College Football Star Michael Sam Says He Is Gay; May Become First Publicly G...

[Ring 6]

So you think he's an ignorant, hateful bigot because he doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle that you support. That's not very tolerant.

Why would I be tolerant of intolerance?

I am not supporting any lifestyle, I am supporting the rights of people to live as they see fit and not expect them to conform to what I think they should do.

He is ignorant and hateful. I am not intolerant to recognize that.

 

[Ring 6]

A few posts ago there were thousands of gay youngsters and now it's up to millions. If this thread goes on much longer it'll probably be up to billions.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

No a few posts ago there were thousands of children molested by priests that could have been stopped. Do you dispute either that or the fact that there are millions of gays?

Of course that comment of yours really has a lot to do with the point, doesn't it?

 

[chicowalker]

For some it is a choice. Some are hetero, then go homo, and then go back to hetero and say they aren't gay anymore.
For others, I think it's something wrong in their psychology from development or nutritional over generations like Pottenger's cat experiments. The cats with the poor nutritional diet had homosexual behavior after 3 or 4 generations. Those may be the ones that say they always remember being attracted to the same sex as a young kid. They need professional help and may have a lifelong battle to stay celibate.

boogs, do you have anything to base your belief on?

re choice, some people are bisexual -- that still doesn't mean they've made that choice, any more than you (presumably) or I chose to be heterosexual

and when you say that somebody needs psychological help because they are homosexual, that's where you're going off the track from your claims that you have nothing against homosexuals.

Do other sinners need psychological help, or just homosexuals? Is this some special sin requiring professional attention?

fwiw, I believe that your views are not borne of malice, having read your posts for some time. I'm curious whether you are older, maybe, along with being religious? that's how it comes across. both when you say things like this post and when you talk about homosexuals "flaunting" it, etc.

 

[Uncle Meat]

The good news is that Michael Sams doesn't need the approval of people that fear what they don't understand.

 

[Ring 6]

boogs, do you have anything to base your belief on?

re choice, some people are bisexual -- that still doesn't mean they've made that choice, any more than you (presumably) or I chose to be heterosexual

and when you say that somebody needs psychological help because they are homosexual, that's where you're going off the track from your claims that you have nothing against homosexuals.

Do other sinners need psychological help, or just homosexuals? Is this some special sin requiring professional attention?

fwiw, I believe that your views are not borne of malice, having read your posts for some time. I'm curious whether you are older, maybe, along with being religious? that's how it comes across. both when you say things like this post and when you talk about homosexuals "flaunting" it, etc.

Yes, cats who were starved for 4 generations became homos. God is in the vitamins apparently.

 

[Ring 6]

For some it is a choice. Some are hetero, then go homo, and then go back to hetero and say they aren't gay anymore.
For others, I think it's something wrong in their psychology from development or nutritional over generations like Pottenger's cat experiments. The cats with the poor nutritional diet had homosexual behavior after 3 or 4 generations. Those may be the ones that say they always remember being attracted to the same sex as a young kid. They need professional help and may have a lifelong battle to stay celibate.

Where in the world did you get that from?
You are totally, 100% wrong, or you just made it up.

From wikipedia:

Francis M. Pottenger, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In one study, one group of cats was fed a diet of two-thirds raw meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil while the second group was fed a diet of two-thirds cooked meat, one-third raw milk, and cod-liver oil. The cats fed the all-raw diet were healthy while the cats fed the cooked meat diet developed various health problems.
By the end of the first generation the cats started to develop degenerative diseases and became quite lazy.[citation needed]*By the end of the second generation, the cats had developed degenerative diseases by mid-life and started losing their coordination.
By the end of the third generation the cats had developed degenerative diseases very early in life and some were born blind and weak and had a much shorter life span. Many of the third generation cats couldn't even produce offspring. There was an abundance of parasites and vermin while skin diseases and allergies increased from an incidence of five percent in normal cats to over 90 percent in the third generation of deficient cats. Kittens of the third generation did not survive six months. Bones became soft and pliable and the cats suffered from adverse personality changes. Males became docile while females became more aggressive.[citation needed] The cats suffered from most of the degenerative diseases encountered in human medicine and died out totally by the fourth generation.[citation needed]
At the time of Pottenger's Study the amino acid taurine had been discovered but had not yet been identified as an essential amino acid for cats. Today many cats thrive on a cooked meat diet where taurine has been added after cooking. The deficient diets lacked sufficient taurine to allow the cats to properly form protein structures and resulted in the health effects observed. Pottenger himself concluded that there was likely an "as yet unknown" protein factor that may have been heat sensitive.[citation needed]

