@stubs13 I was born in Danesfield Hospital, Jarrow. I don't know where I was conceived, as I thought it indelicate to ask, but it must have been somewhere in England, possibly Dudley Teachers' Training College.
You don't need a ceremony, but even though I am a Christian I don't think you should be disdvantaged in the area of tax and inheritance laws. Marriage is a religious matter, and that's why people are offended at the name of it being applied to same-sex relations. But people ought to be able to have civil partnerships which convey the same fiscal rights as childless heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't want to pay less tax at the expense of homosexuals, that's not what it's all about.
I believe in equality under the law. The very concept of civil rights depends on the fact that some groups are offended by others and would oppress them if they could. If people are offended by gay marriage, then let them be offended. They'll get over it. Their offense is rooted in religion. Christianity is not the solution to the so-called gay problem; Christianity IS the problem.
But marriage *is* a religious concept. Why, other than for religion, would you even need to call yourself "married"? That's where your argument breaks down.
Not in American civic law. That is why atheists are allowed to marry. There is nothing in our Constitution that specifies any religious tradition. In other words, your religious views are not allowed to subvert the rights of those who share them. I should read up on the Constitution of Great Britain.
There is no Constitution in Great Britain, there is the Human Rights Act. There is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, but even this does not seek to define marriage and family, it just gives the rights to them. It does not say if it means homosexual family or not.
The way tey write about things, they may as well be, but they are the major travel guides you can buy these days. Noone buys Michelin and Baedecker these days.
I think that any Christian church can welcome people who have gay urges, but not those who live in adulterous relationships with other men, or who frequent the scene and perform lewd acts with other men. The simple fact of having gay urges does not constitute a person who is outside Christ.
You should talk to the authors of Lonely Planet and Rough Guides. Whenever they talk about a city, they always give where the "scene" is for gays, and nothing for heteros. Reading that we get the impression that gay = cruisey. That and the fact that we've all seen cruisey gays. I don't get hit on now, thankfully, because I'm old and fat and live in a country with very few homosexuals.
I don't know what translation you are using, but it says "pleased to live with her" in verse 13. The verb "syneudokeo" is far, far stronger than "be willing to". It's not my fault if women are suffering because of the sins of those who wanted to improve on the KJV. They should sue them, in my opinion.
I am really getting the impression you are trying to twist the Bible. The words which moderate this come straight after it, in the verse you clipped and the following verses, "..and she be pleased to live with him" - that is, a believer should not be adding to unbelieving spouses reasons not to want to live with him. Verse 13 shows the believing woman with the unbelieving man "if he be pleased to dwell with her", let her not depart. Is beating a woman evidence that you are pleased to see her?
This is all without the presumption of violence. You cannot find one Biblical example of where someone is praised for staying with a violent partner. Even the place which most extols wifely virtues, namely Proverbs 31, there is no word about putting up with domestic violence.
Exodus 21:20 "if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth: he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake". So it's not exactly condoning severe beating of slaves is it? Knock out one tooth, and he's not your slave any more.
I'm not here to be your conscience. If you say it is not sinful, then I really don't know why you are even bothering to explain yourself. If your conscience is clear as you say it is, then why even get drawn into discussing matters with fundies like me?
Let me assure you that I have no desire at all to provoke gay people or make them feel bad, but since my religion says that sex is a sin outside marriage, sorry, but you ain't gonna make me say otherwise. And anyway, as you rightly say, this video is about the linguistic type of homophobe - and the dialect is from the Newcastle area, that is Tyneside.
Geordie is close to the Northumbrian dialect of English and remains largely unaffected by the great vowel shift that took place in Elizabethan times. When Chaucer is read by schooled readers, it comes out similar to this, even though that was not Northumbrian.
My ancestors were Normans (I'm French). We enriched the English language with beautiful, euphonius French words. We rescued English from having that exclusively Germanic gutteral sound.
It was a joke. At risk of being rude again, I'll say that despite being called "gay" there is a certain po-facedness about homosexuals in discussion. Ironically gay people make the ideal "straight man" in the comedy sense of that word.
Hmmn. I would class being willing to live with someone as treating them with the kind of respect that would make a normal person in this world be willing to live with them in return. "If the unbelieving depart, the believer is not bound". Departure is not necessarily packing cases and leaving, but departing from suchg culturally accepted norms of behaviour as are acceptable in unbelieving society. Even unbelieving society does not accept the rightness of wife beating.
Schizophrenia is a genetic disorder which may not even have been around in bible times. In the Bible people witnessed demons being driven from possessed persons into herds of swine. These days demon possession is rarer because the same number or fewer available demons are being shared out around a far larger number of people. They also have the dead ones to deal with, at least those who went to hell.
It says where these problems can originate, but homosexuality activity is only one of a serious of behaviours which are defined as sinful in that chapter. The rest are usually glossed over by homosexuals in their hurry to take umbrage at verse 27.
In a sociological study conducted in San Francisco by Weinberg & Bell, they were surprised to discover that the great majority of gay people are interested in stable relationships. They also noted that the least happy were those who chose to remain celibate for "moral" reasons. If I were told I had to lock up my sexuality and lead a barren life forever, I wouldn't be happy either.
I don't buy that one little bit. It sounds like propaganda. What is the point of men getting with men if they are both going to start behaving like women? Surely the whole point of being gay is the easy cruising scene, the no-strings casual sex, etc etc.
I'm not saying its easy for some people, and I dare even say that its not easy for them because it ain't MEANT to be easy for them. Other people have other problems to deal with, like sick kids, addictions, unemployment, you name it.
They don't need marriage for that. Friendship is quite sufficient. And you don't have to get upset if your friend also has conversations or sometimes goes fishing with other people, whereas marriage is an exclusive arrangement.
At least you've been able to have an orgasm, so it just goes to show that there's always a way of release. If that way of release is gnomes and gazebos in your case, then who am I to stand in judgment?
Do you think God told you to commit buggery or to suck off another gentleman's excuse-me? If you are one of those who are irretrievably attracted to males, such that you cannot have a wife, then you will have to make do with platonic friendships, if you want to avoid sin.
What you uttered here is the big flaw on how those hostile to gays see homosexuality. It's always marginalized and reduced to carnal activity. If heterosexuals were the minority and everybody saw the males as people who eat pussy and the women as those who suck cock, you'd be outraged. You would ask how anyone could be so narrow. You overlooked the wider, human dimensions of intimacy and companionship that sexuality entails.
But of course heterosexual males eat pussy. There is nothing outrageous about that. I would be deeply ashamed not to be well-accomplished in the art of pussy-eating, but I just don't practice my art on other women, that's all. If someone tells me that they are so pious that they don't know where the clitoris is or what to do with it, then I sure hope they're not married, or otherwise their piety is misled.
You missed my point. How would you like it if pussy eating is what defined you in the eyes of others? Gay men are not seen as people in relationships, they are reduced to butt fuckers and cocksuckers. How would you like it if others saw your wife or your girlfriend as the woman you fuck?
