Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
2208

[quote]forlife wrote:
harris447 wrote:
(PS: I did print out some of your posts and show them to some of my students before school ended. They now call stupid and bigoted people “Zebs.” You’re famous!)

LOL! Classic :D[/quote]

Let’s stay on topic ole’ buddy:

"-An average of 71% of all people who have voted in state elections on the gay marriage initiative have voted it DOWN! They also voted it down to accept a homosexual “married” couple from any other state in the union!

And keep in mind that not many of the 71% are Christian fundamentalits. The average person does not want homosexual marriage. And that’s what forlife does not want you to know.

But back to religion…

…how many of the worlds major religions promote homosexuality? ZERO

Keep posting forlife we are getting closer to 100 pages! And you are helping me spread the truth."

:slight_smile:

2209

[quote]forlife wrote:
If you were truly worried about gays spreading AIDS, you would support government sanctioned gay unions, since this has been shown to DECREASE the incidence of disease.

We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.

But that is not what you are about. You are far more interested in pushing a homophobic religious agenda than in actually helping people.[/quote]

LOL - Sanctioning gay unions decreases AIDS - that is some funny stuff. You may need to go back through this thread and do some reading. In fact, Zeb, perhaps you could put out a few stats to refresh forlife’s memory.

Tell me something forlife - what happens in a society that embrases a particular behavior? Never mind - I’ll tell you. It happens more! And, unfortunately for you and the other homos, homos find it pretty darn hard to stay with just one partner!

So, why don’t you just quit playing the wounded duck role - you want justification for a dangerous act because you are a selfish person. You are not going to get it from me. I care about you too much. Unfortunately, it seems you don’t care about yourself.

2210

[quote]harris447 wrote:

(PS: I did print out some of your posts and show them to some of my students before school ended. They now call stupid and bigoted people “Zebs.” You’re famous!)[/quote]

Have you ever shown them your posts? No,I imagine not. If you did, they’d realize how little you know. Then, it’d be back to the trailer for you harris :wink:

By the way, you may not know this, but students don’t take the gym teach all that seriously in jr. high, so they are probably just humoring you.

2211

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Let’s see…

harris has already stated that he does not think there is anything wrong with polygamy…That’s not “icky” to him.

So…let’s move on…Can you hear the politically correct left stating:

"What’s wrong with a man having sex with a 10 year old girl…oh you don’t like it because you think it’s ‘icky.’

"What’s wrong with the guy having sex with his German Shepard…Oh you don’t like it cause it makes you feel “icky?”

[/quote]

I would like to see harris and forlife answer this. How do you feel about a man having sex with a 10 year old girl? a ten year old boy? a german shepard?

Neither one of these hypocrites have answered these questions in this entire thread. Why you ask? Because they don’t care about right and wrong - they only care about what makes them feel good.

So, I want to hear the response to this from both these goofballs.

2212

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Tell me something forlife - what happens in a society that embrases a particular behavior? Never mind - I’ll tell you. It happens more! [/quote]

That may be your stereotype, but it doesn’t make it real. In case you missed it earlier:

We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.

In countries that have implemented government sanctions for gay unions, the incidence of AIDS and other STDs has DECREASED. You may not like that statistic, but it is real. Are you going to bury your head in the sand, or do you actually care about people rather than pushing a religious agenda?

2213

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I would like to see harris and forlife answer this. How do you feel about a man having sex with a 10 year old girl? a ten year old boy? a german shepard?

Neither one of these hypocrites have answered these questions in this entire thread.[/quote]

Wrong. I have answered the question numerous times. You just didn’t like my answer.

I have always said that each case of potential government sanction for a union should be based on the FACTS supported through objective evidence, rather than RELIGIOUS BELIEFS based on fabrication and fantasy. Does the union do more harm than good as demonstrated by actual empirical data?

I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that having sex with a 10 year-old would cause significant potential trauma to a child without the capacity to make an adult decision like that. An animal similarly cannot make an informed decision because it lacks the intelligence. So obviously (assuming the data actually support that statement) it shouldn’t be sanctioned by the government.

That is very different than a union between two consenting and informed adults.

You’ll note that the suggested standard for making the decision is consistently based on FACTs, not on whether or not I find something personally repulsive. Frankly, I can’t imagine anything more disgusting than performing oral sex on a woman. But I wouldn’t presume to make it illegal for straight couples to marry if they planned to practice cunnilingus. That is none of my business.

2214

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Tell me something forlife - what happens in a society that embrases a particular behavior? Never mind - I’ll tell you. It happens more!

That may be your stereotype, but it doesn’t make it real. In case you missed it earlier:

We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.

In countries that have implemented government sanctions for gay unions, the incidence of AIDS and other STDs has DECREASED. You may not like that statistic, but it is real. Are you going to bury your head in the sand, or do you actually care about people rather than pushing a religious agenda?[/quote]

Speaking of other countries I want to remind you that in the Netherlands with in four years of gay “marriage” being sanctioned by the government polygamist civil unions were taking place!

SLIPPERY SLOPE THEORY GETS A BOOST.

Here Come the Brides
Plural marriage is waiting in the wings.
by Stanley Kurtz

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they’d met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or “cohabitation contract,” the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as “100 percent heterosexual,” attributes the trio’s success to his wives’ bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy.

The De Bruijns’ triple union caused a sensation in the Netherlands, drawing coverage from television, radio, and the press. With TV cameras and reporters crowding in, the wedding celebration turned into something of a media circus. Halfway through the festivities, the trio had to appoint one of their guests as a press liaison. The local paper ran several stories on the triple marriage, one devoted entirely to the
media madhouse.

News of the Dutch three-way wedding filtered into the United States through a September 26 report by Paul Belien, on his Brussels Journal website. The story spread through the conservative side of the Internet like wildfire, raising a chorus of “I told you so’s” from bloggers who’d long warned of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates scrambled to put out the fire. M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and research director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, told a sympathetic website, “This [Brussels Journal] article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled–Dutch law does not allow polygamy.” Badgett suggested that Paul Belien had deliberately mistranslated the Dutch word for “cohabitation contract” as “civil union,” or even “marriage,” so as to leave the false impression that the triple union had more legal weight than it did. Prominent gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, offered up a detailed legal account of Dutch cohabitation contracts, treating them as a matter of minor significance, in no way comparable to state-recognized registered partnerships.

In short, while the Dutch triple wedding set the conservative blogosphere ablaze with warnings, same-sex marriage advocates dismissed the story as a silly stunt with absolutely no implications for the gay marriage debate. And how did America’s mainstream media adjudicate the radically different responses of same-sex marriage advocates and opponents to events in the Netherlands? By ignoring the entire affair.

Yet there is a story here. And it’s bigger than even those chortling conservative websites claim. While Victor, Bianca, and Mirjam are joined by a private cohabitation contract rather than a state-registered partnership or a full-fledged marriage, their union has already made serious legal, political, and cultural waves in the Netherlands. To observers on both sides of the Dutch gay marriage debate, the De Bruijns’ triple wedding is an unmistakable step down the road to legalized group marriage."

http://weeklystandard.com/...06/494pqobc.asp

This occurred only four years after gay marriage was legalized.

2215

[quote]forlife wrote:
But I wouldn’t presume to make it illegal for straight couples to marry if they planned to practice cunnilingus. That is none of my business.[/quote]

And what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business. But when you want the government to sanction it…Then it becomes MY BUSINESS!

2216

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I would like to see harris and forlife answer this. How do you feel about a man having sex with a 10 year old girl? a ten year old boy? a german shepard?

Neither one of these hypocrites have answered these questions in this entire thread.

Wrong. I have answered the question numerous times. You just didn’t like my answer.

I have always said that each case of potential government sanction for a union should be based on the FACTS supported through objective evidence, rather than RELIGIOUS BELIEFS based on fabrication and fantasy. Does the union do more harm than good as demonstrated by actual empirical data?

I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that having sex with a 10 year-old would cause significant potential trauma to a child without the capacity to make an adult decision like that. An animal similarly cannot make an informed decision because it lacks the intelligence. So obviously (assuming the data actually support that statement) it shouldn’t be sanctioned by the government.

That is very different than a union between two consenting and informed adults.

You’ll note that the suggested standard for making the decision is consistently based on FACTs, not on whether or not I find something personally repulsive. Frankly, I can’t imagine anything more disgusting than performing oral sex on a woman. But I wouldn’t presume to make it illegal for straight couples to marry if they planned to practice cunnilingus. That is none of my business.[/quote]

I love these facts. Do you want another fact? Men having sex with men can not produce children. How about another one - your butt was not designed (or created, if you prefer) to stick things inside of it.

How about another fact? You want special treatment because you choose to have sex with men.

So, dogs are not intelligent, huh? Does that really matter if dogs are property? And, if someone wants to marry his property, what should it matter to you. If he wants to stick his pecker in his property, what should it matter to you.

The fact is, wrong is wrong no matter how you try to spin it. Sex with dogs is just as wrong as men having sex with each other. That is why it isnt legal!

2217

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Tell me something forlife - what happens in a society that embrases a particular behavior? Never mind - I’ll tell you. It happens more!

That may be your stereotype, but it doesn’t make it real. In case you missed it earlier:

We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.

In countries that have implemented government sanctions for gay unions, the incidence of AIDS and other STDs has DECREASED. You may not like that statistic, but it is real. Are you going to bury your head in the sand, or do you actually care about people rather than pushing a religious agenda?[/quote]

Here you go again with the relgious agenda. Are you going to accept the facts in this thread or keep pushing your own selfish agenda? My goodness, Zeb has given you 80 pages of proof and you are still too blind to see it!

2218

Now don’t get me wrong, my mother is not a lesbian, because she is a good and decent Christian woman and I heard somewhere that gay people go to hell because their impeccable sense of fashion and excellent salsa dancing techniques are a direct infraction of the Holy Scripture which pretty much says that you have to be modest and ugly.

Which is why there are a lot of ugly girls at Church, and sometimes there are hot girls at Church but if you are looking at girls at Church you’re probably going to be going to hell, depending on whether or not you masturbate that night thinking about them.

Even if you don’t masturbate that night thinking about them, you’re probably going to hell anyways because only gays don’t masturbate to the thought of sexy girls, and we all know where the gays go, right? The gay bars. And then hell. And then the gay bars in hell.

Which are full of naked women and there is not a single cowboy or sailor in sight. Since God is going to judge and send them to Hell anyway, why should we do anything about this?

2219

[/quote]

OK – I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have some sort of memory issue or something. I am really not trying to be insulting, but I know I wrote responses – real responses to your questions. I will do this ONE MORE TIME so that you can understand where I am coming from.

In order for you to do this, you will have to come down from your gay hobby horse for a minute and stop thinking gay. Have an open mind and we will begin…[quote]

forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
You also keep bringing up the “lobster” thing which I already dealt with, but you IGNORE.

Actually, you haven’t dealt with it. I’m just looking for some logical consistency in how you interpret the bible. You say that homosexuality is wrong because the bible calls it an ABOMINATION. Guess what? The bible also calls eating lobster an ABOMINATION. It says you should not wear mixed fibers or eat blood.

Your response is that Jesus “took care of all of that”. Again, you are doctrinally wrong. What Jesus claimed to fulfill was the law of moses, i.e., the sacrificial offerings that were supposed to portend his coming. He didn’t do away with the 10 commandments (given through Moses), with the commandment not to wear mixed fibers, with the proscription against eating lobster, etc. If you want to try and prove otherwise, be my guest…but beware that I know the bible at least as well as you do.[/quote]

The entire Law of Moses is one unified set of laws, commandments, and statutes specifically given to the Nation of Israel in a theocracy. This Law and all of its tenents have never been operative for the church. The church is under what is called the “New Covenant” which can be found in Jeremiah 31:31ff. Where the Old Covenant operated externally through the Law of Moses, the New Covenant (as described in Jeremiah) operates internally in the hearts of believers. That means, while it is still a sin to lie, covet your neighbors wife, have other gods beside God, etc, we don’t live by the external law.

Jesus did fulfill the Law and at the same time ABOLISHED the Law as an external rule of life (Ephesians 2:15) – we are now in the age of grace.

The New Testament is the document that governs believers in this period called the Church Age. Notice that in the New Testament, we are not given any of the Law of Moses to perform – it has been abolished as I stated above (Ephesians 2:15).

That being said, however, we still have [b] in the New Testament the injunction against homosexuality! Since this is in the NT – it means it is still operative for today.

See Romans 1:20-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Revelation 21:8 [quote]

Even setting all of that aside, you have continued to ignore my point about the NEW TESTAMENT injunction against women speaking in church (not just women pastors), and against women having their heads uncovered. Hmmm…somehow it is now ok for women not to cover their heads in church, but you have no scriptural justification for doing away with that commandment. [/quote]

I didn’t say just women pastors. What I said is that the injunction against women speaking in the church covers women either preaching or teaching or leading men. As far as the head covernings, some churches of like faith with mine believes that women should have their heads covered, while some beleive (FROM THE PASSAGE THAT YOU ARE ALLUDING TO (1 Corinthians 11:15) that their hair is the covering. [quote]

The point of all this?

You are a smorgasbord Christian. You take from the bible what you want to believe, and blatantly ignore what you don’t want to believe. If women having their heads covered in church is no longer relevant, maybe the jewish cultural bias against homosexuality is also no longer relevant. Ya think?[/quote]

No, I don’t think so – and I am sure you are not thinking. Your gay agenda is blinding you to whatever I write in response to you. You continue to just ignore the Biblical Facts that I have presented. Read the passages that I quoted – there are much more you know.

As I have said, I try to live my life according to God’s Word. The Bible must be interpreted in its grammatical and historical context. All of the Bible is for us (believers in the church today) but all of the Bible is not about us. There is a distinction.

This is the last time I will go “round” with you on these matters. I will answer any new question, but these have been asked and answered…

2220

[quote]forlife wrote:
The Bible tells us NOWHERE that slavery is right.

So you claim, but the racial bigots of the 19th century believed otherwise. They were absolutely convinced that the bible sanctioned slavery, and they used the bible to rationalize their bigotry just as you are doing with homosexuality.

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.
Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.
A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.
United States Senator James Henry Hammond.[/quote]

You are really hopless. Who cares what bigoted people told themselves to make them feel better about slavery. Do you not remember that Hitler’s henchmen wore on their belt buckles the insciption “All for God?”

The fact that men have in the past twisted the Bible for their own purposes has nothing whatsoever to do with [b] THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION. This is what it clearly says – no interpretation needed.

Now, you are free in the U.S. to do what you want – but God doesn’t work on the “majority rules” basis. God is the majority and you have been out voted.

2221

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I THOUGHT HOMOSEXUALITY WAS SIN WAY BEFORE I EVER BECAME A CHRISTIAN.

Many racial bigots and misogynists weren’t Christian either. What is your point? [/quote]

If you have to ask this, you really have some issues…

Read the post where it appeared. It is very clear to everyone else.

2222

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You said that you were finished with this thread. You were not going to post here anymore. Why did you lie harris? Didn’t like how I treated you in the last couple of posts?

Get used to it. Eventually we all get what we deserve.

Also, you seem to be posting during school hours. Tell us all how this helps the children in your class?

Just more stealing from the school district huh?

Yea…it’s easy so why not? It would actually take some integrity to do what’s best for the district and the children in your class.

harris447 wrote:

Thank god you don’t like me.

You’re a pathetic, see-through bigot.

I actually went through some of your posts last night.

You claim (well, lie, actualy) that you “just want to help” people who are afflicted with the dread homosexuality.

Yet, you dont’t post about wanting to help obese people.Or the poor.

Etc, etc.

