Abomination Of Desolation:(the Gay Marriage Issue)

ubermunche, you are incorrect. Firstly I did not grow up in jamaica,. I was born and grew up in america, but I have friends that grew up there and they tell the whole story.
I do however find the sexual act between two men utterly vile, repulsive, filthy,wicked, perverse and a true abomination.

I have seen too many die from this perversion and thus is why I am so against it. I have had christian friends that were backslidden and got caught up in this perversion. Have talked to them on their death beds, where many repented of this vile act against God.

I have witnessed the manifestation of the other vile spirits that usually accompany this spirit of perversion, the liars, deceptionist and like spirits.

I have seen the power of God bring deliverance to those that truly wanted to be delivered, and have seen many restored to a normal life. They themselves would tell you that it is a perversion and they are glad to be set free.

The very fact that they use a anus to have sex ought to tell you something is wrong, what is wrong with a vagina ? no but they "BURN IN LUST" as the bible clearly states.

Don't take me wrong, I do indeed love the sinner, but I utterly Hate that Sin.

To take a Man, that is made after the Image of God, given power and authority in the earth, and then to lower to the likeness of a dog is truly a abomination like none other.

As far as the Men that ingage in anal sex with women, they too burn in lust, no longer satisfied with a womans vagina. Why is it necessary to enter a womans anus, and you would call it pleasure, I call it filth, it is where the waste of your body exits and a bad place to enter. Whether it be male- female or male- male they are both nasty holes. (sorry to be so blount but it is the best way to express the vileness of this act)

I could never support such a unsavory act.

It is TV and porn films that have made the perverted ones think that these acts are acceptable, do not be decieved they carry a great price, some will die here early from aids, others that escape here will spend eternity in the lake.

Here Is What God Has Said About Homosexuality


Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,: to dishonour their own bodies between themselves
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [more: or, rather]
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their :women did change the natural use into that which is against nature
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves (in their bodies) that recompence of their error ("The AIDS Virus")which was meet.(meet=acceptable)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; [to retain: or, to acknowledge] [a reprobate�: or, a mind void of judgment or, an unapproving mind]
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,inventors of evil things,(sex toys) disobedient to parents,


What Part Don't You Understand ? The Bible clearly states that these acts are unnatural. You can call God A Liar If you want, but I don't think you will do so when standing in front of him sitting on his Throne.



[edit on 22-11-2004 by Lastday Prophet]

On one hand we have posters like Lastdayprophet & Thinker & their insulting, extremist views based on a specific interpretation (and sometimes not even that) of the Bible as it relates to the topic of Homosexuality.

On the other hand we have posters like Saerlith & Lecky & their insulting, patronizing views such as "the Bible is a fairytale, dummy" & using ad hominem attacks on other posters who disagree with them.

The Conservatives against the Liberals, both with their rigid viewpoints, unwilling to create a dialogue, getting nowhere.

The only difference? Liberals are under the delusion that they are the "tolerant side" -- at the same time that they're bashing other people's beliefs in a particularly nasty fashion & attacking blindly with insults people who disagree with them. I have no problem with Liberals believing what they believe & debating the way they debate but please don't insult my intelligence by claiming yourselves to be "the tolerant ones."

Liberals smugly think that their secular humanist beliefs *are* the truth, the *real truth of existence*, and that people who follow religious beliefs are delusional and stupid. Liberals believe that it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Homosexuality is perfectly ok. Heck, I believe Homosexuality is perfectly ok. But I don't claim it as a self-evident fact; I will always be open to the possibility that I *might* be wrong, and that's why when I engage in dialogue w/Christians about it I do it with respect. Because nobody really knows *what* the objective truth really is. So to call a person a moron because they don't think gayness is natural & then to *back it up* with claims of your superior, secular-humanist intelligence is a load of s**t!!! Secular humanism is not self-evident fact. It is a belief system...just like Christianity!

The normalness of homosexuality is not a self-evident fact--I'm sorry. To me it is a very plausible possibility. But it is not self-evident--and to use this sort of argument with a Christian is pointless.

Hey, you want hardline Christians to stop believing that being gay is morally wrong--go get the govt to round their children up like the Native Americans and forcibly teach them secularist viewpoints in isolated boarding-school situations. Kidnap them from their communities and "wipe all that religious nonsense away" and maybe you'll finally succeed in "inoculating" them against "moronic religious viewpoints." That's the only way you're gonna do it. Any takers among you oh-so-tolerant "intellectual elite"?

Dennis Miller said it best: he's for Gay Rights but he also believes in Christian Rights -- that Christians have the right not to be told they're "idiots" just for having certain beliefs...the same way Gays have the right not to be called "perverts" for their beliefs.










[edit on 22-11-2004 by Cassie Clay]

Why is it that selfrighteous religious nuts are such bloody windbags!? If I see another damn bible quote ill scream!

Sorry, it annoys me bigtime! Lol

What I wanted to add was:
I dont call gay folk pervs or anything, even tho i find the idea of there sexual habits rather strange to say the least. What i find offensive is folk who automatically equate homosexuality with peadophilia. They are not one and the same. What consenting gay adults do at home is their buisness. Peadophilia on the other hand is everyones buisness and by far
a sicker, disgusting, more wicked abomination than anything gay adults get up to. Its a mindless and most offensive insult to be called a "spider"
weather your gay or straight. Imo the church has more to hide than any gay person.
Just for clarification im not gay. In anycase, if they choose to be monogamous, let them marry and be so, surely with aids spreading its a good thing!

Spare me...

You just patronized me for being patronizing.

You should have just spurted out Bible verses like the others to tell us how you really feel. As for the assumptions about all liberals...they all don't feel like myself on the matter...

Just do me a favor and cut the BS, I don't care how eloquently you post your beliefs... this is what I just read:

Liberals are elitist snobs...
Homosexuals aren't "natural"...

Can cut the pretentiousness with a knife.

Originally posted by crusader
well answer me this? iam that I am. if homosexuality is not sin, what is it. The bible clearly says it's an ABOMINATION! Against God's will. and that's is sin.

Well, if you had bothered to actually read my post then you would know the answer to that question, and why you have just blantantly lied.

Originally posted by crusader
to the ppl trying to justify homosexuality. They have thes homo tendencies. And they should desist from posting on this thread.

So, the people who are defending homosexuality against bigots like you are some gay themselves?
Sorry but that is just another lie of the followers of the anti-Christ like yourself. And if you don't want people who disagree with you to post on this thread then go to another country. This is the USA-it's called free speech. And even if it wasn't we still wouldn't all buy into the lies of the ANti-Chrtist like you-deal with it.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet

What Part Don't You Understand ? The Bible clearly states that these acts are unnatural. You can call God A Liar If you want, but I don't think you will do so when standing in front of him sitting on his Throne.

Why you are absolutely right Crusader, the bible say its wrong and of course thats that means its just wrong. Period. Open and shut case.I mean obviosuly The Bible is the last word on anything. No one would ever argue with that.[/sarcasm]


[edit on 22-11-2004 by I_AM_that_I_AM]

on Contemporary Results and Outcomes of Following 4000-year old LAWS.

As I recall, Yeshua [called "Jesus"] when he was here said, "Forgive and be forgiven," "turn the other cheek," "Judge not," but some people want to revert to violence.

Good! Let them EAT CAKE and remind them what effects faced the people who followed Moses Laws LITERALLY!

They had a mess to deal with, that I wouldn't want to have to clean up!!

Originally posted by Cassie Clay
On one hand we have posters like Lastdayprophet & Thinker & their insulting, extremist views based on a specific interpretation (and sometimes not even that) of the Bible as it relates to the topic of Homosexuality.

On the other hand we have posters like Saerlith & Lecky & their insulting, patronizing views such as "the Bible is a fairytale, dummy" & using ad hominem attacks on other posters who disagree with them.

The Conservatives against the Liberals, both with their rigid viewpoints, unwilling to create a dialogue, getting nowhere.

The only difference? Liberals are under the delusion that they are the "tolerant side" -- at the same time that they're bashing other people's beliefs in a particularly nasty fashion & attacking blindly with insults people who disagree with them. I have no problem with Liberals believing what they believe & debating the way they debate but please don't insult my intelligence by claiming yourselves to be "the tolerant ones."

Liberals smugly think that their secular humanist beliefs *are* the truth, the *real truth of existence*, and that people who follow religious beliefs are delusional and stupid. Liberals believe that it should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Homosexuality is perfectly ok. Heck, I believe Homosexuality is perfectly ok. But I don't claim it as a self-evident fact; I will always be open to the possibility that I *might* be wrong, and that's why when I engage in dialogue w/Christians about it I do it with respect. Because nobody really knows *what* the objective truth really is. So to call a person a moron because they don't think gayness is natural & then to *back it up* with claims of your superior, secular-humanist intelligence is a load of s**t!!! Secular humanism is not self-evident fact. It is a belief system...just like Christianity!

The normalness of homosexuality is not a self-evident fact--I'm sorry. To me it is a very plausible possibility. But it is not self-evident--and to use this sort of argument with a Christian is pointless.

Hey, you want hardline Christians to stop believing that being gay is morally wrong--go get the govt to round their children up like the Native Americans and forcibly teach them secularist viewpoints in isolated boarding-school situations. Kidnap them from their communities and "wipe all that religious nonsense away" and maybe you'll finally succeed in "inoculating" them against "moronic religious viewpoints." That's the only way you're gonna do it. Any takers among you oh-so-tolerant "intellectual elite"?

Dennis Miller said it best: he's for Gay Rights but he also believes in Christian Rights -- that Christians have the right not to be told they're "idiots" just for having certain beliefs...the same way Gays have the right not to be called "perverts" for their beliefs.










[edit on 22-11-2004 by Cassie Clay]

And of course you're quite right, this topic tends to polarize people and bring out the worst in them and of them, but the thing is I've never to my knowledge heard or seen any gay activists picketing Xtian churches and demanding that Xtianity be banned or subject to prohibitive laws, I've never seen gay people throw bricks through Xtian windows, they may have protested about certain individuals and inflammatory comments, but even so that is a response to something, rather than a provocative act. In short most gay people tend to go about their lives and let others do the same, a certain type of Xtian seems incapable of this, how long do you tolerate that before you respond in kind. There are extremists on every side of the divide be it gay/straight, liberal/conservative, religious/secular but I definately sense in some quarters a willingness to overlook this where Xtians are concerned, the excuse being they are God fearing, moral individuals who can't help being offended by certain things and simply cannot help how they respond to it. Imagine you were gay and someone like lastdayprophet attained a position of authority over you whether it be boss, manager or politician, how safe would you feel, how sure could you be that he wouldn't let his personal beliefs affect his actions towards you. With the greatest respect to you lastday I can't honestly say I'd be too confidant. Fine let people believe and practice what they want to as long as it's made clear that who you are does not give you the right to decide carte blanche how you treat others. And yes I realise that all these arguments can be switched around to make gay people the perpetrators and that's fine, as long as we all manage to keep checks and balances on each other and not let any one group get the upperhand we still have some kind of equality. Sad that it has to be arrived at in such a way but far better than the alternative.

For the record I am a gay man with a liberal/moderate conservative stance, who believes in God and makes God a part of my life by trying to lead it in as moral a way as I can.

I think that the gay marriage issue is a very simple open and shut case when dealing with the problem of making it legal or not. The arguments against it are religious based moral arguments at best. The Church (or the ideas represented by the Church) isn't suppose to be the governing body, they are to steer clear of the whole law scene. Once you take out the religious-based moral arguments, all you have left are a few CEO's not wanting to pay out additional marriage benefits and those who just can't get past the fact that men have sex with other men. Other than that you are left with discrimination and the isolation of homosexuals. This doesn't seem like there should be a problem with the legalization of same-sex marriages if the Church and its ideas are truly seperated from the state. But maybe this is too logical of a post for anyone to objectively look at and comprehend.

