• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is homosexuality wrong?

Ladewig said:
I must disagree with you here. The Bible has plenty of examples of discriminating against those types of people. Leviticus 12 explains that women who have just given birth are unclean and shall not be allowed in holy places. Leviticus 13:46 says lepers should be discriminated against ("All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be"). Leviticus 21 says that "a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous ... Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken" is to be excluded from holy sites and from holy sacraments.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

Regards
DL
 
XenonII said:
1) Homosexuality was always understood to be a mental disorder before homosexual activists successfully lobeyed to have it declassifed as such. Because of homosexual pressure the APA voted on whether to continue classifying homosexuality as a mental illnesss. 48% voted that homosexuality should continue to be regarded as a mental illness.
Click to expand...

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too...."

-Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, 1935.

Bolding mine. Sooo... no, wrong, fail.
 
zombiebex said:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too...."

-Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, 1935.

Bolding mine. Sooo... no, wrong, fail.
Click to expand...
Ouch. Is is possible for a person to be statistically this wrong? I'm starting to think that XenonII is a solid of case of paranormal error. A person would have to TRY to consistently get this many facts wrong.

Perhaps we need to start asking some "gimme" answers to increase XenonII's hit column.

Let me start
XenonII, please answer the following questions:
Did Jesus drive a pick up truck?
Is Red a color?
What are ears for?
Which of the following is not a number?: 1, 4, 7, crayon, 9
 
I think XenonII is just writing his own extra verses for the Dead Milkmen's "Stuart".

That's a link to the lyrics at the Milkmen's site, not some lyrics search site. No pop-ups.
 
XenonII said:
Transvestism, which sadly is running amok in today's society amongst our women thanks in no small part to the evil feminazi movement, is still a horrendous abomination. Women should not wear pants because men don't wear dresses.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." - Deuteronomy 22:5.
Click to expand...


Ok, let's look at this one again. Can you, for a start, explain what the presumed effect of this horrendous abomination is? What is pants wearing responsible for, other, perhaps, than the inability of dirty old men to get beaver shots these days from anybody but Britney Spears?

Why should the fact that men don't wear dresses determine what women should or should not wear? Men wear hats. Does this mean women should not wear hats? Have you ever troubled your mind to think about what you write, or does it just sort of leak out?

But let's be fair here: let's stipulate just for the moment that the Biblical injuction against cross dressing is reasonable. Yes, let's agree for the moment that women should not dress to look like men, and men should not dress to look like women. Where in the Bible does it specify that this means women must wear only garments that are open at the bottom? Is the word "pants" or "trousers" found in the Bible at all? I can't find it in Cruden's Concordance. Can you?

Xenon, have you ever pulled your head out of your posterior long enough to look around at the society you live in, and wonder how things are actually done these days? I'll give you a hint. We're not wearing robes and burkas any more. These days, there are garments with separate legs, that are...(get ready for a shock, now!) made especially for women! They're called pants. Women wear them, and when women wear them, they look like (get ready for another shock!) women. When Hillary Clinton or Condleezza Rice wears a pantsuit, she is not dressing like a man. She's dressing like a woman.
 
Yea, but are homosexuals any worst than atheists, Xenon? I'm atheist, I mock your god and religion all of the time. I think Jesus was gay, at least the character in the fairy tales was. Jesus was also racist and not too bright. Do you think atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either?
 
Is this woman not wearing pants thing going by the british term or the rest of the worlds definition? :)

(British meaning of pants = underwear)
 
2) There isn't a "Gay Agenda"? Why is there so-called "gay rights" groups then? Do these groups not have an agenda? Do these groups not want to legalize so-called same-sex "marriage"? Are these groups not seeking to normalize homosexuality within society? Teach school kids that it is "OK" to be "gay"? The "Gay" Agenda is very real.
Click to expand...
'Gay agenda' refers to this conspiracy theory-like belief that homosexuals want to take over society. Even if you do not believe this yourself, you have to realize that 'gay agenda' is associated with this theory.

It is militant and in your face. There is obviously a "Gay" Agenda and it is not a healthy agenda. It is a destructive agenda that threatens to destroy marriage. Marriage is the bedrock of society. Destroy that and you will destroy society itself.
Click to expand...
Prove to me that it is homosexual marriage that is causing the rising divorce rates of society, other than by invoking the correlation equals causation fallacy (ie. 'gays got rights and then divorce rates started going up, obviously it's teh ghey!'), and then prove to me that marriage is indeed a bedrock of society.

Oh, and on marriage for some reason being 'the bedrock of society', Google the Mosou. Ask Wolfmann if you need assistance.
 
An interesting thing about divorce rates amongst homosexuals:

On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.[35]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Arguments_concerning_divorce_rates

This was taken from this little document: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdf/ScandinaviaBEPressArticle.pdf

Oh, and about the "sanctity of marriage":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_rate

The United States has a higher divorce rate than Germany. Beat that, you silly Americans. :D
 
Greatest I am said:
Now Alice, be nice.

If it were not for people like this poor misguided soul then we would not be able to as readily show how our logic and standards work, as opposed to his lack of ability to justify his position.

This way those on the fence will know which way to go.

Thank God Xenon lacks the brains to make a better arguement of the issue. At the same time thank God he is here to allow us to show the better and more moral position.

Thank God for evil.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be nasty - Cthulhu knows I like a larf as much as the next pants-wearing feminazi. But I've got the flu, have a raging temperature and thought that a reference to "Brokeback Mountain" might be in order... ;)
 
Sooo... obviously, drag shows are the worst of the lot. Gay men dressing up as women, dancing and lipsynching to Kylie Minogue... evil evil evil.

Especially if it's a show raising money to pay the medical bills of a woman battling cancer, like the one I went to last month. We're all going to Hell.
 
zombiebex said:
Sooo... obviously, drag shows are the worst of the lot. Gay men dressing up as women, dancing and lipsynching to Kylie Minogue... evil evil evil.

Especially if it's a show raising money to pay the medical bills of a woman battling cancer, like the one I went to last month. We're all going to Hell.
Click to expand...

2_16_10_07_3_37_34.jpg
 
XenonII said:
All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23. Embracing homosexuals is one thing, they are equals but denying what they do is a sin is another. Homosexuals are unrepetent sinners and I wouldn't call a church that doesn't consider homosexuality a sin a true Christian church I would call that church a "gay' church and full of the devil. Homosexuality is a sin. God makes up the rules, he has declared it a sin and it is not up to us to challenge his authority or attempt to play God. We have to accept him and follow his commandments or face the consequences. It is our free choice to make but at the same time we have a duty to warn those what will happen if they continue on in their wicked sinful ways.
Click to expand...

Oh. I see. This ancient book says it's wrong, so I should believe it. That's a truly brilliant argument.
 
XenonII said:
Transvestism, which sadly is running amok in today's society amongst our women thanks in no small part to the evil feminazi movement, is still a horrendous abomination. Women should not wear pants because men don't wear dresses.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." - Deuteronomy 22:5.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that god's commandments vary according to culture? Ie, it's an abomination for a German man to wear a kilt, but not for a Scot? Or is it an abomination for both? What about a German man who was raised in Scotland? Can he wear a kilt?

Also, why do you accept parts of old testament law, but not others? I can see no scriptural basis for your picking and choosing. Yes, it is pretty clear that Christians have scriptural reason to consider themselves no longer bound by the dietary laws. As for the rest, it gets rather murky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom