Well, FWIW, cats are much better on the grill.
“...Why do the queers not invent their own religion and write their own scriptures?..”
That is what is slowly happening, only many people won’t be able to immediately tell the difference between the two.
I wonder how Mrs. Adams feels about his opposition to "post-marital sex."
“Why do the queers not invent their own religion and write their own scriptures?”
...with their own Saints. Puh-leeze.
Why do they have to misappropriate good old St. Jude?
Can’t they have a St. Gianni Versace or St. Freddy Mercury??
Speaking of cooking cats:
As a side note, it’s probably one of the best decorated churches in the area....
An interesting notion about the corrupt is that they are actually afraid of their own beliefs. Even they, for the most part, grasp that corruption is, well, corruption. Wallowing in a sewer. Living in a state of disgust and swinish excess.
What they really want is to live and be sloppy in a “clean house”, but not have to clean up after themselves. And they want to be admired for being slobs, to have others want to be slobs as well. But only as long as there is still cleanliness around, that the others who admire them still keep the place clean, and not actually become slobs.
Thus they have a great desire to corrupt others, but shun them if they accept. Innocence is great if it can be ruined, but the result should be discarded like used tissue paper.
An interesting example of this is when Californians leave their State because they are sick of the filth, porn, greed, drugs, etc., and move to a rural town in Utah. They have a huge, expensive house built for themselves, and ten minutes later are bored to death. They miss the porn, they want their drugs, the “night life”, licentiousness, etc., but not enough to want to return to California. Instead, they want to bring these things to rural Utah.
Needless to say, the Utahans are not particularly thrilled with the idea.
This makes the Californians angry. How *dare* the Utahans be so *prudish* and “stuck-up”, and try to “force their values” on the Californian newcomers, and not let them molest their children.
It is interesting how this idea can be extrapolated throughout much of our society. For example, the liberals in the Episcopal church are horrified with the notion of a schism with the conservatives, because the liberal Episcopalians know that on their own, without the conservatives, the liberal church will wither and die. Instead they want the conservatives to finance their weird beliefs, and enjoy the idea of forcing new perverse doctrines on them.
It’s also not surprise that pro-abortion “Catholics” still call themselves “Catholics”, even though they utterly reject the doctrines of the church to the point of being atheists.
Conservative clergy point to a number of Bible verses, including Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as demonstrating that homosexual conduct is sin, against God's will.
The Metropolitan Community Church, at its Web site, argues that such verses are cited out of cultural context. Citing biblical scholars, it describes the sin of Sodom in Genesis 19 as inhospitality to strangers, not sodomy. It notes that the Old Testament laws of Leviticus also banned other behaviors, such as eating pork, oysters and shrimp, that modern Christians tolerate.
MCC commentaries cite other passages, such as Romans 14:14 ("I know and am persuaded of the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself
") and suggest that some figures of the Bible, such as David and Jonathan or Ruth and Naomi, may have entered homosexual unions.
Mike Adams said it beautifully.