I would consider them to be functioning at a fairly basic level if that's how they viewed my marriage. I'd certainly rather people thought a woman was happy being with me because I was good in bed that because I was wealthier than her, though, and recently someone quite close to me made the accusation that my wife was only with me for the lifestyle my income granted. That would have hurt, only I knew enough to laugh it off. That woman has stuck to me through thick and thin.
That evades my point. Heterosexual relationships are viewed in an infinite variety of ways. Gay relationships are narrowed down to the point of orgasm. Even with such a movie like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, one of the most brilliant films ever made, there are those who couldn't see anything beyond the tent scene. They kept reiterating the tent scene, as if the rest of the film was of no importance.
They are in the same boat as heterosexuals who cannot find a wife, and there are plenty of those around too. God gives one person one thing to deal with, and other person has another thing to deal with. There's no point moaning about your lot, just be glad you're not in a worse case, like addicted to substances, etc.
I dare say there are some people who have been helped by it. See the channel 'yokeup' on youtube. Those two appear to have been helped by it. You cannot make blanket statements that these marriages end in failure. Many people on the other hand have recourse to homosexual behaviour for other reasons, even though they would marginally prefer women, and these people can more easily be put to rights by such ministries.
Yokeup? Arrggghhh!!! Her entire motif is dominated by fear. In a culture where homosexuality is so heavily stigmatized, where there is so much hostility, a considerable segment of the gay population will internal the hostility aimed at them. They will imbue in self-deception. The motive to change orientation is not based on the love of Christ, but on the hatred of self. They tend to confuse the ignorant public.
There is no problem with me. The problem is with the Christians. Religion is not the solution to the so-called homosexual problem; religion IS the problem.
If you don't like the Christian faith, invent your own one, and put your own version of God and salvation in it. Only don't be surprised if it doesn't work out, though.
Nobody's even denying that. Nobody is vilifying gay people here. Do you think I'm, like, Fred Phelps or something? I just think that where there is sin there needs to be acknowledgement of it.
I think you are taking that 'men' in Romans 1.27 in a limited way which the context doesn't require. It comes from people "not wishing to retain God in their knowledge", this was the start point, and from there we go through a range of sins, from idolatry, thru to homosexuality, to murder, disobedience to parents, unmercifulness. Nobody minds when unmercifulness is described as sin, but when their sexuality is called sin, then they get upset by it, but we all are sinners needing Jesus anyway.
This is my last comment I will not return,I can not have a debate if I am not addressed properly and I can not debate if there is no documented proof of any of these insane alligations. Good day.
Clem, I really cannot be held responsible for the vagaries of this system and the fact it is not threading right. If you know what usenet is, then pick any usenet group you like and I will go there and debate with you in conditions that are ideal for that kind of discussion. If you do not know what usenet is you will find some pointers on my website, which is linked to from my channel homepage, in among the links on the left hand side.
Clem, I doubt that danny is listening in. I don't recognise his name as a regular of mine. If you want to speak to him, best leave a note on his channel.
You asserted that demon possession, as earlier recorded, was only schizophrenia. You made the assertion, not me, so I hardly see why the burden of proof is on me.
What studies? You are engaging in tabloid speak. Who gets to define what constitutes a better working marriage or what a "true partnership" is? Why is two people having identical roles better than two people with different but complementary roles? Why has the level of mental illness among men risen since the days of "equal roles" in marriage?
Nobody is holding back the gay community. But we still have the right to define sins in accordance with our faith, and the defining texts of our faith.
I say that sex outside of marriage is sinful, and that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. I fully and admit to being a sinner, and my suggestion is that homosexuals might want to do likewise, so that they can experience the forgiveness of God.
I understand it very well. What do you imagine "arsenocoitoi" means? The word is absolutely self-explanatory in Greek even if translations get into various euphemisms of it. What do you think "malakoi" means?
The word is malakoi literally means "soft". In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage, but does not in any way describe a homosexual. You are using erroneously translated or obscured Scripture like mainstream Christian Fundamentalists do. You are leaving out very important context and replacing it with intellectual dishonesty and presuppositions that are not Bible-based to support your bigotry and hatred.
The use of the word, arsenokoitai, is quite rare. In fact, the two biblical references in which they are used may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time. Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever. However, some scholars have worked hard to make an educated guess. The use of this term to describe homosexuals is merely a guess, but a deep study and research of the term reveals it is too vague to be applied to homosexuals.
Sorry, but you have nothing there in those Greek terms to indicate same-gender relationships being condemned by God, Jesus or the Bible. Keep trying, though.
No. That is not in fact a correct conclusion. If science cannot explain the analysis of being adequately, nor prove that there is no God, then believing what counts as science in the secular world ALSO RESTS ON FAITH. In fact, most of what you think is truth and knowledge is taken 100% on faith, so don't look down on our faith.
Faith in the form of intuition, the kind of faith that rests upon past experiences and familiarity. Science rests on ideas that hold until proven false. There always will be something science cannot explain, but that doesn't mean there are no scientific explanations. Science is the study of the natural world, faith, according to your defintion, is of the supernatural world, of which there is not a shred of evidence and of which there is no reason to believe.
What you mean by faith is imagination. Science can't go forward without it. Those who condemn homosexuality on Biblical grounds have a woefully unimaginative point of view.
That might be an excuse if there were no forgiveness for sin. The point in identifying sin is so that we can take it to God for forgiveness. Refusing to acknowledge ourselves as sinful reinforces the gulf between us and God, and puts us out of the way of salvation - it is written "if I regard iniquity in mine heart, the Lord will not hear me".
@stubs13 I was born in Danesfield Hospital, Jarrow. I don't know where I was conceived, as I thought it indelicate to ask, but it must have been somewhere in England, possibly Dudley Teachers' Training College.
You don't need a ceremony, but even though I am a Christian I don't think you should be disdvantaged in the area of tax and inheritance laws. Marriage is a religious matter, and that's why people are offended at the name of it being applied to same-sex relations. But people ought to be able to have civil partnerships which convey the same fiscal rights as childless heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't want to pay less tax at the expense of homosexuals, that's not what it's all about.
I believe in equality under the law. The very concept of civil rights depends on the fact that some groups are offended by others and would oppress them if they could. If people are offended by gay marriage, then let them be offended. They'll get over it. Their offense is rooted in religion. Christianity is not the solution to the so-called gay problem; Christianity IS the problem.
But marriage *is* a religious concept. Why, other than for religion, would you even need to call yourself "married"? That's where your argument breaks down.
Not in American civic law. That is why atheists are allowed to marry. There is nothing in our Constitution that specifies any religious tradition. In other words, your religious views are not allowed to subvert the rights of those who share them. I should read up on the Constitution of Great Britain.
There is no Constitution in Great Britain, there is the Human Rights Act. There is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, but even this does not seek to define marriage and family, it just gives the rights to them. It does not say if it means homosexual family or not.
The way tey write about things, they may as well be, but they are the major travel guides you can buy these days. Noone buys Michelin and Baedecker these days.
I think that any Christian church can welcome people who have gay urges, but not those who live in adulterous relationships with other men, or who frequent the scene and perform lewd acts with other men. The simple fact of having gay urges does not constitute a person who is outside Christ.
