Cal Thomas: Homosexual Marriage is Fulfillment of Prophesy

[tailfins]

“I think it’s going to go 5-4 or even 6-3 in favor of same-sex marriage. All of these things are not the cause of our decadence, they’re a reflection of it.”


“Too many conservative Christian marriages are breaking up. So, if they can’t impose morality on themselves, how do they expect to impose it on the rest of the country?”


Thomas answered, “Well, yes. If you look at what not only Jesus said, but Paul the Apostle, about what things were going to be like in the End Times, people will be lovers of lies rather than the truth. They will elevate things that are called abominations in Scripture to normality.”

http://cnsnews.com/node/894691

[fj1200]

Many have been burned prophesying the end times.

[tailfins]

Many have been burned prophesying the end times.

It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that America is turning into an English speaking Sodom and Gomorrah.

[revelarts]

Babylon, is more like it.

and whats worse is some many Churches and Christians would rather pretend the Bible allows the practice and are don't even want to call it what the Bible does.
Sin.

But the slide started long ago when many Christians softened their views on fornication,( specifically pre-marital sex) divorce, marriage and adultery.

Didn't hold the line there, so the enemy just kept up the press into breach.

[fj1200]

It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that America is turning into an English speaking Sodom and Gomorrah.

If I agreed I'm sure I don't agree for the same reason.


and whats worse is some many Churches and Christians would rather pretend the Bible allows the practice and are don't even want to call it what the Bible does.
Sin.

Context.

[gabosaurus]

But the slide started long ago when many Christians softened their views on fornication,( specifically pre-marital sex) divorce, marriage and adultery.


I wonder how many of you have willingly indulged in premarital sex, extramarital sex, divorce, remarriage and/or adultery, but still retain your opposition to homosexuality?

[revelarts]

If I agreed I'm sure I don't agree for the same reason.

Context.
New Testament

Romans 1
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Old Testament

Leviticus 18
4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. 6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”...



Maliachi 2
17 You have wearied the Lord with your words.
“How have we wearied him?” you ask.
By saying, “All who do evil are good in the eyes of the Lord, and he is pleased with them”

[fj1200]

New Testament

Old Testament

Maliachi 2
17 You have wearied the Lord with your words.
“How have we wearied him?” you ask.
By saying, “All who do evil are good in the eyes of the Lord, and he is pleased with them”

Do you think the context of a sinful Rome equals the context today? Nevertheless there is more to Romans that just four verses:


18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approveof those who practice them.

And of course there's Romans 2:


God’s Righteous Judgment2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

And of course we all follow Leviticus 11:


11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
9 “‘Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean.11 And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat; you must regard their carcasses as unclean. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be regarded as unclean by you.

[indago]

http://oi46.tinypic.com/2ih848p.jpg

"Will you marry me?"

[revelarts]

Do you think the context of a sinful Rome equals the context today? Nevertheless there is more to Romans that just four verses:
And of course there's Romans 2:...

Roman "context".
so are you saying homosexual sex was sin in Rome AD20 but not sin in America AD2015?
There's no special dispensations or expiration dates for the practice given anywhere in scriptures.
And no expiration dates for envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, gossips,slander God-hating, invent ways of doing evil, disobedience to parents, and the other sins listed in Romans

Concerning the dietary practices of Lev 11 there is in fact an expiration date given on that in the new testament.
If you want to keep it in full context read all of Acts chap 10, 11 and 15. Romans chap 14. 1st Corinthians Chap 6 and 8.
but all of it basically summed up in this one verse Colossians 2:16
"16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."


Concerning not judging...
well um, are you judging me FJ?:poke:

I'm not sure how you're reading it but when i look at it I see this.
2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

Paul says "WE KNOW" God's judgement is against people who do such things.
the reprimand is for DOING THE SAME THING, not only for the judgment itself. Also for not acknowledging that God forgives all that come to repentance.

Repentance itself implies admitting that SIN has in fact been committed.
It doesn't pretend that certain acts are not sin in Americain2015 so that people won't feel or be judged.

[fj1200]

Roman "context".
so are you saying homosexual sex was sin in Rome AD20 but not sin in America AD2015?
There's no special dispensations or expiration dates for the practice given anywhere in scriptures.
And no expiration dates for envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, gossips,slander God-hating, invent ways of doing evil, disobedience to parents, and the other sins listed in Romans

What I'm saying is that what you see as homosexual sex today is not how homosexual sex was in those days, nor really any sex when discussing the power relationships inherent in Roman society. And that doesn't even discuss the interpretations of the original Greek; malakos and arsenokoites in particular.


