GOP lawmakers in North Carolina introduce bill to restore ban on same-sex marriage

[Smokin Joe]

There are religions, then there are religions. I am not attracted to William Jennings Bryan, Jim Bakker, or Benny Hinn.

I'm undecided who put on better shows--Tammy Faye Bakker (Messner), Jan Crouch or Benny Hinn?

I do hear Hinn is recruiting stagehands, though. Whatever flouts your boat, as they say.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XVy88x63yg

Those aren't religions, that there's showbiz. Think Elmer Gantry, early in the movie.

[INVAR]

Correct! Without a "Creator" we have no one to endow us with unalienable Rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... The rest falls apart from there.

Careful,  you'll end up scoffed, ridiculed and lectured about how wonderful Monaco, Switzerland and San Marino are. Because you know - Eurabia is just a paranoid delusion despite the fact they have been overrun by those who intend to breed their native populations out of existence and impose Sharia upon them.

Once the foundations are gone - whatever is the strongest aberration of force to be employed will replace what currently exists in terms of a society and civilization.  But the clueless liberal idiots still pretend that is not possible - despite the news and the stuff being done right in front of them.

[Silver Pines]

Because straight guys are not gay. Gay guys look at other men's bodies like I look at hot women's body and admire it  and you look at a hot guy in tight jeans and admire him.

 Why some people love chocolate ice cream and others  vanilla.

Everyone has their own schtick..what grosses one person out make another quiver. I'm going to get graphic here so close your eyes. Back in my fraternity days this one girl  would show up at our house on occasion when we had  a party and..um  ummmmm you ready for this? Pick out the guys with the cutest butts and toss their salad.. She would do nothing else and nothing done to her.  That is what turned her on, tripped her trigger, how she got her jollies. This  is my point about gay guys and how straight guys think about them having sex.   I'm sure what the girl above  would make you wretch thinking about it (or not) but to her it was the cats meow.


Chemical makeup and hormones are why we like certain things..good or bad to various people.

@CatherineofAragon

@mirraflake


Nope.  Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way.  Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.

[Silver Pines]

Those aren't religions, that there's showbiz. Think Elmer Gantry, early in the movie.

@Smokin Joe

Agreed.

And I've never found any explanation for Jan Crouch's pink hair.

[mirraflake]

@mirraflake


Nope.  Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way.  Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.

Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot? As @Mesaclone  pointed out earlier the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying. It's the #1 porn search by straight males.

Why do women go crazy over Milo Yiounopolis when they know he is gay??

Things are not black and white

@CatherineofAragon

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

And I've never found any explanation for Jan Crouch's pink hair.

Must be genetics. All sorts of aberrations have been explained that way. :nometalk:

[Smokin Joe]

Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot? As @Mesaclone  pointed out earlier the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying. It's the #1 porn search by straight males

@CatherineofAragon

Maybe they envision themselves in the middle. I don't get it, because if they are that into each other, they just might not want a guy in the middle. So I don't find it to be much of a turn on.

[mirraflake]

@mirraflake


Nope.  Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way.  Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.

You are thinking like a female..no disrespect.  You believe everyone is just like you. Majority of women usually have no interest in looking at naked male pics but men love to look at naked beautiful women.

@CatherineofAragon

[Mesaclone]

You go think that.

Hinn's doctrinal positions and mine are so far removed from commonality that each of us most likely regards the other as heretical.  But unlike you - at least Hinn states he believes in only one path to Life. That is the only commonality he and I share theologically.

You however,  worship a completely different god than Hinn and I do.  And I am not interested in anything you have to opine in regards to God, scripture or religion.

I don't really like to opine...its just no fun.

There IS only one path to life, and she created us all...even yourself. So its not possible to worship a completely different god, there is only one and...its a shame you've yet to meet him. Opine on that for a while.

[INVAR]

There IS only one path to life, and she created us all...even yourself. So its not possible to worship a completely different god, there is only one and...its a shame you've yet to meet him. Opine on that for a while.

No thanks.  The god you worship and promote here,  I have no interest in contemplating or recognizing as anything but false.

[Silver Pines]

You are thinking like a female..no disrespect.  You believe everyone is just like you. Majority of women usually have no interest in looking at naked male pics but men love to look at naked beautiful women.

@CatherineofAragon

@mirraflake

Oh, I forgot, you've been around and you've seen it all, and something about a sorority, and let me teach you the way things are.  Except you really don't know.

[INVAR]

Why do majority of men find two hot women making out very sexy and hot?... the ones who say it doesn't are usually lying.

It makes me sick to my stomach.  It 'aint sexy or hot.  It's sick.  Even as a teen in the 70s, lesbian garbage and even the talk of it was a major turn-off.  It's as stomach-churning as it is thinking about two men swapping spit.  It's sick, no different than deviants who brag about watching women have sex with animals.

Our culture is now so sexually saturated with porn and other crap - it doesn't take much exposure to deviancy to require more absurd and deviant acts to trigger climax in men.

I was never caught up in that crap.  Three younger sisters and three daughters may have inoculated me from wanting to ever see women engaging that stuff.  Loose women are still sluts in my estimation.  I would't touch them with your privates, much less my own.

[musiclady]

@mirraflake


Nope.  Two men having sex or kissing each other or whatever absolutely grosses me out, and I'm not the only woman who feels that way.  Like I said, it's unnatural in a way that produces a visceral response, male or female.

It's nauseating.  It goes against everything that is natural and good.  EVERYthing.

But seeing people here say it's a 'turn on' is proof that the world's a really, really messed up place with some sick people.

(Either that or they're just pretending to be disgusting because they know they're going to get a negative reaction from people who know the difference between right and wrong.  Perhaps?  Just being jerks??)

[Silver Pines]

It's nauseating.  It goes against everything that is natural and good.  EVERYthing.

But seeing people here say it's a 'turn on' is proof that the world's a really, really messed up place with some sick people.

(Either that or they're just pretending to be disgusting because they know they're going to get a negative reaction from people who know the difference between right and wrong.  Perhaps?  Just being jerks??)

@musiclady

[musiclady]

@musiclady

LOL! I have a feeling these boys think that they know more about life than we grown ups do.

WRONG. 

We are not impressed with their silly trolling.

[Jazzhead]

I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12  which begins -

For there are eunichs who are born this way . . .

and admonish the reader to "accept this".

That seems to endorse pretty clearly that some homosexuals are born that way,  and ought not to be cursed with the status of abomination,  but rather accepted.    The abomination,  I think, is the heterosexual who declines his obligation to reproduce - the "euchich made that way by man".   Men in the Biblical world were expected to sustain the tribe;  it's a cultural thing but Matthew 19:12 says to me God knows full well that some gays are what they are,  and He does not intend the He or His flock need be cruel.   

[Smokin Joe]

I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12  which begins -



and admonish the reader to "accept this".

That seems to endorse pretty clearly that some homosexuals are born that way,  and ought not to be cursed with the status of abomination but accepted.    The abomination,  I think, is the heterosexual who declines his obligation to reproduce.   Men in the Biblical world were expected to sustain the tribe;  it's a cultural thing but Matthew 19:12 says to me God knows full well that some gays are what they are,  and He does not intend the He or His flock need be cruel.

If he had meant to say homosexual, he would have said 'homosexual'.

[roamer_1]

I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12  which begins -

[...]

and admonish the reader to "accept this".

So your inference is that eunuchs are necessarily gay?

[musiclady]

So your inference is that eunuchs are necessarily gay?

A highly faulty inference.  Ridiculous, even.

Being a eunuch has absolutely nothing to do with preferring to sleep with men.

[Mesaclone]

No thanks.  The god you worship and promote here,  I have no interest in contemplating or recognizing as anything but false.

You may have no interest in oxygen, nor recognize its importance. Yet still, you must breathe whether you wish or not.

There is but one god, and you can deny her all you wish. You are free to choose, and he will be there for you when your soul has grown in understanding.

[Jazzhead]

If he had meant to say homosexual, he would have said 'homosexual'.

No, you're ignoring the context.   In those times,  it was expected of men to reproduce, to perpetuate the tribe.   The word "eunuch" was used to denote a man who was not expected to reproduce;  indeed he could not.

So three categories are spelled out - some eunuchs are born that way,  some eunuchs are made that way by man, and some are eunuchs for the purpose of glorifying God.

The latter are the priests and religious intelligentisia who either take vows of chastity or dedicate their lives to religious study.

The former are those who are born gay.

The middle group corresponds to those described by the Bible as abominations.   Heterosexual men who turn their backs (literally) on their sexuality (and their duty to the tribe).

The passage (Matthew 19:12)  seems prescient.   The Bible condemns homosexuality -  when practiced by non-homosexuals.    That fits with the requirements of the tribe,  and God as the Giver of Wisdom to the tribe.   But to condemn the mere homosexual?    God is the Light of this World;  His is not the cruel mien of the Bible thumper.   

