Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/1/05 09:33 PM, AngryToaster wrote: I'm so pissed and upset now.

I was at Hastings last night in the checkout line with one of my friends. She picks up an In Style magazine and asks "If you were gay, would you like this dress?" Looking at the putrid dress, I scoff and reply "hell no."

A gay couple in the checkout line kindly took time to call me a homophobe and a list of other trendy, nasty names.

While I hold nothing against them at all, no, it doesn't surprise me that there are psycho, close-minded people out there. It goes both ways.

At 2/5/05 05:41 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Here are the links you requested:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m160.htm

Numerous conflicts make homosexual behaviors abnormal, including rampant promiscuity, inability to maintain commitment, psychiatric disorders and medical illnesses with a shortened life span.
Dr.Fitzgibbons directly says, with no proof, whatsoever, that homosexuals are more promiscuous. There is nothing to back this up. I've been having sex with the same person for a year and a half. Is that promiscuous?
And, that debunks another 'fact', that comes from Fitzgibbons' mouth. I've 'maintained commitment' for a year and a half. I've had no 'trouble' 'maintining' anything.

Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women, not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.
Why is promiscuity automatically associated with unprotected sex? How about the person who always, every time, uses protection? Would that person having protected sex three times a week be physically unhealthy?
And just what does 'Homosexuality is unhealthy because of the nature of sex among men' mean? Nature of sex? It's not like homosexuals are axiomatically into, say, extreme S&M, or asphixiation. Anal and oral sex aren't, particurlaly, 'bad' for you. It might not be 'healthy', but niether is smoking two packs a day, and going through beer like it's water.
But we let people do that. Oh...but excessive beer drinking, and nicotine habits aren't 'nasty', and 'icky', are they? Beer doesn't make you uncomfortable, so it's all good. But homosexuality...that just doesn't feel right, to you. So it MUST be unhealthy, or evil, or SOMETHING. Otherwise, your dislike for said lifestyle would be unfound, and ignorant.

This site is idiotic. The 'doctor' goes on to name a huge list of STDs that, apparently, only homosexuals can catch. The list, however, looks suspiciously like the same STDs that ANYONE having sex can catch.
Furthermore, this site's source is http://www.zenit.org/english/ .
It's an 'unbiased' news source that extensively covers catholicism, and the events that affect it. It also seems to cover opinions backed by the catholic church.

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/StatsSdmy.htm

A 1997 study in British Columbia found the life expectancy of men who engage in sodomy to be comparable to that of the average Canadian man in 1871. Researchers estimate that nearly half of the 20 year old men currently engaging in sodomy will not reach their 65th birthday.

So, anal sex decreases life span? Oh, wait...it only decreases life span when men have anal sex with other men?
Or does anyone who has anal sex decreasing their lifespan?
Sodomy is any 'unnatural' sex act.

lol oh, god. I just got to the bottom of this link. There is a list that explains how any sexual conduct results in disease.
It even says 'close body contact' can cause lice, scabies, and fungal infection.
This site is not to be taken seriously.

Again, the root of this site appears to have an extreme christian
bias. .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966323/posts

And this site is so obviously bias, it offends even me, to see you using it as a source. Look, you can't explain things you find 'icky' away as 'bad', using political rhetoric. Find a source that's NOT the catholic church, and try again.

WOW, that site is screwy.

At 2/5/05 06:17 PM, darkmage8 wrote: A gay couple in the checkout line kindly took time to call me a homophobe and a list of other trendy, nasty names.

That's idiotic.

It's like the time some gay guy called me a breeder because I got up and moved away from him on the bus because I didn't want to hear about his latest conquest.

It seems that you consider all Christians to be radical right-wing fanatics that go around brainwashing the good people of America through "convert or kill" methods. And I suppose EVERY Christian website does nothing but spread lying, hateful propaganda condemning of all these wonderful people... they couldn't POSSIBLY be giving factual statistics that non-religious websites are hesitant to put up because of the issues regarding "political incorrectness". (sigh)

Here is a European website (non-religious):

http://homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

This one is a university health site (also non-religious):

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/aha_aidsr_crs.htm

Another non-religious site of statistics (I'm on a roll):

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/STDs/aidshivstats.html

I have a question: do you think that Christianity should be outlawed for its "oppression" of decent people? I know how much you hate us, so I was just wondering if you would take that hatred to the max.

can you say homosexuality is wrong? yes!
Should you hate homosexual people? Hell no!