Concerning the dietary practices of Lev 11 there is in fact an expiration date given on that in the new testament.
If you want to keep it in full context read all of Acts chap 10, 11 and 15. Romans chap 14. 1st Corinthians Chap 6 and 8.
but all of it basically summed up in this one verse Colossians 2:16
"16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

As well as the many different laws of Leviticus. I fully agree that they aren't the law by which we are saved. That is through grace correct?


Concerning not judging...
well um, are you judging me FJ?:poke:

I'm not sure how you're reading it but when i look at it I see this.
2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

Paul says "WE KNOW" God's judgement is against people who do such things.
the reprimand is for DOING THE SAME THING, not only for the judgment itself. Also for not acknowledging that God forgives all that come to repentance.

Repentance itself implies admitting that SIN has in fact been committed.
It doesn't pretend that certain acts are not sin in Americain2015 so that people won't feel or be judged.

How am I judging you? I don't begrudge you what you believe. I'm suggesting that the interpretation can be read differently. Romans, and we're working through Romans in Sunday School now, was a letter to the Jews in Rome. Romans 1 called out the Romans and Romans 2 said, hold on Jews, you're not perfect.


The Jews and the Law17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God;18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2#fen-NIV-27987b)]

[revelarts]

[/COLOR]What I'm saying is that what you see as homosexual sex today is not how homosexual sex was in those days, nor really any sex when discussing the power relationships inherent in Roman society. And that doesn't even discuss the interpretations of the original Greek; malakos and arsenokoites in particular.

[/COLOR]

The early Christian's wrote on the subject and promoted the basic outline of what we understand today.
that the ONLY legit sex was between a man and his wife. the same is repeated in Timothy and titus. and is promoted by Jesus when he defines marriage as the example and standard created by God in Eden one man and one woman.

the power situations slave class etc. are not the issue in the final analysis.
the board stokes of all of the faith, applied to Jews and Greeks Roman Sythain male female slave and free as it says elsewhere.




As well as the many different laws of Leviticus. I fully agree that they aren't the law by which we are saved. That is through grace correct?

I think you might be making an assumption to jump to include any other laws of Leviticus wily nily.
But, yes we are ONLY saved by grace not by the law. As Romans goes into. but that doesn't mean we should lie or have sex with animals or our in-laws etc.



How am I judging you?
just kidding


I'm suggesting that the interpretation can be read differently.
Sure ok maybe, but I don't think it can be read much differently.
If you say
"I'll meet Susan at the 7-11 on Jones st. tomorrow."
Sure one can take it all metaphorically or say that "tomorrow" ONLY means 12 am on the dot. or assume that "Susan" is a man. Or that "st." really means SAINT and not Street. But if we're just being honest and take it as a normal reading we won't go there unless something in the context or elsewhere really takes us there.

[Perianne]

I wonder how many of you have willingly indulged in premarital sex, extramarital sex, divorce, remarriage and/or adultery, but still retain your opposition to homosexuality?

I have done all those plus some. The difference is, I knew they were all wrong and in no way try to force other people to accept those despicable behaviors as moral.

[tailfins]

I have done all those plus some. The difference is, I knew they were all wrong and in no way try to force other people to accept those despicable behaviors as moral.

Verrry interesting. Would you care to elaborate? Inquiring minds want to know.

http://us.123rf.com/450wm/zigf/zigf1502/zigf150200132/36442569-portrait-young-businessman-thinking-and-keeps-the-glasses-to-his-mouth-isolated-on-green-background.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

I wonder how many of you have willingly indulged in premarital sex, extramarital sex, divorce, remarriage and/or adultery, but still retain your opposition to homosexuality?

It is all sin. And must be repented of. And all usually lead to problems, too. Divorce I would set aside, as there can be valid reasons.

[jimnyc]

I wonder how many of you have willingly indulged in premarital sex, extramarital sex, divorce, remarriage and/or adultery, but still retain your opposition to homosexuality?

Isn't extramarital sex pretty much the definition of adultery?

[gabosaurus]

Isn't extramarital sex pretty much the definition of adultery?

I'm trying to figure a way out of this. Let me get back to you. :slap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have done all those plus some. The difference is, I knew they were all wrong and in no way try to force other people to accept those despicable behaviors as moral.

bad , bad girl..... :laugh:

Joking aside, this reminds me of what my uncle used to say often when describing a new woman he had pleasantly tangled with after the bar closed. Instead of saying , she was pretty, beautiful, sexy or drop-dead gorgeous he'd say,
"and that baby was built for sin"!- :laugh:
And we knew and could just picture her without ever having seen her. He also termed the coin for describing a hideously ugly woman= "haintdog" as in , "that haintdog tried to get me to take her home from that bar at closing time but I ran like a scalded dog. "- :laugh:--Tyr

[avatar4321]

Isn't extramarital sex pretty much the definition of adultery?

It is.

We also need to be avoiding pornography. The Lord said to even look on a woman with lust is to commit adultery in our hearts.

There are some comparing our nation to Sodom and Gomorrah but in ways we are far worse. There is darkness covering the world, but so many of us our so far involved in the darkness that we don't recognize it or light when we see it.

It's time for us who profess to know Christ to search our hearts and exercise enough faith to repent or change. If we lie, we need to choose to be honest. If we are greedy we need to learn to be generous. If we are engaged in pornography or sexual sins we need to leave them. We need to pay our tithes and offerings and rest every seven days.

We need to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost.

[fj1200]

I have done all those plus some. The difference is, I knew they were all wrong and in no way try to force other people to accept those despicable behaviors as moral.

Upon what basis do you make your judgement?

[Perianne]

Upon what basis do you make your judgement?

Thousands of years of collective judgment… that is, until this generation.

[Drummond]

Upon what basis do you make your judgement?

On what basis are you inclined to question the accuracy of the judgment offered ?

[fj1200]

The early Christian's wrote on the subject and promoted the basic outline of what we understand today.
that the ONLY legit sex was between a man and his wife. the same is repeated in Timothy and titus. and is promoted by Jesus when he defines marriage as the example and standard created by God in Eden one man and one woman.

the power situations slave class etc. are not the issue in the final analysis.
the board stokes of all of the faith, applied to Jews and Greeks Roman Sythain male female slave and free as it says elsewhere.

Can we keep this to Romans for now? :cheers2:

I think you are placing too much relevance on the historical when there have been countless adjustments in how we've read the Bible and ignoring to much of the context. Shouldn't we be searching for the correct translation, not just the one that's "historical"?


Paul was speaking to a culture and world phenomenally different from ours. That culture, with apologies to modern sensibilities, made an absolute virtue of misogyny; male domination of women was a part of the natural order. Except as child bearers, women were chattel, not even remotely on the same level as men. And to share any womanly characteristics was utterly unmanly. In this context, womanizers, who were interested in things that were worthless by definition, were considered effeminate. By contrast, male-male sex – associated with athletics and learning – was far more manly than what resulted from the love of a woman. And male-male sex (http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Malakos.php#) between a master and his slave was not a matter of being homosexual at all; it was a matter of domination, of power (http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Malakos.php#). Greeks (and the Romans who absorbed their culture) took it for granted that everyone both could and might want to take part in either kind of sexual activity. The Greek idea of effeminate had very little in common with the modern notion – it reflected pervasive cultural misogyny.
When paired with arsenokoitai, malakos seems to refer to a person that is a victim of sex with men – a slave, a prostitute, a catamite, a victim of rape – someone perhaps drawn into temple sexual rituals, and not necessarily male. With this word Paul is referring to the victim of sexual (and financial?) coercion, whether pederasty, pedophilia, rape, or forced prostitution. And if malakos indicated an underage male prostitute, the following arsenokoites would mean the one who forced himself on the youth. This would apply to heterosexual gay-for-pay prostitutes as well, as it would in any case where a male was subjected to forced sexual activity.

Had Paul wanted a word that applied to the penetrated partner (i.e., female-like), there was a perfectly specific Greek word for that. And if Paul had really condemned someone for being ‘effeminate’ in the context of his time, he would have meant something very different from what the word means two millennia later, and we would consider him sexist and alien to a (modern) Christian’s belief system.

The word malakos was simply not the same as effeminate with its current homosexual stereotype overtones. Feminine, or womanly, perhaps, along with some less complimentary adjectives; but not effeminate. Early versions of the Bible in English translated malakos as a general weakness of character or degeneracy (weaklings, wantons); however, with the translation that was named for King James, the dominant translation shifted to effeminate, where it stayed until the mid-20th century. Thereafter, purely out of sexual ideology, the translation has shifted to particular sexual acts/orientation. There is no more evidence to support this shift than there was the earlier one to effeminate.
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Malakos.php


I think you might be making an assumption to jump to include any other laws of Leviticus wily nily.
But, yes we are ONLY saved by grace not by the law. As Romans goes into. but that doesn't mean we should lie or have sex with animals or our in-laws etc.

There are many laws of Leviticus that are not kept for a variety of reasons. I'm pretty sure you and I can agree we don't need to run down each one because there are scads of them that neither you nor I have any intention of keeping.


just kidding

:slap:


Sure ok maybe, but I don't think it can be read much differently.
If you say
"I'll meet Susan at the 7-11 on Jones st. tomorrow."
Sure one can take it all metaphorically or say that "tomorrow" ONLY means 12 am on the dot. or assume that "Susan" is a man. Or that "st." really means SAINT and not Street. But if we're just being honest and take it as a normal reading we won't go there unless something in the context or elsewhere really takes us there.

