Accepting gay marriage is putting Christians in Africa at risk

[zinfamous]

ah yes. Human Homosexuality is simply learned behavior from observing dogs mounting each other.

what a brilliant deduction, TH. I await the publication of your carefully-collected data.

 

[IronWing]

ah yes. Human Homosexuality is simply learned behavior from observing dogs mounting each other.

what a brilliant deduction, TH. I await the publication of your carefully-collected data.

Google "Why do you ask, Two Dogs".

 

[bradly1101]

To me the gay connection is very natural. I appreciate a partner who acts and reacts in predictable ways. I'm not saying that differences aren't good either. I know all women aren't like the majority I've known who seem to have the need to fill up every quiet, peaceful moment with conversation. I know that sounds like generalizing, but the men I've known are more reserved and less emotional, and I like that. Plus there are other things you know your partner appreciates and vice versa ;-) And no TH just because you're gay doesn't mean you use the back door.

A couple of other advantages to being gay is that I'm not adding to the population/future jobless problem, and Seinfeld was right, you automatically double your wardrobe.

I wonder if any straight guys here have 'had thoughts' and would acknowledge that. TH?

 

[dank69]

That is completely wrong. That is so far from making sense, I could spend months blowing up that statement.

I anxiously await.

 

[MrPickins]

Seinfeld was right, you automatically double your wardrobe. H?

Unless you're a skinny guy and your BF is a bear

 

[bradly1101]

Unless you're a skinny guy and your BF is a bear

True dat.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Last weekend my wife and I had a bunch of friends over to celebrate my wifes birthday. One of the people who attended the party brought his dog. Lets call him dog A.

Another friend who showed up brought her dog. Lets call this one dog B.

Both dogs are male.

Dog A started humping dog B.

One of the things that separates us from animals, we do not go around repeating their behavior.

Apparently you've never been to a frat party or a Shriner's convention or a high school makeout party or Spring break in Florida or any Mardis Gras celebration in the world or ....

 

[SlickSnake]

I always think I'm going to come in here, read a few interesting posts, and then leave quietly like a shadow. Then I see a post like this and I notice the bigot who posts it.

Christians are being killed in Africa because Christians here in the states are changing their stance on gays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...rophic-for-African-Christians-Archbishop.html


So what do you do?
I don't do anything about it. If missionaries want to go over there and risk their lives to proselytize to ignorant and violent people who also believe in voodoo witchcraft, then that is completely their business, not mine.


Not support gay marriages and piss people here in the states off? But at least missionaries are not being killed in third world nations.
That is a shockingly stupid rationalization on your part. White missionaries are still going to be beaten and killed in Africa regardless of the gays. The fact you would even entertain for a second that they wouldn't be killed if not for gay marriages is either childishly naive and stupid, or you're definitely trolling.


One solution is pull Christians out of Africa. So who is going to feed the children, provide health care and bring in food?
The missionaries are there of their own free will to primarily turn the natives into Christians. Giving natives food and healthcare is only done to try to convince them Christians are maybe better than depending on black magic and witchcraft to heal and feed them. Since the missionaries are there willingly, if they leave or get killed, the natives starve and die of disease. Seems pretty simple what will happen to the African's then. I'm certainly not going over there and saving their souls and risking my own just so they can kill me with gratitude.


I do not see any atheist or feminist groups standing in line to provide services to war torn nations in Africa. But then again, those groups would probably be slaughtered faster than Christians.
You don't think the African's like hot lesbo's as much as you do? So I'm sure the feminists would be fine over there, too, once they adjusted to being kidnapped out of their beds one night by slavers and traded for a couple of sheeps and a hog to get married to a husband with multiple wives already.


Which is the lesser of the two evils?

Not support gay marriage and be left alone so Christian groups can provide much needed relief efforts.

Support gay marriage and be killed while trying to provide help.
This is a ridiculous assumption on your part, even for you. And I don't care what the author of this news report or the Archbishop claimed was said from the witnesses. White missionaries have been killed in Africa since the early 1800s just because they are there interfering in local customs and beliefs and many native people resent them being there. So don't be so quick to believe every stupid thing you read next time and post it as fact.

 

[SlickSnake]

I'm sure this has more to do with the US' support of equal marriage rights than it does with people trying to indoctrinate the populous of Africa on their "mission from God".

At least this observation wasn't completely lost on everyone. Just the Archbishop, the reporter and the OP seem to think otherwise.

And by the way, the cowardly reporter is using "By News agencies" as his name for this piece.

Way to stand behind your bigoted yellow journalism "By News agencies".

And the Telegraph is right up there with the National Enquirer in terms of overly sensationalized news stories.

 

[SlickSnake]

How does he know that that caused the murders?

Because the Archbishop talked to someone who supposedly knew all about it some time later. It sounds like a pretty tenuous claim stretching credulity at best.

And the Telegraph did not link to an article for the supposed news source of his claim about the 369 missionaries massacred due to gay marriages, either.

