I already said: Romans 1: 24-32.

Gayness is against the law of chastity, and breaking that is the second worst crime, only second to murder.

Stop trying to talk about the Bible when you have no idea what is in it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 1 2007, 11:42 pm by Falkoner.

Thank you for clairifying that, and, erm... Well I can't exactly say not flaming, now can I? But PwnPirate's right, now that we have that out of the way, back to the ACTUAL point.

If you aren't a Fundamentalist you're going to hell.

Was that a joke?

No.

Homosexuality is completely natural, it's been practised in every single society and among animals as well.
That aside it doesn't even matter if it's natural or not, what matters is if it's doing any harm and it's not.
Is it wrong because a two thousand year old book says so? it also says love your neightbour. So if you think you are going to hell because of it then good for you don't be gay then but dont hate those who do not follow your believe.
Is it wrong because because it dosen't make babies? no life is not about making babies, it's about living and besides it's not like we are laking babies.

Actualy, the question of the thread and poll is whether it's natural or not, not whether it's right or wrong, so you're wrong there. xP
The two are unrelated topics which are often brought together by people that think that computers, meals cooked better than a heating over a firepit, and rational thought are the unnatural products of the Devil and thus unGodly.
They are not necesarily linked, though.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 2 2007, 3:40 pm by EzDay281.

When I saw this video I thought the person singing was a girl.
She was pretty good looking I thought and the music was alright, so I looked it up.
Now I wish for ignorance .
Honestly, can you tell that person is a boy?

I guess we're all bi-curious .

ihjel, did you even read the other posts? If you had then you would realize that argument has already been taken out.

Um.
Sorry, but your responses were regarding whether or not it's immoral from a fundamentalist religious view, not whether or not it's natural and found in, well, nature.
And then there's the last two sentences.

This argument, which has already been used, has already been disproved.

Also, if you do not have children, then your life is useless, and will not be remembered.

Quite possibly the most offensive, inconsiderate, and blantently ignorant comment you have made yet Falkoner.

How you manage to top your intolerant idiocy in one post after the next is simply beyond me. You make Toa look intelligent.

bleh.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 2 2007, 4:31 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

..
-It's not illegal to not have children.
-Not everyone cares about being "remembered."
-Life's usefulness is not determined by you.
-None of those things are related to each other.

(of course, regarding the topic, I don't understand how homosexuality can be "nature".. but I accept it because you can't legally tell someone who they should like)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 2 2007, 5:53 pm by cheeze.

both topics were brought up i simply responded to both of them.
Sorry, but your responses were regarding whether or not it's immoral from a fundamentalist religious view, not whether or not it's natural and found in, well, nature.
And then there's the last two sentences.
[/quote]
"Against nature" was used as an argument for why it was wrong
No you don't hate their actions you, hate them because of their actions which a christian shouldn't.
Sorry, but your responses were regarding whether or not it's immoral from a fundamentalist religious view, not whether or not it's natural and found in, well, nature.
And then there's the last two sentences.
"Against nature" was used as an argument for why it was wrong
No you don't hate their actions you, hate them because of their actions which a christian shouldn't.
whatever.<br />both topics were brought up i simply responded to both of them.
[quote]...and among animals as well.Sorry, but your responses were regarding whether or not it's immoral from a fundamentalist religious view, not whether or not it's natural and found in, well, nature.
And then there's the last two sentences.
Is it wrong because because it dosen't make babies? no life is not about making babies, it's about living and besides it's not like we are laking babies."Against nature" was used as an argument for why it was wrong

This argument, which has already been used, has already been disproved.No you don't hate their actions you, hate them because of their actions which a christian shouldn't.
whatever.<br />Actualy, the question of the thread and poll is whether it's natural or not, not whether it's right or wrong, so you're wrong there. xP
The two are unrelated topics which are often brought together by people that think that computers, meals cooked better than a heating over a firepit, and rational thought are the unnatural products of the Devil and thus unGodly.
They are not necesarily linked, though.both topics were brought up i simply responded to both of them.
...and among animals as well.Sorry, but your responses were regarding whether or not it's immoral from a fundamentalist religious view, not whether or not it's natural and found in, well, nature.
And then there's the last two sentences.
Is it wrong because because it dosen't make babies? no life is not about making babies, it's about living and besides it's not like we are laking babies."Against nature" was used as an argument for why it was wrong

This argument, which has already been used, has already been disproved.No you don't hate their actions you, hate them because of their actions which a christian shouldn't.
Also, if you do not have children, then your life is useless, and will not be remembered.whatever.

Um.
Woah, Ihjel, your post's kinda confusing.
I think you got your quotes a bit messed up. xP

i blame faulty php code i tried to remove the junk but it came back each time i submited again

Falkoner you're wrong. Killing gays is equal to killing jews. They are both blasphemers who fail to follow Jesus and his teachings.

If you discriminate against one group because they go against your religious beliefs, you have to discriminate against all groups who go against your religious beliefs, which is everyone who is not Christian.

Can someone please tell me how it is constitutional for someone to persecute someone else based on sexual orientation?

devilisk, Jews, while not following Jesus, are still better in my mind than gays, they are still strong believers, they are simply still waiting for a messiah that has already come.