I think you're ignoring the many versions that are out there and the base Greek in Romans. Perhaps you're meeting Susan between 7 and 11 at Saint Jones cathedral. I can easily read it that way given the way in which you speak err, type English. :poke:

[fj1200]

Thousands of years of collective judgment… that is, until this generation.

With all due respect that's not much of an answer. Thousands of years of collective judgement made you the chattel of men.

[fj1200]

On what basis are you inclined to question the accuracy of the judgment offered ?

Do you have an intelligent argument or are you just content with prattling on about lefties?

[indago]

There is darkness covering the world, but so many of us our so far involved in the darkness that we don't recognize it or light when we see it.

And those who live in this darkness want to combine with others of like mind, and work together to sway legislatures that this darkness is normal, and then press it on society, attempting to make it acceptable as the norm.

[fj1200]

On what basis are you inclined to question the accuracy of the judgment offered ?

And FWIW I hadn't questioned her judgement, only inquired as to the basis she makes her judgement. I would have thought that my use of a question mark made that clear. :)

[LongTermGuy]

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7kmkyd6E41r4gei2o9_400.gif

[Drummond]

Do you have an intelligent argument or are you just content with prattling on about lefties?

... ahem. Attention span problems kicking in, obviously. The post of mine you chose to supply your non-answer to, did not even mention Lefties, much less 'prattle' about them. However, it appears you somehow identified your own thought processes with those of Leftie thinking ?

Well, it DOES figure. Those on the Left have a mission to undermine accepted values as part of their overall strategy. And, indeed, weren't you trying to question the basis for them ?

[Drummond]

And FWIW I hadn't questioned her judgement, only inquired as to the basis she makes her judgement. I would have thought that my use of a question mark made that clear. :)

Misleading pedantry.

The one leads to the other. If you question the basis for judgment, then you question the judgment process itself.

[Gunny]

Many have been burned prophesying the end times.

If you wake up, it ain't over. ;)

[fj1200]

:blah:

I just know what's coming from you, an argument based on your imagination.


:whining like a Brit: ;)

The one leads to the other. If you question the basis for judgment, then you question the judgment process itself.

Do you have an argument or more trolling? Besides, she might have had a perfectly legitimate answer, that's why I ask the question.

[Drummond]

I just know what's coming from you, an argument based on your imagination.



Do you have an argument or more trolling? Besides, she might have had a perfectly legitimate answer, that's why I ask the question.:lame2::lame2::lame2:

And where, then, is YOUR argument ??

For as long as you continue to disparage posts from any other contributor here by offering unflattering rewrites of them, 'TROLLING' is an accusation which YOU earn.

[fj1200]

And where, then, is YOUR argument ??

I know you're confused by the other posts I've made in this thread because you're confused by many things. And FWIW, I mostly only translate your posts for readability and truth because I don't think our esteemed posters shouldn't have to reread your ridiculous, whining posts.

[Gunny]

Topic?

Biologically, homosexual behavior is a choice. It has nothing to do with the propagation of the species. End of THAT story.

If fags want to be fags, let them. Allowing them to adopt? No. Our stupid government acting as if they are normal? No. Let them be fags if they want. But catering to them is more tyranny of minority propagated by the left.

[gabosaurus]

Biologically, homosexual behavior is a choice.

Wrong. Try genetics.

[fj1200]

^^Any behavior is a choice if that's the standard. We are far beyond needing to propagate the species.

As far as adoption it would seem the best interests of the kids should be paramount. I'm not sure I've seen anything that suggests that they are harmed being adopted by gay parents.

[gabosaurus]

I'm not sure I've seen anything that suggests that they are harmed being adopted by gay parents.

A child needs parents. Of any sexual preference. I would much rather see children in a stable gay/lesbian home than with unstable heterosexual parents. Being gay does not automatically make you an unfit parent.

[fj1200]

A child needs parents. Of any sexual preference. I would much rather see children in a stable gay/lesbian home than with unstable heterosexual parents. Being gay does not automatically make you an unfit parent.

I've not personally seen any whacked out kids because their parents were gay. Whacked out kids can come from anywhere.

[Drummond]

I know you're confused by the other posts I've made in this thread because you're confused by many things. And FWIW, I mostly only translate your posts for readability and truth because I don't think our esteemed posters shouldn't have to reread your ridiculous, whining posts.

Nuts. You're now making purely subjective judgments of your own, and backing them up with troll behaviour, based on your ideas of what other contributors here would prefer to read .. ??!? :cuckoo::cuckoo::tinfoil:

Staggering arrogance - as well as a :lame2: excuse for trolling ...

There's only one answer to this craziness.

:trolls::trolls::trolls::trolls:

[fj1200]

Nuts. :blah:

So... nothing constructive to add? BTW, I have objective proof that you are incapable of debate.