it's not right to allow these homosexuals rights. I f they want rights as hetrosexuals let them go form a country and live their by themselves. the environment of having them around, (they are so perveted in their ways) it will spread, and others will be contaminated. Being gay is not a basic human right. it never was and will never be. It's a perversion. and for that, they (gays) unrepenting and not turning from their ways should be punished. Imagine what rights like having them adopt children? they(children) seeing the two parents kisssing and making love. what will they think? That this is the way it was intended? No it can't be! And by the way to the fellow posters, I am not conservative. i am a CONSERVATIVELIBERAL

Originally posted by crusader
they(children) seeing the two parents kisssing and making love. what will they think?

Yeah...this happens ALL the time in hetros houses. I've never seen my parents making love.....has anyone else?

This is all I'm posting in this thread because it's always the same thing. You can't open a closed minded persons mind....period. That goes for both sides. Even I do...being a gay man.

It goes back to the best question ever IMHO......what would you say if I told you you had a closed mind? Think about it and get back to me.

My answer would be yes....in some cases I do have a closed mind.

My father was married to someone else, and my mother was drunk. They had about two hours time in which to create a child--

much to my fathers' and his family's dismay.

But, here I am, and God loves me enough to help me keep on and keep on.

Originally posted by crusader
To all the detractors and sick people commenting on this thread. heres' the commandment go on and look it up in your bible,(if you have one) Maybe you don't anyway.

I have a couple of points to make regarding the scriptures that are quoted here:

Leviticus 18: 22 `` thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

The Hebrew word for Abomination in this verse is "Tow`ebah" meaning unclean in a ritual sense (like eating unclean food, worshipping idols, entering into mixed marriages).
If you continue on to verse 23, "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is perversion." you will learn that "Tebel" is Hebrew for "perversion" or "confusion" (a violation of nature or divine order and a sexual sin). If the "abomination" in v.22 is a sin against God's natural order, why didn't the author use the same term as he did in v.23 when he referred to bestiality?

also in Deuteronomy 23: 117. `` there shall be no whore of the daughters of israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of israel.

The word "sodomite" in this verse is translated incorrectly from the Hebrew word "Qadesh" or "male temple prostitute" and should actually be read,
"...there shall be no female temple prostitutes (Q@deshah) of the daughters of Israel, nor any male temple prostitutes (Qadesh) of the sons of Israel."

The first known use of the term sodomy used in a more general sense to mean "crimes against nature" is found in the writings of Jewish historian Josephus (circa A.D. 96) as he summarizes the Genesis narrative: "About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices" (Antiquities 1.11.1). Note that the final element of his assessment goes beyond the Biblical data, even in the New Testament. Despite the inaccuracy, this meaning is the primary one that we use today.
en.wikipedia.org...

The punishment of the sodom and Gomorrah. was for these same despicable acts.

Is that so? Where exactly does the Bible say that Sodom was destroyed specifically for their homosexual behavior?

The fact is, the Bible does give the specific reasons why Sodom (which, incidentally MEANS "burning") was destroyed:
Ezekiel 16:49-50
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Also see: Lamentations 4:1-12 and Isaiah 1:10-15

As translated in the KJV of the Bible, here is the breakdown of the 947 different ways "yada'" or "to know" is used:
acknowledge, 6; acquaintance, 6; certainly, 7; consider (including "to know a person carnally"), 6; declare, 6; know, 645; knowledge, 19; known, 105; misc, 85; perceive, 18; shew, 17; teach, 5; tell, 8; understand, 7; wist, 7
www.searchgodsword.org...

Considering the fact that "yada'" can have so many different meanings and only very rarely does it denote a sexual act, isn't it possible that the people in Sodom (it wasn't just men, ya know) had something else in mind for the "strangers" besides rape?

For a great site with both the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons go to:
www.heartlight.org...

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
I Told You So!

