Posted on 04/02/2015 11:34:23 AM PDT by blueunicorn6
So the pitcher is not gay?
Sorry, both are queer.
“E. Willingly put another male’s penis in your mouth or anal canal.”
That’s not the test. People can do that without getting aroused. If you get aroused at the thought of having sex with a guy, you’re a homo or bisexual.
E. Desire to put your penis in a man’s mouth or anal canal even at the risk of dying from it.
“What bow?”
You’re reading it wrong. That’s “bow” as in bow of a ship. I’m fairly sure that’s a catamaran.
FYI or as a reminder, here’s another little piece of special pleading they like to use:
homosexuals can’t help they way they are, gee, they were born that way, leave `em alone already;
but child molesters facing hard time as `short-eyes’ in prison ... well hey, they can change.
They have similar semantic contortions planned once they get child molestation accepted as something other than detestable (and those of us appalled and angered by harming children labeled as —`phobics of some sort) for like minds who enjoy relations with farm animals.
1. But you also said it is a willingness to perform certain acts. This is a contradiction. Certain people are more willing to perform these acts because they find them enjoyable rather than repulsive. So those people are homosexual, but their homosexuality derives from their innate desires. They would still be homosexual even if they never performed any of the stated acts.
2. I noticed that you classified only the passive participator in homosexual acts as homosexual. In my opinion, someone who is not at least partly homosexual would not have a willingness or desire to participate in a homosexual act in any way.
good point and I will be using that if you don’t mind.
Over two hundred years of history and law turned on it’s ear by two fruits who should have been back in the closet where they came from. That in a nutshell is the solution, shut up and keep your business to yourself please, instead “they” have to have approval from those who will never approve.
Lots of folks even here at FR think that sodomy is morally UN-objectionable if the participants are non-gays. I have run into male FReepers who think ejaculating into their lovely bride's solid-waste exit is blessed by God.
Not talking about legal/illegal here. I'm talking about a consistent moral evaluation.
I never noticed the bow....
Man and woman become one in Holy Matrimony. It's a God blessed Holy union. Doesn't matter what they do. Together they make a whole.
Homos can never be whole. They're one side of a coin. One dimensional. Never satisfied. Angry, bitter, and that's what they're so intolerant of others who see them as they are. They know, deep inside, they have something wrong with themselves. They want to force other not to see it (but that desire can never be satisfied either. The more they threaten normal humans, the more obvious their sexual dysfunctions become).
The homos are at war within themselves a heck of a lot more than they are at war with the natural humans. Like good leftists, they try to blame their own self created dysfunctions and frustrations on everyone else.
Needs a MEGA BARF ALERT for the descriptions, accurate as they are
I'll leave that pun laying right where it is.
Of course it "matters what they do." Anything that is outside of natural sex is outside of natural marriage. That includes acts of sodomy.
The divine design for human sexuality is that it be love-creating life and life-creating love. Lovemaking and life-making are not to be split off or twisted apart. Nobody ever made a new life through somebody else's anus, unless you count the E. coli.
People who engage in sodomitic behavior are another kind of contraceptor. They have turned away from the reality that their bodily powers (including fertility) are part of a God-created design which should be treated respectfully, not intentionally disabled. They sabotage the full meaning of their own sexual design.
If you think the movie “Deliverance” (1972) was a documentary you might be gay.
thank you! If it is wrong, it’s wrong.
I don’t get the double standard either.
Biblical sodomy is ONLY defined as homosexual sex, not any of the other behaviors that man has pharisaically added to the definition.
Oho! Sodomy for me, but not for thee!
Actually, it's never quite that clinically defined. A lot of the discussion in the NT comes under the blanket term "porneia", which just means unlawful sex.
St. Paul uses the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai, which have been variously translated into the English Scriptures over the centuries as lechery, wantonness, buggery, guilty of unnatural crime, given to unnatural vice, engaging in perversion, and other terms. Of those I have listed, any of them could be applied to male-female perversion.
Then there's the matter of God's intent as demonstrated by God's design. He obviously didn't design a woman's lower rectum to accommodate repeated inward thrusting and a hundred million live sperm. That's a parody of real sex: and an ugly one, at that.
Ya know, I think it is actually about time we got specific about what the "homosexual lifestyle" is about. Multiple partners, sex with strangers in bathrooms, etc. I am sure others could add to my beginning list.
I think that there are a lot of very naive people out there who are not at all aware of what the lifestyle truly is with homosexuals. They are not cute. They are very sad people who are trying desperately to find peace in themselves; but, doing it all wrong.
I used to agree with that; but, they are making it MY business. When these people attack a woman in her 70's and choose, yes, choose, to force her to make a cake for their sham "wedding", knowing that she is a religious and believeing Christian; then, it has become everybody's business.
Religious belief and the free expression of that belief, is in the 1st Amendment. Please point out where in the Constitution it says that the government can force someone to behave against their conscience -- in any circumstance.
The gays have taken this out of their bedroom and forced it into the public arena in a very ugly fashion. Big government is supporting the gays, not the 70 year old baker who is losing her business, her savings and her retirement money trying to defend herself.
When she lets fly an arrow, her boobs get some serious whiplash. Stand too close & you’ll get pasted across the face.
;^)
I don’t know what that thingy is with all the wires and wheels are - but that tool belt and hard hat would be nice to have for “dress up”.
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.