• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Agenda, what it is? [W:509]

CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, you have proven that you don't understand historical context. Take Sodom and Gommorah for example. If you understood historical context, you'd understand that the story had nothing to do with homosexuality, but had to do with rape and intimidation.
Click to expand...

The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old" (Genesis 19:4), homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. Mollenkott makes a persuasive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies,[77] but her argument is weakened by Professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology
 
Removable Mind said:
Agree, Joko....

But equal rights under the law...and equal social standing is too complicated for a few people to grasp. And these same bewildered people manage to somehow parlay their nonsense into endless thread postings, which end in end...serves them how?
Click to expand...

I agree.

BTW your mailbox is full.
 
AGENT J said:
1.)well you are free to believe what you want facts dont care
2.)you love fantasy dont you

you lose to history, sorry
Click to expand...

With your support for the two evils, abortion and homosexuality, how good can your integrity be? Really? I mean, it’s like the worst kind to have. It’s like fools gold. Worthless!

Nice when you have the truth on your side.

Enjoy what's left of your....ahem...."integrity"!
 
Logicman said:
The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old" (Genesis 19:4), homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. Mollenkott makes a persuasive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies,[77] but her argument is weakened by Professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology
Click to expand...

That argument is wrong and shows that the entire point of the attempted rape of the angels/male visitors was to exert power over them. Plus, you fail to realize that many texts are filled with exaggerations, including the story of Sodom. It is not logical at all to assume that the entire male population of the town truly came out to Lot's house out of lust/homosexual feelings for the male visitors. It is completely illogical to assume that even if they were all gay men, young and old, that all of them would be actually attracted to those male visitors. The much more logical position is that a number of the men of Sodom, particularly the important men of Sodom, came to attempt to exert power over those male visitors in their city, which at the time absolutely did include male rape. And no, there is no talk of homosexual activity being more prevalent in Sodom or Gomorrah than any other early civilizations. In fact, the explanation in why it is false by that blog or "Response" doesn't make since. He/she tries to say that it had to be about homosexuality because of Lot's response. That is wrong. Lot's response could easily be referring to the facts that a) they were attempting to rape men who he believed to be angels as well, and b) women were not held to the level of men so offering his virgin daughters to the townsmen would be about keeping them from bringing God's wrath for defiling his angels, not for engaging in the "wicked act of homosexuality". And all the examples that you give are from religious texts and very well may be talking about the religious/Pagan acts done in temples. The oral stories of Sodom passed down and eventually written down by Judaism suggest that adultery between married men and their female neighbors, married and unmarried was extremely common in Sodom. Yet it speaks very little to none about homosexuality and actual same sex relationships. There are lots of types of "sexual immorality" and it is arrogant and foolish to assume that Sodom was destroyed over homosexuality at all considering the stories we actually have that talk about what was actually going on in Sodom.
 
CLAX1911 said:
All the gay people don't get together and decide on an agenda so there really is no "gay agenda" so to speak
Click to expand...

I thought "you guys" had weekly meetings where you allget together and prance around in ass-less pants, spank each other and discuss your plans to ghey up the planet.
 
OscarB63 said:
I thought "you guys" had weekly meetings where you allget together and prance around in ass-less pants, spank each other and discuss your plans to ghey up the planet.
Click to expand...

Those are assless chaps. Get it right! :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
Those are assless chaps. Get it right! :lol:
Click to expand...

nope. they are pants. all chaps are ass-less. therefore saying "ass-less" chaps would be redundant. ;)
 
OscarB63 said:
nope. they are pants. all chaps are ass-less. therefore saying "ass-less" chaps would be redundant. ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, if it doesn't have an ass, then it's chaps. Pants have asses and are sometimes worn by asses. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom