the former, then you are thinking like a medieval monk. If it is the latter, then it is simply natural behavior, and it is obvious that the desire to have recreational sex with no possibility of reproduction is simply a part of the make up of canines. So why is is not logical that humans not engage in the same behavior?
Why assume that reproduction is the ONLY reason for sex?
Eating is required for survival, but humans eat all sorts of things that are not ideally nutritious, just because they taste good.
Most people can enjoy the sweet taste of a diet soft drink, even though it is not nutritious and may even be harmful.
Suppose someone says, "You should not drink Diet Dr Pepper because it has no nutrition in it". And then DENY that people could possibly be born with any built in reason to like the taste of artificially sweetened soft drinks.
Some people like really spicy foods, some cannot stand them.
Saying that gay sex is bad because you have no desire to have gay sex and it seems unnatural to you is like saying that artificially sweetened or highly spiced foods are bad because you do not like them and consider them to be unnatural.
Diet soft drinks, by the way, are by nature unnatural. They are sweetened with chemicals that are not found in living organisms.
For tens of thousands of years, humans never had an artificially sweetened food product. During the same period, people have had gay sex.
I suggest to you that a Diet Dr Pepper is far more unnatural than Adam having sex with Steve.
It is not like anyone is forcing YOU to have gay sex.
It is far more likely that someone will try to lure you into drinking a Diet Dr Pepper than having gay sex with you.
-
"Gay behavior" is a choice.....period. Just like eating foods, that may not be good for you. Some people can stick to a moral code, others can not. Lower species animals being an excellent example. Until folks like yourself can prove otherwise in humans, you're up a creek with out an oar
-
You think that it this about a "moral code". Maybe it is a question of morality for you but you seem unable to understand that it is NOT a moral issue for LOTS of people.
Gay sex is no more a moral issue (because it is "unnatural") than drinking Diet Sprite.
It is just fine that you have no desire to have sex with another man. I don't either. But you want to condemn those who violate your silly religious code and I am not interested in condemning anyone. I happen to hate Gatorade. It tastes vile to me. But I do not run around with my hair on fire preaching that Gatorade is unfit to drink. I have no problem with being with people who drink Gatorade or even buying Gatorade for them to drink.
Gay sex is not a moral issue for most people in this country. Every day, there are fewer people who think it is a moral issue.
You have a hangup. You are the problem. You are intolerant and want to judge others.
Again, gay FEMALE sex is safer that heterosexual sex. Years ago in England, someone decided to study the cases of women who gave birth and claimed that they had never had any sort of sexual contact. They discovered one woman who had a daughter and demonstrably had never had sex with a man (or a woman, as I recall). This woman's daughter had exactly the same chromosomes of the woman. It was as though they were identical twins. There are cases of parthenogenesis in other animals as well, by the way.
Your whole religion is based on a woman who had a child without sex, by the way. Of course, Jesus was not a girl, so this was not the same thing.
And there was that rumor about Iulius Pantera...Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (http://Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera)
No one is asking you to have gay sex. You can continue feeling smug about how sanctified you are about this I suppose. But you do seem really backward and silly.
-
You have part of this argument right.
Whether it is natural or not has little to do with whether it is moral or not.
Just because most religious behaviors are healthy does not mean that health is the point of the behaviors and when religion requires something that Nature never would it is no less a religious requirement.
The reason that some assert homosexuality is inborn , or congenital, is that they want this to be the refutation of those who are concerned that Homosexuality is a movement that is recruiting.
-
I do not believe that homosexuals actually recruit anyone. Either a guy is attracted to another man or he is not, and will certainly tell anyone so.
Of course, Christians are always recruiting: it is part of Basic Christian Schtick to recruit.
Have you been born again?
Have you accepted Our Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior?
So basically some of these Christians are afraid that gays are like them in this respect.
I am not convinced that all religious behaviors are healthy. Snake handling is not safe and serves no real purpose to anyone except to demonstrate that an obscure part of the Bible is accurate. Just because God empowers someone to furgle snakes does not make it any sort of obligation.
Still, there are probably more who furgle snakes than give all they own to the poor and set out on a beggar's ministry.
-
If nature contradicts God's moral code, then you have to ask, since God is responsible for nature as its creator, then how can something natural be immoral?
One must ask the question, why did God create men who were attracted to other men? The old bit that blames this on demons and Satan is hardly credible. God is more powerful than demons and Satan.
I read in one of those short blurbs in Harper's That a seal was seen to rape an king penguin, and then eat it.
Seals apparently are seen to rape king penguins fairly often. If we assume that God created both seals and penguins, one must question his motives as to why he made them this way.
Just for fun, here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM8RTVYaVw#t=16 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABM8RTVYaVw#t=16)
Here are ten examples of natural sex. One can assume that if God created the world, these were examples of stuff He thought up.
If not Him, then Who?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWlLPtaw2hw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWlLPtaw2hw)
-
One must ask, was it part of the Divine Plan for seals to rape penguins? It was not, then how is it that seals are attracted sexually penguins?
Why is it so difficult to believe that perhaps 4% of male humans are attracted to other male humans?
It seems a bit far fetched to believe that 100% of all males are attracted to other males, but 96% are so profoundly moral they resist this urge.
All I can say it that I have NEVER been attracted to other males in the least. It took no will power at all for me to resist.
-
Such attractions are mentioned in scripture , mostly in lists of bad ideas .
I think that men who rape penguins should be prosecuted for animal cruelty.
This is probably still possible , I do not think that our society is ready for penguin raping to be done without opprobrium, yet.
All I can say it that I have NEVER been attracted to other males in the least. It took no will power at all for me to resist.
Perhaps it is just because you are lazy.
-
I do not think that most men are attracted to other men.
And the youtube article was not about humans (or even Navy SEALS raping penguins, it was about actual seals raping penguins. There was even a somewhat graphic photo of it.
I would say that a Creator that comes up with seals that get the hots for penguins should have little difficulty creating human men who have the hots for other men.
-
I do not think that most men are attracted to other men.
And the youtube article was not about humans (or even Navy SEALS raping penguins, it was about actual seals raping penguins. There was even a somewhat graphic photo of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinniped
I do not have an opinion on seals raping penguins, I don't need such an opinion. I don't think it is illegal for seals to rape penguins, It probably does not need to be.
Persons who rape penguins are a menace, lets lock them up.
Is it hypocritical to hold persons to a totally different standard than Pinnipeds?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Pinniped_collage.jpg)
Is it hypocritical to hold persons to a totally different standard than Pinnipeds?
-
I do not think that most men are attracted to other men.
.
Of course, most men are lazy.
(http://leftoversoup.com/archive.php?num=135)
(http://leftoversoup.com/archive.php?num=136)
-
Female homosexuality is certainly less harmful than female heterosexuality
what a ridiculous statement!
female heterosexuality has created mankind
you are an amazing study in how the liberal mind works
a simple post about the men & women of the US Military causes you to go default negative mode
anything pro-US....you tend to always go negative....
it's weird to on so many levels to hate your own country and your own race
now the liberal mind implies female homo-sex is somehow "better" than a man and woman union
which without that man and woman union there would be no human history
you are one sick Puck!
-
You think that it this about a "moral code". Maybe it is a question of morality for you but you seem unable to understand that it is NOT a moral issue for LOTS of people.
Morality is what sets us apart from barbarians. It IS an issue for MOST people. It's not just illegal to murder people, its immoral. We're all taught what's right and wrong, as we grow up. It's that moral code that makes us civilized. You're right in that some people have very lackluster morals, while others have no morals. You may think Adultery is just swell. I don't. I think its immoral and cruel. You may think throwing kittens tied in a bag, and tossed into a river is perfectly fine. Doesn't effect you in the least. I would find that wholly immoral. The left frequently adopts a some twisted moral equivalence, to denounce anyone else that dares to judge others. There's nothing wrong, what-so-ever, in judging another person's actions. It's perfectly Christian, not to mention, human. We can find others performing all sorts of reprehensible acts. Hell you do it on a daily basis, when speaking about any Republican or Conservative. Point being, such judgments are based on your own moral code. You think homosexuality is fine, so be it. Others find that choice immoral. Simple as that
And one last thing, Dr. Deflection.....this has nothing to do with some bizarre notion of asking or even forcing me to have gay sex. ::)
-
Human beings are very far from being an endangered species. Compered to many other species on this planet, we are an invasive species. We certainly do not need to reproduce at the current rate, which was established when half the children died before the age of three and most people did not live past 40.
When I say that female homosexuality of safer, that is an absolute fact. Sexually transmitted diseases are far less likely to spread, and childbirth is still somewhat dangerous.
sirs and CU4 have been seriously brainwashed and are incapable of rational thought on this issue. Their irrational hatred of gays and lesbians is akin to the taboos of primitive people. And in fact a legacy of primitive desert dwellers for whom a child to see his father naked was a serious taboo.
I have not advocated throwing kittens in the river. You felt the need to make up that particular shit because my actual argument is entirely logical and YOU needed some dumb deflection from the real issue, which is your irrational hatred of homosexuals. By the way, I am all in favor of having my pet cat neutered, however. Perhaps that is another of your taboos. If it isn't it is only because the Hebrews did not value their cats or identify with them as fellow mammals. They were more into cows, what with the prohibition on mixing dairy and meat, as the evil Baalites did.
And again, female homosexuality is safer than what you call "natural" and "moral".
Your mortality is based on ancient taboos and such that were devised in a time in which diseases came from demons, there was no birth control pill, and people died much younger. It is antiquated and out of date and makes little sense in the world of today.
And I am not speaking for "Liberals" or "the left" I am simply speaking for LOGIC and rational thought, which your antiquated brainwashing prevents you from performing.
-
Seals are acting against nature when the rape penguins. Their nature is attributable to the Creator. If seals rape penguins, then the all-knowing, all powerful Supreme Creator designed them that way, and since He knows Everything, he knew from the git-go of every incidence of every seal that rapes every penguin from the very beginning.
The same Creator, using the same logic, created human beings. If some human beings are gay, then He knew this. The option of designing them so they would not be gay existed and was not used. Dogs can lick their schlongs and you cannot. Why is that? Because they were designed that way, of course. So God left humans with the possibility of cornholing one another, but he designed humans so they could not get themselves off orally. Think about it. If you think that God created some humans so they could be tempted by members of the same sex and not others, then you have to wonder why.
I do not see a problem, because I do not believe that whatever created the Universe is omnipotent or omniscient. Dogs evolved one way and humans another. Seals are npot designed to rape penguins, and many of them never do, but some do because they can. It serves no particular purpose, it just happened that ssala and penguins evolved the way they did by happenstance.
-
And what is it with the comment that only 4% of males have gay sex. Do you propose that because 96% of the men that do not have gay sex should compel that tiny 4% to stop doing it under threat of arrest, imprisonment, stoning or some sort of punishment? Do you seriously think that gay behavior is something that should be decided by an election or plebiscite?
Disapproval of gay behavior is a taboo, not a crime. You might as well comment that only 4% of all people put their feet up on the coffee table.
Asians are in the clear majority in the world, and as a rule, they always take their shoes off before entering their houses.
Since they are in the majority, should there be an international law that shoes are not to be worn indoors?
It makes as much sense as your idea that 4% should be admonished by the 96% for only being different.
Even the once priest-ridden Irish have decided that gays have the right to marry. You have lost this war, and your remaining allies are guys like the fanatics of Isis, who are punishing gays even as we speak.
-
sirs and CU4 have been seriously brainwashed and are incapable of rational thought on this issue. Their irrational hatred of gays and lesbians is akin to the taboos of primitive people. And in fact a legacy of primitive desert dwellers for whom a child to see his father naked was a serious taboo.
Your mortality is based on ancient taboos and such that were devised in a time in which diseases came from demons, there was no birth control pill, and people died much younger. It is antiquated and out of date and makes little sense in the world of today.
And what's your morality based on?? The latest edition of that great leftist book of moral equivalence and political correctness?? Speaking of incapable of rational thought, I have no hatred towards any gay or lesbian. The irrational act here is your inability to separate acts from the person. I have no hatred towards anyone. You think immoral acts are perfectly fine, so be it. Sorry, but you don't get to be the arbitrator of someone else's moral compass. That is the domain of liberals and the left, where they want to control what other people do or say, based on their arena of moral equivalence, and is about as irrational & illogical as it can get
-
My morality is based on logic. I do not require an ancient book filled with all sorts of silly and downright cruel punishments for minor offenses (stoning for sassy children, for example) to tell me what is moral and what is immoral.
Apparently, you do and do not think that you personally are capable of deciding on morality all by yourself. You have obviously been brainwashed and refuse to consider that this has been done to you.
But this is NOT about my morality. We are not discussing what I do, only how I should consider what others (in this case, gay people) do. You think that it is just dandy to look down your nose at them as immoral. I think that the, like me, have the right to determine what is right for themselves, being as Adam and Steve having anal sex or oral sex or whatever does not affect my life in any way. You, on the other hand, wish to deny them the right to marry, and would probably be okay with them being jailed or institutionalized because you think Jeezus told you they were immoral. I am pretty sure you would not vote to decriminalize gay sex if combined with a platform to lower taxes on the rich.
-
My morality is based on logic.
And we've all been witness to your version of "logic". I rest my case
And one more time, for the rationally impaired... I, like most everyone else walking upright, can distinguish between a person and the acts they perform. As such, I don't look down on anyone. I do judge acts of others, and can praise or denounce said acts, depending on my moral compass, while still being respectful of the person. You, apparently, are incapable of such an ability
-
And we've all been witness to your version of "logic".
what? logic like...lie your ass off that you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor
to get control freak trojan horse legislation passed that most legislators failed to read
and is costing tons more than promised and delivering less!
-
Yep....logic like that (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=18957.0)
-
I am not President Obama and I did not say that anyone coiuld keep their doctor.
Anyone with a brain could easily figure out that it is the healthcare insurance company, not the president, who decides which doctors are going to be on its approved list.
No one can lie about what they think will happen in the future, because the future is unknowable.
This is NOT a discussion about Obama. It is a discussion about you rightwingers constantly making dumb comments about gay people, which you despise, just as you despise President Obama.
-
Cigarettes are more dangerous than being gay, but CU4 does not make comments about how cigarette smokers make more unhealthy choices or how they are in the minority. That is because the priests responsible for his indoctrination were not obsessed about smoking, but were obsessed about gay men.
It must be awful hard for celibate priests being surrounded by juicy, docile little altarboys,and no doubt that creeps into their brainwashing repertoire. Jesus had nothing at all to say about homosexuals. What there is about this is all in the Old Testament.
One has to wonder why God has not rained death and destruction down on Key West of San Francisco the way he did on Sodom and the much less mentioned Gomorrah.
One might speculate whether the Sodom & Gommorah bit ever actually happened, or whether God has somehow taken a different tack on attacking the Love that Dare Not Speak its Name.
-
GAYS! IF YOU WANT TO START GIVING BLOOD, STOP BEING SLUTS
by MILO YIANNOPOULOS
8 Jun 20155
Britain's National Health Service is on a drive to recruit more blood donors.
Predictably, Twitter is ablaze with whining homosexuals complaining that they can't donate.
But can you blame the NHS? If gay men are really so desperate to donate their essential oils, perhaps they should stop being such massive whores.
The NHS doesn't ban gays because it's homophobic. It bans them because gay blood is so much more likely to have diseases, and it costs a fortune to do all the screening just to discover that yet another proud Mary is riddled with pathogens. I say "proud" advisedly, because giving blood is one of the most tedious public displays of virtue around. Ooh, she gave blood today. Isn't she brave. Are you feeling alright, hon? A bit weak on your feet? Here, have another cosmo!
Look, I'm not trying to be offensive. But I know from experience how randy queens can be. I'm the most recklessly promiscuous person I know, with a fondness for African gentlemen to boot. Fortunately, I live a charmed life and I've never had so much as crabs. But I'm a unicorn: everyone else I know emerges ashen-faced from the clap clinic on a near-monthly basis.
The clearest figures on HIV infections come from the US, where although gays are less than 2 per cent of the population, they account for 61 per cent of all new infections. An estimated 77 per cent of diagnosed HIV infections in men is down to gay sex, according to the FDA, and the figures among gay men are going up, not down. That's why there's a lifetime ban on gay blood donors in the US. The NHS isn't even that strict, by the way: they just ask that the donor refrain from sex for a year.
I get that asking a gay man to go without sex for a year is, in practice, the same thing as a lifetime ban, but whatever. Consider the fact that younger people are more likely to donate blood and that the largest increase in gay HIV infections is in the 13 to 24-year-old category. This isn't bigotry: it's a question of public health.
The NHS is broke, and it can't test every single one of the 7,000 donors a day who come through its doors. So it has to make some hard decisions about which group is most likely to present a risk to patients. Who are these sociopathic monsters who want to put dying people at risk? Does an eighty-year-old granny in need of a bag of Type-O really need to be worrying that her local hospital is about to pump her full of HIV?
Even if the NHS were to test every blood sample, which it currently says it does, some HIV infections take up to 10 years to show up in tests. In the majority of cases, it only takes 3 months. But it's a lot more straightforward to exclude very high-risk groups to make sure no other patients are at risk.
I'm perfectly fine with the NHS turning me down, and I can't understand why my fellow homos are pretending they aren't. Not, of course, that I would ever really consider donating a drop of my blue blood to others, because eww, needles.
And there's another public health hazard on the horizon, too: what if those conspiracy sites are right, and blood contains a "genetic memory" that might transfer to another person? If I start giving blood, there could be a veritable epidemic of bitchy right-wing queens out there. It's the stuff Netflix horror series are made of.
I think one Milo Yiannopoulos is quite enough, don?t you?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/08/gays-if-you-want-to-start-giving-blood-stop-being-sluts/
-
What possible use is it for you to bitch and stew, piss and moan to me about gay men bitching about the NHS?
The NHS has an obligation to collect healthy blood, I do not see any problem with their refusing to take blood from gay men, if it is proven to be dangerous to do so.
People who get medical care from the NHS have the right to not take chances.
Just as it is entirely rational not to transplant hearts of people who have had heart attacks, or kidneys from those who have had hepatitis.
Calling people sluts is not going to serve any purpose other than to announce that you are a gay-hating moron. Which, as we know, you are.
-
One has to wonder why God has not rained death and destruction down on Key West of San Francisco the way he did on Sodom and the much less mentioned Gomorrah.
Because he's also a merciful God, and gave us freedom of choice.....to act or moral.....or not. Its those choices we then bring with us, when Judgement eventually comes down
-
Calling people sluts is not going to serve any purpose other than to announce that you are a gay-hating moron.
So the homosexual that wrote the article and used the term "sluts" is a gay-hating moron?
As SIRS says...duly noted.
-
Actually i do believe gay men are pretty slutty but that's actually an unfair insult since it's basically calling men sluts but a slutty man is also called normal.
We can't exactly say men in general has handled urges well. We can't even blame alcohol thats how bad it is. It's the very foundation why women win so many divorce rulings
-
What Jehovah is is clearly not consistent: he destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, presumably itty bity babies, pets, sheep, cattle and all, but he ignores Key West and San Francisco.
If God is perfect, then he also must be consistent.
I think that the author of this article is being ironic.
-
Your parameters of what God has to be is moot, since you don't believe in God, in the 1st place. Nor does God operate on your time table or your irrational & wholly inconsistent application of logic
-
There is a time table?Everything happens in time. Every thing that happens has a time and a place to happen in.
Nothing ever happens in nowhere. Nothing happens in Never. Time is such a part of existence that it is difficult to say that Never is only when nothing happens.
I did not say that I do not believe in God. I just do not believe inthe one described in the Bible, which I do not consider to be the word of God, being as it is chock full of silly nonsense, as well as a mixture of good advice, questionable advice, history, pseudohistory, and the occasional rantings of some very sick minds.
I was specifically referring to the inconsistent invisible being that destroyed the Tower of Babel when it got too close to him, but somehow ignored not only astronauts who claimed to be believers buy cosmonauts that claimed to be atheists. Then he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because some inhabitants thereof were flaming gay and several of them wanted to rape some angels he sent (yeah sure). Angels are, they say, not equipped with the proper plumbing to be raped or even cornholed, but no matter, zap, and goodbye Sodom, Gomorrah, and Lot's wife who just wanted to see what was going on. I mean, who wouldn't?
