SG Broadband Community

What verse or verses in particular say explicity that being gay is a sin? Been looking up some scripture and it seems that the wording has been modified over the years. So is it THE WORD OF GOD or a interpretation that's open for some debate? I see the 10 commandments as WOG, and the bits about not using two types of thread* in the same garment as something to have a discussion about.


*Somewhere in Leviticus

isn't it also a sin to lust for underage Asian girls ?

brembo wrote:What verse or verses in particular say explicity that being gay is a sin? Been looking up some scripture and it seems that the wording has been modified over the years. So is it THE WORD OF GOD or a interpretation that's open for some debate? I see the 10 commandments as WOG, and the bits about not using two types of thread* in the same garment as something to have a discussion about.


*Somewhere in Leviticus

Leviticus 18 covers it as does Romans 1. That said people need to put it in perspective before they start pointing the finger at others. There is several of things opposed within Leviticus that all of us need to make sure we practice because like Jesus said "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

Forgive the paraphrase.

Few people have epiphanies on computer forums.

Roody wrote:Leviticus 18 covers it as does Romans 1. That said people need to put it in perspective before they start pointing the finger at others. There is several of things opposed within Leviticus that all of us need to make sure we practice because like Jesus said "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

Forgive the paraphrase.

Yes, but where exactly does it say that is a sin for a homosexual so be a pastor? That's like say overweight people can't be a pastor.

jeremyboycool wrote:Yes, but where exactly does it say that is a sin for a homosexual so be a pastor? That's like say overweight people can't be a pastor.

I think you are confusing me with JBrazen's remarks who previously mentioned pastors in this thread. As for me I'm not going to go down this route again. Frankly, no matter how nice I try to be you usually pull out the insults and that gets old.

Roody wrote:I think you are confusing me with JBrazen's remarks who previously mentioned pastors in this thread. As for me I'm not going to go down this route again. Frankly, no matter how nice I try to be you usually pull out the insults and that gets old.

My post was not really for you, Roody.

My position: I don't really care if there are gays in the Military, my uncle is gay but that doesn't bother me at all either. However if I was a soldier and another soldier pointed his sausage anywhere near me he would likely get my gun barrel pointed away from the enemy and towards himself.

Sava700 wrote:My position: I don't really care if there are gays in the Military, my uncle is gay but that doesn't bother me at all either. However if I was a soldier and another soldier pointed his sausage anywhere near me he would likely get my gun barrel pointed away from the enemy and towards himself.

Why make the assumption that if you work with gays they'll hit on you?

Just curious.

I work with 2 gays and neither one has ever hit on me...they hit on other gay men.

Roody wrote:Leviticus 18 covers it as does Romans 1. That said people need to put it in perspective before they start pointing the finger at others. There is several of things opposed within Leviticus that all of us need to make sure we practice because like Jesus said "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone".

Forgive the paraphrase.

And what about the part in Leviticus where is says homosexuals should be put to death?

Humboldt wrote:Why make the assumption that if you work with gays they'll hit on you?

Just curious.

I work with 2 gays and neither one has ever hit on me...they hit on other gay men.

If they did hit on you whould you shoot them?

Humboldt wrote:Why make the assumption that if you work with gays they'll hit on you?

Just curious.

I work with 2 gays and neither one has ever hit on me...they hit on other gay men.

no assumption..just saying. As I said I have nothing against them serving or being around me and I have a relative that is gay. But I draw the line at one point and I've already said how it would fan out.

jeremyboycool wrote:And what about the part in Leviticus where is says homosexuals should be put to death?

I've said it once and I will say it one last time. I'm not going down this route with you anymore jeremy. I have attempted to discuss issues with you in the past and I have seen little proof that you have the ability to discuss religious/homosexual topics without attacking others. With that in mind I have no desire to repeat the same process with you again.

jeremyboycool wrote:If they did hit on you whould you shoot them?

No more than I would a woman for hitting on me.

Roody wrote:I've said it once and I will say it one last time. I'm not going down this route with you anymore jeremy. I have attempted to discuss issues with you in the past and I have seen little proof that you have the ability to discuss religious/homosexual topics without attacking others. With that in mind I have no desire to repeat the same process with you again.

Ad hominem.

Sava700 wrote:no assumption..just saying. As I said I have nothing against them serving or being around me and I have a relative that is gay. But I draw the line at one point and I've already said how it would fan out.

So you would actually draw a gun, on the individual, if a gay man came on to you? Don't you think a simple, "No, I am straight" is good enough.

jeremyboycool wrote:So you would actually draw a gun, on the individual, if a gay man came on to you? Don't you think a simple, "No, I am straight" is good enough.

I didn't say "come on to me" did I? no... go back and re-read it.

Humboldt wrote:Why make the assumption that if you work with gays they'll hit on you?

Just curious.

I work with 2 gays and neither one has ever hit on me...they hit on other gay men.

Exactly...they're quite respectful of heterosexuals, and will avoid the embarrassment and uncomfortable feelings that such a move would create.

