Straight Pride

I don't understand you either, Frank

I dunno. Perhaps one reason why so many men are so fu*ked-up is because every one of them was raised by women. Having two daddies might be a good thing.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Frank "The Riddler" Apisa said: You do not get it because you do not want to, Romeo.

That's the fourth time you've avoided re-phrasing your question so's I can understand it mate, you trying for the Guinness Book of Records or something?
As far as I can tell, you're asking whether hetero unions are a good thing even though they might produce gay/lesbian babies?
Tell you what, let's throw it open to A2K members and see if they have better luck than me at deciphering it...

I have rephrased it several times, Romeo...and it was completely understandable the first time I wrote it.

You have no response, so you want to pretend you do not understand it.

Play the game for as long as you can...and I will play it with you. I never tire.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

But some will have 2 mommies, LA

Scary, huh?

0 Replies

Quote:

Romeo said about Elton John and his boyfriend and their adopted kids: I feel sorry for the kids growing up with two homo "daddies"
Neologist asked: But these gays are not nasty, right? So, since they are proper and polite, do you think they are 'straight' with God?
Just asking for further clarification of your belief.

ALL homosexuality/lesbianism is perverted and wrong in God's eyes and in every normal persons eyes, but we all know there are nasty depraved noisy militant gays (the Sodom/Gomorrah sort) and there are nice friendly gays.
Sure we can tolerate the nice ones up to a point, but letting gay couples adopt kids goes beyond that point.
Lefty liberals and pinkos are all for it of course, because disrupting morals and family life is part of their godless creed-
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country"- Lenin
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold:
its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life.
If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
- Stalin

Incidentally there are 20,000 commies on American soil, many in positions of influence as politicians, film and TV executives, journalists, teachers, net forum members etc..
WIKI- "The Communist Party USA is a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States...It has about 20,000 members today"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA

PS- that's why Putin has such a hard line against gays in Russia, he knows how they can corrupt a country's morals

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I don't understand you either, Frank

Romeo is saying that he finds something wrong with the conduct of homosexuals...particularly in this case, that homosexuals want to have homosexual unions.

But all homosexuals are the product of heterosexual unions.

Why is Romeo not faulting heterosexual unions with causing homosexuals?

I think the point has been made...and for people like Romeo who want to put homosexuals down for "their conduct"...they pretty much show themselves to be hypocrites.

Sorry you do not get that, Neo...but I will be here to keep explaining it if necessary.

1 Reply

Quote:

The Riddler said: But all homosexuals are the product of heterosexual unions.Why is Romeo not faulting heterosexual unions with causing homosexuals?

I think your monitor screen's on the blink mate because I already answered that a few posts ago! Try adjusting your contrast and brightness. Meanwhile here's my answer again, I'll use bold text to help it show up better-
Hetero couples dutifully do their bit by bringing a new child into the world and it's not their fault if the kids DNA somehow gets messed up.. Smile

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . But all homosexuals are the product of heterosexual unions... . .

OK, well now I understand the source of your conundrum. Whether homosexual orientation is a product of genetics, or choice, or Hobson's choice, is, I believe, a separate issue. It is the homosexual behavior that is sinful. Homosexual behavior, BTW, includes acts specific to same gender sexuality. They are sinful regardless of the context in which they occur.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

There are many words and phrases that common usage has taken beyond precise, original definitions. Anti-Semite is one. Whether or not any group other than Jews can be considered Semites, "anti-Semitic" is reserved exclusively to describe a hatred of Jews. Call it perversion or corruption, sometimes it's unfortunate because it means the loss of a perfectly useful word (It appears that "literally" is on this path), but it's the way of the world. "Anti-Semite" is a very useful term despite it's corruption, and, while you're not doing it here, it's use usually prompts some silly response reminding the user that Arabs are Semites too.

As for "believer," I have used it to describe anyone who believes in the existence of God (no matter what the their concept of God may be). Obviously it can be used to describe people who believe there is no God, but this would defy common usage and most people reading it would be confused.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I can't believe you are using "square."

You're play on words didn't escape me, but I assumed (and perhaps this is where I made my mistake) that you were clever enough to try for a mild chuckle and express vehement agreement with Engineer.

It wasn't a very amusing play on words, and certainly not as amusing as your declaration, "My response is funny..." and your assumption that you need to explain your comedic genius. I'm sorry I didn't provide a nod to it in my reply because we could have save ourselves this boring exchange.

In any case, I agree completely with your point that people who frequent this forum shouldn't complain about what they consider "offensive" comments (and for the umpteenth time, I didn't personally find any of your comments offensive), but just as you are forever decrying bigotry and then demonstrating your own as respects Christians and conservatives, I believe you have, in the past, complained of offensive comments. If this is actually not the case I apologize for asserting it is, but it is nice to know that you have now assured us all that going forward you never will.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Neo are you really still trying to hold Romeo to his professed literalist view of the Bible?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There are many words and phrases that common usage has taken beyond precise, original definitions. Anti-Semite is one. Whether or not any group other than Jews can be considered Semites, "anti-Semitic" is reserved exclusively to describe a hatred of Jews. Call it perversion or corruption, sometimes it's unfortunate because it means the loss of a perfectly useful word (It appears that "literally" is on this path), but it's the way of the world. "Anti-Semite" is a very useful term despite it's corruption, and, while you're not doing it here, it's use usually prompts some silly response reminding the user that Arabs are Semites too.

As for "believer," I have used it to describe anyone who believes in the existence of God (no matter what the their concept of God may be). Obviously it can be used to describe people who believe there is no God, but this would defy common usage and most people reading it would be confused.

I appreciate what you are saying, Finn...and I agree.

I pretty much covered that in the original remarks I made on the issue.

Quote:

This is a good post, Finn...and I am not taking exception to what you are saying here.

But I would like to take this opportunity to call attention to a similarity between the way the words "anti-Semite" and "believer" are used...and have been perverted.

Many, many Arabs are Semites...and the word being used exclusively to mean anti-Jew...is a perversion of sorts.

Many "believers" are people who "believe" there is a GOD...but many "believers" also "believe" there are no gods. Both do believing...and are believers.

Just sayin'!

And it is a perversion of sorts, Finn.

Calling a Semitic Arab an anti-Semite (as I have seen done) really is a travesty of sorts.

And for someone doing believing in the direction of "there are no gods" to talk about "believers" the way some do...is a perversion in my opinion. The "believers" that there are no gods...ARE believers, no matter how the word is commonly usesd.

Like I said..."just sayin'!"

As for the "confusion" it might cause for "most people"...here in A2K I explained my position on the issue quite carefully...and here we tend to be specific on things like this. The position was at the heart of a thread of mine that got bogged down in insults rather than meaningful discussion.

http://able2know.org/topic/190405-1

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I am mesmerized by his performance of the a2k sashay.

0 Replies

Quote:

Finn dAbuzz said: Neo are you really still trying to hold Romeo to his professed literalist view of the Bible?

Whoa mate, just to clarify, I use ALL the well-known Bible versions, but Neo only uses his Jehovah's Witnesses 'New World Translation', so we're not singing from the same song sheet by a long chalk.. Smile

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

Finn dAbuzz said: Neo are you really still trying to hold Romeo to his professed literalist view of the Bible?

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Whoa mate, just to clarify, I use ALL the well-known Bible versions, but Neo only uses his Jehovah's Witnesses 'New World Translation', so we're not singing from the same song sheet by a long chalk..

Careful, Romeo. I know how you hate false witness. I believe I have used at least 3 different translations so far today. New American Standard, New World, and New International. Maybe more. They all have the truth.

Main difference is I don't use the sashay

0 Replies

Quote:

Neologist said: I have used at least 3 different translations so far today. New American Standard, New World, and New International. Maybe more. They all have the truth.

Good for you mate, but that raises the question about whether "the truth" is to be found in your JW's New World version or one of the others?
For example Mark 15:32 in the New World version reads-
"Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down off the torture stake, so that we may see and believe.” Even those who were on stakes alongside him were reproaching him."

but the other two versions you mentioned (and 43 other versions) use the words "cross" and "crucified" thus-
NASV-"Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him"
NIV- "Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him"

So which is correct, your JW's New World version which says Jesus was nailed to a stake, or the other 45 versions which say he was crucified on a cross?
PS- better not let your JW big bosses know you don't stick to the NW or they'll boot you out again.. Wink

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Well, you know the Greek word stauros does not mean cross.
You can spin it any way you want, as nominal christians seem obsessively drawn to do. But it means what it means

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

. . . . PS- better not let your JW big bosses know you don't stick to the NW or they'll boot you out again..;

Where do you think I learned to compare translations?

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
Neologist said: I have used at least 3 different translations so far today. New American Standard, New World, and New International. Maybe more. They all have the truth.

Good for you mate, but that raises the question about whether "the truth" is to be found in your JW's New World version or one of the others?
For example Mark 15:32 in the New World version reads-
"Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down off the torture stake, so that we may see and believe.” Even those who were on stakes alongside him were reproaching him."

but the other two versions you mentioned (and 43 other versions) use the words "cross" and "crucified" thus-
NASV-"Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!” Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him"
NIV- "Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him"

So which is correct, your JW's New World version which says Jesus was nailed to a stake, or the other 45 versions which say he was crucified on a cross?
PS- better not let your JW big bosses know you don't stick to the NW or they'll boot you out again..

Yeah, it does.

In fact, it raises the question of whether "the truth" can be found in any of them...doesn't it?

0 Replies

to quote a great and holy man

"Come down off the cross
We can use the wood"

Tom Waits - Come On Up To The House

0 Replies

Straight Pride

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know