Wow, it seems like I don't need a woman to make babies....

[Kev]

ugh why did this have to turn in to a religion thread

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: maladroit
ugh why did this have to turn in to a religion thread

Just people discussing offshoot topics, sorry. Multiple discussions go on in a single thread often.

 

[Kev]

ok well can someone please try to refute my "4.45 times as likely" claim from a few posts above. if it's true, that kinda proves leinadM's point from earlier in this thread where he dimwittedly argued his point.

i have no bias against gays though, i'm just trying to look at this objectively.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: maladroit
ok well can someone please try to refute my "4.45 times as likely" claim from a few posts above. if it's true, that kinda proves leinadM's point from earlier in this thread where he dimwittedly argued his point.

i have no bias against gays though, i'm just trying to look at this objectively.

Not as an attempt to refute but as a possible third variable explanation - would it be possible that people whose sexual orientation is not socially acceptable and therefore surpressed would be more inclined to molest children? Just repeating arguments I've heard made.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Hatari Chic

Originally posted by: maladroit
ok well can someone please try to refute my "4.45 times as likely" claim from a few posts above. if it's true, that kinda proves leinadM's point from earlier in this thread where he dimwittedly argued his point.

i have no bias against gays though, i'm just trying to look at this objectively.

Not as an attempt to refute but as a possible third variable explanation - would it be possible that people whose sexual orientation is not socially acceptable and therefore surpressed would be more inclined to molest children? Just repeating arguments I've heard made.

so is that argument in favor of the claim that gays are more likely to be pedophiles (and caused by society)

just making sure because you were on the other side of the debate for the rest of the thread.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: maladroit

Originally posted by: Hatari Chic

Originally posted by: maladroit
ok well can someone please try to refute my "4.45 times as likely" claim from a few posts above. if it's true, that kinda proves leinadM's point from earlier in this thread where he dimwittedly argued his point.

i have no bias against gays though, i'm just trying to look at this objectively.

Not as an attempt to refute but as a possible third variable explanation - would it be possible that people whose sexual orientation is not socially acceptable and therefore surpressed would be more inclined to molest children? Just repeating arguments I've heard made.

so is that argument in favor of the claim that gays are more likely to be pedophiles (and caused by society)

just making sure because you were on the other side of the debate for the rest of the thread.

I am on the other side of the debate, but I see some possible logic in that argument so I don't mind positing it.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: leinadM
Quote: "If the science holds true in humans as in mice -- and several scientists said they suspect it will -- then a gay male couple might, before long, be able to produce children through sexual reproduction, with one man contributing sperm and the other fresh eggs bearing his own genes."

THAT'S SICK! I'm sorry, but nothing makes me more angry than hearing about two gay people raising children.

Raising children? You mean MAKING children. And then you're going to need serogate mothers to host the fetus to full term. This is just getting too screwed up.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Does this mean that women are now completely useless? (<---heavy sarcasm) 😉

Nope still need a womb... a COGENITOR! :Q We're going to become a 3 gender species! :Q

 

[UNCjigga]

Would a child with two gay biological parents have a higher chance of being gay?? Would the child be super-gay (like you know, the whole triple chromosome thing??)

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: leinadM
Some people take joy in standing for everything that is the oppisite of right...

hahah...

Some people don't know why they believe certain things so they have no way of defending those beliefs.

Some people wuss out and just don't believe in anything and let someone else clean up the mess.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Would a child with two gay biological parents have a higher chance of being gay?? Would the child be super-gay (like you know, the whole triple chromosome thing??)

Doesn't triple chromosome lead to hermaphroditism?

I think the better question would be... would the child be considered a half-clone? I'm observing that non-gamete cells used for creating new animals is resulting in premature breakdown, most likely because the lifespan of the first cell already reached a certain age. Just like Dolly the Sheep, where she prematurely reached old age and suffered diseases not typical of a young sheep.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this... but to use this to recover extinct species, i don't know if that's a good idea, it's representative of us assuming that we know better than natural selection which by no means is a simple calculation to understand in the bigger picture.

 

[leinadM]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: leinadM
Quote: "If the science holds true in humans as in mice -- and several scientists said they suspect it will -- then a gay male couple might, before long, be able to produce children through sexual reproduction, with one man contributing sperm and the other fresh eggs bearing his own genes."

THAT'S SICK! I'm sorry, but nothing makes me more angry than hearing about two gay people raising children.

Raising children? You mean MAKING children. And then you're going to need serogate mothers to host the fetus to full term. This is just getting too screwed up.

Exactly!

 

[everman]

Now doesn't this just take all the fun out of it?! :disgust:

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: leinadM
Some people take joy in standing for everything that is the oppisite of right...

hahah...

Some people don't know why they believe certain things so they have no way of defending those beliefs.

Some people wuss out and just don't believe in anything and let someone else clean up the mess.

Is this supposed to be directed at me somehow?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Ulfwald

Originally posted by: classy
May God in heaven have mercy on us. This homo stuff is just going to damn far. Its sickening, appauling, and down right disgusting. :disgust:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I will try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.



Yes, I took this from that letter to Dr. Laura, but it seemd to fit this situation. SO FRIGGIN DEAL WITH IT!!!!