The concept of two people of the same sex living together in a committed, loving, long-term relationship relationship sounds fine to me. Frankly, I don't care. It simply does not concern me. Furthermore, it's totally acceptable that if a same-sex couple wishes to "proclaim" their union as a "couple" -- a committed couple -- to the world. Again, cool. This does not concern me. If a person wants "to assign" their health or economic benefits from their place of employment to their same-sex partner. Again, cool. It does not concern me. In fact, it doesn't really concern me as to what anyone else does. Nor, for any matter, should anyone really concern themselves about this issue.

The sticking point appears to be one of semantics. I believe that the use of the actual word, M A R R I A G E, is the apex of this debate. And, to some extent, I can understand the problem. The word marriage has always -- ALWAYS -- expressed a specific union, a religious union, between a man and a woman. Marriage was not originally a civic concept, it has always been under the province of religion. Ergo, the concept has been defined as being a union between a man and a woman. If we grant same-sex couples every right and priveledge and obligation of a married couple, shouldn't this suffice?

Homosexual couples have, in many legal jurisdictions, had "civil unions". For the most part, this is a contractual arrangement wherein the couple have shared benefits and responsibilities just as in traditional marriage. The only thing different is the actual term. What's the big deal? Do people want to share their lives together because of love or does it really matter that the term marriage is at the core. Couldn't "civil union", "merger", "partnership" or whatever be used? Over time, the newly chosen word to describe this same-sex partnership could have the same acceptance and recognition as marriage -- without all of the legal hullabaloo.

Thank you for stating it so plainly and clearly.

Let's not trip over semantics.

A "marriage" is a marriage. A civil union is fine; but it's something else.

There are no natural children produced in a civil union--no offspring to inherit nor to whom to convey property, name, DNA nor physical attributes.

Right on.

from ubermunche
Imagine you were gay and someone like lastdayprophet attained a position of authority over you whether it be boss, manager or politician, how safe would you feel, how sure could you be that he wouldn't let his personal beliefs affect his actions towards you. With the greatest respect to you lastday I can't honestly say I'd be too confidant.

From Lastday
I have seen too many die from this perversion and thus is why I am so against it. I have had christian friends that were backslidden and got caught up in this perversion. Have talked to them on their death beds, where many repented of this vile act against God.

I have seen the power of God bring deliverance to those that truly wanted to be delivered, and have seen many restored to a normal life. They themselves would tell you that it is a perversion and they are glad to be set free.

"Don't take me wrong, I do indeed love the sinner, but I utterly Hate that Sin"

To take a Man, that is made after the Image of God, given power and authority in the earth, and then to lower to the likeness of a dog is truly a abomination like none other.

How dare you twist or suggest that I have a hatred against Gays. I hate the sin and the "SPIRIT" that would possess these people.

How many of you have stood by and watched as friends and loved ones layed on their death bed suffering from the horrible disease called "AIDS" which they contracted from living the "GAY" lifestyle. To see them laying there with all sorts of sores,spots and scabs.

But no, some of you would say it's okay, let them marry, let them teach the young children they adopt to do the same. Let the children too, die from this horrible disease. It's okay it's a "Good Thing" there is nothing wrong with it.

Just go to a Hospital and go into the Aids ward, take a look around and I think with just one visit, your perception of the Gay lifestyle will change immediately.

The media would never show you this because seeing the possible end result of this lifestyle is horrifying

All this only deals with this side of the river.
You do not want to be responsible for telling someone that "GAY" is "OKAY"
Only to find out that you were wrong and because of "YOUR" encouragment they would stand in the Judgment to give account of their deeds, and then be cast into the Lake.

All I can do is warn them of the consequences of this lifestyle, if they don't listen, they will pay a great price.

Like I said earlier I have prayed with many that were dying, and talked to many that were delivered and they all would tell you that this is not a natural lifestyle, but one in which the person is controlled and possessed by a "SPIRIT" and that is what I fight against, I do not hate the people.

If we continue to say it's okay it will only cause many more to die and their souls lost for eternity.

Don't listen to these "IDIOTS" who say there is no "HELL" Don't roll the dice for your soul, when the stuff hits the fan, they will not be able to help you.