At 2/7/05 06:25 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: It seems that you consider all Christians to be radical right-wing fanatics that go around brainwashing the good people of America through "convert or kill" methods. And I suppose EVERY Christian website does nothing but spread lying, hateful propaganda condemning of all these wonderful people... they couldn't POSSIBLY be giving factual statistics that non-religious websites are hesitant to put up because of the issues regarding "political incorrectness". (sigh)

Here is a European website (non-religious):

http://homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

This one is a university health site (also non-religious):

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/aha_aidsr_crs.htm

Another non-religious site of statistics (I'm on a roll):

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/STDs/aidshivstats.html

I have a question: do you think that Christianity should be outlawed for its "oppression" of decent people? I know how much you hate us, so I was just wondering if you would take that hatred to the max.

I have to admit, the fact that Homosexuals are considered ungodly by the Bible does hurt my enjoyment of Christianity. All in all, Christianity is great, and has great lessons behind it. I don't think they should be condemned because of their belief in the fact that homosexuals are ungodly, but I DO think they should all change that view. That's impossible, of course.

I just have a hard time believing that Christians have understood God's meaning, if he exists. How could somebody so "all knowing" be so ignorant as to condemn these people? How come HE doesn't know about the fact that it isn't their choice? I'm all for him existing and all, if it's possible, but I'm not gonna completely acknowledge his "power" if this is his idea of justice.

At 2/7/05 06:34 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: can you say homosexuality is wrong? yes!
Should you hate homosexual people? Hell no!

Those are my feelings exactly -- I don't HATE anybody, and it isn't the job of Christians to go around telling people to tie their shoes. I believe that no one has the right to judge because we ALL have done terrible things. Homosexuals are no worse than I am, or you are, or he/she is. We have ALL sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

At 2/7/05 06:45 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 2/7/05 06:34 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: can you say homosexuality is wrong? yes!
Should you hate homosexual people? Hell no!

Those are my feelings exactly -- I don't HATE anybody, and it isn't the job of Christians to go around telling people to tie their shoes. I believe that no one has the right to judge because we ALL have done terrible things.

Well then in that case, wtf do we need a supreme court if no one should judge us but God.

At 2/7/05 06:34 PM, Tombulgius wrote:

At 2/7/05 06:25 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: It seems that you consider all Christians to be radical right-wing fanatics that go around brainwashing the good people of America through "convert or kill" methods. And I suppose EVERY Christian website does nothing but spread lying, hateful propaganda condemning of all these wonderful people... they couldn't POSSIBLY be giving factual statistics that non-religious websites are hesitant to put up because of the issues regarding "political incorrectness". (sigh)

Here is a European website (non-religious):

http://homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

This one is a university health site (also non-religious):

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/aha_aidsr_crs.htm

Another non-religious site of statistics (I'm on a roll):

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/STDs/aidshivstats.html

I have a question: do you think that Christianity should be outlawed for its "oppression" of decent people? I know how much you hate us, so I was just wondering if you would take that hatred to the max.

I have to admit, the fact that Homosexuals are considered ungodly by the Bible does hurt my enjoyment of Christianity. All in all, Christianity is great, and has great lessons behind it. I don't think they should be condemned because of their belief in the fact that homosexuals are ungodly, but I DO think they should all change that view. That's impossible, of course.

We don't just believe the teachings of Jesus because we think it is the right and just thing to do -- that is part of it, though. We actually want to do what He commands us to do.

I just have a hard time believing that Christians have understood God's meaning, if he exists. How could somebody so "all knowing" be so ignorant as to condemn these people? How come HE doesn't know about the fact that it isn't their choice? I'm all for him existing and all, if it's possible, but I'm not gonna completely acknowledge his "power" if this is his idea of justice.

God is omniscient -- He knows and understands everything better than we ever could. You're right about homosexuality not being a choice in some cases; I know many ignorant Christians that simply can't grasp that concept. But I know enough gay people to realize that this condition is something they are powerless against. You must understand, we ALL have a desire to sin... whether it be homosexuality or simply lying to our parents when we were little. I'm sure that if we ask God to help us defeat those urges, He will surely help us in our daily struggle.