You should talk to the authors of Lonely Planet and Rough Guides. Whenever they talk about a city, they always give where the "scene" is for gays, and nothing for heteros. Reading that we get the impression that gay = cruisey. That and the fact that we've all seen cruisey gays. I don't get hit on now, thankfully, because I'm old and fat and live in a country with very few homosexuals.
I don't know what translation you are using, but it says "pleased to live with her" in verse 13. The verb "syneudokeo" is far, far stronger than "be willing to". It's not my fault if women are suffering because of the sins of those who wanted to improve on the KJV. They should sue them, in my opinion.
I am really getting the impression you are trying to twist the Bible. The words which moderate this come straight after it, in the verse you clipped and the following verses, "..and she be pleased to live with him" - that is, a believer should not be adding to unbelieving spouses reasons not to want to live with him. Verse 13 shows the believing woman with the unbelieving man "if he be pleased to dwell with her", let her not depart. Is beating a woman evidence that you are pleased to see her?
This is all without the presumption of violence. You cannot find one Biblical example of where someone is praised for staying with a violent partner. Even the place which most extols wifely virtues, namely Proverbs 31, there is no word about putting up with domestic violence.
Exodus 21:20 "if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth: he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake". So it's not exactly condoning severe beating of slaves is it? Knock out one tooth, and he's not your slave any more.
I'm not here to be your conscience. If you say it is not sinful, then I really don't know why you are even bothering to explain yourself. If your conscience is clear as you say it is, then why even get drawn into discussing matters with fundies like me?
Let me assure you that I have no desire at all to provoke gay people or make them feel bad, but since my religion says that sex is a sin outside marriage, sorry, but you ain't gonna make me say otherwise. And anyway, as you rightly say, this video is about the linguistic type of homophobe - and the dialect is from the Newcastle area, that is Tyneside.
Geordie is close to the Northumbrian dialect of English and remains largely unaffected by the great vowel shift that took place in Elizabethan times. When Chaucer is read by schooled readers, it comes out similar to this, even though that was not Northumbrian.
My ancestors were Normans (I'm French). We enriched the English language with beautiful, euphonius French words. We rescued English from having that exclusively Germanic gutteral sound.
It was a joke. At risk of being rude again, I'll say that despite being called "gay" there is a certain po-facedness about homosexuals in discussion. Ironically gay people make the ideal "straight man" in the comedy sense of that word.
Hmmn. I would class being willing to live with someone as treating them with the kind of respect that would make a normal person in this world be willing to live with them in return. "If the unbelieving depart, the believer is not bound". Departure is not necessarily packing cases and leaving, but departing from suchg culturally accepted norms of behaviour as are acceptable in unbelieving society. Even unbelieving society does not accept the rightness of wife beating.
Schizophrenia is a genetic disorder which may not even have been around in bible times. In the Bible people witnessed demons being driven from possessed persons into herds of swine. These days demon possession is rarer because the same number or fewer available demons are being shared out around a far larger number of people. They also have the dead ones to deal with, at least those who went to hell.
It says where these problems can originate, but homosexuality activity is only one of a serious of behaviours which are defined as sinful in that chapter. The rest are usually glossed over by homosexuals in their hurry to take umbrage at verse 27.
In a sociological study conducted in San Francisco by Weinberg & Bell, they were surprised to discover that the great majority of gay people are interested in stable relationships. They also noted that the least happy were those who chose to remain celibate for "moral" reasons. If I were told I had to lock up my sexuality and lead a barren life forever, I wouldn't be happy either.
I don't buy that one little bit. It sounds like propaganda. What is the point of men getting with men if they are both going to start behaving like women? Surely the whole point of being gay is the easy cruising scene, the no-strings casual sex, etc etc.
I'm not saying its easy for some people, and I dare even say that its not easy for them because it ain't MEANT to be easy for them. Other people have other problems to deal with, like sick kids, addictions, unemployment, you name it.
They don't need marriage for that. Friendship is quite sufficient. And you don't have to get upset if your friend also has conversations or sometimes goes fishing with other people, whereas marriage is an exclusive arrangement.
At least you've been able to have an orgasm, so it just goes to show that there's always a way of release. If that way of release is gnomes and gazebos in your case, then who am I to stand in judgment?
Do you think God told you to commit buggery or to suck off another gentleman's excuse-me? If you are one of those who are irretrievably attracted to males, such that you cannot have a wife, then you will have to make do with platonic friendships, if you want to avoid sin.
What you uttered here is the big flaw on how those hostile to gays see homosexuality. It's always marginalized and reduced to carnal activity. If heterosexuals were the minority and everybody saw the males as people who eat pussy and the women as those who suck cock, you'd be outraged. You would ask how anyone could be so narrow. You overlooked the wider, human dimensions of intimacy and companionship that sexuality entails.
But of course heterosexual males eat pussy. There is nothing outrageous about that. I would be deeply ashamed not to be well-accomplished in the art of pussy-eating, but I just don't practice my art on other women, that's all. If someone tells me that they are so pious that they don't know where the clitoris is or what to do with it, then I sure hope they're not married, or otherwise their piety is misled.
You missed my point. How would you like it if pussy eating is what defined you in the eyes of others? Gay men are not seen as people in relationships, they are reduced to butt fuckers and cocksuckers. How would you like it if others saw your wife or your girlfriend as the woman you fuck?
I would consider them to be functioning at a fairly basic level if that's how they viewed my marriage. I'd certainly rather people thought a woman was happy being with me because I was good in bed that because I was wealthier than her, though, and recently someone quite close to me made the accusation that my wife was only with me for the lifestyle my income granted. That would have hurt, only I knew enough to laugh it off. That woman has stuck to me through thick and thin.
That evades my point. Heterosexual relationships are viewed in an infinite variety of ways. Gay relationships are narrowed down to the point of orgasm. Even with such a movie like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, one of the most brilliant films ever made, there are those who couldn't see anything beyond the tent scene. They kept reiterating the tent scene, as if the rest of the film was of no importance.
They are in the same boat as heterosexuals who cannot find a wife, and there are plenty of those around too. God gives one person one thing to deal with, and other person has another thing to deal with. There's no point moaning about your lot, just be glad you're not in a worse case, like addicted to substances, etc.
I dare say there are some people who have been helped by it. See the channel 'yokeup' on youtube. Those two appear to have been helped by it. You cannot make blanket statements that these marriages end in failure. Many people on the other hand have recourse to homosexual behaviour for other reasons, even though they would marginally prefer women, and these people can more easily be put to rights by such ministries.
Yokeup? Arrggghhh!!! Her entire motif is dominated by fear. In a culture where homosexuality is so heavily stigmatized, where there is so much hostility, a considerable segment of the gay population will internal the hostility aimed at them. They will imbue in self-deception. The motive to change orientation is not based on the love of Christ, but on the hatred of self. They tend to confuse the ignorant public.
There is no problem with me. The problem is with the Christians. Religion is not the solution to the so-called homosexual problem; religion IS the problem.
If you don't like the Christian faith, invent your own one, and put your own version of God and salvation in it. Only don't be surprised if it doesn't work out, though.
Nobody's even denying that. Nobody is vilifying gay people here. Do you think I'm, like, Fred Phelps or something? I just think that where there is sin there needs to be acknowledgement of it.