Gays do not inherently get AIDS

AIDS was developed at Ft. Detrick Maryland, and it was included as a "test" in the hepatitis B VACCINE that was given to gay men in San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, in the late 1970s.

The Federal Register published Congress' RFP looking for contractors to create this virus in 1971. I saw the clipping.

The United States Government created this disease and then spread via vaccine to the Gay population, just to see what it would do. They call this, basic research.

See Dr. Boyd's Lawsuit against the USGoverment at the ICC in Geneva. He has all the citations and all the details.

And you wonder why I despise the Feds?

Originally posted by crusader
I brelieve as the bible says it's an abomination for mankind to lie with mankind..

Here is a very interseting message on this:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your posts, and I try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the
specific laws and how to follow them:

* When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it
creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is
my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
* I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?
* I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem
is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
* Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both
male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
* I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?
* A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
* Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God
if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?
* Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
* I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead
pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
* My friend practices the Wiccan religion. Since Exodus 22:18
states that he must be put to death, am I morally obligated to kill
him as well?
* My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them (Leviticus 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn
them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who
sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?
* I read that Amnesty International is in Thailand protesting the
selling of underaged girls into slavery and prostitution. Should I
write my congressmen and request that we encourage these young girls
to obey their masters as it states in Ephesians 6:5?
* I need to do some business on the island of Crete soon but Titus
1:12 states that people from the island of Crete are liars and lazy.
Should I be careful when doing business there?
* At the church I attend, some women lead a Bible study. What is
the best way to tell them to shut up? We must not have women speaking
in church when 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids them to.
* Many of the women in our church wear jewelry. Since women are
forbidden to wear jewelry (1 Peter 3:3) what is the best way to tell
them they are going to hell?
* I want to obey 2 Thessalonians 1:26 and greet all the women at
our church with a kiss. Why do I get strange looks from them when I do
- especially from their husbands? What about French kissing?
* Recently, I have asked several women in my church to marry me
since it is permissible for a man to have many wives (1 Kings 11:3).
Why do I continually get rejected? People at church are beginning to
talk.
* I suppose I will not get married since the Bible states that men
ought not marry (1 Corinthians 7:1). What do you suggest?
* There are many unbelievers where I work and because we are
forbidden to associate with them (1 Corinthians 4:11), I am wondering
how best to tell them to keep away from me.
* Should I have the foreskin of my penis cut off? Exodus 12:48
commands that all men must do this. I would have my doctor do it but I
think I can save some money by doing it myself. Any ideas on how best
to do it?
* In the case of a circumcised baby who has lost his entire penis
due to a botched circumcision, who has ended up having transgender
sexual surgery performed upon him, who has subsequently been given
female hormones and raised as a girl, who has no idea what has
happened to him and who grows up with an innate confusion about his
true identity, who is never told about what originally happened to
him, who is most often quite odd-looking in appearance (essentially
like the character "Pat" played by Julia Sweeney of Saturday Night
Live television fame; what is described as a "butch" female by some
people), who is often ostracized and continually insulted and taunted
by society for his appearance; such a person, when he participates in
what appears to be heterosexual sex, that must mean that he is really
participating in homosexual sex instead, and thus, should he be
treated as a homosexual and condemned to hell also, or should we give
him just a little leverage in the matter, since, after all, his
parents were really trying to live by God's law?
* I know that Jesus' main teaching is that we should love our
neighbor as we love God. However, if I have homosexual neighbors, does
this mean that I should not love them like Jesus said I should, and
that I should condemn them to eternal hell, instead of allowing Jesus
to do that when they die, if Jesus really wants to do that?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Well, what should one do eh? I mean, those laws are pretty clear, right? And bible law is US law right? Oh, wait, it isn't. Infact, it doesn't matter, at all, what you beleive, what matters is the law. If you are sick of america, then you should leave america.

that's the problem with us humans we want to rationalize and interpret scriptures as we see fit, to our sinful desires. But that shouldn't be. sodom was destroyed for that. and case is close God didn't allow gays man with man etc, or else he will have made steve to go together with adam. so hear what. it's wrong cause God say so.