Well ask and you will recieve. First there are two covenants. The old and the new one which is the covenant through Jesus. The reason Christ came was because God knew men were unable to keep the laws. Those who accpeted The God of Isarel as under the old covenant were to obey the law because they were to be an example before the unbelievers. So through living a certain way before God was required so that through us many other men would come to know him. The problem was even though men lived in a certain way they were still dead spiritually to God. Upon death they did not enter heaven but instead were sent to what was called paradise or Abraham's bosom. Thats why God spoke to men through prophets. So Christ came so that man could be born again in Spirit so they could enter the presence of God the Father who is holy. So now we can go to God ourselves without anyone to get forgiveness. So where does sin fall into the equation? When a person is born again he has the eternal right to redemption through the cross of Cavalry. Part of that plan is the rebirth of the human spirit and forgiveness of sins. Christ was the perfect and last sacrafice to God. God forgives through justifcation. So to forgive eternally through grace he accepts Christ death on the cross for our sins as the justifaction to forgive so that no penalty is required of us. Thats why anyone regardless of their sin can recieve Christ and go to heaven upon death. Let me say this here going to heaven is only a part of redemption. Now where does sin come into play? When a person asks for forgiveness or repent of their sin God forgives them. But he requires them to turn away from their sin. So a born again person who lives in sinful behavior is only kidding themselves if they think God will accept them. He won't, because he can't. Example, If you have sex out of wedlock you get forgiveness. What if you can't stop, God says well then get married. Why? So he can have fellowship with you. See God can't fellowship with a person in sin. Sin and God don't mix. Never have, never will. Satan got kicked out of heaven because God found sin in him. So these folks who tount God loves all is right, he does. He instituted a program whereby all may have fellowship with him. If your out of the program then you don't get the benefits. I could really go deep with this but I think this rough draft gets to the point. If a person is bound in any sin, not just homosexual stuff, their prayer should be for God to deliver them. Because thats all he's going to do. He's not going to accept them in their state and says its okay. This is the truth. I laugh sometimes when I see christians living like whatever 6 days a week and then be saved on Sunday. No one is perfect and never will be. But that is no excuse not to try to live right. And if a person loves God more than his sin then he will turn away and find strength to not do those things anymore. I used to be very violent and I been saved for years. But it wasn't till I really asked God to forgive me did I get on right track. I have done well and its interesting how my life has changed and its getting better. I still get angry and every so often get to the point I want rip someone's face off but after awhile the spirt God convicts me and I repent and go on. I'll be doing this in some areas the rest of my life but I don't live that way anymore. Being homosexual in God's eyes is no different than a person who is a liar or a whore monger. They go to God and aks for forgiveness and turn away. Sure their going to have bouts of emotions and challenges, its called temptation. But after awhile they'll overcome. As its says in scripture they'll overcome by the blood of the Lamb.

"classical one" out 🙂

 

[toant103]

Originally posted by: leinadM
People have too much time on their hands.

 

[Marauder-]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation

Originally posted by: leinadM
People have too much time on their hands.

 

[Azraele]

Gentic research has great promise in the medical field, but some of the stuff they're learning is frightening.

 

[Kipper]

Humans are horrifically ethically primitive. Science needs to slow down so human ethics can catch up. No, I don't mean RELIGIOUS ethics. I mean SCIENTIFIC ethics. Yes, it is possible to have ethics without religion - sorry to all those people out there, but as an only child with a single parent, it is entirely possible to be raised without a father present, etc.

It happens ALL the time, except in this country where it occurs rarely and we have thousands of kids in the system who are routinely abused, not taken care of, or have no parents to speak of. If there are people willing to take them in, why stop them just because of their sexual orientation?

 

[tec699]

So the baby comes out the dudes butt?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW...........................

But what happens if the dude does a #2 and poops out the baby?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.................................................


That's like sick. :Q

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: tec699
So the baby comes out the dudes butt?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW...........................

But what happens if the dude does a #2 and poops out the baby?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.................................................


That's like sick. :Q

Read the article and have some common sense. IT would be grown in a lab but contain the genetic material of both males.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: leinadM
Some people take joy in standing for everything that is the oppisite of right...

hahah...

Some people don't know why they believe certain things so they have no way of defending those beliefs.

Some people wuss out and just don't believe in anything and let someone else clean up the mess.

lol what "mess" are you referring to? Not only was that a random thing to say, but saying there's a mess to be cleaned up is absurd.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: tec699
So the baby comes out the dudes butt?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW...........................

But what happens if the dude does a #2 and poops out the baby?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.................................................


That's like sick. :Q

ROFLMAO!!!!! :sun:

 

[Jugernot]

Actually I remember back in my high school biology class, my teacher told me that is would be phsically possible for a man to carry a baby through term as many woman have been found to carry babies outside their placenta (spelling?). It's dangerous, but possible... the next problem is how is the man going to give nutrients to the baby without a cord?

Jugs

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Jugernot
Actually I remember back in my high school biology class, my teacher told me that is would be phsically possible for a man to carry a baby through term as many woman have been found to carry babies outside their placenta (spelling?) 😕. It's dangerous, but possible... the next problem is how is the man going to give nutrients to the baby without a cord?

Jugs

You failed that biology class, didn't you?