Sava700 wrote: However if I was a soldier and another soldier pointed his sausage anywhere near me he would likely get my gun barrel pointed away from the enemy and towards himself.

you think gay men just walk around exposing themselves to every man they see ?

are you really that ignorant ? and THAT insecure about your own sexuality ?
.
.
.

Humboldt wrote:
I work with 2 gays and neither one has ever hit on me...they hit on other gay men.

maybe that's why Sava is so scared ?!?!

Dan wrote: you think gay men just walk around exposing themselves to every man they see ?

are you really that ignorant ? and THAT insecure about your own sexuality ?

I guess the exception to normalcy would be the gay end of Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras. You’ll get to see a live action XXX flick. Not a place for the faint of heart.

Sava700 wrote:I didn't say "come on to me" did I? no... go back and re-read it.

And what you think homosexuals are going to run at you with their dick in hand? You were not describing a homosexual in your first post, you where talking about a lunatic.

But what about this, "But I draw the line at one point and I've already said how it would fan out."?

If you were not being literal in your first post then what do you mean here? How exactly would it "fan out"?

"Fan out"? Or "pan out"?
I never heard of fan out used in the context of an outcome.

YeOldeStonecat wrote:"Fan out"? Or "pan out"?
I never heard of fan out used in the context of an outcome.

Ya, sounds kinda gay...

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Exactly...they're quite respectful of heterosexuals, and will avoid the embarrassment and uncomfortable feelings that such a move would create.

The main reason many homosexuals, as some call it, "flaunt" their gayness is to avoid that predicament. Because it is, in my opinion, disrespectful to hit on a straight guy and would be just as awkward for me. Plus you never know how it is going to fan out some freak might freak on you.

YARDofSTUF wrote:Ya, sounds kinda gay...

*swats YoS's fingers with a ruler*

Dan wrote: you think gay men just walk around exposing themselves to every man they see ?

are you really that ignorant ? and THAT insecure about your own sexuality ?
.
.
.

No not ignorant at all...and if they don't then great, I don't think many or any do that I've meet or known but I'm just throwing the situation out there and the results.... same would go if someone pointed a gun at me, they would get the same back..it's just that simple. AGAIN, I don't hate or have anything against gay's in the Military or in general...its just my stance on that type of situation so don't hate me for my decision if it comes about.

jeremyboycool wrote:And what you think homosexuals are going to run at you with their dick in hand? You were not describing a homosexual in your first post, you where talking about a lunatic.

But what about this, "But I draw the line at one point and I've already said how it would fan out."?

If you were not being literal in your first post then what do you mean here? How exactly would it "fan out"?

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore, your more than capable to read what I've posted and what I just said above. I'm done discussing the subject and in this thread. Have a nice day

What if someone "points their sausage" at you in a heterosexual manner?

I liked dont ask dont tell better. Yea its great that now gay people will be able to run around the army yelling "im gay!" but they are going to have to deal with the reprecussions of it.

I am all about letting homosexuals have equal rights, i am even all about them being able to get married. But in an environment where you are showering, living and sleeping next to people of your same gender, having someone be very open about them being gay is going to make it uncomfortable for everyone involved. I have worked with women in the army who were pretty open about being gay and have worked with men in the army that everyone pretty much knew. But at least the dont ask, dont tell policy made it so people couldnt really make a big deal over it.

I forsee many hours of army time WASTED on sensitivity training and everything. Just so that gay people can run around talking about who they are attracted to. The army never said that gay people couldnt serve, they just said dont tell everyone. If they said women could join they just couldnt talk about who they were attracted to, I would be all about that too.

I agree with what some other people have said here, we are fighting two wars, I really dont think this should have been dealt with right now. It is acting as a distractor to what is truley important right now.

brembo wrote:What if someone "points their sausage" at you in a heterosexual manner?

MadDoc would dash into the scene...but running backwards.

Meggie wrote:I liked dont ask dont tell better. Yea its great that now gay people will be able to run around the army yelling "im gay!" but they are going to have to deal with the reprecussions of it.

I am all about letting homosexuals have equal rights, i am even all about them being able to get married. But in an environment where you are showering, living and sleeping next to people of your same gender, having someone be very open about them being gay is going to make it uncomfortable for everyone involved. I have worked with women in the army who were pretty open about being gay and have worked with men in the army that everyone pretty much knew. But at least the dont ask, dont tell policy made it so people couldnt really make a big deal over it.

I forsee many hours of army time WASTED on sensitivity training and everything. Just so that gay people can run around talking about who they are attracted to. The army never said that gay people couldnt serve, they just said dont tell everyone. If they said women could join they just couldnt talk about who they were attracted to, I would be all about that too.

I agree with what some other people have said here, we are fighting two wars, I really dont think this should have been dealt with right now. It is acting as a distractor to what is truley important right now.

thanks for that perspective.

Meggie wrote:
I agree with what some other people have said here, we are fighting two wars, I really dont think this should have been dealt with right now. It is acting as a distractor to what is truley important right now.

I agree. Bad timing.