I think you are taking that 'men' in Romans 1.27 in a limited way which the context doesn't require. It comes from people "not wishing to retain God in their knowledge", this was the start point, and from there we go through a range of sins, from idolatry, thru to homosexuality, to murder, disobedience to parents, unmercifulness. Nobody minds when unmercifulness is described as sin, but when their sexuality is called sin, then they get upset by it, but we all are sinners needing Jesus anyway.
This is my last comment I will not return,I can not have a debate if I am not addressed properly and I can not debate if there is no documented proof of any of these insane alligations. Good day.
Clem, I really cannot be held responsible for the vagaries of this system and the fact it is not threading right. If you know what usenet is, then pick any usenet group you like and I will go there and debate with you in conditions that are ideal for that kind of discussion. If you do not know what usenet is you will find some pointers on my website, which is linked to from my channel homepage, in among the links on the left hand side.
Clem, I doubt that danny is listening in. I don't recognise his name as a regular of mine. If you want to speak to him, best leave a note on his channel.
You asserted that demon possession, as earlier recorded, was only schizophrenia. You made the assertion, not me, so I hardly see why the burden of proof is on me.
What studies? You are engaging in tabloid speak. Who gets to define what constitutes a better working marriage or what a "true partnership" is? Why is two people having identical roles better than two people with different but complementary roles? Why has the level of mental illness among men risen since the days of "equal roles" in marriage?
Nobody is holding back the gay community. But we still have the right to define sins in accordance with our faith, and the defining texts of our faith.
I say that sex outside of marriage is sinful, and that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. I fully and admit to being a sinner, and my suggestion is that homosexuals might want to do likewise, so that they can experience the forgiveness of God.
I understand it very well. What do you imagine "arsenocoitoi" means? The word is absolutely self-explanatory in Greek even if translations get into various euphemisms of it. What do you think "malakoi" means?
The word is malakoi literally means "soft". In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage, but does not in any way describe a homosexual. You are using erroneously translated or obscured Scripture like mainstream Christian Fundamentalists do. You are leaving out very important context and replacing it with intellectual dishonesty and presuppositions that are not Bible-based to support your bigotry and hatred.
The use of the word, arsenokoitai, is quite rare. In fact, the two biblical references in which they are used may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time. Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever. However, some scholars have worked hard to make an educated guess. The use of this term to describe homosexuals is merely a guess, but a deep study and research of the term reveals it is too vague to be applied to homosexuals.
Sorry, but you have nothing there in those Greek terms to indicate same-gender relationships being condemned by God, Jesus or the Bible. Keep trying, though.
No. That is not in fact a correct conclusion. If science cannot explain the analysis of being adequately, nor prove that there is no God, then believing what counts as science in the secular world ALSO RESTS ON FAITH. In fact, most of what you think is truth and knowledge is taken 100% on faith, so don't look down on our faith.
Faith in the form of intuition, the kind of faith that rests upon past experiences and familiarity. Science rests on ideas that hold until proven false. There always will be something science cannot explain, but that doesn't mean there are no scientific explanations. Science is the study of the natural world, faith, according to your defintion, is of the supernatural world, of which there is not a shred of evidence and of which there is no reason to believe.
What you mean by faith is imagination. Science can't go forward without it. Those who condemn homosexuality on Biblical grounds have a woefully unimaginative point of view.
So where are you actually from?
stubs13 4 months ago in playlist More videos from usenetposts
@stubs13 I was born in Danesfield Hospital, Jarrow. I don't know where I was conceived, as I thought it indelicate to ask, but it must have been somewhere in England, possibly Dudley Teachers' Training College.
usenetposts 4 months ago
it's a joke, he means HOMOPHONES not homophobes;)
and obviously waiting for sb to spot the ,,tiny" difference
sophie8977 2 years ago
Homophobes ALSO means one is intimidated by homosexuals... what a coincidence that you post the video with the title you gave it! Ha ha!
jgross547 2 years ago
Dude! You crack me up!
fatbear711 2 years ago
DO A CANADIAN ACCENT!!!!!!!!!!! Please? I love your vids!
ccurra2 3 years ago
i thought it was poof phobia!
lordmoggy 3 years ago
hahah here we go u are scot now :D
bgdum 3 years ago
Damn. I thought you're older than me. Just by looking at you.
SpyroTDragon 3 years ago
I don't understand why you're saying "homophobes"... it hurts my brain.
evillttlimp 4 years ago
What should I say?
usenetposts 4 years ago
I hope everyone checks out the sequel to this which I've uploaded this morning.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Does Elizabeth II ever laugh? Or is it considered beneath her station in life to burst out laughing in public?
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
One does laugh. I heard one actually laughed at George Bush.
usenetposts 4 years ago
EVERYBODY laughts at George Bush, except those who are stupid enough to support him.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
No, I am stupid enough to support him, and I also laugh at him. Sometimes he is simply funny, but I still think he's a good man.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You don't need a ceremony, but even though I am a Christian I don't think you should be disdvantaged in the area of tax and inheritance laws. Marriage is a religious matter, and that's why people are offended at the name of it being applied to same-sex relations. But people ought to be able to have civil partnerships which convey the same fiscal rights as childless heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't want to pay less tax at the expense of homosexuals, that's not what it's all about.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I believe in equality under the law. The very concept of civil rights depends on the fact that some groups are offended by others and would oppress them if they could. If people are offended by gay marriage, then let them be offended. They'll get over it. Their offense is rooted in religion. Christianity is not the solution to the so-called gay problem; Christianity IS the problem.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
But marriage *is* a religious concept. Why, other than for religion, would you even need to call yourself "married"? That's where your argument breaks down.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Not in American civic law. That is why atheists are allowed to marry. There is nothing in our Constitution that specifies any religious tradition. In other words, your religious views are not allowed to subvert the rights of those who share them. I should read up on the Constitution of Great Britain.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
There is no Constitution in Great Britain, there is the Human Rights Act. There is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, but even this does not seek to define marriage and family, it just gives the rights to them. It does not say if it means homosexual family or not.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Have you spoken about formalising your relations with some form of civil partnership bond?
usenetposts 4 years ago
The way tey write about things, they may as well be, but they are the major travel guides you can buy these days. Noone buys Michelin and Baedecker these days.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I think that any Christian church can welcome people who have gay urges, but not those who live in adulterous relationships with other men, or who frequent the scene and perform lewd acts with other men. The simple fact of having gay urges does not constitute a person who is outside Christ.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You should talk to the authors of Lonely Planet and Rough Guides. Whenever they talk about a city, they always give where the "scene" is for gays, and nothing for heteros. Reading that we get the impression that gay = cruisey. That and the fact that we've all seen cruisey gays. I don't get hit on now, thankfully, because I'm old and fat and live in a country with very few homosexuals.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I suppose you expect sexual fidelity from each other.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I don't know what translation you are using, but it says "pleased to live with her" in verse 13. The verb "syneudokeo" is far, far stronger than "be willing to". It's not my fault if women are suffering because of the sins of those who wanted to improve on the KJV. They should sue them, in my opinion.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I am really getting the impression you are trying to twist the Bible. The words which moderate this come straight after it, in the verse you clipped and the following verses, "..and she be pleased to live with him" - that is, a believer should not be adding to unbelieving spouses reasons not to want to live with him. Verse 13 shows the believing woman with the unbelieving man "if he be pleased to dwell with her", let her not depart. Is beating a woman evidence that you are pleased to see her?
usenetposts 4 years ago
This is all without the presumption of violence. You cannot find one Biblical example of where someone is praised for staying with a violent partner. Even the place which most extols wifely virtues, namely Proverbs 31, there is no word about putting up with domestic violence.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Exodus 21:20 "if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth: he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake". So it's not exactly condoning severe beating of slaves is it? Knock out one tooth, and he's not your slave any more.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I'm not here to be your conscience. If you say it is not sinful, then I really don't know why you are even bothering to explain yourself. If your conscience is clear as you say it is, then why even get drawn into discussing matters with fundies like me?
usenetposts 4 years ago
Let me assure you that I have no desire at all to provoke gay people or make them feel bad, but since my religion says that sex is a sin outside marriage, sorry, but you ain't gonna make me say otherwise. And anyway, as you rightly say, this video is about the linguistic type of homophobe - and the dialect is from the Newcastle area, that is Tyneside.
usenetposts 4 years ago
That is the original English? When I first came here I took you for an Afrikaaner.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Geordie is close to the Northumbrian dialect of English and remains largely unaffected by the great vowel shift that took place in Elizabethan times. When Chaucer is read by schooled readers, it comes out similar to this, even though that was not Northumbrian.
usenetposts 4 years ago
My ancestors were Normans (I'm French). We enriched the English language with beautiful, euphonius French words. We rescued English from having that exclusively Germanic gutteral sound.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
It was a joke. At risk of being rude again, I'll say that despite being called "gay" there is a certain po-facedness about homosexuals in discussion. Ironically gay people make the ideal "straight man" in the comedy sense of that word.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Hmmn. I would class being willing to live with someone as treating them with the kind of respect that would make a normal person in this world be willing to live with them in return. "If the unbelieving depart, the believer is not bound". Departure is not necessarily packing cases and leaving, but departing from suchg culturally accepted norms of behaviour as are acceptable in unbelieving society. Even unbelieving society does not accept the rightness of wife beating.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Schizophrenia is a genetic disorder which may not even have been around in bible times. In the Bible people witnessed demons being driven from possessed persons into herds of swine. These days demon possession is rarer because the same number or fewer available demons are being shared out around a far larger number of people. They also have the dead ones to deal with, at least those who went to hell.
usenetposts 4 years ago
It says where these problems can originate, but homosexuality activity is only one of a serious of behaviours which are defined as sinful in that chapter. The rest are usually glossed over by homosexuals in their hurry to take umbrage at verse 27.
usenetposts 4 years ago
In a sociological study conducted in San Francisco by Weinberg & Bell, they were surprised to discover that the great majority of gay people are interested in stable relationships. They also noted that the least happy were those who chose to remain celibate for "moral" reasons. If I were told I had to lock up my sexuality and lead a barren life forever, I wouldn't be happy either.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
I don't buy that one little bit. It sounds like propaganda. What is the point of men getting with men if they are both going to start behaving like women? Surely the whole point of being gay is the easy cruising scene, the no-strings casual sex, etc etc.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I'm not saying its easy for some people, and I dare even say that its not easy for them because it ain't MEANT to be easy for them. Other people have other problems to deal with, like sick kids, addictions, unemployment, you name it.
usenetposts 4 years ago
They don't need marriage for that. Friendship is quite sufficient. And you don't have to get upset if your friend also has conversations or sometimes goes fishing with other people, whereas marriage is an exclusive arrangement.
usenetposts 4 years ago
At least you've been able to have an orgasm, so it just goes to show that there's always a way of release. If that way of release is gnomes and gazebos in your case, then who am I to stand in judgment?
usenetposts 4 years ago
Do you think God told you to commit buggery or to suck off another gentleman's excuse-me? If you are one of those who are irretrievably attracted to males, such that you cannot have a wife, then you will have to make do with platonic friendships, if you want to avoid sin.
usenetposts 4 years ago
What you uttered here is the big flaw on how those hostile to gays see homosexuality. It's always marginalized and reduced to carnal activity. If heterosexuals were the minority and everybody saw the males as people who eat pussy and the women as those who suck cock, you'd be outraged. You would ask how anyone could be so narrow. You overlooked the wider, human dimensions of intimacy and companionship that sexuality entails.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
But of course heterosexual males eat pussy. There is nothing outrageous about that. I would be deeply ashamed not to be well-accomplished in the art of pussy-eating, but I just don't practice my art on other women, that's all. If someone tells me that they are so pious that they don't know where the clitoris is or what to do with it, then I sure hope they're not married, or otherwise their piety is misled.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You missed my point. How would you like it if pussy eating is what defined you in the eyes of others? Gay men are not seen as people in relationships, they are reduced to butt fuckers and cocksuckers. How would you like it if others saw your wife or your girlfriend as the woman you fuck?
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
I would consider them to be functioning at a fairly basic level if that's how they viewed my marriage. I'd certainly rather people thought a woman was happy being with me because I was good in bed that because I was wealthier than her, though, and recently someone quite close to me made the accusation that my wife was only with me for the lifestyle my income granted. That would have hurt, only I knew enough to laugh it off. That woman has stuck to me through thick and thin.
usenetposts 4 years ago
That evades my point. Heterosexual relationships are viewed in an infinite variety of ways. Gay relationships are narrowed down to the point of orgasm. Even with such a movie like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, one of the most brilliant films ever made, there are those who couldn't see anything beyond the tent scene. They kept reiterating the tent scene, as if the rest of the film was of no importance.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
At least Borat fared better. The less I think about that naked fight in the hotel, the happier I am...
usenetposts 4 years ago
They are in the same boat as heterosexuals who cannot find a wife, and there are plenty of those around too. God gives one person one thing to deal with, and other person has another thing to deal with. There's no point moaning about your lot, just be glad you're not in a worse case, like addicted to substances, etc.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I dare say there are some people who have been helped by it. See the channel 'yokeup' on youtube. Those two appear to have been helped by it. You cannot make blanket statements that these marriages end in failure. Many people on the other hand have recourse to homosexual behaviour for other reasons, even though they would marginally prefer women, and these people can more easily be put to rights by such ministries.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Yokeup? Arrggghhh!!! Her entire motif is dominated by fear. In a culture where homosexuality is so heavily stigmatized, where there is so much hostility, a considerable segment of the gay population will internal the hostility aimed at them. They will imbue in self-deception. The motive to change orientation is not based on the love of Christ, but on the hatred of self. They tend to confuse the ignorant public.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
But I'm not sure from your earlier comments that you even believe there is a God, so where precisely is the problem for you, BeatBuddy?
usenetposts 4 years ago
There is no problem with me. The problem is with the Christians. Religion is not the solution to the so-called homosexual problem; religion IS the problem.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
If you don't like the Christian faith, invent your own one, and put your own version of God and salvation in it. Only don't be surprised if it doesn't work out, though.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Nobody's even denying that. Nobody is vilifying gay people here. Do you think I'm, like, Fred Phelps or something? I just think that where there is sin there needs to be acknowledgement of it.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I think you are taking that 'men' in Romans 1.27 in a limited way which the context doesn't require. It comes from people "not wishing to retain God in their knowledge", this was the start point, and from there we go through a range of sins, from idolatry, thru to homosexuality, to murder, disobedience to parents, unmercifulness. Nobody minds when unmercifulness is described as sin, but when their sexuality is called sin, then they get upset by it, but we all are sinners needing Jesus anyway.
usenetposts 4 years ago
This is my last comment I will not return,I can not have a debate if I am not addressed properly and I can not debate if there is no documented proof of any of these insane alligations. Good day.
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
Clem, I really cannot be held responsible for the vagaries of this system and the fact it is not threading right. If you know what usenet is, then pick any usenet group you like and I will go there and debate with you in conditions that are ideal for that kind of discussion. If you do not know what usenet is you will find some pointers on my website, which is linked to from my channel homepage, in among the links on the left hand side.
usenetposts 4 years ago
danny you need to prove homosexuality is a mental disorder.
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
Clem, I doubt that danny is listening in. I don't recognise his name as a regular of mine. If you want to speak to him, best leave a note on his channel.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Schizophrenia is one thing, and demon possession is another.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Use,,you have the burden of proof of demon possession. Its all Bunk and mythology
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
You asserted that demon possession, as earlier recorded, was only schizophrenia. You made the assertion, not me, so I hardly see why the burden of proof is on me.
usenetposts 4 years ago
What studies? You are engaging in tabloid speak. Who gets to define what constitutes a better working marriage or what a "true partnership" is? Why is two people having identical roles better than two people with different but complementary roles? Why has the level of mental illness among men risen since the days of "equal roles" in marriage?
usenetposts 4 years ago
Please show me where the Bible condones the beating of slaves severely or insists on women remaining married to abusive husbands?
usenetposts 4 years ago
denny it is not a mental disorder and To hold back the gay community is like trying to put toohpaste back in the tube.
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
Nobody is holding back the gay community. But we still have the right to define sins in accordance with our faith, and the defining texts of our faith.
usenetposts 4 years ago
But the Bible you use does not condemn homosexuality or say that it is sinful. So what is your excuse?
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
I say that sex outside of marriage is sinful, and that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. I fully and admit to being a sinner, and my suggestion is that homosexuals might want to do likewise, so that they can experience the forgiveness of God.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You obviously do not understand what is written in your own Bible.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
I understand it very well. What do you imagine "arsenocoitoi" means? The word is absolutely self-explanatory in Greek even if translations get into various euphemisms of it. What do you think "malakoi" means?
usenetposts 4 years ago
The word is malakoi literally means "soft". In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage, but does not in any way describe a homosexual. You are using erroneously translated or obscured Scripture like mainstream Christian Fundamentalists do. You are leaving out very important context and replacing it with intellectual dishonesty and presuppositions that are not Bible-based to support your bigotry and hatred.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
The use of the word, arsenokoitai, is quite rare. In fact, the two biblical references in which they are used may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time. Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever. However, some scholars have worked hard to make an educated guess. The use of this term to describe homosexuals is merely a guess, but a deep study and research of the term reveals it is too vague to be applied to homosexuals.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
Sorry, but you have nothing there in those Greek terms to indicate same-gender relationships being condemned by God, Jesus or the Bible. Keep trying, though.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
Faith is not a valid means of knowing or understanding anything. Faith is belief, or the desire to believe, sans evidence.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Yes, and?
usenetposts 4 years ago
It means that those who rest on faith are delusional. Those who are really interested in truth will abandon religious faith altogether.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
No. That is not in fact a correct conclusion. If science cannot explain the analysis of being adequately, nor prove that there is no God, then believing what counts as science in the secular world ALSO RESTS ON FAITH. In fact, most of what you think is truth and knowledge is taken 100% on faith, so don't look down on our faith.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Faith in the form of intuition, the kind of faith that rests upon past experiences and familiarity. Science rests on ideas that hold until proven false. There always will be something science cannot explain, but that doesn't mean there are no scientific explanations. Science is the study of the natural world, faith, according to your defintion, is of the supernatural world, of which there is not a shred of evidence and of which there is no reason to believe.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
You just gave me the perfect confession of faith in science, and the irony is, you don't even realise that's what it is.
usenetposts 4 years ago
What you mean by faith is imagination. Science can't go forward without it. Those who condemn homosexuality on Biblical grounds have a woefully unimaginative point of view.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
OK. Sometimes it's better not to let one's imagination run riot.
usenetposts 4 years ago
That might be an excuse if there were no forgiveness for sin. The point in identifying sin is so that we can take it to God for forgiveness. Refusing to acknowledge ourselves as sinful reinforces the gulf between us and God, and puts us out of the way of salvation - it is written "if I regard iniquity in mine heart, the Lord will not hear me".
usenetposts 4 years ago
I can not tell if it was you that replied to my comment since my name is not being addressed.
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
I can't tell what bit you're replying to either. A bit naff, isn't it?
usenetposts 4 years ago
In order to sin, there must be a God. I have never sinned in my life.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Oh really? Did you not reject Christ then? That's actually the biggest sin of all.
usenetposts 4 years ago
It may well be. That is why confessing our sins is good for the soul, and denial isn't.
usenetposts 4 years ago
So where are you actually from?
stubs13 4 months ago in playlist More videos from usenetposts
@stubs13 I was born in Danesfield Hospital, Jarrow. I don't know where I was conceived, as I thought it indelicate to ask, but it must have been somewhere in England, possibly Dudley Teachers' Training College.
usenetposts 4 months ago
it's a joke, he means HOMOPHONES not homophobes;)
and obviously waiting for sb to spot the ,,tiny" difference
sophie8977 2 years ago
Homophobes ALSO means one is intimidated by homosexuals... what a coincidence that you post the video with the title you gave it! Ha ha!
jgross547 2 years ago
Dude! You crack me up!
fatbear711 2 years ago
DO A CANADIAN ACCENT!!!!!!!!!!! Please? I love your vids!
ccurra2 3 years ago
i thought it was poof phobia!
lordmoggy 3 years ago
hahah here we go u are scot now :D
bgdum 3 years ago
Damn. I thought you're older than me. Just by looking at you.
SpyroTDragon 3 years ago
I don't understand why you're saying "homophobes"... it hurts my brain.
evillttlimp 4 years ago
What should I say?
usenetposts 4 years ago
I hope everyone checks out the sequel to this which I've uploaded this morning.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Does Elizabeth II ever laugh? Or is it considered beneath her station in life to burst out laughing in public?
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
One does laugh. I heard one actually laughed at George Bush.
usenetposts 4 years ago
EVERYBODY laughts at George Bush, except those who are stupid enough to support him.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
No, I am stupid enough to support him, and I also laugh at him. Sometimes he is simply funny, but I still think he's a good man.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You don't need a ceremony, but even though I am a Christian I don't think you should be disdvantaged in the area of tax and inheritance laws. Marriage is a religious matter, and that's why people are offended at the name of it being applied to same-sex relations. But people ought to be able to have civil partnerships which convey the same fiscal rights as childless heterosexual couples enjoy. I don't want to pay less tax at the expense of homosexuals, that's not what it's all about.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I believe in equality under the law. The very concept of civil rights depends on the fact that some groups are offended by others and would oppress them if they could. If people are offended by gay marriage, then let them be offended. They'll get over it. Their offense is rooted in religion. Christianity is not the solution to the so-called gay problem; Christianity IS the problem.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
But marriage *is* a religious concept. Why, other than for religion, would you even need to call yourself "married"? That's where your argument breaks down.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Not in American civic law. That is why atheists are allowed to marry. There is nothing in our Constitution that specifies any religious tradition. In other words, your religious views are not allowed to subvert the rights of those who share them. I should read up on the Constitution of Great Britain.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
There is no Constitution in Great Britain, there is the Human Rights Act. There is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, but even this does not seek to define marriage and family, it just gives the rights to them. It does not say if it means homosexual family or not.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Have you spoken about formalising your relations with some form of civil partnership bond?
usenetposts 4 years ago
The way tey write about things, they may as well be, but they are the major travel guides you can buy these days. Noone buys Michelin and Baedecker these days.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I think that any Christian church can welcome people who have gay urges, but not those who live in adulterous relationships with other men, or who frequent the scene and perform lewd acts with other men. The simple fact of having gay urges does not constitute a person who is outside Christ.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You should talk to the authors of Lonely Planet and Rough Guides. Whenever they talk about a city, they always give where the "scene" is for gays, and nothing for heteros. Reading that we get the impression that gay = cruisey. That and the fact that we've all seen cruisey gays. I don't get hit on now, thankfully, because I'm old and fat and live in a country with very few homosexuals.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I suppose you expect sexual fidelity from each other.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I don't know what translation you are using, but it says "pleased to live with her" in verse 13. The verb "syneudokeo" is far, far stronger than "be willing to". It's not my fault if women are suffering because of the sins of those who wanted to improve on the KJV. They should sue them, in my opinion.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I am really getting the impression you are trying to twist the Bible. The words which moderate this come straight after it, in the verse you clipped and the following verses, "..and she be pleased to live with him" - that is, a believer should not be adding to unbelieving spouses reasons not to want to live with him. Verse 13 shows the believing woman with the unbelieving man "if he be pleased to dwell with her", let her not depart. Is beating a woman evidence that you are pleased to see her?
usenetposts 4 years ago
This is all without the presumption of violence. You cannot find one Biblical example of where someone is praised for staying with a violent partner. Even the place which most extols wifely virtues, namely Proverbs 31, there is no word about putting up with domestic violence.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Exodus 21:20 "if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth: he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake". So it's not exactly condoning severe beating of slaves is it? Knock out one tooth, and he's not your slave any more.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I'm not here to be your conscience. If you say it is not sinful, then I really don't know why you are even bothering to explain yourself. If your conscience is clear as you say it is, then why even get drawn into discussing matters with fundies like me?
usenetposts 4 years ago
Let me assure you that I have no desire at all to provoke gay people or make them feel bad, but since my religion says that sex is a sin outside marriage, sorry, but you ain't gonna make me say otherwise. And anyway, as you rightly say, this video is about the linguistic type of homophobe - and the dialect is from the Newcastle area, that is Tyneside.
usenetposts 4 years ago
That is the original English? When I first came here I took you for an Afrikaaner.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Geordie is close to the Northumbrian dialect of English and remains largely unaffected by the great vowel shift that took place in Elizabethan times. When Chaucer is read by schooled readers, it comes out similar to this, even though that was not Northumbrian.
usenetposts 4 years ago
My ancestors were Normans (I'm French). We enriched the English language with beautiful, euphonius French words. We rescued English from having that exclusively Germanic gutteral sound.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
It was a joke. At risk of being rude again, I'll say that despite being called "gay" there is a certain po-facedness about homosexuals in discussion. Ironically gay people make the ideal "straight man" in the comedy sense of that word.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Hmmn. I would class being willing to live with someone as treating them with the kind of respect that would make a normal person in this world be willing to live with them in return. "If the unbelieving depart, the believer is not bound". Departure is not necessarily packing cases and leaving, but departing from suchg culturally accepted norms of behaviour as are acceptable in unbelieving society. Even unbelieving society does not accept the rightness of wife beating.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Schizophrenia is a genetic disorder which may not even have been around in bible times. In the Bible people witnessed demons being driven from possessed persons into herds of swine. These days demon possession is rarer because the same number or fewer available demons are being shared out around a far larger number of people. They also have the dead ones to deal with, at least those who went to hell.
usenetposts 4 years ago
It says where these problems can originate, but homosexuality activity is only one of a serious of behaviours which are defined as sinful in that chapter. The rest are usually glossed over by homosexuals in their hurry to take umbrage at verse 27.
usenetposts 4 years ago
In a sociological study conducted in San Francisco by Weinberg & Bell, they were surprised to discover that the great majority of gay people are interested in stable relationships. They also noted that the least happy were those who chose to remain celibate for "moral" reasons. If I were told I had to lock up my sexuality and lead a barren life forever, I wouldn't be happy either.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
I don't buy that one little bit. It sounds like propaganda. What is the point of men getting with men if they are both going to start behaving like women? Surely the whole point of being gay is the easy cruising scene, the no-strings casual sex, etc etc.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I'm not saying its easy for some people, and I dare even say that its not easy for them because it ain't MEANT to be easy for them. Other people have other problems to deal with, like sick kids, addictions, unemployment, you name it.
usenetposts 4 years ago
They don't need marriage for that. Friendship is quite sufficient. And you don't have to get upset if your friend also has conversations or sometimes goes fishing with other people, whereas marriage is an exclusive arrangement.
usenetposts 4 years ago
At least you've been able to have an orgasm, so it just goes to show that there's always a way of release. If that way of release is gnomes and gazebos in your case, then who am I to stand in judgment?
usenetposts 4 years ago
Do you think God told you to commit buggery or to suck off another gentleman's excuse-me? If you are one of those who are irretrievably attracted to males, such that you cannot have a wife, then you will have to make do with platonic friendships, if you want to avoid sin.
usenetposts 4 years ago
What you uttered here is the big flaw on how those hostile to gays see homosexuality. It's always marginalized and reduced to carnal activity. If heterosexuals were the minority and everybody saw the males as people who eat pussy and the women as those who suck cock, you'd be outraged. You would ask how anyone could be so narrow. You overlooked the wider, human dimensions of intimacy and companionship that sexuality entails.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
But of course heterosexual males eat pussy. There is nothing outrageous about that. I would be deeply ashamed not to be well-accomplished in the art of pussy-eating, but I just don't practice my art on other women, that's all. If someone tells me that they are so pious that they don't know where the clitoris is or what to do with it, then I sure hope they're not married, or otherwise their piety is misled.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You missed my point. How would you like it if pussy eating is what defined you in the eyes of others? Gay men are not seen as people in relationships, they are reduced to butt fuckers and cocksuckers. How would you like it if others saw your wife or your girlfriend as the woman you fuck?