 

[chicowalker]

btw, boogs, christiancat, maybe others, you've made the general comment in here about why anybody should care about your beliefs.

To the extent that they are simply your beliefs, I agree with you. I don't know you, I don't care if you simply consider homosexuality a sin, I really don't care if you're a rabid bigot (not saying you are) -- though I'd comment on the latter.

But for the most part, it isn't just a matter of you -- and others who share your point of view -- having your own beliefs.

On the extreme end of the spectrum, homosexuals have assaulted and killed for being gay by people sharing your views. Homosexuals have been subjected to namecalling, job discrimination and housing discrimination by people sharing your views.

I don't think either of you would be like the folks who perpetrated those malicious acts. But there's a decent chance you have voted against marriage equality or given money to groups opposing marriage equality. If you haven't, great. but if you have, then you are going beyond simply having harmless points of view. instead you're trying to impose those views on others by limiting homosexuals' rights.

And what would make that even worse, in my view, is if you're like the many people who oppose marriage equality, claiming some religious / moral ground for doing so, while never trying to do anything comprable w/regard to marriage and all other sinners. That's when the point of view stops looking like a mere religious belief and looks more like targeting homosexuality as some sort of special sin. I know I'd have a lot more respect for people opposing marriage equality if they also fought to make divorce illegal, or something along those lines.

 

[SalemPats]

Exactly you could be friends or teammates with gays, fornicators etc. But I think you're saying that while you may be friends and or teammates with those people you may still consider their actions and or lifestyle sinful. That doesn't mean you wouldn't offer that person a jacket if cold, or food if hungry, play football with them, or hang out with them as a friend. It just means that you don't agree with some of that person's choices and will not partake in the acts of theirs that you may feel are sinful. I agree with ya boogs, you're on point as usual.

The fact that you think being gay is sinful is very distrurbing. We don't say that your beliefs (for instance in creationism) is sinful. We just merely point out that you are misguided.

 

[PP2]

Which Christians were bashing gays? I saw a whole bunch of posters say homosexual acts are sinful yet they could still befriend a gay person.

Why would you befriend someone whose actions you find sinful? I wouldn't.

 

[PP2]

Where in this thread have I posted saying anything bad about Micheal Sam coming out? All I said was that many Christians in this thread are just giving you their interpretation of what the bible says about certain acts, Hell etc. I feel that Christians are free to give their interpretation of the bible because they follow the bible. It is not about imposing your views on others, but rather it is just about stating how and what you feel the bible to be saying about certain subjects. If you disagree with how Christians in this thread interpret certain acts or subjects in the bible than you're free to do so. You can simply disagree with their stance on the subject without bashing them personally as Christians. Because at the end of the day all they are trying do is follow what they believe the bible to be saying. As far as Micheal Sam Coming out. I stated yesterday in this thread that his sexual preference doesn't matter to me. I leave that for God to decide who goes to heaven or not.
Judge ye not ye be judged works both ways. You judge a Christian, Catholic etc. than they may judge an atheist and vice versa. It's a vicious cycle really. Here's a site that provides a brief analysis on the Lot and his daughters situation. Remember the bible never said that Lot sleeping with his daughters was good or bad. The story was simply told from a neutral viewpoint. Genesis 19:31-35 ? Lot?s Daughters Sleep With Their Father | Pondering Scripture

Do you or do you not find homosexuality to be a "sin"? If yes, then you are being judgmental.

Am I being judgmental? No. Am I disapproving of you and other so-called "Christians" of being judgmental? Yes.

So you are saying the bible approves of incest but condemns homosexuality and that makes sense? That doesn't make one iota of sense to me.

