Posted on 02/17/2014 2:47:09 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Oh but yes it is. Trying to twist the Bible to ‘fit’ what the homosexuals would like it to say is insanity. ...it's like them trying to “fit” where their junk doesn't belong.
It's a ‘sexual addiction’ gone muck....easier to be with a man than go through the hoops with a woman. It's just easy, fast sex and that's all it is.
What happens is once you do that..you're in! And each time it takes more to gratify then before until they end up in all sorts of debauchery and filth. Not only do their bodies become twisted..so too their minds. End of story..will not give the homosexual "political" agenda even an inch.
...”I find it disgusting”...
Work just one day in a Trauma Center and you;d see just how disgusting that is...disgusting doesn’t come close...it’s perverted in every way.
Basically they “infect” everything they come in contact with, one way or another.
Homosexuality and or any sexual debauchery is cancerous to the spirit within. The more malignant the more the person demands to be identified as normal. It isn’t confined to homosexual degenerates, it’s just that sickly promiscuous heteros don’t waste their energies demanding to be normalized. Men like Kennedy obtain power via the usual undercurrent routes. Homos seek power by demanding it openly. Both types are sick souls in action.
“The question of why homosexuality is bad in itself is not easy to answer.” Pure bilge spittle.
...”Homosexuals apparently lack the sense to be embarrassed by their behavior”...
That’s why they push the agenda so much..so they don’t feel that embarrassment...which is and should be a natural affect for engaging thus. However, just as with all sin...you keep doing it and entertaining it and you numb out any sense of embarrassment or shame....but that’s not enough for them..they want the world to cow tow to them..which is what is the heart of the matter...it goes with being homosexual..being the center of ones own attention...one way or another.
The question of why homosexuality is bad in itself is not easy to answer.” Pure bilge spittle.
I couldn’t agree more..the first line in the article was enough not to consider anything that followed.
Just like all other areas God clearly states as wrong...man likes to complicate it with all sorts of “man’s reasoning” to excuse or justify it.
I for one am not buying this articles ridiculous claim...heck nature itself tells you the design of the body wasn’t met for such behavior without even considering the Bible!
Yep....however men putting their junk where it doesn’t belong is especially disgusting....the idea of too men together in any type of sexual intimacy is just plain abby normal...there are lines you just don’t cross....and when you do you’re going to go off the deep end, just a matter of time.
My question to the lawyers out there is, can states that want to preserve marriage use this argument to prevent homosexual marriage, for the same reasons lefties want to protect us from the dangers of smoking?
Isn’t it great that we have an opportunity in this forum to repeatedly state all the reasons why homosexuality is bad? If we repeat these contentions frequently enough, we can become completely convinced that we are absolutely right!
Your arguments are good, and I can add something to them as a biological difference between animals and humans.
About halfway through gestation in mammals, the testes of a male fetus excretes a small amount of testosterone, that travels to its brain, to tell it that it is a “male” brain. If this testosterone does not arrive, by default, a “female” brain.
In the 1960s and ‘80s, knowing of this process, scientists decided to interfere with it, to see the results. In male animals, if this testosterone was chemically blocked, when they were mature they would exhibit female mating behavior. And if female fetuses were given testosterone, they would exhibit male mating behavior. They even tried giving testosterone to only one hemisphere of their brains, which resulted in animals exhibiting both male and female mating behavior.
In animals, this was enough to determine their sexuality.
But this did not apply to humans.
That is, human sexuality is more complex than that of animals, so testosterone just determined their non-sexual gender behavior. Boys exhibited more feminine pastimes, and associated with girls more; and girls exhibited more masculine pastimes, and associated with boys more. And those with hemispheric difference just behaved in a more androgynous manner.
However, when they became sexually mature, as is typical, the vast majority were heterosexual, with only the usual minority being homosexual or bisexual.