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
I would consider them to be functioning at a fairly basic level if that's how they viewed my marriage. I'd certainly rather people thought a woman was happy being with me because I was good in bed that because I was wealthier than her, though, and recently someone quite close to me made the accusation that my wife was only with me for the lifestyle my income granted. That would have hurt, only I knew enough to laugh it off. That woman has stuck to me through thick and thin.
usenetposts 4 years ago
That evades my point. Heterosexual relationships are viewed in an infinite variety of ways. Gay relationships are narrowed down to the point of orgasm. Even with such a movie like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, one of the most brilliant films ever made, there are those who couldn't see anything beyond the tent scene. They kept reiterating the tent scene, as if the rest of the film was of no importance.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
At least Borat fared better. The less I think about that naked fight in the hotel, the happier I am...
usenetposts 4 years ago
They are in the same boat as heterosexuals who cannot find a wife, and there are plenty of those around too. God gives one person one thing to deal with, and other person has another thing to deal with. There's no point moaning about your lot, just be glad you're not in a worse case, like addicted to substances, etc.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I dare say there are some people who have been helped by it. See the channel 'yokeup' on youtube. Those two appear to have been helped by it. You cannot make blanket statements that these marriages end in failure. Many people on the other hand have recourse to homosexual behaviour for other reasons, even though they would marginally prefer women, and these people can more easily be put to rights by such ministries.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Yokeup? Arrggghhh!!! Her entire motif is dominated by fear. In a culture where homosexuality is so heavily stigmatized, where there is so much hostility, a considerable segment of the gay population will internal the hostility aimed at them. They will imbue in self-deception. The motive to change orientation is not based on the love of Christ, but on the hatred of self. They tend to confuse the ignorant public.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
But I'm not sure from your earlier comments that you even believe there is a God, so where precisely is the problem for you, BeatBuddy?
usenetposts 4 years ago
There is no problem with me. The problem is with the Christians. Religion is not the solution to the so-called homosexual problem; religion IS the problem.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
If you don't like the Christian faith, invent your own one, and put your own version of God and salvation in it. Only don't be surprised if it doesn't work out, though.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Nobody's even denying that. Nobody is vilifying gay people here. Do you think I'm, like, Fred Phelps or something? I just think that where there is sin there needs to be acknowledgement of it.
usenetposts 4 years ago
I think you are taking that 'men' in Romans 1.27 in a limited way which the context doesn't require. It comes from people "not wishing to retain God in their knowledge", this was the start point, and from there we go through a range of sins, from idolatry, thru to homosexuality, to murder, disobedience to parents, unmercifulness. Nobody minds when unmercifulness is described as sin, but when their sexuality is called sin, then they get upset by it, but we all are sinners needing Jesus anyway.
usenetposts 4 years ago
This is my last comment I will not return,I can not have a debate if I am not addressed properly and I can not debate if there is no documented proof of any of these insane alligations. Good day.
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
Clem, I really cannot be held responsible for the vagaries of this system and the fact it is not threading right. If you know what usenet is, then pick any usenet group you like and I will go there and debate with you in conditions that are ideal for that kind of discussion. If you do not know what usenet is you will find some pointers on my website, which is linked to from my channel homepage, in among the links on the left hand side.
usenetposts 4 years ago
danny you need to prove homosexuality is a mental disorder.
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
Clem, I doubt that danny is listening in. I don't recognise his name as a regular of mine. If you want to speak to him, best leave a note on his channel.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Schizophrenia is one thing, and demon possession is another.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Use,,you have the burden of proof of demon possession. Its all Bunk and mythology
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
You asserted that demon possession, as earlier recorded, was only schizophrenia. You made the assertion, not me, so I hardly see why the burden of proof is on me.
usenetposts 4 years ago
What studies? You are engaging in tabloid speak. Who gets to define what constitutes a better working marriage or what a "true partnership" is? Why is two people having identical roles better than two people with different but complementary roles? Why has the level of mental illness among men risen since the days of "equal roles" in marriage?
usenetposts 4 years ago
Please show me where the Bible condones the beating of slaves severely or insists on women remaining married to abusive husbands?
usenetposts 4 years ago
denny it is not a mental disorder and To hold back the gay community is like trying to put toohpaste back in the tube.
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
Nobody is holding back the gay community. But we still have the right to define sins in accordance with our faith, and the defining texts of our faith.
usenetposts 4 years ago
But the Bible you use does not condemn homosexuality or say that it is sinful. So what is your excuse?
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
I say that sex outside of marriage is sinful, and that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. I fully and admit to being a sinner, and my suggestion is that homosexuals might want to do likewise, so that they can experience the forgiveness of God.
usenetposts 4 years ago
You obviously do not understand what is written in your own Bible.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
I understand it very well. What do you imagine "arsenocoitoi" means? The word is absolutely self-explanatory in Greek even if translations get into various euphemisms of it. What do you think "malakoi" means?
usenetposts 4 years ago
The word is malakoi literally means "soft". In terms of morality, it generally referred to something like laziness, degeneracy, decadence, or lack of courage, but does not in any way describe a homosexual. You are using erroneously translated or obscured Scripture like mainstream Christian Fundamentalists do. You are leaving out very important context and replacing it with intellectual dishonesty and presuppositions that are not Bible-based to support your bigotry and hatred.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
The use of the word, arsenokoitai, is quite rare. In fact, the two biblical references in which they are used may be the first examples we have of this word being used in the literature of the time. Because the word is so rare, its exact meaning is probably lost forever. However, some scholars have worked hard to make an educated guess. The use of this term to describe homosexuals is merely a guess, but a deep study and research of the term reveals it is too vague to be applied to homosexuals.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
Sorry, but you have nothing there in those Greek terms to indicate same-gender relationships being condemned by God, Jesus or the Bible. Keep trying, though.
MySecretPumkin 4 years ago
Faith is not a valid means of knowing or understanding anything. Faith is belief, or the desire to believe, sans evidence.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
Yes, and?
usenetposts 4 years ago
It means that those who rest on faith are delusional. Those who are really interested in truth will abandon religious faith altogether.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
No. That is not in fact a correct conclusion. If science cannot explain the analysis of being adequately, nor prove that there is no God, then believing what counts as science in the secular world ALSO RESTS ON FAITH. In fact, most of what you think is truth and knowledge is taken 100% on faith, so don't look down on our faith.
usenetposts 4 years ago
Faith in the form of intuition, the kind of faith that rests upon past experiences and familiarity. Science rests on ideas that hold until proven false. There always will be something science cannot explain, but that doesn't mean there are no scientific explanations. Science is the study of the natural world, faith, according to your defintion, is of the supernatural world, of which there is not a shred of evidence and of which there is no reason to believe.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
You just gave me the perfect confession of faith in science, and the irony is, you don't even realise that's what it is.
usenetposts 4 years ago
What you mean by faith is imagination. Science can't go forward without it. Those who condemn homosexuality on Biblical grounds have a woefully unimaginative point of view.
BeatBuddy 4 years ago
OK. Sometimes it's better not to let one's imagination run riot.
usenetposts 4 years ago