On Jul 5, 5:23=A0pm, John Manning <jrobe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Red Davis wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 4:24 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>Red Davis wrote:
>
> >>>On Jul 5, 3:47 pm, Ramona <atlram...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Jul 5, 2:39 pm, Red Davis <theredda...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Jul 5, 7:55 am, John Manning <jrobe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Red Davis wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>On Jul 4, 11:42 pm, "\"john p\"" <john.ph...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>You have many choices to sup****t your discriminating
constitution=
al
> >>>>>>>>rights.
>
> >>>>>>>>1) Some prefer the KKK
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.kkk.com/
>
> >>>>>>>>Others prefer the mormon church
>
> >>>>>>>>2)www.lds.org
>
> >>>>>>>>3) or you could do both! =A0Ask Redneck Davis to fill you in on
t=
he
> >>>>>>>>details.
>
> >>>>>>>>Remember god is a homophobic racist white guy and you can be
too!
>
> >>>>>>>Wow, you must be an intellectual. =A0I am not sure what race or
re=
ligion
> >>>>>>>has to do with homo***ual behavior. =A0Race is innate, religion
is
> >>>>>>>Constitutional protected and its free exercise was why this
nation=
was
> >>>>>>>founded, and homo***ual behavior is a sign of mental illness. Nor
=
do I
> >>>>>>>understand what the KKK has to do with the LDS Church (KKK
members
> >>>>>>>were almost exclusively made up of Southern Baptists).
=A0Finally,=
what
> >>>>>>>racism has to do with me -- as I have been an ardent defender of
c=
ivil
> >>>>>>>rights for African Americans my entire life.
>
> >>>>>>>Perhaps it is the mere fact that I have come to a sound
conclusion=
,
> >>>>>>>based on empirical evidences and natural law, that homo***ual
beha=
vior
> >>>>>>>is destructive to the individuals involved, and to society as a
wh=
ole,
> >>>>>>>thus should be eagerly discouraged by government in law, policy,
a=
nd
> >>>>>>>education.
>
> >>>>>>>Thus, given you are throwing an emotional fit over your own
> >>>>>>>proclivities, let me issue you this challenge: =A0List *one*
singl=
e
> >>>>>>>redeeming value that homo***ual behavior brings to the
individuals
> >>>>>>>invovled, or to any society, at any time, in any way.
>
> >>>>>>>All I want is *one* redeeming benefit homo***ual behavior brings
t=
o
> >>>>>>>mankind. =A0To the contrary I can offer an almost unlimited
number=
of
> >>>>>>>detriments it brings to the individuals involved, and to the
socie=
ty
> >>>>>>>as a whole, wherever its is embraced.
>
> >>>>>>>Let me start out with the fact, that in the past 30 years alone,
o=
ver
> >>>>>>>150,000 Americans have died, and their deaths can be directly
link=
ed
> >>>>>>>to homo***ual behavior.
>
> >>>>>>>Let me follow up with another fact, those who participate in
> >>>>>>>homo***ual behavior, typically exhibit at least two other mental
> >>>>>>>illnesses, typically among the cl***** of mood, dissociative, and
> >>>>>>>psychotic disorders. =A0Even homophile apologists are taken aback
=
by the
> >>>>>>>rampant mental illnesses present in the "gay" community.
>
> >>>>>>>And let me follow that up with seven other facts: =A0that, since
1=
970,
> >>>>>>>over seven different epidemics have originated among homo***uals,
=
and
> >>>>>>>moved out in varying degrees among the general population:
=A0Syph=
illis
> >>>>>>>& Hep B foremost.
>
> >>>>>>>And, let me add that the vast majority of pedophiles are males
> >>>>>>>molesting boys, thus, by definition, are homo***uals. In fact,
mos=
t
> >>>>>>>gay rights groups have intimate links to pedophile groups like
the
> >>>>>>>North American Man-boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which was
accepte=
d as
> >>>>>>>an official member to the world's largest gay right's umbrella
> >>>>>>>group.
>
> >>>>>>>So, I just gave you eleven reasons of how homo***ual behavior
harm=
s
> >>>>>>>individuals and society. =A0Give us *one* benefit to society.
=A0J=
ust one.
>
> >>>>>>>-Red Davis
>
> >>>>>>Red Davis, an obsessed rabid homophobe, is terrified that he's a
la=
tent
> >>>>>>homo***ual. That's why he overcompensates with this excessive rage
> >>>>>>against gays.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>>I have no rage against gays. =A0I simply think their lifestyle is
> >>>>>deviant and harmful to themselves and our society.
>
> >>>>>Let me issue this challenge: list one single benefit homo***ual
> >>>>>behavior brings to mankind. =A0Just *ONE* John.
>
> >>>>Homo***uals are god's birth control regulator. =A0Without people
havi=
ng
> >>>>'the gay', we would be massively overpopulated.
>
> >>>> If you can list one
>
> >>>Nice try, "A" for effort, but given homo***uals are only between 1-2%
> >>>of the worlds population, and what is going on in India and China,
> >>>there is no significant impact on birth rates due to homo***ual
> >>>behavior.
>
> >>>Why can't we admit the reality that we are ignoring natural law,
>
> >>There are multiple species in nature who exhibit homo***ual behavior.
>
> >>>natural selection, and the social contract requirements to have
stable
> >>>social societies in order to embrace a deviant ***ual behavior, that,
> >>>in any analysis - can only destroy said societies?
>
> >>Homo***uality has destroyed no societies, Red - except in the
imaginary
> >>misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies by obsessed bigots
> >>like you.
>
> > You are right, homo***ual behavior hasn't destroyed any socities,
> > except for Sodom, Ghommorrah,
>
> Wrong again, Red: Some teach that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were
> homo***ual. This has no theological sup****t. A careful look at scripture
> corrects such ignorance.
>
> In Old Testament times we never find references to the destruction of
> Sodom being equated with homo***ual acts.
What??? They say that God can't change history -- only liberals can.
There goes John Manning, wresting the scriptures to his own
destruction.
Well, let me school you, do you mind?
Here is what the Old Testament states: Lot brought two men into his
house who were angels (e.g., messengers) of God, and the men of Sodom
gathered around Lot's house in order to have homo***ual *** with them:
Genesis 19:1-29
" But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of
Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people
from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men
which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may
know them."
The Hebrew word that was translated into "know" means to have ***, as
in "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and
said, I have gotten a man from the Lord." (Gen 4:1)
And Lot responds to their demand to have homo***ual relations with the
men, "And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly." (Gen 19:7)
In fact, the notion of men having *** with other men was do horrid in
Lot's mind, he next offers his daughers in their stead (not something
I would do) :
"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I
pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in
your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore ccame they
under the shadow of my roof."
Yet, the men of Sodom didn't want *** with women - they wanted ***
with men, and demanded:
"9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow
came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal
worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man,
even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house
to them, and shut to the door.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with
ablindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to
find the door. "
(Gen. 19:9-11)
The messengers of the Lord then tell Lot to leave Sodom with his
family becuase of the iniquity of these men, and indeed, the entire
city. Thus, the primary reference and description of the events
justifying the desctruction of Sodom are clear: homo***ual behavior
was rampant.
>
> Throughout the Old Testament, Sodom is held up as a lesson in wickedness
> that deserves utter destruction for reasons *other than* homo***ual
acts.
Not true. First, the primary account of the event itself explicitly
states why it was wicked: homo***uality. It is even recounted in
Judg. 19: 22 (22-28), for example.
Deut. 23: 17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor
a sodomite of the sons of Israel." - This explicitly states that a
"sodomite" is a person engaged in ***ual immorality.
>
> Examples: 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." Isaiah tells of lack of
> justice. Jeremiah emphasizes moral and ethical laxity.
Do you know what "abomination" means? The word "abomination" is a
word that is reserved for on the worse sins, and is typically only
used to describe three things:
1) Idolatry
2) Murder
3) Homo***ual sin
Here in this verse and given the primary content in Genesis, the word
"abomination" is clearly referring to homo***uality, for example:
Lev. 18: 22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination"
Lev. 20: 13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put
to death; their blood shall be upon them."
>
> The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin as pride and inhospitality;
These are only few of the many. They are not the main sins. Sodom
met the civil law of hospitality in the fact that Lot gave residence,
food, and water to the visitors.
> in Wisdom 19:13-14, we read "...whereas the men of Sodom received not
> the strangers when they came among them." In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin
> is recognized as pride: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was
> living, whom he detested for their pride."
>
> In the New Testament, too, there is reference to Sodom and
> inhospitality: In Luke 10:10-13, Christ talks about cities that are
> inhospitable to his disciples. He warns: "...it shall be more tolerable
> in that day for Sodom, than for that city." It's not until the very late
> books of 2 Peter (2:4) and Jude (6), that *** is considered a sin of
Sodo=
m.
>
> Not only are there no references to homo***ual acts when Scripture
> refers to Sodom, there are no references to Sodom when the Scriptures
> refer to homo***uality.
False again:
Jude 1: 7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
of eternal fire."
Deut. 23: 17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor
a sodomite of the sons of Israel."
Isa. 3: 9 "The shew of their countenance doth witness against them;
and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their
soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves."
Rom. 1: 27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their alust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet."
In fact, John, there are over 50 scriptures in the Bible that
explicitly define marriage as between male and female. There are 13
scriptures that explicitly state that homo***ul behavior is an
"abomination" and/or "sin". There are 0 scriptures that state that
homo***ual behavior is approved of God.
Thus, we have God on record in the Bible alone, to the count of 63-0
that homo***ual behavior is wrong. 63-0. Chortle!
That's a pretty clear message -- except to people like you who are
ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
>
> Considering how often Sodom was used as an example of the result of
> wicked behavior, it's apparent that biblical times did not see
> homo***ual acts as the im****tant lesson of the destruction of Sodom.
Keep clicking your high heels together and repeating the words, "wrong
is right".
>
> > ancient Greece, and the Roman Empire.
>
> More obvious nonsense from obsessed homophobe Red Davis.
>
> Call for references that Greece, and the Roman Empire fell because of
> homo***uality. No wacko religionist sources please.
Rome and Greece fell due to homo***uality for two main reasons:
1) The same moral turpitude that must exist in order to embrace
homo***uality, also caused the Roman and Greek societies to lose the
ability to make choose the right in almost every social policy in
order to keep advancing the empire. Decadence was the rule as they
sat fatly on their chairs, ate their bread, watched their gladiators,
and lost their empire to foreigners. (Sound familiar to what is going
on in the US?)
2) Because homo***uality dominated their armed forces, they no longer
had the discipline and unity to fight as a cohesive unit - thus, they
started losing battles. (Make you wonder why homo***uals want to force
their lifestyles to the front of the US military forces).
Dennis Prager wrote a well researched white paper on the connection
between the falls of Greece and Rome to homo***ual behavior. You are
free to google it.
-Red Davis
>
> [snip Red's further nonsense]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