Meggie wrote:I liked dont ask dont tell better. Yea its great that now gay people will be able to run around the army yelling "im gay!" but they are going to have to deal with the reprecussions of it.

I am all about letting homosexuals have equal rights, i am even all about them being able to get married. But in an environment where you are showering, living and sleeping next to people of your same gender, having someone be very open about them being gay is going to make it uncomfortable for everyone involved. I have worked with women in the army who were pretty open about being gay and have worked with men in the army that everyone pretty much knew. But at least the dont ask, dont tell policy made it so people couldnt really make a big deal over it.

I forsee many hours of army time WASTED on sensitivity training and everything. Just so that gay people can run around talking about who they are attracted to. The army never said that gay people couldnt serve, they just said dont tell everyone. If they said women could join they just couldnt talk about who they were attracted to, I would be all about that too.

I agree with what some other people have said here, we are fighting two wars, I really dont think this should have been dealt with right now. It is acting as a distractor to what is truley important right now.

Tell the parents of gay soldiers who've been murdered by their fellow soldiers that sensitivity training is a "waste of time".

Meggie wrote:I liked dont ask dont tell better. Yea its great that now gay people will be able to run around the army yelling "im gay!" but they are going to have to deal with the reprecussions of it.

I am all about letting homosexuals have equal rights, i am even all about them being able to get married. But in an environment where you are showering, living and sleeping next to people of your same gender, having someone be very open about them being gay is going to make it uncomfortable for everyone involved. I have worked with women in the army who were pretty open about being gay and have worked with men in the army that everyone pretty much knew. But at least the dont ask, dont tell policy made it so people couldnt really make a big deal over it.

I forsee many hours of army time WASTED on sensitivity training and everything. Just so that gay people can run around talking about who they are attracted to. The army never said that gay people couldnt serve, they just said dont tell everyone. If they said women could join they just couldnt talk about who they were attracted to, I would be all about that too.

I agree with what some other people have said here, we are fighting two wars, I really dont think this should have been dealt with right now. It is acting as a distractor to what is truley important right now.

I think you have a misconception about homosexuals. Homosexual are completely able to act professionally in any given environment.

If a person is purposely being disruptive than that has nothing to do with homosexuality; that is a discipline problem. If a person can not respect the reasonable bounds of other people then that is discipline/respect problem and just as likely to occur with a heterosexual.

I just wanted to point this out....

Homosexuality is not a behavior disorder.

jeremyboycool wrote:I just wanted to point this out....

Homosexuality is not a behavior disorder.

Just like pedophilia isn't. It's a genetic predisposition.

Xpunge wrote:Just like pedophilia isn't. It's a genetic predisposition.

You mean like heterosexuality?

Actually, Xpunge, enough is not know about sexuality to say it is for sure a "genetic predisposition". Sigmund Freud believe everyone started out bisexual then latter developed, into a homosexual or heterosexual. Although, I don't know if I agree with Mr. Freud as I have seen compelling evidence it is genetic, to some extent, but his perceptive also does make sense.

But really that is not the point I was making, Xpunge. I was saying that being homosexual does not equate into a dancing fairy or something of that sort.

jeremyboycool wrote:You mean like heterosexuality?

Exactly!, but only one of the three aforementioned conditions serve a healthy society. The other two conditions have been kept at a naturally low occurring condition thanks to Darwinism.

Give it a few more years and thanks to the human genome project, it will be possible to screen genetic defects out. Coming soon to a parent near you!

Xpunge wrote:Exactly!, but only one of the three aforementioned conditions serve a healthy society. The other two conditions have been kept at a naturally low occurring condition thanks to Darwinism.

Give it a few more years and thanks to the human genome project, it will be possible to screen genetic defects out. Coming soon to a parent near you!

"serve a healthy society"

You mean a bloated overpopulated world with an out of control birth rate? A need for procreation, among humans, is not a big issue nowadays and if ever did become one, homosexuals are capable of having offspring.

"have been kept at a naturally low occurring condition thanks to Darwinism."

Read this: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... l_kingdom/

Here is an link with info about the Don't ask, Don't.

It's interesting because often you hear the "disruption" being interpreted as the homosexual's behavior being the concern. But this is not what concerns the Pentagon but rather it is the behavior of the heterosexuals they are worried about.

The Pentagon's principal justification for the policy continues to be that the presence of openly gay and lesbian personnel would interfere with the military's ability to accomplish its mission. In essence, the Pentagon's rationale is that heterosexual personnel have such antipathy for gay people that they would be unable and unwilling to serve with them. Moreover, the Department of Defense believes that it is powerless to prevent this hostility from interfering with the military mission.

Thus, the presumed focus of the problem is not really homosexual personnel. Rather, it is heterosexual servicemembers and military leadership.

Book Jacket Scientific research and policy studies indicate that the Pentagon is wrong. Heterosexuals' hostility toward homosexuality need not interfere with the military mission, provided that strong leadership is exercised and clear rules are enforced concerning nondiscrimination.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... itary.html