 

[PP2]

I'm not sure where all the made up nonsense about "us" Christians is coming from. Your post and others are full of assumptions we never said. There is no judging going on here by Christians. Michael Sam says he presently practices a gay lifestyle. That's a fact as Sam states it. I didn't judge him to come to the conclusion. He gladly states it himself. Lol at you guys putting words in other peoples mouths.

You believe homosexuality to be a "sin." That is being judgmental. You are judging homosexuality to be a sin, although on what grounds I have no idea other than a perverse interpretation of the bible which leads me to ask you this:

You continually refer to the bible as being the final word, but the bible also orders you to chop your hands and feet off and pluck your eyes out if they cause you to stumble.

I assume you have hopefully not done that?

If so, then you aren't following the bible literally, which is in contradiction to what you have stated about the bible.

And in that way, you cannot be called a true "Christian" by your own interpretation.

 

[Ring 6]

Why would you befriend someone whose actions you find sinful? I wouldn't.

I think it is even more than actions, it is their entire way of life at question. That's why it is such a devastating judgment to pass.
Gay people hearing that do not hear that their act of sex is immoral, they hear that their beliefs, feelings, identity and self image is immoral.
Its not like saying the guy who cheats on his wife should keep it in his pants, its telling them that who they are is disgusting and vile.

 

[PP2]

You shouldn't have let the atheists derail you. Most people don't care about that. I know I don't.

I have a serious question for anyone willing to answer. Homosexuality is clearly an unnatural act, so why is anyone obligated to accept it as something else?

It's a great way to reduce the population though.

Who are you referring to as atheists? Nobody is making remarks or questioning God here.

The only thing that is happening is posters are questioning the grounds upon which "Christians" find homosexuality to be a sin.

In regard to homosexuality being an "unnatural act" why is that so? What gives you the right to judge it as an "unnatural act"?

 

[PP2]

What about the people that renounce their past gay lifestyle? They choose to not act on those feelings anymore. Antoine Dodson went back hetero from what I heard.

That sounds far more like repression than going back to a "hetero" lifestyle.

 

[PP2]

A few posts ago there were thousands of gay youngsters and now it's up to millions. If this thread goes on much longer it'll probably be up to billions.

That is very similar to the warnings Hitler gave in his speeches during his ascendency to the chancellorship, prior to 1939. He warned Germany that the Jewish population was growing exponentially and would come to "dominate the world."

 

[PP2]

I don't know why. But the American media push to get homosexuality widely accepted is mind boggling to me. They are pushing it hard the last few years it seems to me.

Why do you find that to be such a threat?

According to your deranged theology, we should then expect the anti-christ to rise again. I'll go pack now.

 

[PP2]

So you think he's an ignorant, hateful bigot because he doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle that you support. That's not very tolerant.

The only thing I see Andy doing is calling Boogs out on judging other people.

 

[PP2]

We aren't going to get very far if you can't get past this one simple truth, that homosexual sex is indeed unnatural, by every definition of the word.

Let me try and explain it in another way. Every living thing in this world has a life cycle. There are no exceptions. That cycle is; birth, reproduction, aging and death. Homosexuals can't reproduce.

As for people being born homosexual, you and nobody else knows that to be true. Anyone who says it has zero evidence of that. It really looks more like a learned habit.

By your definition, those who cannot or will not reproduce, are then sinning.

If we follow your dictum, we should end up with a severely overpopulated, depleted world before long.

 

[PP2]

I think it is even more than actions, it is their entire way of life at question. That's why it is such a devastating judgment to pass.
Gay people hearing that do not hear that their act of sex is immoral, they hear that their beliefs, feelings, identity and self image is immoral.
Its not like saying the guy who cheats on his wife should keep it in his pants, its telling them that who they are is disgusting and vile.

In fact, I think this kind of subtle judgment behavior can be more harmful than outright hate.

At least outright hate is against the law.

 

[Patsrock]

Such a family tragedy. I feel so bad for this womans family. They must all be acting because they truly must feel she let them down

This Woman Came Out To Her Entire Family On Christmas Eve And Recorded Everything