Out of all these news reports, I hadn't seen one here yet that features anything antigay as the reason for the killings.

http://www.christianpersecution.info/africa.php

 

[SlickSnake]

Last weekend my wife and I had a bunch of friends over to celebrate my wifes birthday. One of the people who attended the party brought his dog. Lets call him dog A.

Another friend who showed up brought her dog. Lets call this one dog B.

Both dogs are male.

Dog A started humping dog B.

One of the things that separates us from animals, we do not go around repeating their behavior.

Try to stay on topic now. And I already know how hard that is for you to do and stuff. 2 male dogs humping and turning you on has nothing to do with 369 Christians allegedly massacred due to gay marriages.

No web searches have matched 369 Christian missionaries killed at once for gay marriage, or even any other reason at all. At least not all 369 allegedly killed at the same time.

So, with no proof of the crime he implied happened, then the antigay allegations he made about them dying because of it are equally doubtful.

 

[sandorski]

10s of thousands of Americans were killed because they accepted Capitalism. Clearly the US should have accepted Communism.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Unless you're a skinny guy and your BF is a bear

Last girlfriend was same clothes size same shoe size. It was incredibly FTW.

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[mikeymikec]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...rophic-for-African-Christians-Archbishop.html

Translation: Priest assumes a morally disgusting position in an attempt to guilt-trip people against believing in equal rights.

"Don't believe in equal rights, someone might get hurt!"

As well as being deeply hypocritical - how many gay people have been oppressed in one way or another because someone's religious beliefs told them that God hates the homos.

 

[cyclohexane]

It's okay, you can admit it TexasHiker, you really like the cock don't you?

It's 2014, we won't judge if you're a self hating gay man.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's a sad attempt to conflate two different issues. You said homosexuality was not NATURAL. Not that it wasn't GOOD.

Homosexuality is unarguably natural, as it occurs in nature. Cannibalism and infanticide are natural too. That doesn't mean they are good things.

Well, Pickins did say "Uummm yes?" because we're animals. So the logical conclusion that would follow is that we're by nature infanticidal, murderous, and are cannibals because it's completely natural in the animal kingdom -- it happens in nature and like homosexuality, should be perfectly acceptable on those grounds.

Whether its good or not is immaterial, since "good v bad" isn't even considered among animals, are since we're just advanced animals, those things are innate to us...no good or bad needed.

If we can employ "logic and reason" when dealing with other humans and violate our innate animal nature to murder and maim, we can likewise use the same logic and reason to curb the desire to have gay sex, or anal sex of any kind.

It does seem somewhat strange how gay marriage proponents want to hand-wave other things clearly acceptable in nature (murder/cannibalism/infanticide) when those are brought up, but then with open arms accept other things "natural", like homosexuality.

TH's point is relevant to the thread, because its a good counter-argument, and can disprove your point that we simply act within the dicates of nature, which has been disproven with the comparisons he made, in my opinion anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, Pickins did say "Uummm yes?" because we're animals. So the logical conclusion that would follow is that we're by nature infanticidal, murderous, and are cannibals because it's completely natural in the animal kingdom -- it happens in nature and like homosexuality, should be perfectly acceptable on those grounds.

Whether its good or not is immaterial, since "good v bad" isn't even considered among animals, are since we're just advanced animals, those things are innate to us...no good or bad needed.

If we can employ "logic and reason" when dealing with other humans and violate our innate animal nature to murder and maim, we can likewise use the same logic and reason to curb the desire to have gay sex, or anal sex of any kind.

It does seem somewhat strange how gay marriage proponents want to hand-wave other things clearly acceptable in nature (murder/cannibalism/infanticide) when those are brought up, but then with open arms accept other things "natural", like homosexuality.

TH's point is relevant to the thread, because its a good counter-argument, and can disprove your point that we simply act within the dicates of nature, which has been disproven with the comparisons he made, in my opinion anyway.

I think it is a terrible argument. Texashiker started with the argument that gay sex was unnatural. When he was shown that it was not, he retreated to saying that even if it was that because there are other natural behaviors we prohibit that such a thing was a good reason to ban gay behavior. To me that misses the whole point. The argument for homosexuality is not that it is natural or unnatural.

It isn't a question if we can control parts of our nature, as we can (to a certain extent). The question is why we would want to. It is easy to see why controlling the urge to kill each other is a good idea, but what reason is there to curb some people's desire to have sex with the same sex?

 

[Retro Rob]

I think it is a terrible argument. Texashiker started with the argument that gay sex was unnatural. When he was shown that it was not

I think he's simply using the "nature" argument against you. You simply don't like it because whether or not its "terrible", well, that's a totally subjective argument.

he retreated to saying that even if it was that because there are other natural behaviors we prohibit that such a thing was a good reason to ban gay behavior.

OK. I thought he was saying that if we don't accept his aforementioned animal traits as "natural to humans", (an therefore punish humans for them) then we can't arbitrarily use nature as an argument for homosexuality.

In other words, he's calling you all hypocrites because what you're doing is picking and choosing what you'll accept as natural.

It seems that you are, though. TBH.

It isn't a question if we can control parts of our nature, as we can (to a certain extent). The question is why we would want to. It is easy to see why controlling the urge to kill each other is a good idea, but what reason is there to curb some people's desire to have sex with the same sex?

You don't think its a good idea to control sexual desires? Really? Now, I'm talking about gay and straight here. Gay men have a history of NOT being monogamous, having sex with both women and men throughout recorded history. That's spreads diseases. Not a good thing.

Likewise, straights (especially men) are contributing to fatherless families, broken marriages, ruined homes and distrust by philandering around.

We actually would benefit from more monogamy.

 

[fskimospy]

I think he's simply using the "nature" argument against you. You simply don't like it because whether or not its "terrible", well, that's a totally subjective argument.

OK. I thought he was saying that if we don't accept his aforementioned animal traits as "natural to humans", (an therefore punish humans for them) then we can't arbitrarily use nature as an argument for homosexuality.

In other words, he's calling you all hypocrites because what you're doing is picking and choosing what you'll accept as natural.

It seems that you are, though. TBH.

You mean the exact opposite, right? He is picking and choosing what he calls natural and we are accepting all things that occur in nature as natural. Our beliefs are 100% consistent while his are all over the place.

I just simply don't care if something is natural or not. It has nothing to do with my support for gay marriage. He was the one making the argument that homosexuality was unnatural and should not be accepted due to that.

You don't think its a good idea to control sexual desires? Really? Now, I'm talking about gay and straight here. Gay men have a history of NOT being monogamous, having sex with both women and men throughout recorded history. That's spreads diseases. Not a good thing.

Likewise, straights (especially men) are contributing to fatherless families, broken marriages, ruined homes and distrust by philandering around.

We actually would benefit from more monogamy.

So your argument is that having multiple partners is a problem. From that logic we would benefit from more gay marriage.

 

[bshole]

Gay men have a history of NOT being monogamous, having sex with both women and men throughout recorded history.

MEN in general have a history of NOT being monogamous. Men will bang just about anybody who says yes to them. Women have a history of being monogamous. Every one of the hundreds of women I bedded in my life had to be talked it into it. No woman EVER had to talk me into bed.

PRO tip, to avoid disease, bed them when they are young (18-22).

We actually would benefit from more monogamy.

If you believe we would benefit from MORE monogamy, why in the FUCK would you oppose gay marriage?!!!!?????!!!!

 

[Retro Rob]

MEN in general have a history of NOT being monogamous. Face, gay or straight men will bang just about anybody who says yes to them. Women have a history of being monogamous. Every one of the hundreds of women I bedded in my life had to be talked it into it. No woman EVER had to talk me into bed. PRO tip, to avoid disease, bed them when they are young (18-22).

You're dumb...you didn't even read my post before your started frothing all over your keyboard, did you?

Now, I'm talking about gay and straight here.

...is exactly what I said.

If you believe we would benefit from MORE monogamy, why in the FUCK would you oppose gay marriage?!!!!?????!!!!

You don't need to marry to be monogamous. Go get a clue, please.

 

[Retro Rob]

So your argument is that having multiple partners is a problem. From that logic we would benefit from more gay marriage.

So are you suggesting that gays aren't monogamous because they can't marry?

Then of what benefit would gay marriage serve in that regard if they're sleeping around now? History bears out that marriage alone doesn't make anyone monogamous, gay or striaight.

I'm sure you're aware of the 50 freaking percent divorce rate in this country (which is sad).

 

[fskimospy]

So are you suggesting that gays aren't monogamous because they can't marry?

Then of what benefit would gay marriage serve in that regard if they're sleeping around now? History bears out that marriage alone doesn't make anyone monogamous, gay or striaight.

I'm sure you're aware of the 50 freaking percent divorce rate in this country (which is sad).

No, I'm saying that marriage, in the aggregate, decreases the number of sexual partners people tend to have in their lifetimes. Since you view having many partners to be a problem, having as many people married as possible certainly seems like a positive step, no?

 

[dank69]

I think he's simply using the "nature" argument against you. You simply don't like it because whether or not its "terrible", well, that's a totally subjective argument.



OK. I thought he was saying that if we don't accept his aforementioned animal traits as "natural to humans", (an therefore punish humans for them) then we can't arbitrarily use nature as an argument for homosexuality.

In other words, he's calling you all hypocrites because what you're doing is picking and choosing what you'll accept as natural.

It seems that you are, though. TBH.



You don't think its a good idea to control sexual desires? Really? Now, I'm talking about gay and straight here. Gay men have a history of NOT being monogamous, having sex with both women and men throughout recorded history. That's spreads diseases. Not a good thing.

Likewise, straights (especially men) are contributing to fatherless families, broken marriages, ruined homes and distrust by philandering around.

We actually would benefit from more monogamy.

Monogamy had benefits when we didn't understand how to prevent/reduce the transmission of STDs in other ways.