[INVAR]

I'd be interested to know what folks think of Matthew 19:12 

Eunuchs in biblical times were castrated men.  Often Eunuchs were servants to royal harems and castrated to make sure they would not mess around with the maidens set aside for ruler's pleasures or for arranged marriages to princes.  Advisors to kings were also usually castrated in order to make them more docile and focused on their task than be intrigued by a woman. 

At the time of Christ around 30-33 AD - and in the context of the times, Eunuchs in the Greek also referenced those who were celibate and had no sexual desire, those born with birth defects rendering them impotent - or those who castrated to avoid temptation of sexual sin.

Jesus was referencing 3 types: those forced into castration; those who were born impotent or without sex organs and those who castrated or chose celibacy themselves rather than deal with sexual temptation.

The Greek and Hebrew worlds for Eunuch and homosexual or men having sex with other men in scripture are not the same.  They are not used interchangeably to reference either Eunuchs or homosexuals.  They are two completely different sets of words and phrases used to convey the meaning.  Furthermore, Eunuchs are never referred to in Scripture as being in a state of sin, while homosexuality is condemned as sin and abomination in both the Old and New Testaments.

The Bible condemns homosexuality -  when practiced by non-homosexuals.   

Do you have any idea how STUPID that statement is?  I mean REALLY STUPID. 

Pray tell what chapter and verse from the Bible did you glean that application - or like everything else, did you just make it up in your own mind and attribute that to scripture?

[Smokin Joe]

No, you're ignoring the context.   In those times,  it was expected of men to reproduce, to perpetuate the tribe.   The word "eunuch" was used to denote a man who was not expected to reproduce;  indeed he could not.

So three categories are spelled out - some eunuchs are born that way,  some eunuchs are made that way by man, and some are eunuchs for the purpose of glorifying God.

The latter are the priests and religious intelligentisia who either take vows of chastity or dedicate their lives to religious study.

The former are those who are born gay.

The middle group corresponds to those described by the Bible as abominations.   Heterosexual men who turn their backs (literally) on their sexuality (and their duty to the tribe).

The passage (Matthew 19:12)  seems prescient.   The Bible condemns homosexuality -  when practiced by non-homosexuals.    That fits with the requirements of the tribe,  and God as the Giver of Wisdom to the tribe.   But to condemn the mere homosexual?    God is the Light of this World;  His is not the cruel mien of the Bible thumper.

Wrong, but thanks for playing. Here's the answer, from https://www.gotquestions.org/eunuch-eunuchs.html

The eunuchs of the Bible were usually castrated males or those incapable of reproduction due to a birth defect. A eunuch could also be someone who performed work typical of eunuchs, although he remained perfectly capable of having sex—i.e., “eunuch” in some cases was simply a title. The purpose of intentional castration was to induce impotence and remove sexuality. It was a common practice in ancient times for rulers to castrate some of their servants and/or advisers in order to subdue and pacify them. It was especially common to castrate men who tended the royal harem. Queen Esther’s eunuchs are mentioned in Esther 4:4.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus mentions eunuchs in the context of whether it is good to marry. He says, “There are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Jesus identifies three types of “eunuchs” here: natural eunuchs (“born that way”), forced eunuchs (“made eunuchs by others”), and voluntary eunuchs (“those who choose”).

Natural eunuchs include those who are born with a physical defect, but they also comprise those who are born with no real desire for marriage or sex. Forced eunuchs are those who have been castrated for whatever reason. Voluntary eunuchs are those who, in order to better serve the Lord in some capacity, choose to forego marriage. God calls some people to remain single (and therefore celibate). Paul speaks of those who serve the Lord in their unmarried state in 1 Corinthians 7:7—9.

Some gay groups argue that Jesus was referring to homosexuals when He mentioned eunuchs who were “born that way.” However, the Bible never uses the words homosexual and eunuch interchangeably. Furthermore, eunuchs are never referred to in Scripture as being in sin, while homosexuality is universally condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

[mirraflake]

@mirraflake

Oh, I forgot, you've been around and you've seen it all, and something about a sorority, and let me teach you the way things are.  Except you really don't know.

What I said is 100 percent correct. Men are visual and likto look at beautiful naked women while women do not generally like to look at men's genitals in photos and to most it is a turnoff. In the days of print magazines there were dozens of nudie magazines for men but only one for women.
Stop believing that men are like women.Are you a feminist?
@CatherineofAragon

[mirraflake]

LOL! I have a feeling these boys think that they know more about life than we grown ups do.

WRONG. 

We are not impressed with their silly trolling.

I have always taken you for a radical feminist. Stop trying to think you know what males like and prefer and that believe women and men are alike because we are not
@musiclady