Actually, dim wit I’ve posted on plenty of topics from homosexuality to obesity, to helping people improve in the gym and many many other helpful posts. In fact, I just posted on another thread to help someone who has a chiropractic problem.

Where as you are here representing the underbelly of life. A hate line here a hate line there…Why don’t you go back over your own posts and read them out loud? I think you could gain a very good insight into what many of us already know. And that is, you are totally worthless to this site. Hopefully you mask your true self in your real life…but somehow I doubt it.

you call gays diseased sinners.

Actually I have never called gays “diseased sinners.” That little phrase like many of your posts is a lie.

If quoting from a government web site that the great amount of disease that homosexuals happen to have and pass along, bothers you perhaps you better take it up with The Center For Disease Control (CDC). As the information I posted largely came directly from their site.

I’ve said it before, and now I’ll repeat it; it’s been proven true by you evvery word: you don’t like fags.

Wrong again, it’s you I don’t like. And I can honestly say that I don’t feel that way about any other single person that I have ever debated with on this forum. But you really are a sick low life. A venomous little man who gets his kicks attacking people on the Internet.

I have no idea what has happened in your life that created your mindset. I can’t imagine what it would be but the bitterness that you carry is incredible.

And that I have held off this long in telling you off is a testimony to patience. That anyone on this site puts up with your crap past two or three posts is also utterly amazing. You need to count your blessings that TC has not booted your worhless butt off this great site by now.

It’s an ugly, small-minded wold view you have and I’m grateful that we’ll never have to meet in person.

All you have seen are posts in this thread and similar ones is that I am
in favor of traditional values. And opposed to gay marriage, Polygamy, incest, pedophilia and beastiality.

Now that’s small minded. LOL…

…you are one very disturbed individual.

The smell would be neauseating.

And all this coming from a guy who wants the government to sanction one man sticking his penis up another mans anus. And also finds polygamist marriage to be perfectly alright. Were you in favor of legalized drug use when you were taking drugs?

LOL…Go away harris…Time to stop stealing from the scool district. Get back to work, you have plenty of young minds to poison!

AHHHH!

Now we come to the truth.

It’s not about helping people.

(No one ever believed that that’s what you were doing.)

It’s about the fact that you find a “man putting his penis in another man’s anus” repulsive.[/quote]

Harris, and you don’t find this repulsive? Are YOU gay too?[quote]

Rights, freedom, equality…these all wither and die and the face of you finding something icky.

So icky that it’s tantamount to fucking dogs, right? And anyone that supports gay rights and calls you out for the bigot that you are must support bestiality and pedophilia, right? [/quote]

Well, think logically, Harris, for the moment you are not thinking of a four letter word to call me…

…now if, as you claim, this is a discrimination issue or an issue of “equal rights,” then who are we to stop those who wish to have sex with dogs, sheep, goats, kids, etc? I mean, it wouldn’t be fair to all of the others who wish to engage in what has always been regarded as abnormal and sinful. See? [quote]

That’s even dumber than terribleivan’s mouth-breathing, but it’s actully refreshing to hear what you really think.

Traditional values are anti dog-and-kid fucking. Good job, there, shithead. Surely, there will be a spot for you in “heaven” for your brave stance aginst these evils that are so widespread. [/quote]

Traditional values have always regarded gay sex as sinful, abnormal, and repulsive. What are you talking about?[quote]

And the posting during school hours: have you ever heard of summer vacation, moron?

(PS: I did print out some of your posts and show them to some of my students before school ended. They now call stupid and bigoted people “Zebs.” You’re famous!)[/quote]

Oh, Harris, please make me famous too! You should print your posts out for the kids so you can be famous as the teacher with the fithiest vocabulary in the nation. I hope you don’t speak to the kids that way at school. If you do, you should be fired.

2223

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Harris, and you don’t find this repulsive? Are YOU gay too?

[/quote]

Why SteveO are you cruising for a piece of ass ?

2224

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Speaking of other countries I want to remind you that in the Netherlands with in four years of gay “marriage” being sanctioned by the government polygamist civil unions were taking place!