This research, both times, was regarded as very important, because there are chemicals, such as plant estrogen sprayed by farmers to increase yield, that are so chemically similar to human estrogen that by eating these crops, pregnant women might produce gender confused children.
Fortunately, this turned out to not be the case, at least in any measurable way.
This being said, I suspect that captivity has less to do with animal sexuality than does chemical contamination, which of course is less common in the wild. A lot of captive animals are given diets of food raised for human consumption, that are a lot more nutritious than are diets in the wild, but also contain much more natural and artificial hormones than they would get in a wild diet.
Excellent. Irrefutable. Refreshing in its honesty and insight.
Why is humping dogs so bad? I mean, if a person hasn’t the brains to understand their sexual behaviors are deviant then there are no boundaries. I have no doubt children are the next goal of the sexually deviant.
Interesting about the chemicals. I would assume in zoos there maybe several factors. Also animals have their preferences as to mates in the wild; any encagement that takes them away from their natural environment is going to affect their behavior. Personally I hate zoos and cannot stand seeing the imprisoned animals.
Of course many here would consider that crazy; I also think animal experimentation is 100% pure evil.
Yes.
If you think homosexuality is perfectly fine, as you apparently do, please take all the evidence on the thread proving it is bad, and make a rebuttal proving your point.
TIA.
I have no doubt children are the next goal of the sexually deviant.
They’ve made that clear since 1972, it was on their original list of “Gay Rights Demands” - elimination of all age of consent laws. Now gaining steam in academia and the psychology and psychiatry professions. There are “Let’s Normalize Pedophilia” symposiums now.
A relevant thing to know about the Levirate Law is that disobeying it did not --- according to God's Word -- merit the death penalty.
On the contrary, there is provision known as halizah (Deuteronomy 25:9-10), which decrees that if a brother-in-law refuses to carry out this duty, the woman must spit in his face -- in the presence of the town elders --- and remove one of his shoes. He is then to be called "this shoeless one'. This shows that a brother-in-law could opt out of Levirate marriage, and suffer no more than a public shaming.
In other words, mere failure to carry out the Levirate duty did not entail the death penalty --- far from it.
What aroused God's wrath was that other thing Onan did: performed a foul act, the act of turning intercourse away from its natural fertility.
If he had just refused to marry her --- rather than doing contracepted intercourse --- he would have gotten of just a public shaming. Not only a fine, not even flogging. Just embarrassment. That's what the Bible says.
Here it is in Deuteronomy in Hebrew and English---Scroll down to verses 7-10 (LINK).
There is only one act of contraception mentioned in all of Scripture, and it is clearly an act that was "evil in the sight of the Lord," according to Scripture. And that was how all of Christianity --- Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant --- saw it for 1900 years, for they all opposed contraception. That is, until the Anglicans became the first to approve of contraception at their decennial Lambeth Conference in London in 1930.
Now, here's my question for you. Which of these alternatives do you think is true?
While it is easy to have a down on animal experiments, there are some twists and turns to that one as well.
The biggest problem is that, despite our best efforts to simulate chemical actions on living animals “in vitro” (in a test tube), they are often no way near “in vivo” (in a living animal) in accuracy.
The great Thalidomide disaster is a good illustration of this, in that it was tested on several species, but the one animal they didn’t test it on turned out to be the closest to humans in the critical part of its reproduction. And only when humans started having horrific birth defects, they discovered that very expensive and awful omission.
Conversely, for many years, animal experiments have used mice and rats, but only recently have we discovered that they are so very different, physiologically, from humans, that much of that experimentation was useless. But not always, because there are many things that are similar as well.
Perhaps the closest to humans as far as the immune system goes are ferrets. But only the immune system. So this means you must experiment with ferrets. But you are far from done, in that other animals more closely approximate other human systems.
The bottom line is that for every new pharmaceutical drug that helps people, hundreds are tested and discarded as either harmful or ineffective. Without animal testing, drug and chemical development would grind to a halt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.