But the same Supreme Being declines to take out Key West or San Francisco. He seems to have all the smite knocked out of him.
-
News flash....God, the creater, creates time. The laws of physics & time don't apply to God, as they do to you or I. Nor is God mandated to abide by your version of "logic"
-
It's the very foundation why women win so many divorce rulings
Kimba it's also MGTOW related as to why women win so many divorce rulings:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/m-g-t-o-w/mgtow-and-female-disapproval-2/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOIduTY0mHY
-
Seals are acting against nature when the rape penguins.
No.
How can a seal act against nature or do wrong?
Whatever a seal does is natural, or how would you define natural?
-
I'm waiting to get the latest edition of the leftist dictionary, to learn what the latest attempt at redifining terms are. Terms like tolerance, fairness, even thug, have all together different meanings, than they were originally defined as. I'm sure natural would be included
-
God creates TIME? What sort of crap is that? That is the dumbest idea you have ever come up with. That is so dumb is did not make the Bible.
Time simply IS. It flows in only one direction.
-
God creates TIME? What sort of crap is that? That is the dumbest idea you have ever come up with. That is so dumb is did not make the Bible.
Time simply IS. It flows in only one direction.
Time simply IS what?
If you can explain the nature of time , I would like to learn .
-
God creates TIME?
YES.....See, this is why having any kind of discussion with you on God is pointless, and why your proclamations about God is moot. God transcends anything and everything that we humans consider the norm. Time is, as God designed it to be. Nor is God mandated to abide by it, or anything else you might consider logical to humans. ::)
-
You can google it just as I can. Defining time is like defining simple words like the or was.
One definition for God is that he is ETERNAL, meaning that he has supposedly existed throughout time. Meaning that God, like everything else, exists in time.
Everything in the universe is temporal in nature.
-
GOD TRANSCENDS HUMAN DEFINITIONS, WHICH INCLUDES HOW HUMANS DEFINE TIME. What part of this, that the supposed linguistics professor, is having such a hard time with??
-
Hey this is terrific.
I have always wondered whether time is granular at some very tiny scale.
I know that at every scale that has ever been achieved time is contiguous and continuous.
But if there were some granularity it would be hard to detect with an instrument that would have to be involved in the same pulse.
And Einstein said this , which he really could have explained better.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein
http://www.alberteinsteinsite.com/quotes/einsteinquotes.html
Oh and read the rest of the quotes, this guy is a hoot.
-
That is just putrid rot from your catechism class. Nothing exists outside of time.
Either God was seriously handicapped when he inspired men to write the Bible or they were not inspired by God.
For you the believe in the invisible, mute guy in the sky, you are compelled to spew this silly nonsense.
-
Sorry, you don't get to supercede my moral compass or walk with God, with your moral equivalence leftist PC rot
-
I observe that you have completely sidestepped the issue of the tremendous effort you brag about resisting being gay.
I certainly do not have to believe your silly "moral compass".
Walk with God? Har de har har har!
-
Nor are you required to believe my compass. That's your choice, not to mention your immoral rot to deal with
-
You are more likely to walk with Big Bird more than to walk with God.
I have seen real people, mostly children walking with Big Bird.
I have seen more photos of Nessie the Loch Ness Monster, than of God.
-
Your opinion of God and my walk with him, has been weighed......and discarded. Don't let the door hit you on the way out
-
Nothing exists outside of time.
Are you arguing this scientifically?
That requires evidence, like observing outside of time and proving that there is nothing there.
There are singularities of time which are awfully hard to observe.
Here is one.
Time slows on objects that are moving faster.
At the speed of light time slows to a stop.
Now a photon of light moves at exactly the speed of light all of the time, it really must.
So when a photon is generated , it moves on until it runs into something that can adsorb it, if the path of the photon is unobstructed it could cross billions of light years , but the photon itself would not experience any passage of time, it may be a good thing that they do not carry watches.
So the Hubble Telescope has intercepted photons that have come to us from thirteen billion light years away. To us they must be thirteen billion years old because they have been traveling thirteen billion years across all of that space.
But if you could ask one of them, she would claim to be a newborn. Time has not passed for her.