[/quote]

How many homosexual people do you think said that polygamist civil unions would never happen when they kept wanting to justify their own behavior?

2225

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

OK – I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have some sort of memory issue or something. I am really not trying to be insulting, but I know I wrote responses – real responses to your questions. I will do this ONE MORE TIME so that you can understand where I am coming from.

In order for you to do this, you will have to come down from your gay hobby horse for a minute and stop thinking gay. Have an open mind and we will begin…

forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
You also keep bringing up the “lobster” thing which I already dealt with, but you IGNORE.

Actually, you haven’t dealt with it. I’m just looking for some logical consistency in how you interpret the bible. You say that homosexuality is wrong because the bible calls it an ABOMINATION. Guess what? The bible also calls eating lobster an ABOMINATION. It says you should not wear mixed fibers or eat blood.

Your response is that Jesus “took care of all of that”. Again, you are doctrinally wrong. What Jesus claimed to fulfill was the law of moses, i.e., the sacrificial offerings that were supposed to portend his coming. He didn’t do away with the 10 commandments (given through Moses), with the commandment not to wear mixed fibers, with the proscription against eating lobster, etc. If you want to try and prove otherwise, be my guest…but beware that I know the bible at least as well as you do.

The entire Law of Moses is one unified set of laws, commandments, and statutes specifically given to the Nation of Israel in a theocracy. This Law and all of its tenents have never been operative for the church. The church is under what is called the “New Covenant” which can be found in Jeremiah 31:31ff. Where the Old Covenant operated externally through the Law of Moses, the New Covenant (as described in Jeremiah) operates internally in the hearts of believers. That means, while it is still a sin to lie, covet your neighbors wife, have other gods beside God, etc, we don’t live by the external law.

Jesus did fulfill the Law and at the same time ABOLISHED the Law as an external rule of life (Ephesians 2:15) – we are now in the age of grace.

The New Testament is the document that governs believers in this period called the Church Age. Notice that in the New Testament, we are not given any of the Law of Moses to perform – it has been abolished as I stated above (Ephesians 2:15).

That being said, however, we still have [b] in the New Testament the injunction against homosexuality! Since this is in the NT – it means it is still operative for today.

See Romans 1:20-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Revelation 21:8

Even setting all of that aside, you have continued to ignore my point about the NEW TESTAMENT injunction against women speaking in church (not just women pastors), and against women having their heads uncovered. Hmmm…somehow it is now ok for women not to cover their heads in church, but you have no scriptural justification for doing away with that commandment.

I didn’t say just women pastors. What I said is that the injunction against women speaking in the church covers women either preaching or teaching or leading men. As far as the head covernings, some churches of like faith with mine believes that women should have their heads covered, while some beleive (FROM THE PASSAGE THAT YOU ARE ALLUDING TO (1 Corinthians 11:15) that their hair is the covering.

The point of all this?

You are a smorgasbord Christian. You take from the bible what you want to believe, and blatantly ignore what you don’t want to believe. If women having their heads covered in church is no longer relevant, maybe the jewish cultural bias against homosexuality is also no longer relevant. Ya think?

No, I don’t think so – and I am sure you are not thinking. Your gay agenda is blinding you to whatever I write in response to you. You continue to just ignore the Biblical Facts that I have presented. Read the passages that I quoted – there are much more you know.

As I have said, I try to live my life according to God’s Word. The Bible must be interpreted in its grammatical and historical context. All of the Bible is for us (believers in the church today) but all of the Bible is not about us. There is a distinction.

This is the last time I will go “round” with you on these matters. I will answer any new question, but these have been asked and answered…

[/quote]

Well said Steveo. It is important for all Christians to remember that Christian denominations will differ in their view of minor issues (cover the head with a garmet is one of them), but they do not differ in their views of the major issues (homosexuality is one of them).

It would be nice for someone like forlife to accept the bible as a whole rather than pick and choose from it as he pleases. All or nothing. We can debate the smaller issues all we want, but when the bible says that homosexuality is blatantly wrong, then it is pretty hard to be a Christian and not accept that fact.