At 2/7/05 06:58 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 2/7/05 06:34 PM, Tombulgius wrote:

At 2/7/05 06:25 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

I have to admit, the fact that Homosexuals are considered ungodly by the Bible does hurt my enjoyment of Christianity. All in all, Christianity is great, and has great lessons behind it. I don't think they should be condemned because of their belief in the fact that homosexuals are ungodly, but I DO think they should all change that view. That's impossible, of course.

We don't just believe the teachings of Jesus because we think it is the right and just thing to do -- that is part of it, though. We actually want to do what He commands us to do.

I just have a hard time believing that Christians have understood God's meaning, if he exists. How could somebody so "all knowing" be so ignorant as to condemn these people? How come HE doesn't know about the fact that it isn't their choice? I'm all for him existing and all, if it's possible, but I'm not gonna completely acknowledge his "power" if this is his idea of justice.

God is omniscient -- He knows and understands everything better than we ever could. You're right about homosexuality not being a choice in some cases; I know many ignorant Christians that simply can't grasp that concept. But I know enough gay people to realize that this condition is something they are powerless against. You must understand, we ALL have a desire to sin... whether it be homosexuality or simply lying to our parents when we were little. I'm sure that if we ask God to help us defeat those urges, He will surely help us in our daily struggle.

What you explained is the kind of religion that only helps out the world. I think that's great that somebody can have the best of both worlds, partially understanding Homosexuals AND being Christian. Awesome.

I think this whole situation over homosexuality would be solved between non-religious hypocrites like me and the religious community if there were more people who thought like you.

At 2/7/05 06:34 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: can you say homosexuality is wrong? yes!

No! There's nothing wrong with loving someone of the same sex. If you think that it's wrong, you either believe in "Jesus" or "God" way too much, or your the one with issues.

Should you hate homosexual people? Hell no!

Correct!

At 2/7/05 06:52 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 2/7/05 06:45 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 2/7/05 06:34 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: can you say homosexuality is wrong? yes!
Should you hate homosexual people? Hell no!

Those are my feelings exactly -- I don't HATE anybody, and it isn't the job of Christians to go around telling people to tie their shoes. I believe that no one has the right to judge because we ALL have done terrible things.

Well then in that case, wtf do we need a supreme court if no one should judge us but God.

Earthly Law: The set of rules that define and determine our transgressions against each other. "CRIMES"

Spiritual Law: The set of rules that define and determine our transgressions against the Almighty God. "SINS" God tends to be a bit more merciful supreme court justices.

Both sets of laws are subject to interpretation...

than supreme court justices* ; )

At 2/7/05 07:09 PM, AngryToaster wrote:

No! There's nothing wrong with loving someone of the same sex.

Depends on what that other person thinks. I could say that there should be a death penalty, but it doesnt mean im right, or wrong, i just believe its right. Same with this whole same-sex issue (which i really try to avoid), it just depends on what people think. to tell the truth i really dont like religous people who hate homosexuals.

If you think that it's wrong, you either believe in "Jesus" or "God" way too much,

not too much, people just want to follow what the bible says, which says to treat people how you would like to be treated.

At 2/7/05 06:25 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: It seems that you consider all Christians to be radical right-wing fanatics that go around brainwashing the good people of America through "convert or kill" methods.

No, I don't. My parents are (Good) Christians. They are, in my opinion, closer to what the bible wants from man. And that means tolerance. And acceptance. Good Christians don't preach/believe in sermons that pound the idea of 'the evil, unnatural gays' over and over again. Good Christians refrain from judging.
But not you. And not the 'christians' like you. Your a mockery of your own religion. You've twisted something that was, originally, written as a guide to living a good, decent, humble life. You use your religion as an excuse for intolerance, and ignorance. You're a farce.
You're a disgrace to the very thing you claim to stand for.

I'm not against 'christians'. I'm against 'ignorance', in whatever form it may take.

And I suppose EVERY Christian website does nothing but spread lying, hateful propaganda condemning of all these wonderful people...

Of course not. Nothing is ever 'every' or 'all'. I'm speaking of this particular site. And there is nothing 'wonderful' about homosexuals. Just as there is nothing 'wonderful' about heterosexuals. Most things, when you learn enough about them, aren't 'wonderful'.

http://homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

This is just an exact copy of one of the previous websites. I'm not disagreeing with this because your sources were from a religious site. I'm disagreeing with it because it's unfounded. All your sources say 'gay sex is unhealthy' and 'gays are more likely to die, and get disease, and choke on chicken bones'. What they don't tell, though, is WHY. Why is anal sex unhealthy? Why are gay men more likely for disease?
You've given all the trimmings, in your sources, with no real meal.

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/aha_aidsr_crs.htm

There are thirteen high risk catagories, and only two mention homosexuals.
Should all haitians be suspected of carrying HIV?

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/STDs/aidshivstats.html

Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex

Of that singular time period, of the percentage of men who contracted the disease, sixty percent were homosexual. Don't get confused, and think that sixty percent of homosexuals have AIDS.

Black women are the group that is most susceptable to the HIV virus. Does that mean that all black women have lots of unprotected sex? Does that mean your god hates black females?

Give it the fuck up. AIDs is a disease, that is not bound by race, creed, or culture.

I have a question: do you think that Christianity should be outlawed for its "oppression" of decent people?

No. Unlike you, I have a little bit of tolerance, for most people. You have a right to be Christian, and you have a right to be a homosexual. We're talking about lifestyle choices. I'm not speaking of gay marriage, or homosexuals adopting children...I'm talking about people having the right to prefer one thing over another. Some prefer Christianity over, say, Budhism. Other people prefer homosexuality over heterosexuality.

Both groups are within their inherant rights.

I know how much you hate us, so I was just wondering if you would take that hatred to the max.

I don't hate you, brother. Far from it. I don't disagree with Christianity, I disagree with ignorance. And ignorance is not something to be hated.
Ignorance is something that can be reformed, and fixed. All it takes is logic, and rationality...and just a shred of tolerance.

Don't let me ask too much from you, though.

And stop talking to me like I'm a liberal, you ass. You're using a specific condescending tone, as if you were speaking to a Moore-loving enviromentalist.

To Damien_FLAGG:

The Christians YOU speak of are an exception to the rule. They have obviously disregarded the Bible actually has to say on the subject -- I guess you like Christians who pick and choose what they want to believe. Oh you're right... I'm a mockery of Christianity. I take what God says literally instead of twisting it around to make it "politically correct". For your information, I have plenty of gay friends; although I disagree with their lifestyle, I give them respect. Call me ignorant, or intolerant, or whatever -- simply because I don't find ALL behavior socially or morally acceptable. In any society, there MUST BE absolutes... namely right and wrong.

And did I detect a hint of "intolerance" for liberals and environmentalists in that last part of your post?

At 2/7/05 08:54 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: To Damien_FLAGG:

The Christians YOU speak of are an exception to the rule. They have obviously disregarded the Bible actually has to say on the subject -- I guess you like Christians who pick and choose what they want to believe.

No, I like christians that actually live to the teachings of Jesus. As in, a tolerant, accepting individual. Coming out and trying to say that gays are disease carrying demons from hell is NOT tolerant, or accepting. Insinuating that homosexuals have some kind of mental disorder is not 'godly'. You poorly misrepresent what you stand for. You're the kind of christian that gives all christians a bad name.
You're an aggresive deterant.

Oh you're right... I'm a mockery of Christianity. I take what God says literally instead of twisting it around to make it "politically correct".

If you took God's word literally, you wouldn't demonize things you disagree with, as you do.

And did I detect a hint of "intolerance" for liberals and environmentalists in that last part of your post?

I'm not Christian, and I'm not bound by the rules of your bible. Nothing says I HAVE to be tolerant, of everything.

And I was only meaning that I thought you thought I was some left-wing atheist. And I'm not.

At 2/7/05 09:40 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 2/7/05 08:54 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: To Damien_FLAGG:

The Christians YOU speak of are an exception to the rule. They have obviously disregarded the Bible actually has to say on the subject -- I guess you like Christians who pick and choose what they want to believe.

No, I like christians that actually live to the teachings of Jesus. As in, a tolerant, accepting individual. Coming out and trying to say that gays are disease carrying demons from hell is NOT tolerant, or accepting. Insinuating that homosexuals have some kind of mental disorder is not 'godly'. You poorly misrepresent what you stand for. You're the kind of christian that gives all christians a bad name.
You're an aggresive deterant.

I AM tolerant. If you have read any of my previous posts, you would see that I have nothing against homosexual people. I simply disapprove of homosexual behavior. I agree that it is wrong to be judgemental of others -- we have no right to be. Does that mean that we have to be "okay" with everything people do? Of course not.