2226

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

Oh, Harris, please make me famous too! You should print your posts out for the kids so you can be famous as the teacher with the fithiest vocabulary in the nation. I hope you don’t speak to the kids that way at school. If you do, you should be fired.

[/quote]

psst, steveo. I don’t think Harris is teaching anyone in a formal setting. Anyone who show no control over his emotions the way harris does would have been fired long ago.

Do you ever get the feeling harris dropped 315 on his head during a failed bench attempt?

2227

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Now we come to the truth.

It’s not about helping people.

(No one ever believed that that’s what you were doing.)

It’s about the fact that you find a “man putting his penis in another man’s anus” repulsive.

Most men do you horses ass!

What would ever make you think in your wildest homosexual dreams that heterosexuals are the least bit attracted to the main homosexual act?

You are so entwined in the politically correct homosexual mindset that you have lost control of reality.

But…It can be about more than one thing. You see adults can look at issues from more than one position. And they can like or not like something for a myriad of reasons.

If you were even 1/10th as smart as you think you are you would realize this, moron!

I would also suggest to you (this is going to come as a big surprise) that most heterosexual men find that one man putting his penis in another mans anus is repulsive!

Where were you when I said long ago on this very site: Calling people homophobic is inaccurate. It’s really more “homorepugnant.”

Men can tolerate homosexuality, (and should) but not many of us think that it’s an “attractive” lifestyle. And beyond that some are actually sickened by the act.

Maybe you missed that huge thread because you were actually teaching at the time and were not stealing hours from that poor shcool district that is unfortunate enough to employ a scum like you.

Rights, freedom, equality…these all wither and die and the face of you finding something icky.

The politically correct left would love to take this natural right away from all of us. They are now dictating what you can and can’t feel repulsed by.

LOL

If they can say you should not feel repulsed by this behavior then they can use that to rationalize most anything huh?

What could be down the road?

What else can they condmn you about feeling “icky” about?

Let’s see…

harris has already stated that he does not think there is anything wrong with polygamy…That’s not “icky” to him.

So…let’s move on…Can you hear the politically correct left stating:

"What’s wrong with a man having sex with a 10 year old girl…oh you don’t like it because you think it’s ‘icky.’

"What’s wrong with the guy having sex with his German Shepard…Oh you don’t like it cause it makes you feel “icky?”

harris your head is so far up your ass that I’m sure at this point you don’t find anything “icky.” After all, smelling your own crap for all these years sort of makes you immune…Ha ha…

(PS: I did print out some of your posts and show them to some of my students before school ended. They now call stupid and bigoted people “Zebs.” You’re famous!)

I’m sure that they say whatever they think you want them to hear. You grade them right? But in reality I’m glad you showed them all my posts. Especially the ones that speak to the issue of homosexuals and physical and emotional health. The CDC has some great facts regarding this issue.

While they pay you lip service they just might be thinking twice about the politically correct bullcrap that you have been shoving down their throats.

Of course I’m sure that you brainwashed many young minds into thinking that Polygamy is perfectly normal? And that homosexuals should have the right to marry? And that George Bush is really an evil guy? And that the VP is somehow making millions because of all that Iraq oil.

And…Whatever else politically correct leftists like you think.

You need to actually get out more. Not to the gay clubs, but to middle America. More people agree with me on traditional values than you harris.

That’s why an average of 71% of all people who actually get to vote on the gay marriage issue have given it a resounding NO!

As soon as you pull your fat head out of your ass and start smelling fresh air again, you might start to understand how hopeless you and your positions are.

Then again after reading your posts for the last few years…I don’t hold out much hope for you.

[/quote]

Thank you, Zeb.

I’ve been right all along: you just don’t like fags.

I’m gonna cut-and-paste this post every time you start feeding people your bullshit “statistics” from those hate sites you frequent so they’ll know you are a liar when you start in with your “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

You think queers are icky and should therefore be discriminated against.

And…if middle America is full of people like you, I’m gonna stay right here in good ol’ college educated New Jersey.