Oh you're right... I'm a mockery of Christianity. I take what God says literally instead of twisting it around to make it "politically correct".

If you took God's word literally, you wouldn't demonize things you disagree with, as you do.

Have I EVER demonized ANYONE at Newgrounds? No, I have not. I respect everyone's opinion if it is genuine. You, on the other hand, have done more alienating than I could ever do on this board.

And did I detect a hint of "intolerance" for liberals and environmentalists in that last part of your post?

I'm not Christian, and I'm not bound by the rules of your bible. Nothing says I HAVE to be tolerant, of everything.

In other words, you're a hypocrite.

At 2/7/05 10:18 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: I AM tolerant.

Is that why you feel the need to imply that homosexuals are more prone to disease? Just what your purpose, in posting that?

Have I EVER demonized ANYONE at Newgrounds? No, I have not.

Yes, you have. Posting links that outright say homosexuality is a disease on par with depression, and that homosexuals carry the majority of the AIDs virus, or the variety of other posts...specifically posted in a way to make homosexuals look bad.

That's called demonization.

I respect everyone's opinion if it is genuine. You, on the other hand, have done more alienating than I could ever do on this board.

As a bisexual, I take offense at you implying that I am more prone to disease, and that I have permiscuous, unprotected sex. This is not the case. Trust me.
If you don't want to be accousted, don't go out of your way to outright insult my lifestyle.

And did I detect a hint of "intolerance" for liberals and environmentalists in that last part of your post?

I'm not Christian, and I'm not bound by the rules of your bible. Nothing says I HAVE to be tolerant, of everything.

In other words, you're a hypocrite.

No, I'm not. I am tolerant where tolerance is deserved. Everything is earned. Trust, respect, and tolerance are not axiomatic. If I am given no reason to respect something, I don't.

Christians, on the other hand, are bound by their faith. Their religion demands tolerance, and acceptance. Those who do not excercise it are applying their religion, improperly.

Yikes! It's turned into left wing vs. left wing in here! What did I miss?

At 2/7/05 10:29 PM, AngryToaster wrote: Yikes! It's turned into left wing vs. left wing in here! What did I miss?

I'm not left wing. I don't appreciate you implying that I am. Just because I have the common sense to recongnize personal life choices for what they are, does not mean i'm 'left-wing'.

Homosexuality is not a political issue. It's a logic issue.

I don't know why I am posting cause you baisically hit it on the mark, except it isn't usally political fuel that cause the issues but it is "relgious" or "moral" fuel, that causes these ideals and i put these in quotes because, often morals and religious reason are can change do to what the majority's ideals are

Hey VerseChorusVerse, provide an ISBN number instead of URL's because anyone can post on the internet. An ISBN number is more truthful because a publishing company will not waste money to publish a book if it has broad statements that were not backed up by scientific fact. If you don't know what an ISBN number is, google search it.

At 2/7/05 10:27 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 2/7/05 10:18 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: I AM tolerant.

Is that why you feel the need to imply that homosexuals are more prone to disease? Just what your purpose, in posting that?

Black people are more susceptable to some diseases than white people -- That is a FACT. Does that make me a racist?

Have I EVER demonized ANYONE at Newgrounds? No, I have not.

Yes, you have. Posting links that outright say homosexuality is a disease on par with depression, and that homosexuals carry the majority of the AIDs virus, or the variety of other posts...specifically posted in a way to make homosexuals look bad.

I have never stated or thought that homosexuality is a disease on par with depression. I searched for statistics, and I posted a couple of the results. I have ALWAYS made sure to state that I hold no contempt for gay people -- so that folks like YOU couldn't call me a homophobe. I do not HATE or FEAR gay people.

That's called demonization.

I respect everyone's opinion if it is genuine. You, on the other hand, have done more alienating than I could ever do on this board.

As a bisexual, I take offense at you implying that I am more prone to disease, and that I have permiscuous, unprotected sex. This is not the case. Trust me.
If you don't want to be accousted, don't go out of your way to outright insult my lifestyle.

And did I detect a hint of "intolerance" for liberals and environmentalists in that last part of your post?

I'm not Christian, and I'm not bound by the rules of your bible. Nothing says I HAVE to be tolerant, of everything.

In other words, you're a hypocrite.

No, I'm not. I am tolerant where tolerance is deserved. Everything is earned. Trust, respect, and tolerance are not axiomatic. If I am given no reason to respect something, I don't.

Christians, on the other hand, are bound by their faith. Their religion demands tolerance, and acceptance. Those who do not excercise it are applying their religion, improperly.

You're right. Jesus' teachings were of love and mercy, but God also has rules -- rules that are meant to be acknowledged. Listen man, I'm not hear to push my faith on anyobdy, and I only want the best for people. That is why I care about the fact that there is danger in being actively homosexual. I have nothing to gain by posting these links, but people need to know the facts.

At 2/3/05 01:43 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: That was a good article -- a neat, little biblical bundle. LOL I agree that prostitution was a major part of the destruction of both cities, but homosexuality was ALSO a huge factor. If you remember, Lot's neighbors wanted to have sexual relations with the strangers (actually angels) in his house. That's when Lot offered his daughters to them.

Yes, the punishment for having sex with a member of the same gender was death (as explained in Leviticus). Thankfully, the consequences have changed because of Jesus' sacrifice.

Ok, think about this for just a second. In the Bible, there is a large crowd of people outside of Lot's house, demanding the angels. Now let me say this again
there is a large crowd of people outside of Lot's house, demanding the angels.
Now it is inferred (and probably rightfully so) that they wished to forcefully have sex with the angels as a means of punishing them for entering the city. Now, think about this again, a large group of people gathered outside of Lot's house to forcefully have sex with (a.k.a. RAPE) the angels.

Oh yes, now I can clearly see god's true message of hating loving, monogamous relationships between homosexuals. I mean, it's not like the story was an example of mass rape or anything.

At 2/7/05 11:12 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 2/3/05 01:43 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: That was a good article -- a neat, little biblical bundle. LOL I agree that prostitution was a major part of the destruction of both cities, but homosexuality was ALSO a huge factor. If you remember, Lot's neighbors wanted to have sexual relations with the strangers (actually angels) in his house. That's when Lot offered his daughters to them.

Yes, the punishment for having sex with a member of the same gender was death (as explained in Leviticus). Thankfully, the consequences have changed because of Jesus' sacrifice.

Ok, think about this for just a second. In the Bible, there is a large crowd of people outside of Lot's house, demanding the angels. Now let me say this again
there is a large crowd of people outside of Lot's house, demanding the angels.
Now it is inferred (and probably rightfully so) that they wished to forcefully have sex with the angels as a means of punishing them for entering the city. Now, think about this again, a large group of people gathered outside of Lot's house to forcefully have sex with (a.k.a. RAPE) the angels.

Oh yes, now I can clearly see god's true message of hating loving, monogamous relationships between homosexuals. I mean, it's not like the story was an example of mass rape or anything.

One slightly controversial story in the Bible can't make every other piece of scripture concerning homosexuality null and void. "A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) I understand that there may be several ways to interpret the story of Lot, and your rape theory is interesting, as well. : )

At 2/7/05 11:12 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

Oh yes, now I can clearly see god's true message of hating loving, monogamous relationships between homosexuals. I mean, it's not like the story was an example of mass rape or anything.

theres also a verse in the bible saying, "homosexuals shall not inherit the earth". Im just adding on, im not trying to disprove anything about what you said because i agree.

At 2/7/05 11:31 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: One slightly controversial story in the Bible can't make every other piece of scripture concerning homosexuality null and void. "A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) I understand that there may be several ways to interpret the story of Lot, and your rape theory is interesting, as well. : )

I think you've just stated the only concrete part of the bible against homosexuality so congrats. As for story of Lot, how on earth would a person interpret it any other way? I'm not trying to be pompus, I really don't understand the other "theories" persay.

At 2/7/05 11:59 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 2/7/05 11:31 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: One slightly controversial story in the Bible can't make every other piece of scripture concerning homosexuality null and void. "A man shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) I understand that there may be several ways to interpret the story of Lot, and your rape theory is interesting, as well. : )

I think you've just stated the only concrete part of the bible against homosexuality so congrats. As for story of Lot, how on earth would a person interpret it any other way? I'm not trying to be pompus, I really don't understand the other "theories" persay.

Well I guess our theories can be wrapped into one interpretation: they wanted to rape and sodomize the strangers/angels. God punished them for ALL of their wickedness -- I don't believe you (not you personally, but anyone) can assume it was because of one issue.