NationStates Jolt Archive

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Care to elaborate? Most studies disagree with you...

Why not? Oh wait.. I know why

ALL G4YS ARE PEDOPHILES WHO RAPE LITTLE BOYS OMG M8!!1

Im aganist it because childeren is a gift from God.

Im aganist it because childeren is a gift from God.

Perhaps, but wouldn't that make adopted children the scratchy sweater that no one wants and doesn't fit anyway so they take it back to the store? So why not regift them to someone who will love and appreciate them.

:roll: and atheists don't seem to agree from you. But how does god have anything to do with this? Gays can be loving parents too.. :?

Personally, they should be allowed to, have been for how long now. My take on it is, they cannot marry (partially since no culture in the world defined marriage outside of male-female), and adoption is--and has been--the method commonly used when they wish to have children. Heck, if single parents can, why cant gays?..
Why specificly do you feel this is a bad idea?

ALL G4YS ARE PEDOPHILES WHO RAPE LITTLE BOYS OMG M8!!1

Should they? I think no.

I agree, neither should blacks, non-Christians, or women.

ALL G4YS ARE PEDOPHILES WHO RAPE LITTLE BOYS OMG M8!!1

Actually most pedophiles are straight.

THey should. Just because they choose to leave diffrent dosen't mean they should be denied things that can bring so much joy. Gays don't rape kids I mean cOME ON......

1 in 7 people are homosexual.
1 in 10 are gay. 1 in 20 are lesbian.

Just thought you should know the facts.

By the way, even Raysia has submitted to the logic of this whole stupid arguement. :wink:

ALL G4YS ARE PEDOPHILES WHO RAPE LITTLE BOYS OMG M8!!1

Actually most pedophiles are straight.

OMG. I heard that Christians rape children. Or something like that. I don't think Christians should be able to adopt children. Besides, they use mind control on them to create adherents. I should know. I was some Christian parent's mind control bi7ch.

Im aganist it because childeren is a gift from God.

Well Mr. Illiterate, I see someone hasn't had kids.

*laugh track*

Which god? There are many deities. Care to tell us which one you are under the delusion of gives children as presents for Winter Equinox?

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority over straight couples to fill a quota.

Gays are willing to take on the children the straights don't want. 5+ year olds. Children with development issues. Born with defects....

To me? We could leave them in the system or we can put them in a loving home. Not tradition but still loving.

The argument of rape or turning them gay is an insipid argument as there is no proof for becoming gay. There might be rape cases but as pointed out, most pedophiles are straight.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

Ok I will call you on that one.

Show your evidence please.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

When has it ever come to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota, though? Not being confrontational, just asking because I have no knowledge of this ever happening.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

Ok I will call you on that one.

Show your evidence please.


shh. leave him alone. he said something liberal. one step at a time. goood boy.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And that is a perfectly honest and reasonable point of view. That would be the fair and just way of doing things.

To the poster above who said that most paedophiles are 'straight'. I assume by that you mean they prefer little girls, and you're quite right. However I'm not happy with you using the term 'straight' for sub-humans like that.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And that is a perfectly honest and reasonable point of view. That would be the fair and just way of doing things.

To the poster above who said that most paedophiles are 'straight'. I assume by that you mean they prefer little girls, and you're quite right. However I'm not happy with you using the term 'straight' for sub-humans like that.

great, right when I can't find the story :P

basically, what happened was a boy was up for adoption in Portland. 3 straight families were looking to adopt him, but at the last minute, he was transfered out of state to be adopted by a gay couple.

I'll try to find the link, but we were talking about it here in portland for about a week... if it winds up untrue, then obviously my complaints list is gone :P

To the poster above who said that most paedophiles are 'straight'. I assume by that you mean they prefer little girls, and you're quite right. However I'm not happy with you using the term 'straight' for sub-humans like that.good point :)

great, right when I can't find the story :P

basically, what happened was a boy was up for adoption in Portland. 3 straight families were looking to adopt him, but at the last minute, he was transfered out of state to be adopted by a gay couple.

I'll try to find the link, but we were talking about it here in portland for about a week... if it winds up untrue, then obviously my complaints list is gone :P

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And if it is true, and there was no good reason for it, it stinks.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

When has it ever come to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota, though? Not being confrontational, just asking because I have no knowledge of this ever happening.

It seems to me that Raysian's comment is just out of concern for the children. I wouldn't want a child going into a bad home just to fill a quota, which could possibly happen if there were quota about how much different groups could/had to adopt.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And that is a perfectly honest and reasonable point of view. That would be the fair and just way of doing things.

To the poster above who said that most paedophiles are 'straight'. I assume by that you mean they prefer little girls, and you're quite right. However I'm not happy with you using the term 'straight' for sub-humans like that.

that's true. as "straight" and "queer" aren't really legit terms for people like that. then again, i'm not sure they have a choice. and to play devil's advocate, it's like blaming a retarded kid for being insipid... er... just plain ol' stupid.

insipid is a fun word. but out of place.

This gives way to the same question as, why are "straight" and "queer" people accepted but "pedophiles" and "beastiacs (?)" not.

The answer isn't that theyre 'sick'. That term is technically entirely subjective. It's that they infringe on another creatures civil rights.

Here's how the priority list SHOULD be:

1 Straight Couple
2 Gay Couple
3 Straight couple with old criminal record
4 Single
5 Straight Couple with drinking problems

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And that is a perfectly honest and reasonable point of view. That would be the fair and just way of doing things.

To the poster above who said that most paedophiles are 'straight'. I assume by that you mean they prefer little girls, and you're quite right. However I'm not happy with you using the term 'straight' for sub-humans like that.

that's true. as "straight" and "queer" aren't really legit terms for people like that. then again, i'm not sure they have a choice. and to play devil's advocate, it's like blaming a retarded kid for being insipid... er... just plain ol' stupid.

insipid is a fun word. but out of place.

This gives way to the same question as, why are "straight" and "queer" people accepted but "pedophiles" and "beastiacs (?)" not.

The answer isn't that theyre 'sick'. That term is technically entirely subjective. It's that they infringe on another creatures civil rights.Sick, evil, wicked...

agreed.

[

The answer isn't that theyre 'sick'. That term is technically entirely subjective. It's that they infringe on another creatures civil rights.Sick, evil, wicked...[/quote]

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yes sick they are. But if I wasn't a gentleman, I'd add dirt-bag bastards to the list, but I won't, it's not nice.

I say "yeah." 'Cause a lot of straight parents, well, SUCK at parenting, so you might as well give other people a chance.

Here's how the priority list SHOULD be:

1 Straight Couple
2 Gay Couple
3 Straight couple with old criminal record
4 Single
5 Straight Couple with drinking problems


All right who are you! :shock: That is sounding quite liberal! :shock:

I would only edit #5. Many cases of abuse have alcoholism....

Saipea: Damn grammerian! stop ruining my fun! :P

I wonder how many people when .....insipid? :wink:

In my opinion, just because this is how I think, that gay couples shouldn't because they are choosing to live a life that will not yield natural kids. I think adoption should be #1 for straight people who can't physically have kids though they would like too. Also, criminal records kinda creep me out so I would probably say no to that too.

So what if "their lifestyle doesn't naturally make kids"

I always thought the whole point of adoption was because you didn't want to give birth, couldn't give birth <cough cough>, or wanted to help the poor kiddies in adoption.

I mean, if gay people can't adopt because "gay sex doesn't equal kids," then why let straight people adopt? They can make all the kids they want!

In fact, take it further, and you have "then only gay people should adopt!" :p

because I said so?? :?

actually, I am more about getting the kid into a loving home then being nitpicky about that sort of stuff, it's just that people choose to be gay, people don't choose to be infertile. It's more about the choice you made.

I agree with almost everything I've heard here in support of gays adopting children. I know a wonderful man who's a wonderful father and he happens to be gay. I also have a good friend who was raised by two women, and he couldn't have turned out better, frankly.

There's only one little part I take exception to. I don't really know how anyone else feels about this, or what other people think of it. I'm not sure what the author even thinks. But I think it's important to (try to) set the record straight, at least here. I can assure you that, although there may be a rare exception who thinks it's cool, counter-culture to be gay, but those people are the very very rare exception. Nobody would choose to be ostracized, nobody would make the choice to risk being tied to a fence and beaten to death, nobody gets to choose who they fall in love with. There are many days when I wish I would feel attracted to some hot little babe in a bikini instead of the stud sitting next to her. But I can't. If I went for her, I'd be lying to her and I'd be lying to myself, neither of which would be fair to either one of us.

because I said so?? :?

actually, I am more about getting the kid into a loving home then being nitpicky about that sort of stuff, it's just that people choose to be gay, people don't choose to be infertile. It's more about the choice you made.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Did you choose to be straight or does it come naturally? Same for gays!
The problem is the old one: Some fools equate gays with paedophiles.

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

One question though...

No straight parent looks at their daughter and says "someday she'll grow up, get married to the woman of her dreams, and fight a struggle of civil rights for an adoption of a child," they'll all hope they grow up straight and have a family and all that.

What will gay parents say/hope? Will they hope their kids turn out gay like them? What happens if they turn otu straight? who do they turn to for straight advice?

I'd strongly disagree that being gay is a choice, and current scientific evidence supports that theory. Putting that argument aside, if we were to assume that being gay is not a choice, do gays warrant the same prioritisation as straight infertile couples, since the couple itself, if not the individual members, are infertile due to a biological/genetic/neurological factor?

The one thing I find odd about prioritising adoption is that in some Western countries the abortion rate is equal to half the birth rate- one third of pregnancies are aborted. That example comes from the strongly Catholic Austria, but surely if more of these women were convinced to carry their babies to term and put them up for adoption, we could meet any level of demand. (Other) Pro-Lifers do tell that there are a shortage of newborn babies available for adoption.

Why not? Oh wait.. I know why

ALL G4YS ARE PEDOPHILES WHO RAPE LITTLE BOYS OMG M8!!1

If you want to make fun of gays, at least spell it right. They are NOT pedophiles. The People are suppose to have the right to be FREE! I am Freenadia, and people have a choice. They can be whoever they want to and what they want to!

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marryThey already have the right to marry, they just have to do what marriage is ;)
- Right to bear a child/childrenIf they can find some way to impregnate themselves... by all means...
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassedGetting embarassed is a choice.
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)We've elected gay officials before... the mayor of portland is a flaming lesbian :)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)that's not your right... that's a societal issue.

Personally, I believe that the couples engaging in adoption should be married.

De facto relationships are okay, but they are still not as secure for settlement terms if the relationship ceases to exist. What happens to the children then?

Unfortunately, we are not yet advanced to fully intergrate gay couples into society as 'married' couples. It is for this reason alone that I do not believe that gay couples should be able to adopt children.

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Who created the report? Always remember to consider the source. Plus, I really doubt that anyone that took the time to compile a similar report with an opposite focus would get statistically significant different results.

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.By unnatural, he means it makes no sense. The universe revolves around opposites attracting. I'm sure you'd be freaked out if you saw 2 like-ends of a magnet sticking together, or saw a positron orbiting a proton.

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.

I'd like to think the most intelligent and most dominant species on the planet wouldn't have to lower itself to the argument that "We're just animals" to prove a point. It's unnatural because it doesn't yield offspring. That is if we are lowering ourselves to that level.

here's something else i've always wondered. there may be another thread about it, and I don't mean to hijack this one, but it was mentioned by a couple of people. what, exactly, is marriage? is it one man one woman? if so, why? isn't that kind of arbitrary? or are there other reasons behind it?

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.By unnatural, he means it makes no sense. The universe revolves around opposites attracting. I'm sure you'd be freaked out if you saw 2 like-ends of a magnet sticking together, or saw a positron orbiting a proton.

magnetic fields are governed by the laws of physics. there are no such laws in biology

If you are willing to take in a child that is up for adoption and love him/her than it doesn't matter what your sexual preferance is. Would you honestly be willing to let a child go unadopted and bounce from foster home to foster home, simply because someone who like members of the same sex wants to be a loving family for them? And as far as gays being pedophiles... anyone could be a pedophile... not just gays...it has nothing to do with whether you are gay or straight.

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.

I'd like to think the most intelligent and most dominant species on the planet wouldn't have to lower itself to the argument that "We're just animals" to prove a point. It's unnatural because it doesn't yield offspring. That is if we are lowering ourselves to that level.

if the question is about nature, why is it wrong to compare homo sapiens sapiens to the rest of nature?

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Who created the report? Always remember to consider the source. Plus, I really doubt that anyone that took the time to compile a similar report with an opposite focus would get statistically significant different results.

Friends clipped newspaper stories, posted links to stories online... They spent months making this report so we have a damn fine case against the faggots.

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.

I'd like to think the most intelligent and most dominant species on the planet wouldn't have to lower itself to the argument that "We're just animals" to prove a point. It's unnatural because it doesn't yield offspring. That is if we are lowering ourselves to that level.

if the question is about nature, why is it wrong to compare homo sapiens sapiens to the rest of nature?

"The most dangerous game"

The power to reason.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

No, if you're so sure of such an absurd thing, post a link here, though I doubt we'll see it. And I'll tell you something else. If I asked people to go out and get 'statistics' from people who believe they've been kidnapped by aliens, I'd have a bigger report than yours.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Who created the report? Always remember to consider the source. Plus, I really doubt that anyone that took the time to compile a similar report with an opposite focus would get statistically significant different results.

Friends clipped newspaper stories, posted links to stories online... They spent months making this report so we have a damn fine case against the faggots.

So, in other words, people who already had a vendetta complied a report considering only evidence that proved their theory? Do I really have to say any more about that?

[

Friends clipped newspaper stories, posted links to stories online... They spent months making this report so we have a damn fine case against the faggots.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Well there it is. Any point in even looking at your 'evidence' has been cast away by your sentence. Idiot bigot.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Who created the report? Always remember to consider the source. Plus, I really doubt that anyone that took the time to compile a similar report with an opposite focus would get statistically significant different results.

Friends clipped newspaper stories, posted links to stories online... They spent months making this report so we have a damn fine case against the faggots.

So, in other words, people who already had a vendetta complied a report considering only evidence that proved their theory? Do I really have to say any more about that?

Be careful with that argument, it's a double edged sword.
*slice

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.

I'd like to think the most intelligent and most dominant species on the planet wouldn't have to lower itself to the argument that "We're just animals" to prove a point. It's unnatural because it doesn't yield offspring. That is if we are lowering ourselves to that level.

if the question is about nature, why is it wrong to compare homo sapiens sapiens to the rest of nature?

"The most dangerous game"

The power to reason.

You have an excellent point. So why don't you use your power to reason instead of fear and assumption? The only cogent arguments ever given against homosexuals have had their basis in religion, and that's never going to convince anyone. Reason is what described the Theory of Evolution. Also, we're (probably) not the only reasoning species on Earth. Just the most self-obsessed.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Who created the report? Always remember to consider the source. Plus, I really doubt that anyone that took the time to compile a similar report with an opposite focus would get statistically significant different results.

Friends clipped newspaper stories, posted links to stories online... They spent months making this report so we have a damn fine case against the faggots.

So, in other words, people who already had a vendetta complied a report considering only evidence that proved their theory? Do I really have to say any more about that?

Be careful with that argument, it's a double edged sword.
*slice

I never offered to show evidence in the form of a report detailing some vast gay conspiracy. If I did, it certainly would have been from some respected media research institute, and not a few friends taking clipping from newspapers. As I said before, consider the source.

I'm going to just respond and end the pyramid.
I don't thnnk any of my arguments have been religious. Mine were moslty concerned with the natural order of things. I don't agree with bein gay on both a religious level but also a "why defy nature?" level. I also don't believe that it isn't a choice, because why would their be a gene whos sole purpose was to not get passed on?

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.

As a christian, I am held to a higher covenant than atheists... so if an atheist sins, what do i care? I have sworn not to be a homosexual... but they have not, so they haven't really done anything beyond normal worldly sin. I'm not going to tell them what to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I'm curious as to how a gay couple compares to a straight couple when raising children?

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.not even 10%... maybe 2-5%.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Who created the report? Always remember to consider the source. Plus, I really doubt that anyone that took the time to compile a similar report with an opposite focus would get statistically significant different results.

Friends clipped newspaper stories, posted links to stories online... They spent months making this report so we have a damn fine case against the faggots.

So, in other words, people who already had a vendetta complied a report considering only evidence that proved their theory? Do I really have to say any more about that?

Be careful with that argument, it's a double edged sword.
*slice

I never offered to show evidence in the form of a report detailing some vast gay conspiracy. If I did, it certainly would have been from some respected media research institute, and not a few friends taking clipping from newspapers. As I said before, consider the source.

I'm just saying, that if you use an argument like "you're biased" just realize that you are too. One could jsut as easily argue that all the genetics reports were made by "gay" scientists. That is all I'm saying. You havn't proved your side right yet.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.

ok, you're not listening. the point is that not reproducing is not natural, it goes against the order of things.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

thanks for making my viewpoint sound as if I'm a nazi.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

If it is natural, then it doesn't make sense. So I take it as another case for God and the Devil. It would explain a lot if there were some dark force out there causing it.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.

ok, you're not listening. the point is that not reproducing is not natural, it goes against the order of things.

i'm listening, i'm just not all that articulate. :? Anyway, if that's the case, then isn't choosing not to have children just as wrong? Just against the order of things. Also, does that mean you have strong objections to any form of sexual relations that are not procreative?

Tired of debate, you all know my stance, I'm going to bed. See you Pallia.
Let's get into a deep philisophical discussion again sometime.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

why do you get to decided what impulses are ok and which ones aren't? alcoholics and violent people do demonstrable harm to themselves and others as a group. we take care of them when they allow themselves to get carried away and commit a crime. but homosexuality is neither an addiction nor a mental disease. if someone commits a crime, they should be and often are punished for it. but i know i've never done anything wrong, i know none of my friends have ever done anything wrong. we're just trying to live our lives.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

why do you get to decided what impulses are ok and which ones aren't? alcoholics and violent people do demonstrable harm to themselves and others as a group. we take care of them when they allow themselves to get carried away and commit a crime. but homosexuality is neither an addiction nor a mental disease. if someone commits a crime, they should be and often are punished for it. but i know i've never done anything wrong, i know none of my friends have ever done anything wrong. we're just trying to live our lives.it's not a matter of ok or bad... you said there was no choice involved at all. I'd have to call you on that and say that there is always a choice.

If it is natural, then it doesn't make sense. So I take it as another case for God and the Devil. It would explain a lot if there were some dark force out there causing it.

I don't get your point. You can concede that it is natural* and it doesn't make sense from your point of view, but why tack on that there's a mysterious Evil force behind it?

*In the biological sense, not the "correct" sense, I assume you mean.

If it is natural, then it doesn't make sense. So I take it as another case for God and the Devil. It would explain a lot if there were some dark force out there causing it.

I don't get your point. You can concede that it is natural* and it doesn't make sense from your point of view, but why tack on that there's a mysterious Evil force behind it?

*In the biological sense, not the "correct" sense, I assume you mean.

I'll explain it too you sometime, right now I'm going to bed.

there's a choice as to whether or not someone sleeps with someone else, yes. but there's no choice as to who people want to sleep with. do you choose to be straight, or have you just been that way since you can remember? If there was a choice, I'd choose to fall in love with a career woman and have a family and such. But I can't.

Yeah sure why not, they're peopel like anyone else.

If it is natural, then it doesn't make sense. So I take it as another case for God and the Devil. It would explain a lot if there were some dark force out there causing it.

I don't get your point. You can concede that it is natural* and it doesn't make sense from your point of view, but why tack on that there's a mysterious Evil force behind it?

*In the biological sense, not the "correct" sense, I assume you mean.I know I can defend that... simply because that is stated in my religion... the natural man is an enemy of God. Rising above basic instinct and attaining a higher plane of thinking and existance is what christianity is all about.

there's a choice as to whether or not someone sleeps with someone else, yes. but there's no choice as to who people want to sleep with. do you choose to be straight, or have you just been that way since you can remember? If there was a choice, I'd choose to fall in love with a career woman and have a family and such. But I can't.I seriously doubt that.

I am against it, not because it is wrong, but because it is most likely the child will have a more difficult time from his peers. Unfortunetly, i think he would be made fun of a lot.

I am against it, not because it is wrong, but because it is most likely the child will have a more difficult time from his peers. Unfortunetly, i think he would be made fun of a lot.No different than growing up with weird parents... i mean, would you rather have 2 dads, or 2 parents that that embarass you everywhere you go? :P

*playing devil's advocate, if no one noticed*

I think they should.

I am against it, not because it is wrong, but because it is most likely the child will have a more difficult time from his peers. Unfortunetly, i think he would be made fun of a lot.No different than growing up with weird parents... i mean, would you rather have 2 dads, or 2 parents that that embarass you everywhere you go? :P

*playing devil's advocate, if no one noticed*

OMG! I was not going to check who put this until I saw that last part. I was surprised, but it makes sense on why you are the devil's advocate (though there should be no implication that we liberals are demonic in any way).

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."

Even if everyone was gay, humans would not die out. Have you ever heard of having sexual intercourse only for procreation? I am sure you have since apparently that is what all conservative Christians do it for... (yeah right). But anyways, one can still have sexual relations with the opposite sex if he or she is homosexual, they just would not enjoy it. But if it was a matter of survival, then it would be done.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."

nobody is arguing that everybody should be gay. people are arguing that nobody should be. that's the issue.

nobody is arguing that everybody should be gay. people are arguing that nobody should be. that's the issue.

He is only saying "if". He is not saying anyone is arguing that.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."

Even if everyone was gay, humans would not die out. Have you ever heard of having sexual intercourse only for procreation? I am sure you have since apparently that is what all conservative Christians do it for... (yeah right). But anyways, one can still have sexual relations with the opposite sex if he or she is homosexual, they just would not enjoy it. But if it was a matter of survival, then it would be done.

amen to that, soviet democracy.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."What if everyone was a murderer? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone got aids? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone had 20 children? we'd all die that way too.

All of the above are natural.

nobody is arguing that everybody should be gay. people are arguing that nobody should be. that's the issue.

He is only saying "if". He is not saying anyone is arguing that.

i beg to differ. i think he's arguing that, when he says it is "disgusting and wrong."

What if everyone was a murderer? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone got aids? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone had 20 children? we'd all die that way too.

All of the above are natural.

Well, not everyone would die if everyone had 20 children. But a lot of people would die. :wink:

What if everyone was a murderer? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone got aids? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone had 20 children? we'd all die that way too.

All of the above are natural.

Well, not everyone would die if everyone had 20 children. But a lot of people would die. :wink:well we wouldn't all die if everyone was gay... surely alcohol would still exist... and that would naturally suggest that at least SOME of those gay men will get drunk and sleep with the lesbians :P

LOL that'd be funny to watch! "The straight revolution!"

well we wouldn't all die if everyone was gay... surely alcohol would still exist... and that would naturally suggest that at least SOME of those gay men will get drunk and sleep with the lesbians :P

LOL that'd be funny to watch! "The straight revolution!"

LOL!

There is a reason why you are my favorite conservative on the forums (and religious person, for that matter...)

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."What if everyone was a murderer? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone got aids? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone had 20 children? we'd all die that way too.

All of the above are natural.

Murdering is not natural... Having "Anti-social personality disorder" makes you quite more likely to murder.

Having 20 kids is not natural (unless you're an ethiopian woman)

Having AIDS is not natural (It almost is natural if you're any of the below)
1) Gay
2) Bisexual
3) Black Male (14x more likely to have AIDS than a white male)
4) IV Drug user
5) Hemophiliac (But not really a major at risk group today)
6) Somebody who has relations with any of the above.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."What if everyone was a murderer? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone got aids? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone had 20 children? we'd all die that way too.

All of the above are natural.

Murdering is not natural... Having "Anti-social personality disorder" makes you quite more likely to murder.

Having 20 kids is not natural (unless you're an ethiopian woman)

Having AIDS is not natural (It almost is natural if you're any of the below)
1) Gay
2) Bisexual
3) Black Male (14x more likely to have AIDS than a white male)
4) IV Drug user
5) Hemophiliac (But not really a major at risk group today)
6) Somebody who has relations with any of the above.YOU ARE SERIOUSLY GOING TO DEBATE THAT MURDER IS NOT NATURAL?!?! :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :mrgreen:

GOING TO DEBATE THAT MURDER IS NOT NATURAL?!?! :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :mrgreen:


I know thousands of people in my community who have never murdered anybody... Murder is a rare crime in my city... 50,000 people... 1 murder in 20 years... THAT IS A FACT!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

ALL G4YS ARE PEDOPHILES WHO RAPE LITTLE BOYS OMG M8!!1

Actually most pedophiles are straight.

He was being facetious.

And honestly, I'm a homosexual but I realize that twisting statistics to my favor is not the way to go about things. There are more heterosexual pedophiles because there are more heterosexuals. Stastically, it's probably proportionate to the population in each group.

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Humans are overpopulating and only 10% of the population is homosexual. There's no danger of destroying the species.


NOTICE: I said "IF"... Just ask yourself... "WHAT IF EVERYBODY DID..."

If one man litters he may not consider it a big deal... What if everybody litters... What if everybody was gay?? "What if everybody did..." Remember that... "What if everybody did..."What if everyone was a murderer? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone got aids? We'd all die that way too.

What if everyone had 20 children? we'd all die that way too.

All of the above are natural.

Murdering is not natural... Having "Anti-social personality disorder" makes you quite more likely to murder.

Having 20 kids is not natural (unless you're an ethiopian woman)

Having AIDS is not natural (It almost is natural if you're any of the below)
1) Gay
2) Bisexual
3) Black Male (14x more likely to have AIDS than a white male)
4) IV Drug user
5) Hemophiliac (But not really a major at risk group today)
6) Somebody who has relations with any of the above.

there's a reason it's called AIDS and not GRID. everybody is at risk for AIDS. there may be some groups at greater risks than others, but it's a disease. diseases evolve naturally and infect naturally. a lot of people that everybody would consider upstanding citizens have been or are HIV+. plus, you left a group out:

7) Somebody who has relations with somebody who has relations with somebody (etc. ad naseaum) with any of the above

THey should. Just because they choose to leave diffrent dosen't mean they should be denied things that can bring so much joy. Gays don't rape kids I mean cOME ON......

Err.

A couple of things:
1.) Homosexual attraction is not a choice. Homosexuals acts, of course, are a matter of decision, but the attraction is what makes the homosexual, not the act. Too many times people do not realize this.
2.) There is, undoubtably in history, at least one homosexual who has raped a child.

GOING TO DEBATE THAT MURDER IS NOT NATURAL?!?! :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :mrgreen:


I know thousands of people in my community who have never murdered anybody... Murder is a rare crime in my city... 50,000 people... 1 murder in 20 years... THAT IS A FACT!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

In a small town. Small towns normally do not have as much murder in them. I do not know when the last murder in my town was. But in the city next to us (Fresno), murder is an every day even. You can also look at the animal kingdom. They kill each other for food! Carnivors, ever heard of them? Murder is a natural instinct.

there's a reason it's called AIDS and not GRID. everybody is at risk for AIDS. there may be some groups at greater risks than others, but it's a disease. diseases evolve naturally and infect naturally. a lot of people that everybody would consider upstanding citizens have been or are HIV+. plus, you left a group out:




The Great Boer Prophet Nicolaas Van Rensburg spoke of a disease (Aids) that would ravage the african and the homosexual. He said it would leave whites largely unaffected... He said those who would be infected would be so because of their sin. Note he spoke of this in the 1910s- 1920s. He died in the late 1920s... But not before describing WW2, the english leaving all her colonies, and numerous other world events.

Fascist, anyone can get AIDs, no matter what your race, gender, or sexual orientation is. The reason why homosexual men are at greater risk is because they have body fluids put in them during sex. Heterosexual men do not have bodily fluids injected into them during sex. But, heterosexual men are still at risk because bodily fluids are still exchanged. Take a health class, please. Oh yeah, my mom is a nurse and I know a lot about medical stuff (for someone who really does not have a tremendous amount of care for the subject).

A couple of things:
1.) Homosexual attraction is not a choice. Homosexuals acts, of course, are a matter of decision, but the attraction is what makes the homosexual, not the act. Too many times people do not realize this.
2.) There is, undoubtably in history, at least one homosexual who has raped a child.


Homosexuals are either 1) Possessed by demons... Or 2) Evil sinners who choose to be gay... Either way we can cure them with fire.

Also I have an 86 page report on queers assaulting normals... It began in February 15th, 2004.... It is a massive report... Want a copy?

GOING TO DEBATE THAT MURDER IS NOT NATURAL?!?! :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :mrgreen:


I know thousands of people in my community who have never murdered anybody... Murder is a rare crime in my city... 50,000 people... 1 murder in 20 years... THAT IS A FACT!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!Oh, you're defining "normal" not "natural."

Murder is a naturally-occuring event. Granted, it isn't normal, per se, but it does exist, has always existed, and will always exist.

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151673)

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And that is a perfectly honest and reasonable point of view. That would be the fair and just way of doing things.

To the poster above who said that most paedophiles are 'straight'. I assume by that you mean they prefer little girls, and you're quite right. However I'm not happy with you using the term 'straight' for sub-humans like that.

Actually, the sexual orientation of a pedophile is not determined by which victims he or she chooses (the sex of a child, psychologically speaking, is not as important as age and availability). A man who prefers adult men may rape a male or female child, and we would call him a homosexual in regards to adults. A man who prefers adult women may rape a male or female child, and we would call him a heterosexual in regards to adults. The acts themselves may be heterosexual or homosexual, depending on the sex of the rapist and the victim, of course, but a sexual act is different than a sexual orientation, as we should all know.

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg

*sigh* If only this was not a one day thing.

great, right when I can't find the story :P

basically, what happened was a boy was up for adoption in Portland. 3 straight families were looking to adopt him, but at the last minute, he was transfered out of state to be adopted by a gay couple.

I'll try to find the link, but we were talking about it here in portland for about a week... if it winds up untrue, then obviously my complaints list is gone :P

As it so happens, I live in Portland, as well.

I never heard about that happening, though.

great, right when I can't find the story :P

basically, what happened was a boy was up for adoption in Portland. 3 straight families were looking to adopt him, but at the last minute, he was transfered out of state to be adopted by a gay couple.

I'll try to find the link, but we were talking about it here in portland for about a week... if it winds up untrue, then obviously my complaints list is gone :P

As it so happens, I live in Portland, as well.

I never heard about that happening, though.well you certainly wouldn't read it in the oregonian! :)

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg[/url]

*sigh* If only this was not a one day thing.



Liberals seek to blame society for the failings of the individual... Most liberals probably suffer from an overactive guilt-complex.

Right Wing will see how the average person in a group behaves and will treat all accordingly all those who fall into that group.

In the USA 1/4 black males are in prison on any given day. At least 1/2 black males will be convicted of a felony at least once in their lifetime.

Do you see how easy it is to group people? If the average person of group 1 is a criminal.... What are odds the person from group 1 you meet is either A) A criminal already or B) A future criminal.


Scientists have long known about group behavioral trends.

I couldn't care less, except when it comes to adoption agencies giving gay couples top priority to fill a quota.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

And that is a perfectly honest and reasonable point of view. That would be the fair and just way of doing things.

To the poster above who said that most paedophiles are 'straight'. I assume by that you mean they prefer little girls, and you're quite right. However I'm not happy with you using the term 'straight' for sub-humans like that.

that's true. as "straight" and "queer" aren't really legit terms for people like that. then again, i'm not sure they have a choice. and to play devil's advocate, it's like blaming a retarded kid for being insipid... er... just plain ol' stupid.

insipid is a fun word. but out of place.

This gives way to the same question as, why are "straight" and "queer" people accepted but "pedophiles" and "beastiacs (?)" not.

The answer isn't that theyre 'sick'. That term is technically entirely subjective. It's that they infringe on another creatures civil rights.

I agree, that reasoning is fallacious.

However, the difference between heterosexual/homosexual attractions and pedophile/beastiality attractions is the whole harm-by-lack-of-consent factor. Children cannot consent to sex, so it is harmful to them to have sex with them. It is the same way with animals.

I could pose a similar question to yours: "Why is fornification acceptable in our society but rape is not?" Naturally, not everyone views fornification as acceptable (and it is the same way with homosexual and in some cases even heterosexual endeavors), but for the most part, it describes our society fairly well. The answer is fornification does not lack consent, per se, whereas rape clearly does in its definition.

We could, I suppose, not care in the least about people's rights, but that leads to all sorts of chaos. Pro hac vice: "Why can't I kill someone if I want to?" And so on.

Homosexuals are either 1) Possessed by demons... Or 2) Evil sinners who choose to be gay... Either way we can cure them with fire.

Also I have an 86 page report on queers assaulting normals... It began in February 15th, 2004.... It is a massive report... Want a copy?

Given enough time, I could also prepare an 86 page report on Heterosexuals assaulting Homosexuals. Prove that there is a statistical connection between homosexuality and assault greater than the conenction between heterosexuality and assault.

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg[/url]

*sigh* If only this was not a one day thing.



Liberals seek to blame society for the failings of the individual... Most liberals probably suffer from an overactive guilt-complex.

Right Wing will see how the average person in a group behaves and will treat all accordingly all those who fall into that group.

In the USA 1/4 black males are in prison on any given day. At least 1/2 black males will be convicted of a felony at least once in their lifetime.

Do you see how easy it is to group people? If the average person of group 1 is a criminal.... What are odds the person from group 1 you meet is either A) A criminal already or B) A future criminal.


Scientists have long known about group behavioral trends.

so then do you disagree with the very basis of the justice system in the united states?

Here's how the priority list SHOULD be:

1 Straight Couple
2 Gay Couple
3 Straight couple with old criminal record
4 Single
5 Straight Couple with drinking problems

I disagree.

I don't see why a straight couple should necessarily have priority over a gay couple--they could always choose different dimensions for their selection.

A single parent, also, is less likely to cause harm to a child than someone who has an equivocal criminal record. What kind of record? Where do you draw the line?

Homosexuals are either 1) Possessed by demons... Or 2) Evil sinners who choose to be gay... Either way we can cure them with fire.

Also I have an 86 page report on queers assaulting normals... It began in February 15th, 2004.... It is a massive report... Want a copy?

Given enough time, I could also prepare an 86 page report on Heterosexuals assaulting Homosexuals. Prove that there is a statistical connection between homosexuality and assault greater than the conenction between heterosexuality and assault.


The difference is homosexuals assault normals (Heterosexuals) to satisfy their lusts... When a straight beats a queer it is because the queers are disgusting freaks and straights are trying to get them to either

A) DIE
B) LEAVE THE AREA
C) LET THEM KNOW NOT TO MOLEST CHILDREN
D) REPENT AND ASK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS

Liberals seek to blame society for the failings of the individual... Most liberals probably suffer from an overactive guilt-complex.

Right Wing will see how the average person in a group behaves and will treat all accordingly all those who fall into that group.

In the USA 1/4 black males are in prison on any given day. At least 1/2 black males will be convicted of a felony at least once in their lifetime.

Do you see how easy it is to group people? If the average person of group 1 is a criminal.... What are odds the person from group 1 you meet is either A) A criminal already or B) A future criminal.


Scientists have long known about group behavioral trends.

It is about the environment that one grows up in, not the color of their skin. Was their food on the table? Did they have enough money? What music did they listen to? What activities were they involved in while young? What were the actions of the adults around them? Did they recieve enough love as a child?

This has nothing to do with race, more along the lines of economic status.

Homosexuals are either 1) Possessed by demons... Or 2) Evil sinners who choose to be gay... Either way we can cure them with fire.

Also I have an 86 page report on queers assaulting normals... It began in February 15th, 2004.... It is a massive report... Want a copy?

Given enough time, I could also prepare an 86 page report on Heterosexuals assaulting Homosexuals. Prove that there is a statistical connection between homosexuality and assault greater than the conenction between heterosexuality and assault.


The difference is homosexuals assault normals (Heterosexuals) to satisfy their lusts... When a straight beats a queer it is because the queers are disgusting freaks and straights are trying to get them to either

A) DIE
B) LEAVE THE AREA
C) LET THEM KNOW NOT TO MOLEST CHILDREN
D) REPENT AND ASK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS

How easily we group the entire world into two groups and assume they all act as one...

And you still haven't responded- it doesn't matter how many cases you have, there are an equal or greater number against you- prove that there is a significant statistical relationship.

In my opinion, just because this is how I think, that gay couples shouldn't because they are choosing to live a life that will not yield natural kids. I think adoption should be #1 for straight people who can't physically have kids though they would like too. Also, criminal records kinda creep me out so I would probably say no to that too.

1.) So? How is the ability to have natural children relevant as to whether they should be able to adopt?
2.) Why should the capacity to have children be a determining factor as to whether a couple can adopt children? If a couple has the capacity to have children, but prefers to adopt as an act of philanthropy, why shouldn't they?

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg

*sigh* If only this was not a one day thing.
Seriously...I'm getting kinda turned on by all this Raysia being reasonable :oops: :lol:
but maybe that's just cause I've been alone for like a month now and I'm getting kinda lonely...

Liberals seek to blame society for the failings of the individual... Most liberals probably suffer from an overactive guilt-complex.

Right Wing will see how the average person in a group behaves and will treat all accordingly all those who fall into that group.

In the USA 1/4 black males are in prison on any given day. At least 1/2 black males will be convicted of a felony at least once in their lifetime.

Do you see how easy it is to group people? If the average person of group 1 is a criminal.... What are odds the person from group 1 you meet is either A) A criminal already or B) A future criminal.


Scientists have long known about group behavioral trends.

It is about the environment that one grows up in, not the color of their skin. Was their food on the table? Did they have enough money? What music did they listen to? What activities were they involved in while young? What were the actions of the adults around them? Did they recieve enough love as a child?

This has nothing to do with race, more along the lines of economic status.

I know many poor white in South Africa who live in squalid squatter camps... You never hear about them roaming the countryside killing white farmers (All of the 25,000 farm attacks against white farmers were done by black male, with the exception of one carried out by a black female... 1,700 white farmers have been murdered in the 10 years since apartheid ended... Also about 23,000 have been assaulted, raped, etc... Note there are only 40,000 white farmers in South Africa.)

www.afrikanercharity.org

http://www.afrikanercharity.org/2/photos/farm-attack-victims.shtml

because I said so?? :?

actually, I am more about getting the kid into a loving home then being nitpicky about that sort of stuff, it's just that people choose to be gay, people don't choose to be infertile. It's more about the choice you made.

But that's wrong.

Attraction is not a choice. You don't choose to fall in love.

I know many poor white in South Africa who live in squalid squatter camps... You never hear about them roaming the countryside killing white farmers (All of the 25,000 farm attacks against white farmers were done by black male, with the exception of one carried out by a black female... 1,700 white farmers have been murdered in the 10 years since apartheid ended... Also about 23,000 have been assaulted, raped, etc... Note there are only 40,000 white farmers in South Africa.)

www.afrikanercharity.org

http://www.afrikanercharity.org/2/photos/farm-attack-victims.shtml

The South? I am talking about inner city LA! The projects. The lifestyle that they have there.

One question though...

No straight parent looks at their daughter and says "someday she'll grow up, get married to the woman of her dreams, and fight a struggle of civil rights for an adoption of a child," they'll all hope they grow up straight and have a family and all that.

What will gay parents say/hope? Will they hope their kids turn out gay like them? What happens if they turn otu straight? who do they turn to for straight advice?

The straight family hopes these things because those are society's standards. Ideally, the gay couple hopes that their child will be happy in life being who she really is, not what anyone else wants her to be.

Also, it's not as if a gay child can go to a straight parent for gay advice, so...

I know many poor white in South Africa who live in squalid squatter camps... You never hear about them roaming the countryside killing white farmers (All of the 25,000 farm attacks against white farmers were done by black male, with the exception of one carried out by a black female... 1,700 white farmers have been murdered in the 10 years since apartheid ended... Also about 23,000 have been assaulted, raped, etc... Note there are only 40,000 white farmers in South Africa.)

www.afrikanercharity.org

http://www.afrikanercharity.org/2/photos/farm-attack-victims.shtml

Oh, and that situation is taken out of context. There are political motives behind that. The white minority has been oppressing the black majority there for years and now the black people are stricking back. I do not agree with the violence, but I can see why they are doing it (and do not endorse it in any way).

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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.

When a straight beats a queer it is because the queers are disgusting freaks and straights are trying to get them to...REPENT AND ASK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS

Awww....how sweet...for them to care so much about the wicked homosexuals souls....




wow...I just completely forgot how to spell "wicked" and had to look it up in Word and online....wow...

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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.

FROM MY MOUTH...

Homosexuality is not a sin and should be supported by society as a healthy living style.

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Wow... anecdotes...

I fail to be convinced.

wow...I just completely forgot how to spell "wicked" and had to look it up in Word and online....wow...

Usually people do not admit that in their posts. 8)

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.By unnatural, he means it makes no sense. The universe revolves around opposites attracting. I'm sure you'd be freaked out if you saw 2 like-ends of a magnet sticking together, or saw a positron orbiting a proton.

Uhh.

Physics does not equate with biology, and in any case, opposites do not always attract with every single dichotomy.

I know many poor white in South Africa who live in squalid squatter camps... You never hear about them roaming the countryside killing white farmers (All of the 25,000 farm attacks against white farmers were done by black male, with the exception of one carried out by a black female... 1,700 white farmers have been murdered in the 10 years since apartheid ended... Also about 23,000 have been assaulted, raped, etc... Note there are only 40,000 white farmers in South Africa.)

www.afrikanercharity.org

http://www.afrikanercharity.org/2/photos/farm-attack-victims.shtml

The South? I am talking about inner city LA! The projects. The lifestyle that they have there.
no, not "the south"...South Africa....what the heck? I thought he was talking about the number of American black males in prison...what does Africa have to do with anything?

EDIT: I guess it's the idea that "You don't see us causing so much trouble in THEIR continent even under crappy living conditions, so why are they bothering us in OUR land?" :roll:
edit 2....forgot the eyeroll

I know many poor white in South Africa who live in squalid squatter camps... You never hear about them roaming the countryside killing white farmers (All of the 25,000 farm attacks against white farmers were done by black male, with the exception of one carried out by a black female... 1,700 white farmers have been murdered in the 10 years since apartheid ended... Also about 23,000 have been assaulted, raped, etc... Note there are only 40,000 white farmers in South Africa.)

www.afrikanercharity.org

http://www.afrikanercharity.org/2/photos/farm-attack-victims.shtml

Oh, and that situation is taken out of context. There are political motives behind that. The white minority has been oppressing the black majority there for years and now the black people are stricking back. I do not agree with the violence, but I can see why they are doing it (and do not endorse it in any way).

Blah Blah Blah... The way blacks are behaving in South Africa today (they've turned what was the safest nation in the world to the most dangerous one in just 10 years)... They way they behave makes the argument for Apartheid all the stronger... A woman in South Africa is more likely to be raped than to learn to read... There are reported about 300,000 rapes per year... They fear it is closer to 1 million though... Also there are so many murders in the nation... 2,000 cops have been killed since apartheid ended... That is a massive number... Look at how many cops die in the USA... But we are 5-6x larger than South Africa in regards with population... Also look how the first thing the black government did in 1994 was gun control... To disarm the whites and the anti-ANC blacks... Then the ANC did away with the laws that made rape punishable by death.

Far from the pretty picture painted of Mandela being the peaceful black thrown in jail for protesting Apartheid... He spoke out for violent terrorism... He was an advocate of it... He was never a peaceful person...

His own words prove it.

I know many poor white in South Africa who live in squalid squatter camps... You never hear about them roaming the countryside killing white farmers (All of the 25,000 farm attacks against white farmers were done by black male, with the exception of one carried out by a black female... 1,700 white farmers have been murdered in the 10 years since apartheid ended... Also about 23,000 have been assaulted, raped, etc... Note there are only 40,000 white farmers in South Africa.)

www.afrikanercharity.org

http://www.afrikanercharity.org/2/photos/farm-attack-victims.shtml

The South? I am talking about inner city LA! The projects. The lifestyle that they have there.
no, not "the south"...South Africa....what the heck? I thought he was talking about the number of American black males in prison...what does Africa have to do with anything?

EDIT: I guess it's the idea that "You don't see us causing so much trouble in THEIR continent even under crappy living conditions, so why are they bothering us in OUR land?"

I am jumping around... The prison stats are USA...

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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.

i wish i had the other references handy... i'm afraid i can't give chapter and verse, but i can say that the bible says it's ok to stone to death anyone who works on the sabbath, that it's ok to (i think) burn anyone who wears cloth woven of two fabrics, that it's ok to sell one's daughter into slavery. come up with something more original, that one's been tried and defeated already

Further reading from the book of Leviticus:

Leviticus 11:10-11

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you;

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.

I hope you aren't all that fond of shrimp, lobsters, crab, clams, oysters, scallops....

So if gays can no longer adopt children...what rights would they not have?

- Right to marry
- Right to bear a child/children
- Right to be with a man, in the open, and not be embarassed
- Right to have a say in the government for a good number of years (we take care of this now, or society will reject gays for a few decades)
- Right to be seen as a human (again, society would reject gays)

super, now ill be hearing of laws that command people not to stare at the unnatural in public

What, exactly, is unnatural? If you're referring to homosexuality, I have to beg to differ. It doesn't just happen in humans. In fact, at last count I believe there was somewhere around 500 species with confirmed homosexual behavior.

I'd like to think the most intelligent and most dominant species on the planet wouldn't have to lower itself to the argument that "We're just animals" to prove a point. It's unnatural because it doesn't yield offspring. That is if we are lowering ourselves to that level.

if the question is about nature, why is it wrong to compare homo sapiens sapiens to the rest of nature?

"The most dangerous game"

The power to reason.

There is no reasoning with love.

Anyway, his point stands. The ISSUE is whether homosexuality is natural: if it occurs in animal species, which it does, then we can conclude it is natural to do.

While animals are not the standard for human behavior, that was not the issue. After all, much of human behavior isn't exactly natural. We curb evolution by providing medicine to allow those with genetic defects to produce offspring, thus spreading that gene. While I think it's entirely necessary to do so (all human life is precious), it isn't natural by any means.

One question though...

No straight parent looks at their daughter and says "someday she'll grow up, get married to the woman of her dreams, and fight a struggle of civil rights for an adoption of a child," they'll all hope they grow up straight and have a family and all that.

What will gay parents say/hope? Will they hope their kids turn out gay like them? What happens if they turn otu straight? who do they turn to for straight advice?

The straight family hopes these things because those are society's standards. Ideally, the gay couple hopes that their child will be happy in life being who she really is, not what anyone else wants her to be.

Also, it's not as if a gay child can go to a straight parent for gay advice, so...
I'd like to think that a parent of any sexual orientation can advise a child of any sexual orientation on the ways of love, regardless if it's gay or straight or unqualifyable (or at least doesn't need to be qualified)
I know that's how my kids will be raised
Usually people do not admit that in their posts. 8)
I know that, it was just so incredible and dumbfounding that I had to share it :wink:

i wish i had the other references handy... i'm afraid i can't give chapter and verse, but i can say that the bible says it's ok to stone to death anyone who works on the sabbath, that it's ok to (i think) burn anyone who wears cloth woven of two fabrics, that it's ok to sell one's daughter into slavery. come up with something more original, that one's been tried and defeated already


If the bible says it... Then you can do it...

The "Cloth of two woven fabrics" is a methaphor meaning "Don't Race Mix"

Also the bible says, "Do not plant two different seeds in the same field"... Another methaphor for don't race mix.

Also it says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" but that doesn't mean cheat on your wife, As it already says "Do not covet thy neighbors wife"...
Adultery in the commandment = adulterate... Do not Adulterate your blood. IE... DO NOT RACE MIX. Well that is how my preacher tells it.

Adulterate: To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients.

No.

i want to thank everyone that has joined me here and picked up the argument with me. i also want to apologize for having slowed down, but this is taking alot out of me. i'm still here, i'm just reacting a little more slowly as i become exhausted

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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. A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS

24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

you don't seriously believe that one too, do you?

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151673)

Homosexuality is a crime against nature... If every animal of said species turned gay the said species would die... It is not natural and it is disgusting and wrong... A species does not assure their continued existence through homosexuality.

Except that every animal of a species would not spontaneously become homosexual. It just wouldn't happen. So that is irrelevant. Anyway, that aside, you haven't shown how it is not natural. If it occurs in nature, then, by golly, it must *be* natural! What a novel concept!

Anyway, there are a lot of disgusting things. Open heart surgery is disgusting. Should we ban this?

Oh, and how is it wrong?

Finally, as I pointed out, homosexuals only make up a small amount of the population, so ultimately it is a good thing for a population if not every person reproduces. That's a little thing we like to call population control in ecology. It's a smart thing of nature. Are predators to be looked on by scorn because they do "not assure the continued existence" of those they prey on? Um, no, because it's a GOOD thing that they prey on those animals.

Have you made the connection yet?

i wish i had the other references handy... i'm afraid i can't give chapter and verse, but i can say that the bible says it's ok to stone to death anyone who works on the sabbath, that it's ok to (i think) burn anyone who wears cloth woven of two fabrics, that it's ok to sell one's daughter into slavery. come up with something more original, that one's been tried and defeated already


If the bible says it... Then you can do it...

The "Cloth of two woven fabrics" is a methaphor meaning "Don't Race Mix"

Also the bible says, "Do not plant two different seeds in the same field"... Another methaphor for don't race mix.

Also it says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" but that doesn't mean cheat on your wife, As it already says "Do not covet thy neighbors wife"...
Adultery in the commandment = adulterate... Do not Adulterate your blood. IE... DO NOT RACE MIX. Well that is how my preacher tells it.

Adulterate: To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients.

:shock:

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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. A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS

24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

you don't seriously believe that one too, do you?

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151673)


I CERTAINLY DO!!!!

I'm going to just respond and end the pyramid.
I don't thnnk any of my arguments have been religious. Mine were moslty concerned with the natural order of things. I don't agree with bein gay on both a religious level but also a "why defy nature?" level. I also don't believe that it isn't a choice, because why would their be a gene whos sole purpose was to not get passed on?

There are other options than it being genetic, of course.

And in any case, as I pointed out in another post, it would be beneficial to a population as a whole if a small part of the population didn't reproduce. That would certainly explain the existence of a 'gay gene.'

After all, genetic defects can be a real drag for an organism. As in, it dies. That's hardly the way to make genes pass on, now is it? Oh, and let's not forget, a genotype is not always a phenotype!

I have had a few dozen people compile a report for me... Over the last 4 months they gathered all the news articles and such that they came across and posted it together... The articles are on homosexuals sexually assaulting heterosexuals... The idea that "Gays don't want to get you"... Well it is just a lie... THE REPORT IS OVER 86 PAGES LONG!!!! 4 months, several dozen people reporting, 86 PAGES!!!!.


If you want a copy of the report you can find my on yahoo or msn and ask me for a link to the report.

Who created the report? Always remember to consider the source. Plus, I really doubt that anyone that took the time to compile a similar report with an opposite focus would get statistically significant different results.

Friends clipped newspaper stories, posted links to stories online... They spent months making this report so we have a damn fine case against the faggots.

So, in other words, people who already had a vendetta complied a report considering only evidence that proved their theory? Do I really have to say any more about that?

Be careful with that argument, it's a double edged sword.
*slice

I never offered to show evidence in the form of a report detailing some vast gay conspiracy. If I did, it certainly would have been from some respected media research institute, and not a few friends taking clipping from newspapers. As I said before, consider the source.

I'm just saying, that if you use an argument like "you're biased" just realize that you are too. One could jsut as easily argue that all the genetics reports were made by "gay" scientists. That is all I'm saying. You havn't proved your side right yet.

"You're biased" is not as prevalent in his argument as "anecdotes proove nothing, infidel" was.

I'm going to just respond and end the pyramid.
I don't thnnk any of my arguments have been religious. Mine were moslty concerned with the natural order of things. I don't agree with bein gay on both a religious level but also a "why defy nature?" level. I also don't believe that it isn't a choice, because why would their be a gene whos sole purpose was to not get passed on?

There are other options than it being genetic, of course.

And in any case, as I pointed out in another post, it would be beneficial to a population as a whole if a small part of the population didn't reproduce. That would certainly explain the existence of a 'gay gene.'

After all, genetic defects can be a real drag for an organism. As in, it dies. That's hardly the way to make genes pass on, now is it? Oh, and let's not forget, a genotype is not always a phenotype!

very good points. i'd also like to reference another little gene quirk. that is, black people have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia. usually, this is considered a bad thing. but, sickle cell anemia makes a person more resistant to malaria. this is a good thing. little genetic defects can do a great deal to help a species survive. (btw, if i've named the wrong disease, which i may have, please correct me. i know it's one of 'em, and i think it's malaria...)

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

I concur. A homosexual act is, scilicet, a choice.

Certainly, people can choose to not act on their impulses. Sometimes this is clearly beneficial: if you prevent yourself from killing someone on impulse, this is good. There's not really any reason to prevent yourself, objectively speaking, from partaking in a homosexual act. It doesn't cause harm, necessarily, but murder always does.

I am against it, not because it is wrong, but because it is most likely the child will have a more difficult time from his peers. Unfortunetly, i think he would be made fun of a lot.

A child is bound to be made fun of no matter who his parents are, what characteristics he has, or where he lives.

So this is irrelevant.

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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. A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS

24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

you don't seriously believe that one too, do you?

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151673)


I CERTAINLY DO!!!!And what of christ's words "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Would you ignore that in favor of your fascist agenda?

I am against it, not because it is wrong, but because it is most likely the child will have a more difficult time from his peers. Unfortunetly, i think he would be made fun of a lot.

A child is bound to be made fun of no matter who his parents are, what characteristics he has, or where he lives.

So this is irrelevant.

well said

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

I concur. A homosexual act is, scilicet, a choice.

Certainly, people can choose to not act on their impulses. Sometimes this is clearly beneficial: if you prevent yourself from killing someone on impulse, this is good. There's not really any reason to prevent yourself, objectively speaking, from partaking in a homosexual act. It doesn't cause harm, necessarily, but murder always does.If one were to convert to a religion, such as christianity, where homosexuality is not acceptable... then they would be compelled to make that choice. i would think damnation would be considered hurting yourself ;)

A couple of things:
1.) Homosexual attraction is not a choice. Homosexuals acts, of course, are a matter of decision, but the attraction is what makes the homosexual, not the act. Too many times people do not realize this.
2.) There is, undoubtably in history, at least one homosexual who has raped a child.


Homosexuals are either 1) Possessed by demons... Or 2) Evil sinners who choose to be gay... Either way we can cure them with fire.

Also I have an 86 page report on queers assaulting normals... It began in February 15th, 2004.... It is a massive report... Want a copy?

Religiously, I disagree.

I'm a very devout Jew, and really, those two options are just ridiculous. XD

Also, no thank you.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

I concur. A homosexual act is, scilicet, a choice.

Certainly, people can choose to not act on their impulses. Sometimes this is clearly beneficial: if you prevent yourself from killing someone on impulse, this is good. There's not really any reason to prevent yourself, objectively speaking, from partaking in a homosexual act. It doesn't cause harm, necessarily, but murder always does.If one were to convert to a religion, such as christianity, where homosexuality is not acceptable... then they would be compelled to make that choice. i would think damnation would be considered hurting yourself ;)

i dunno, i was rasied christian and one thing the priest always taught us was that we should form our own opinion of what we do. our actions are between ourselves and God alone, and that in the final judgement we won't be damned for things we truly believe in our heart of hearts are not wrong. we may be punished, but not eternally. isn't Christ's message a message of love? didn't Christ die for all man's sins? who found hatred in Jesus?

great, right when I can't find the story :P

basically, what happened was a boy was up for adoption in Portland. 3 straight families were looking to adopt him, but at the last minute, he was transfered out of state to be adopted by a gay couple.

I'll try to find the link, but we were talking about it here in portland for about a week... if it winds up untrue, then obviously my complaints list is gone :P

As it so happens, I live in Portland, as well.

I never heard about that happening, though.well you certainly wouldn't read it in the oregonian! :)

I wouldn't imagine so.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

I concur. A homosexual act is, scilicet, a choice.

Certainly, people can choose to not act on their impulses. Sometimes this is clearly beneficial: if you prevent yourself from killing someone on impulse, this is good. There's not really any reason to prevent yourself, objectively speaking, from partaking in a homosexual act. It doesn't cause harm, necessarily, but murder always does.If one were to convert to a religion, such as christianity, where homosexuality is not acceptable... then they would be compelled to make that choice. i would think damnation would be considered hurting yourself ;)

i dunno, i was rasied christian and one thing the priest always taught us was that we should form our own opinion of what we do. our actions are between ourselves and God alone, and that in the final judgement we won't be damned for things we truly believe in our heart of hearts are not wrong. we may be punished, but not eternally. isn't Christ's message a message of love? didn't Christ die for all man's sins? who found hatred in Jesus?Christ's message was about sacrificing all your earthly intentions and possessions for a greater good and service to your fellow man. There was no message of hatred, except to those who would defile a temple of God.

Homosexuals are either 1) Possessed by demons... Or 2) Evil sinners who choose to be gay... Either way we can cure them with fire.

Also I have an 86 page report on queers assaulting normals... It began in February 15th, 2004.... It is a massive report... Want a copy?

Given enough time, I could also prepare an 86 page report on Heterosexuals assaulting Homosexuals. Prove that there is a statistical connection between homosexuality and assault greater than the conenction between heterosexuality and assault.


The difference is homosexuals assault normals (Heterosexuals) to satisfy their lusts... When a straight beats a queer it is because the queers are disgusting freaks and straights are trying to get them to either

A) DIE
B) LEAVE THE AREA
C) LET THEM KNOW NOT TO MOLEST CHILDREN
D) REPENT AND ASK G[-]D FOR FORGIVENESS

You are disgusting.

Personally, I think assault for any such reasons is wrong. The end.

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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. A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS

24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

you don't seriously believe that one too, do you?

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rlod.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151673)


I CERTAINLY DO!!!!And what of christ's words "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Would you ignore that in favor of your fascist agenda?

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...

Homosexuals are either 1) Possessed by demons... Or 2) Evil sinners who choose to be gay... Either way we can cure them with fire.

Also I have an 86 page report on queers assaulting normals... It began in February 15th, 2004.... It is a massive report... Want a copy?

Given enough time, I could also prepare an 86 page report on Heterosexuals assaulting Homosexuals. Prove that there is a statistical connection between homosexuality and assault greater than the conenction between heterosexuality and assault.


The difference is homosexuals assault normals (Heterosexuals) to satisfy their lusts... When a straight beats a queer it is because the queers are disgusting freaks and straights are trying to get them to either

A) DIE
B) LEAVE THE AREA
C) LET THEM KNOW NOT TO MOLEST CHILDREN
D) REPENT AND ASK G[-]D FOR FORGIVENESS

You are disgusting.

Personally, I think assault for any such reasons is wrong. The end.

i couldn't agree with you more, Heaven and Hell

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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.

Aren't you a Christian?

Read your Pauline theology. Christians are not bound by levitical law.

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...No. Christ was the only man without sin. That's why he was able to do what he did. If it were possible for any normal man to live a sinless life, we'd be seeing more jesus's :P

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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.

Aren't you a Christian?

Read your Pauline theology. Christians are not bound by levitical law.

My preacher speaks out against Paul... Paul was a anti-Christian zealot who when he couldn't kill enough Christians he did the "can't beat them join them." Join is what he did, and he subverted Christian Doctrine.

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...No. Christ was the only man without sin. That's why he was able to do what he did. If it were possible for any normal man to live a sinless life, we'd be seeing more jesus's :P

there's an interesting thought

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...No. Christ was the only man without sin. That's why he was able to do what he did. If it were possible for any normal man to live a sinless life, we'd be seeing more jesus's :P

According to my preacher, Christ's death was supposed to cleanse God's People (European Christians) of original sin... European Christians are no longer tainted by original sin.

A READING FROM THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS


18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.




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.

Aren't you a Christian?

Read your Pauline theology. Christians are not bound by levitical law.

My preacher speaks out against Paul... Paul was a anti-Christian zealot who when he couldn't kill enough Christians he did the "can't beat them join them." Join is what he did, and he subverted Christian Doctrine.

so do you just read the gospels? didn't paul write most of the letters in the New Testament?

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...No. Christ was the only man without sin. That's why he was able to do what he did. If it were possible for any normal man to live a sinless life, we'd be seeing more jesus's :P

According to my preacher, Christ's death was supposed to cleanse God's People (European Christians) of original sin... European Christians are no longer tainted by original sin.

when did it shift from the Hebrews to European Christians?

One question though...

No straight parent looks at their daughter and says "someday she'll grow up, get married to the woman of her dreams, and fight a struggle of civil rights for an adoption of a child," they'll all hope they grow up straight and have a family and all that.

What will gay parents say/hope? Will they hope their kids turn out gay like them? What happens if they turn otu straight? who do they turn to for straight advice?

The straight family hopes these things because those are society's standards. Ideally, the gay couple hopes that their child will be happy in life being who she really is, not what anyone else wants her to be.

Also, it's not as if a gay child can go to a straight parent for gay advice, so...
I'd like to think that a parent of any sexual orientation can advise a child of any sexual orientation on the ways of love, regardless if it's gay or straight or unqualifyable (or at least doesn't need to be qualified)
I know that's how my kids will be raised


And I agree. I was speaking within terms of the examples the person I was responding to gave: the reason a straight couple expects their child to be straight is by society's standards. Furthermore, as a gay person, I was speaking on my own behalf. I can't really get advice from my parents. As for my own children, if they need advice in the ways of love, I will do my best for them, regardless of who they may be attracted to.

Ok, problems with Gays adopting.

First off, it's doesn't give the child the perspective of a a mother AND a father, it gives them a warped sense of one or the other. I realize they may not have either, but who says they won't soon? And is it really better to have a warped sense than no sense? I think not.

Second, most homosexual relationships don't last anywhere near long term. I think it's 75% of homosexuals in the US have never had a relationship longer than 6 months, my percentage may be off, but it's high (maybe higher). So why bring a child into a relationship that is fairly likely to be doomed. There was a study just released from england, where homosexual marriage is legal, male-male marriages there last on average of 1.5 years with male homosexuals averaging 8 partners per year. I'm sorry, I think an orphanage would be better off for a child than that situation.

Third, homosexuallity is a choice, not a genetic thing. There is a thing called natural selection. As homosexuals can not mate, the "homo-gene" wouldn't be passed down. It is an enviromental effect that causes a concious or subconcious decision. It therefore can be changed, and has been successfully changed by many WILLING to change and able to get help. It is well documented. By introducing a child to that environment, that child is likely to have other psychological issues possibly including homosexuality.

Also, a bigger issue is that it's harder for a white couple to adopt a minority child (and vise versa) than it is for a homosexual "couple" to adopt a child in many states. This is one of the big reasons less children are addopted. So before you go picketing for homosexual civil rights (which they chose to enter into), why not fight for some people that deserve it and would be better parents.

For more fact go to: www.family.org

Now, for the religious arguments, heck, if think homosexuality is ok, you've never even seen a bible. It's been a sin since the beginning, Jesus said it wasn't right (althought he didn't say no homosexual, he did say one man, one woman: Matthew 19), and it was condemned afte he died on the cross. There is no room for debate, hate the sin, love the sinner, but do NOT ACCEPT the sin. In God's eyes, it is wrong. Whether you believe in him or not, He stated it clearly. So, as a christian, I have no choice but to be against it.

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...No. Christ was the only man without sin. That's why he was able to do what he did. If it were possible for any normal man to live a sinless life, we'd be seeing more jesus's :P

According to my preacher, Christ's death was supposed to cleanse God's People (European Christians) of original sin... European Christians are no longer tainted by original sin.Yes, of course, Screw the jews, Christ was the white king of Britain :)

i wish i had the other references handy... i'm afraid i can't give chapter and verse, but i can say that the bible says it's ok to stone to death anyone who works on the sabbath, that it's ok to (i think) burn anyone who wears cloth woven of two fabrics, that it's ok to sell one's daughter into slavery. come up with something more original, that one's been tried and defeated already


If the bible says it... Then you can do it...

The "Cloth of two woven fabrics" is a methaphor meaning "Don't Race Mix"

Also the bible says, "Do not plant two different seeds in the same field"... Another methaphor for don't race mix.

Also it says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" but that doesn't mean cheat on your wife, As it already says "Do not covet thy neighbors wife"...
Adultery in the commandment = adulterate... Do not Adulterate your blood. IE... DO NOT RACE MIX. Well that is how my preacher tells it.

Adulterate: To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients.

Well I'm sorry but that is not consistent with how the ancient Hebrews interpreted it.

Levitical laws are not metaphorical.

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...No. Christ was the only man without sin. That's why he was able to do what he did. If it were possible for any normal man to live a sinless life, we'd be seeing more jesus's :P

According to my preacher, Christ's death was supposed to cleanse God's People (European Christians) of original sin... European Christians are no longer tainted by original sin.

when did it shift from the Hebrews to European Christians?

Talk to the preacher about it...

He preaches the true word of Lord Yahweh about the people of the house of Jacob Israel. He teaches that the biblical "jews" in the old testament were actually whites... They eventually moved to Europe (the 12 lost tribes etc)... He also preaches the dual-seedline. (White Christians are the Children of Abel who is son of Adam and Eve) (All others are the Children of Cain, son of Eve and Satan) Cain's sacrifice was not accepted by God because Cain was the son of Satan.


He preaches that the Children of Abel are locked in a death struggle with the Children of Cain and that the Children of Cain will ultimately be defeated by the Children of Abel.


More about Dual Seedline.

http://www.spiritandtruth.freeservers.com/WEBAPPLESTORY/INDEX.HTML

Oh, and christian may not be bound by levitical law, but homosexuality is still a sin. And as paul said, should we go on sinning, "by not means!"

Let's stop this argument.

Studies show that children who grow up in a homosexual home are no more likely to have any problems than children growing up in heterosexual households.

Therefore, they should be allowed to adopt.

Any argument using religion is worthless, it's people's choice whether to follow a set of morals, you can't expect people to abide by your own morals, don't be so egocentric.

Ok, problems with Gays adopting.

First off, it's doesn't give the child the perspective of a a mother AND a father, it gives them a warped sense of one or the other. I realize they may not have either, but who says they won't soon? And is it really better to have a warped sense than no sense? I think not.

Second, most homosexual relationships don't last anywhere near long term. I think it's 75% of homosexuals in the US have never had a relationship longer than 6 months, my percentage may be off, but it's high (maybe higher). So why bring a child into a relationship that is fairly likely to be doomed. There was a study just released from england, where homosexual marriage is legal, male-male marriages there last on average of 1.5 years with male homosexuals averaging 8 partners per year. I'm sorry, I think an orphanage would be better off for a child than that situation.

Third, homosexuallity is a choice, not a genetic thing. There is a thing called natural selection. As homosexuals can not mate, the "homo-gene" wouldn't be passed down. It is an enviromental effect that causes a concious or subconcious decision. It therefore can be changed, and has been successfully changed by many WILLING to change and able to get help. It is well documented. By introducing a child to that environment, that child is likely to have other psychological issues possibly including homosexuality.

Also, a bigger issue is that it's harder for a white couple to adopt a minority child (and vise versa) than it is for a homosexual "couple" to adopt a child in many states. This is one of the big reasons less children are addopted. So before you go picketing for homosexual civil rights (which they chose to enter into), why not fight for some people that deserve it and would be better parents.

For more fact go to: www.family.org

Now, for the religious arguments, heck, if think homosexuality is ok, you've never even seen a bible. It's been a sin since the beginning, Jesus said it wasn't right (althought he didn't say no homosexual, he did say one man, one woman: Matthew 19), and it was condemned afte he died on the cross. There is no room for debate, hate the sin, love the sinner, but do NOT ACCEPT the sin. In God's eyes, it is wrong. Whether you believe in him or not, He stated it clearly. So, as a christian, I have no choice but to be against it.

generally speaking, the "well documented" cases of 'rehabilitation' become documented as cases of brainwashing. furthermore, family.org has an ax to grind. try to find something more neutral to back your arguments.

I'm going to just respond and end the pyramid.
I don't thnnk any of my arguments have been religious. Mine were moslty concerned with the natural order of things. I don't agree with bein gay on both a religious level but also a "why defy nature?" level. I also don't believe that it isn't a choice, because why would their be a gene whos sole purpose was to not get passed on?

There are other options than it being genetic, of course.

And in any case, as I pointed out in another post, it would be beneficial to a population as a whole if a small part of the population didn't reproduce. That would certainly explain the existence of a 'gay gene.'

After all, genetic defects can be a real drag for an organism. As in, it dies. That's hardly the way to make genes pass on, now is it? Oh, and let's not forget, a genotype is not always a phenotype!

very good points. i'd also like to reference another little gene quirk. that is, black people have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia. usually, this is considered a bad thing. but, sickle cell anemia makes a person more resistant to malaria. this is a good thing. little genetic defects can do a great deal to help a species survive. (btw, if i've named the wrong disease, which i may have, please correct me. i know it's one of 'em, and i think it's malaria...)

You are correct. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia causes the shape of blood cells to be distorted because the hemoglobin's structure is different than normal. Malaria cannot infect the hemoglobin of a sickle cell as well as that of a normal cell because of this different molecular structure.

However, if a person is homozygous for sickle cell anemia, they're pretty likely to die, so only a person with the heterozygous sickle cell anemia trait benefits as far as malaria or anything else goes. They also must receive physical therapy.

Let's stop this argument.

Studies show that children who grow up in a homosexual home are no more likely to have any problems than children growing up in heterosexual households.

Therefore, they should be allowed to adopt.

Any argument using religion is worthless, it's people's choice whether to follow a set of morals, you can't expect people to abide by your own morals, don't be so egocentric.


Studies ? Conducted by who? The North American Man Boy Love Association (A pedophile group called NAMBLA that wants the consent age lowered)

Let's stop this argument.

Studies show that children who grow up in a homosexual home are no more likely to have any problems than children growing up in heterosexual households.

Therefore, they should be allowed to adopt.

Any argument using religion is worthless, it's people's choice whether to follow a set of morals, you can't expect people to abide by your own morals, don't be so egocentric.

i'm afraid i have to agree. no amount of debate is going to change any dead-set minds, and studies show that societies opinions are changing despite the efforts to maintain the status-quo. as much as i hate to say it, it seems we'll have to agree to disagree.

The fact is, nobody knows what causes homosexuality. One thing that pretty much all of the experts on the subject agree on, though, is that it is in no way a choice. The jury is still out on "nature vs. nurture."

On a side note, I didn't mean to say that arguments given here were religious, but I failed to properly articulate that point. In fact, I applaud everyone here for not resorting to the "God says so" point of view. I simply meant to assert that on a larger scale in modern society it eventually comes down to a religious argument.And that's bull. I'll concede that some people have more homosexual tendancies than others... but to say there is no choice is bull. If there's no choice to act upon such impulses, then we might as well throw anyone who is genetically alcoholic into rehab, and lock up anyone with violent thoughts.

I concur. A homosexual act is, scilicet, a choice.

Certainly, people can choose to not act on their impulses. Sometimes this is clearly beneficial: if you prevent yourself from killing someone on impulse, this is good. There's not really any reason to prevent yourself, objectively speaking, from partaking in a homosexual act. It doesn't cause harm, necessarily, but murder always does.If one were to convert to a religion, such as christianity, where homosexuality is not acceptable... then they would be compelled to make that choice. i would think damnation would be considered hurting yourself ;)

Granted, but I am Jewish, of which not all sects believe homosexuality is sinful, and for that matter, I don't believe in being "damned," either.

I'm going to just respond and end the pyramid.
I don't thnnk any of my arguments have been religious. Mine were moslty concerned with the natural order of things. I don't agree with bein gay on both a religious level but also a "why defy nature?" level. I also don't believe that it isn't a choice, because why would their be a gene whos sole purpose was to not get passed on?

There are other options than it being genetic, of course.

And in any case, as I pointed out in another post, it would be beneficial to a population as a whole if a small part of the population didn't reproduce. That would certainly explain the existence of a 'gay gene.'

After all, genetic defects can be a real drag for an organism. As in, it dies. That's hardly the way to make genes pass on, now is it? Oh, and let's not forget, a genotype is not always a phenotype!

very good points. i'd also like to reference another little gene quirk. that is, black people have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia. usually, this is considered a bad thing. but, sickle cell anemia makes a person more resistant to malaria. this is a good thing. little genetic defects can do a great deal to help a species survive. (btw, if i've named the wrong disease, which i may have, please correct me. i know it's one of 'em, and i think it's malaria...)

You are correct. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia causes the shape of blood cells to be distorted because the hemoglobin's structure is different than normal. Malaria cannot infect the hemoglobin of a sickle cell as well as that of a normal cell because of this different molecular structure.

However, if a person is homozygous for sickle cell anemia, they're pretty likely to die, so only a person with the heterozygous sickle cell anemia trait benefits as far as malaria or anything else goes. They also must receive physical therapy.

thank you for expanding on it

I'm gonna get stoned for this (and it's biblically allowed!) but your preacher doesn't know everything.

Actually, from what I've heard, he doesn't know ANYTHING.

Wanna know some great irony? This is the same guy that said "muder isn't natural" Xp

But honestly, now, I'm gonna speak as a former Christian that knew his religion fairly well. Guess what? I don't give a rat's ass what your preacher says about Paul. Does he have books in the Bible? THen you better follow them. Otherwise, you arn't a Christian, you've created your own religion modeled IN PART after Christianity. And I believe many would call it a cult.

Know something else that's funny? I think that those anti-gay verses in Leviticus meant something else. They mean that a man cannot sleep next to another man! I mean, don't you see it? What do married people do? Sleep next to each other of course!


And you can't tell me I'm wrong, because then YOU would be picking and choosing qhich verses are literal and which are not, and that would be saying that you, and ONLY you, understand the Bible completely. Which is blasphomy. And then you'd be stoned.

Oh-ho-ho, I'm not done yet though! You claim that all European Christians are now cleansed of original sin. That's great, really, it is, classic cultist doctine on how you're perfect and nobody else is.

Only, that's just original sin. Are you telling me that you've never lied before? Or harbored lust for a woman? (or man, since I do not know your sexuality. Though it would be a GREAT twist on things if you turned out to be gay) That is indeed very interesting. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go start praying, since the second comming is here. Obviously you're perfect, which must make you the very incarnation of Christ hisself. Guess you really did come in like a thief in the night; I would've never suspected you!



Now, it's great getting into religion and all. I ADORE a good religious debate, one of the reasons I was feared by my Theology teacher :p. But this question isn't ON religion.


Give a scientific reason on why gay people should not be allowed to adopt children. SCIENTIFIC. That means no Holy Book quotes, no "My preacher, who is in fact the second son of God, says:" quotes. Give me psychological evidence on why it would be damaging to a child to be raised by homosexuals.

*sigh*

All of the uncertainties and lies in and of christianity are resolved in Mormonism... oh how lucky I am to know the truth... Oh wait, I'm supposed to be a liberal, the truth doesn't exist! =P

*sigh*

All of the uncertainties and lies in and of christianity are resolved in Mormonism... oh how lucky I am to know the truth... Oh wait, I'm supposed to be a liberal, the truth doesn't exist! =P
You want the truth? You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

It just means if you're without fault... Go ahead and throw the rock... There are probably a few people without sin...No. Christ was the only man without sin. That's why he was able to do what he did. If it were possible for any normal man to live a sinless life, we'd be seeing more jesus's :P

According to my preacher, Christ's death was supposed to cleanse God's People (European Christians) of original sin... European Christians are no longer tainted by original sin.

when did it shift from the Hebrews to European Christians?

Talk to the preacher about it...

He preaches the true word of Lord Yahweh about the people of the house of Jacob Israel. He teaches that the biblical "jews" in the old testament were actually whites... They eventually moved to Europe (the 12 lost tribes etc)... He also preaches the dual-seedline. (White Christians are the Children of Abel who is son of Adam and Eve) (All others are the Children of Cain, son of Eve and Satan) Cain's sacrifice was not accepted by God because Cain was the son of Satan.


He preaches that the Children of Abel are locked in a death struggle with the Children of Cain and that the Children of Cain will ultimately be defeated by the Children of Abel.


More about Dual Seedline.

http://www.spiritandtruth.freeservers.com/WEBAPPLESTORY/INDEX.HTML

Cain's was NOT the son of satan, it says clear as day in the bible, he was the son of adam and eve! The sacrifice was no accepted because it was the ground work of the sacrificial system instituted later. It wasn't accepted because it wasn't a blood sacrifice, and with out the shedding of blood sins can not be attoned for. That is why the sacrificial system was there. In the old testiment, these sacrifices made the people "temporaroly clean." Later, christ's death attoned for the sins completely, making us new creatures. The sacrificial system never saved anyone, it was all about a relationship with God (leading to the tabernacle). When Christ died, that relationship became internalized, but it still wasn't saving. It was faith (even in the old testiment) which saved them (as told in the book of Hebrews).

Christ death was for each person individually, which is why it is an individual choice to put your faith in Christ. He did not die "just for european christians" Infact he died FIRST for the jews and Secondly for the gentiles (everyone else). The jews are God's chosen people and that is why He came to them and not to say, the Romans? But we are all adopted into Christ's family (i.e. children of abraham [a jew]) and hence can call him Abba Father (Roman's 8:15). The bible isn't racist, but obviously your preacher is. Instead of quoting him, why don't you pick up your bible and read it!

oh yeah, another good link: http://www.ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml

I'm quite happy with my religion... Call it a "cult" if you want to... But nobody strapped me down a chair and made me watch films until I said, "I believe"...

Let's stop this argument.

Studies show that children who grow up in a homosexual home are no more likely to have any problems than children growing up in heterosexual households.

Therefore, they should be allowed to adopt.

Any argument using religion is worthless, it's people's choice whether to follow a set of morals, you can't expect people to abide by your own morals, don't be so egocentric.


Studies ? Conducted by who? The North American Man Boy Love Association (A pedophile group called NAMBLA that wants the consent age lowered)

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.

The jews are God's chosen people




Exactly, and my preacher explains how the whites were the jews of the old testament and how over the years the people who call themselves "jews" today are just identity thieves en masse.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

*sigh*

All of the uncertainties and lies in and of christianity are resolved in Mormonism... oh how lucky I am to know the truth... Oh wait, I'm supposed to be a liberal, the truth doesn't exist! =P
You want the truth? You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!No, but I can handle your girlfriend!

oh!! :P

Know something else that's funny? I think that those anti-gay verses in Leviticus meant something else. They mean that a man cannot sleep next to another man! I mean, don't you see it? What do married people do?

if you go back to the greek and hebrew (and yes we have texts that old) then the words "lay with" have a sexual connotation

Know something else that's funny? I think that those anti-gay verses in Leviticus meant something else. They mean that a man cannot sleep next to another man! I mean, don't you see it? What do married people do?

if you go back to the greek and hebrew (and yes we have texts that old) then the words "lay with" have a sexual connotation


Which is why today "get laid" = have sex.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!

Know something else that's funny? I think that those anti-gay verses in Leviticus meant something else. They mean that a man cannot sleep next to another man! I mean, don't you see it? What do married people do?

if you go back to the greek and hebrew (and yes we have texts that old) then the words "lay with" have a sexual connotationwhich is why I go by a bible translated directly from the original texts.... and translated by a prophet of God :)

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

*Looks at APA's website*

Hmm, nope, can't find anything saying it's wrong to be straight...hmm....personally, I'm very shocked.

All they do is gather empirical evidence, and organize it into an article the public can understand.

Nothing to do with medicine or morality, merely cold, hard facts.

You...are....ARGH!

Open your damn eyes for ONE SECOND! Where did it say "being straight is wrong?" And WHERE does it come off as anti-white and anti-gun? You're just making shit up now!

Jews were once white, only the Jews "nowadays" stole their identities? cough cough BULLSHIT. Give me evidence. "My preacher says:" IS NOT EVIDENCE. It's blindly listening to ONE SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

I noticed you never responded to Neo's comment. Why?

Oh, and Neo, the whole "sleeping with each other" thing was just showing how you don't say "blahblahblah is literal...but blahblahblah isn't! Because...well, because!"

The jews are God's chosen people




Exactly, and my preacher explains how the whites were the jews of the old testament and how over the years the people who call themselves "jews" today are just identity thieves en masse.

Um, no, Jewish connotates family line, not a religion or race. Jew is the family line starting with Abraham I believe. Jewish can be a religious term, but in biblical context it is a family line (i.e. adopted as children of abraham). That why there are "jews for Jesus" today. Jews are not lesser people, that's simply un-biblical racism.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!


Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were... Then a while back they removed it from the list... Now they want Pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders...

Medical Associations are to Politically Correct today... They have no credibility.

The jews are God's chosen people




Exactly, and my preacher explains how the whites were the jews of the old testament and how over the years the people who call themselves "jews" today are just identity thieves en masse.

Um, no, Jewish connotates family line, not a religion or race. Jew is the family line starting with Abraham I believe. Jewish can be a religious term, but in biblical context it is a family line (i.e. adopted as children of abraham). That why there are "jews for Jesus" today. Jews are not lesser people, that's simply un-biblical racism.

Well I'm not going to listen to somebody making fun of the religion I grew up with.

I'm quite happy with my religion... Call it a "cult" if you want to... But nobody strapped me down a chair and made me watch films until I said, "I believe"...

Exactly. Who wouldn't want to be in a religion that tells them they're the Ubermenche, perfect in every way and everyone else isscum of the earth?

Wait, don't even bother saying it. I know why they have no credibility. "Because you say so."

And we're not making fun of the religion you grew up with, we're trying to get you to LISTEN, to PAY ATTENTION, and to USE YOUR *(&)& BRAIN!

[quote="Goed"]
Oh, and Neo, the whole "sleeping with each other" thing was just showing how you don't say "blahblahblah is literal...but blahblahblah isn't! Because...well, because!"
quote]

And I am telling you that you can't pick and choose, you have to examine the texts and the surrounding wording, etc... if you (not just you) want to use it in an arguement, be ready to back it up. I.E. like calling the bible racist, because by no means does the bible endorse racism.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!


Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were... Then a while back they removed it from the list... Now they want Pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders...

Medical Associations are to Politically Correct today... They have no credibility.

Source?

...Ok, note to self: examine EVERYTHING before saying it :p


And that isn't sarcasm, for the record, sometimes I really do need to research some things a bit better before talking about them. I know at least a few of my faults :p

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!


Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were... Then a while back they removed it from the list... Now they want Pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders...

Medical Associations are to Politically Correct today... They have no credibility.

Source?

Source= Open your eyes and read the daily newspaper.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!


Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were... Then a while back they removed it from the list... Now they want Pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders...

Medical Associations are to Politically Correct today... They have no credibility.

Source?

Source= Open your eyes and read the daily newspaper.

If you can't provide a source, you have no argument.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!


Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were... Then a while back they removed it from the list... Now they want Pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders...

Medical Associations are to Politically Correct today... They have no credibility.

Source?

Source= Open your eyes and read the daily newspaper.

If you can't provide a source, you have no argument.


Wait a few moments.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!


Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were... Then a while back they removed it from the list... Now they want Pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders...

Medical Associations are to Politically Correct today... They have no credibility.

Source?

Source= Open your eyes and read the daily newspaper.

What a pathetic excuse for an answer. Why are you people wasting brain cells trying to counter this guy's ravings? The only thing he has said that is factual this whole page is that homosexuality was a mental disorder. He can't even grasp that theories change, so his certainly won't...

The LDS church's view on homosexuality (particularly those in the church):

In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.

Perhaps the APA?

Ever heard of them?

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

You know, the American Psychological Association.



Yeah... A left wing, anti-gun, anti-white, anti-Christian, liberal organization that has become to political... Their job is medicine, not preaching morality... I don't tell them how to perform an operation, they don't tell me being straight is wrong... Get it?

who said anything about straight being wrong?!?!? plus, it's the PSYCHOLOGICAL association! they don't perform operations, those are surgeons! they aren't talking about morality, they're saying that homosexuality is NOT a disease. they're the freaking experts!


Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were... Then a while back they removed it from the list... Now they want Pedophilia removed from the list of mental disorders...

Medical Associations are to Politically Correct today... They have no credibility.

Source?

Source= Open your eyes and read the daily newspaper.


It used to be on the APA website, I know you can find it in google too. Um, www.family.org I think talked about it at one point (I might be thinking of something else). But also, many christian organizations have done alot of help/research in this area which isn't accepted by the APA because it goes against their current view point. There are quite a few good documented cases/research studies that have shown that it is possible for homosexuals to change and lead completely normal, heterosexual lives.

Still, one can hope :p

Well, it's obvious he's never actually READ a bible! He is just repeating what his pastor told him, who happens to be racist.

It used to be on the APA website, I know you can find it in google too. Um, www.family.org I think talked about it at one point (I might be thinking of something else). But also, many christian organizations have done alot of help/research in this area which isn't accepted by the APA because it goes against their current view point. There are quite a few good documented cases/research studies that have shown that it is possible for homosexuals to change and lead completely normal, heterosexual lives.

Oh please, I've read those sites.

"Don't fall for the liberal propaganda, they're facts are biased, but god has told us that homosexuals RAPE LITTLE CHILDREN!!!1!~"

Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were...

Retardation is considered a mental disorder too, but that doesn't mean retards can't marry, adopt, or serve in the armed forces. That's perfectly within the law. Also, who are you to say what's correct, or what's 'Godly,' as some others in this thread have argued? Are you God? Created a plane of existence lately? Are you a psychologist? Did you get any P.H.D.'s recently?

You want to argue theology with me? Fine then. Give me lines, give me scriptures, give me the Gospels, give me Jesus' words on the subject. Jesus' words, not Paul's or the Torah's. You want to go by Jewish law, then fine, you be Jewish and I'll back off. But I see no reason why a Christian of any kind, who supposedly follows the words of the Lord, would care much about the Orthodox Jewish laws that Jesus himself denounced on multiple occasions.

Of course, anything you read about Jesus is hearsay, considering how the Gospels and all other accounts of his life weren't written until at least one hundred years after his death. So I could be completely wrong.

Care to respond?

Well, it's obvious he's never actually READ a bible! He is just repeating what his pastor told him, who happens to be racist.

I read my bible almost daily... My pastor is always talking about John 8:44 and John 18:36. They are proof as to who are the real Children Of God and who are Spawn of Satan.

It used to be on the APA website, I know you can find it in google too. Um, www.family.org I think talked about it at one point (I might be thinking of something else). But also, many christian organizations have done alot of help/research in this area which isn't accepted by the APA because it goes against their current view point. There are quite a few good documented cases/research studies that have shown that it is possible for homosexuals to change and lead completely normal, heterosexual lives.

Oh please, I've read those sites.

"Don't fall for the liberal propaganda, they're facts are biased, but god has told us that homosexuals RAPE LITTLE CHILDREN!!!1!~"

Show me?

Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were...

Retardion is considered a mental disorder too, but that doesn't mean retards can't marry, adopt, or serve in the armed forces. That's perfectly within the law. Also, who are you to say what's correct, or what's 'Godly,' as some others in this thread have argued? Are you God? Created a plane of existence lately? Are you a psychologist? Did you get any P.H.D.'s recently?

You want to argue theology with me? Fine then. Give me lines, give me scriptures, give me the Gospels, give me Jesus' words on the subject. Jesus' words, not Paul's or the Torah's. You want to go by Jewish law, then fine, you be Jewish and I'll back off. But I see no reason why a Christian of any kind, who supposedly follows the words of the Lord, would care much about the Orthodox Jewish laws that Jesus himself denounced on multiple occasions.

Of course, anything you read about Jesus is hearsay, considering how the Gospels and all other accounts of his life weren't written until at least one hundred years after his death. So I could be completely wrong.

Care to respond?

Do you want a retard with a machine gun? No offense but I think mentally retarded people don't belong in such a demanding occupation. Also they should be sterilized to prevent future generations from suffering... Nobody should have to be retarded, but the if we don't stop the corrupted genes from spreading... Well the retarded people may be too retarded to realize if they breed the offspring they'll have will be cursed by the same retardation they are. Therefore they must be sterilized.

It used to be on the APA website, I know you can find it in google too. Um, www.family.org I think talked about it at one point (I might be thinking of something else). But also, many christian organizations have done alot of help/research in this area which isn't accepted by the APA because it goes against their current view point. There are quite a few good documented cases/research studies that have shown that it is possible for homosexuals to change and lead completely normal, heterosexual lives.

Oh please, I've read those sites.

"Don't fall for the liberal propaganda, they're facts are biased, but god has told us that homosexuals RAPE LITTLE CHILDREN!!!1!~"

Show me?

Well, I excaggerated, but here's a good one.

http://www.jesuschristismygod.com/in-homosexualadoption.html

(They're more of a "This guy said all the studies were wrong, so they are" site)

Homosexuality used to be classed as a mental disorder... Back in the days when such disgusting things were labeled what they were...

Retardion is considered a mental disorder too, but that doesn't mean retards can't marry, adopt, or serve in the armed forces. That's perfectly within the law. Also, who are you to say what's correct, or what's 'Godly,' as some others in this thread have argued? Are you God? Created a plane of existence lately? Are you a psychologist? Did you get any P.H.D.'s recently?

You want to argue theology with me? Fine then. Give me lines, give me scriptures, give me the Gospels, give me Jesus' words on the subject. Jesus' words, not Paul's or the Torah's. You want to go by Jewish law, then fine, you be Jewish and I'll back off. But I see no reason why a Christian of any kind, who supposedly follows the words of the Lord, would care much about the Orthodox Jewish laws that Jesus himself denounced on multiple occasions.

Of course, anything you read about Jesus is hearsay, considering how the Gospels and all other accounts of his life weren't written until at least one hundred years after his death. So I could be completely wrong.

Care to respond?

Do you want a retard with a machine gun? No offense but I think mentally retarded people don't belong in such a demanding occupation. Also they should be sterilized to prevent future generations from suffering... Nobody should have to be retarded, but the if we don't stop the corrupted genes from spreading... Well the retarded people may be too retarded to realize if they breed the offspring they'll have will be cursed by the same retardation they are. Therefore they must be sterilized.

I'm glad you are being reasonable about this. Makes it so much easier on all of us.
Now where did I put my rusted spoon..?

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Do you want a retard with a machine gun? No offense but I think mentally retarded people don't belong in such a demanding occupation. Also they should be sterilized to prevent future generations from suffering... Nobody should have to be retarded, but the if we don't stop the corrupted genes from spreading... Well the retarded people may be too retarded to realize if they breed the offspring they'll have will be cursed by the same retardation they are. Therefore they must be sterilized.

Homosexuality isn't genetic. It's caused by an imbalance of hormone levels inside the mother's womb. It's completely unpreventable, except by aborting the child. So apparently, by your argument, all humans should be sterilized on the off chance their children might be gay.

Conclusion: Your brain is not merely twisted, it's actually sprained.

Well, it's obvious he's never actually READ a bible! He is just repeating what his pastor told him, who happens to be racist.

I read my bible almost daily... My pastor is always talking about John 8:44 and John 18:36. They are proof as to who are the real Children Of God and who are Spawn of Satan.

John 8:44 is talking about how the pharisees system became corrupted, not the entire jewish comunity. Afterall, Jesus and all his apostles were jewish, would the savior use the children of the satan as his closest companions and freinds?

18:36, when he says "Jews," he is refering to the jewish leaders who claimed to be acting on behalf of the entire jewish community, that is the context of the situation and how Pilate knew of it. It is also how the leaders presented it. And no, it wouldn't have done him any good to say otherwise as in pilates eyes, the jewish leaders had the clout, not some guy claiming to be God.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Why did you just post that filth?

...What do those have to do with "spawn of satan?"

Actually, I like that quote. Care to tell me where in the Bible it talks about Satan HAVING spawn?

Oh, and now that you mention sterilization...are you by change a vegetarian?

Mister Hitler...

Well, it's obvious he's never actually READ a bible! He is just repeating what his pastor told him, who happens to be racist.

I read my bible almost daily... My pastor is always talking about John 8:44 and John 18:36. They are proof as to who are the real Children Of God and who are Spawn of Satan.

John 8:44 is talking about how the pharisees system became corrupted, not the entire jewish comunity. Afterall, Jesus and all his apostles were jewish, would the savior use the children of the satan as his closest companions and freinds?

18:36, when he says "Jews," he is refering to the jewish leaders who claimed to be acting on behalf of the entire jewish community, that is the context of the situation and how Pilate knew of it. It is also how the leaders presented it. And no, it wouldn't have done him any good to say otherwise as in pilates eyes, the jewish leaders had the clout, not some guy claiming to be God.

My preacher covered all of that. The apostles were all children of Abel (Today they would be called whites). The jews who killed Christ are the "jews" of today (The children of cain).

Oh dear God. He's brought Phelps into the argument.

Figures.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Well, according to the Soddom story, God hates inhospitable people. Guess what the creators of this website are?

Do you want a retard with a machine gun? No offense but I think mentally retarded people don't belong in such a demanding occupation. Also they should be sterilized to prevent future generations from suffering... Nobody should have to be retarded, but the if we don't stop the corrupted genes from spreading... Well the retarded people may be too retarded to realize if they breed the offspring they'll have will be cursed by the same retardation they are. Therefore they must be sterilized.

Homosexuality isn't genetic. It's caused by an imbalance of hormone levels inside the mother's womb. It's completely unpreventable, except by aborting the child. So apparently, by your argument, all humans should be sterilized on the off chance their children might be gay.

Conclusion: Your brain is not merely twisted, it's actually sprained.

It's not caused be a hormone imbalance, that's the psychologist opinion, but a biologist and medical doctor will tell you otherwise. It VERY RARELY has to do with hormones, and when it does, it is still a CHOICE to act that way. I could be a kleptomaniac, but it still doesn't make it right for me to steal.

...What do those have to do with "spawn of satan?"

Actually, I like that quote. Care to tell me where in the Bible it talks about Satan HAVING spawn?

Oh, and now that you mention sterilization...are you by change a vegetarian?

Mister Hitler...

149 IQ is hardly a vegetable... Satan in the form of a serpeant, (phallic reference for you ignorant people... Phallic = penis), seduced Eve and caused her to sin... The sin was that she had sex with him. She later gave birth to Cain who was the Son of Satan. Cain later went on to found the race that today we call "jews" and by having sex with animals he founded the race we call "negro".

Look kid, the Bible didn't say "Jews A and Jews B," they just said "Jews."

They arn't divided into two seperate columns

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Well, according to the Soddom story, God hates inhospitable people. Guess what the creators of this website are?

It is okay to be inhospitable to a queer...

To please a queer you'd have to bend over... Do you want to have to do that? Didn't think so... That technically makes you inhospitable.

You scare me.

ANd it isn't that "Ooooooooh Lordy, he has given me the fear o' God!"

It's more like "How the hell do kids like these happen?"

Oh, and I want Biblical reference on Cain gettin' down with the animals, and of Eve having sex with the snake.

ANd lastly, there's phallic symbols EVERYWHERE if you try and look. DOn't pull that crap.

I'm sure of it now, fascistwhitestates is a parody.

No one is that stupid.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Well, according to the Soddom story, God hates inhospitable people. Guess what the creators of this website are?

It is okay to be inhospitable to a queer...

But surely it's not ok to be inhospitable to angels?
(even if, by change, they were gay angels :P )

I wonder, FascistWhiteStates, do you recall Jesus ever mentioning anything about his father being opposed to Homosexuality?

Well, it's obvious he's never actually READ a bible! He is just repeating what his pastor told him, who happens to be racist.

I read my bible almost daily... My pastor is always talking about John 8:44 and John 18:36. They are proof as to who are the real Children Of God and who are Spawn of Satan.

John 8:44 is talking about how the pharisees system became corrupted, not the entire jewish comunity. Afterall, Jesus and all his apostles were jewish, would the savior use the children of the satan as his closest companions and freinds?

18:36, when he says "Jews," he is refering to the jewish leaders who claimed to be acting on behalf of the entire jewish community, that is the context of the situation and how Pilate knew of it. It is also how the leaders presented it. And no, it wouldn't have done him any good to say otherwise as in pilates eyes, the jewish leaders had the clout, not some guy claiming to be God.

My preacher covered all of that. The apostles were all children of Abel (Today they would be called whites). The jews who killed Christ are the "jews" of today (The children of cain).

Abel never had any kids! Cain did, they became other people. But it doesn't matter because only one line made it through the flood anyways, there is not "children of cain" and "chilren of able" in the sense of a family line, that's nonsense.

You scare me.

ANd it isn't that "Ooooooooh Lordy, he has given me the fear o' God!"

It's more like "How the hell do kids like these happen?"

Oh, and I want Biblical reference on Cain gettin' down with the animals, and of Eve having sex with the snake.

ANd lastly, there's phallic symbols EVERYWHERE if you try and look. DOn't pull that crap.

Cain was given a mark for his sin... The mark was that he was turned black. (Standard Mormom belief)... Also some Identity believe it.

I'm sure of it now, fascistwhitestates is a parody.

No one is that stupid.

We can only pray.

I don't think that they should. Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. Can a beatiality couple adopt?

Well, now that you've explained how Cain apparently became black, start talking about Eve's snake sex and Cain's animal sex.

In short, prove what you say.

I'm sure of it now, fascistwhitestates is a parody.

No one is that stupid.

We can only pray.

That pun alone is a ticket into Heaven, Hakartopia.



Who is more persecuted than the extreme right-wing white.

Gays. :roll:

I'm sure of it now, fascistwhitestates is a parody.

No one is that stupid.

We can only pray.

The bible says the followers of God will be condemned, harassed, beaten, tortured, persecuted, and such by almost all. But that it is because the masses are under the influence of the Great Deceiver and do not know that the small group of True Believers seeks to enlighten and save them... Who is more persecuted than the extreme right-wing white.

Can a beatiality couple adopt?

Can goths? Can Christians? Can republicans? Can lawyers? Can hocky-players? Can D&D-players? Can squirrels?

I wonder, FascistWhiteStates, do you recall Jesus ever mentioning anything about his father being opposed to Homosexuality?

Matthew 19

He goes out of his way to say marriage is between A MAN and HIS WIFE. Also, paul teaching directly that homosexuality is wrong. So whether it is explicitly stated or just implied by christ, it's affirmed later that it's not right.

Genesis does not tell us much about the position of Adam and Eve, the conditions in which they lived, or the physical act that led to their “fall” in the Garden. The description we have is the barest outline. There are clues, evidence, and testimony, however, that allow us to present a strong case to support the Two Seedlines doctrine. We shall also present the anti-seedline opinions as much as possible.



Yahvah commanded, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(Gen 2:17)



Satan deceived Eve into believing she could become as a god, knowing both good and evil



Eve said to Satan: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said to the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know, that in the day ye eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened: and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil (Gen 3:3-5).



In the beginning was the Word [Law], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). LAW = GOD



Here we see that Satan is challenging the authority of YHVH and very likely His Law/word. One clue is the belief that the Law of Yahvah, in terms of specific human conduct, was applied first to Adam and Eve. (The full scope of universal law that came with creation is another aspect of Yahvah’s omniscience and omnipotence.) It is likely that before Satan the enchanter came, they knew only GOOD, that is, they acted upon the Law faithfully. It is also likely that Satan, who by all evidence and testimony, is the originator of evil from the time of his rebellion, and he was the first to introduce EVIL to the progenitors of the white race.



Why the Deception by Satan?



Knowing Adam and Eve were formed by Yahvah to be progenitors of a special race to carry out His administration on earth, what was the most evil act Satan could do to oppose this plan as its adversary?

We shall prove that the Word of Yahvah is strong evidence that Eve was seduced sexually and conceived Cain. We believe this was an attempt to corrupt Adam’s lineage with a mixed racial type that was adversarial to Yahvah’s Law. Considering the rights of the “first born,” the birthright and the blessing, a Satanic mongrel taking over Adam’s job would be the fulfillment of Satan’s perfect crime against Yahvah’s Law and purpose for Adam’s progeny.

To understand the deception, the Law of the firstborn must be understood. Cain was born first from the womb of Eve (Genesis 4:1), the woman having been beguiled or deceived into believing that Cain was gotten (not begotten) of God. In truth, however, Cain was fathered by Satan, who made his appearance as a man in the Garden of Eden as a man. Cain was gotten or acquired from another source than Adam. Cain was born first from Eve, and having broken the matrix, he could claim to be the first born of Adam (Exodus 13:11-13). This would place Cain in line to receive the birthright. Satan wanted to claim that birthright, which would become key to the dominion of the earth through his physical progeny. (1)



Because Satan sought to get his seed into the earth as the firstborn of the Adamic creation, the firstborn was subsequently passed over by God at most of the critical times in the history of the Seed of the Woman…It was Jacob, not Esau, who received the right of the firstborn in the election of God (Genesis 25:23 and Romans 9:10-14). It was Joseph, not Reuben, who received the double portion from the dying Jacob. It was Pharez, not Zarah (the firstborn), who received the birthright…The cloud that Satan placed over the firstborn was not lifted until Jesus Christ, firstborn son of Joseph and Mary, had been raised from the dead. He became the firstborn of a new creation and restored the rights of the firstborn…Satan sought to prevent the true incarnation of Jesus Christ by grafting his own seed onto the pure Adamic stock, thus circumventing the means by which Christ would take on the seed of Abraham. The virgin birth was necessary in order for Jesus Christ to be born without sin nature of the pure stock of Adamic seed…Jesus Christ, the last Adam (I Corinthians 15:45), was without mother and without father, having neither beginning nor ending of days. Jesus Christ as the new creation of Adamic stock took on the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16) to qualify as a firstborn male without blemish, able to redeem His people. (2)

Every book of the Bible has racial overtones regarding the Adamic-Hebrew-Israelite people. Race mixing has been shown, throughout the Bible, as the most effective tool of Satan’s forces to oppose Yahvah’s plan for ruling and administrating the earth with His chosen race. Yahvah’s testimony in Genesis 3:15 describing the perpetual war between Satan and his progeny against Eve, the woman, and her progeny, especially Yahshua, is the first vital witness for this statement. After condemning Satan for his act (Ge 3:14) Yahvah says in Genesis 3:15 -



And enmity will I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, He shall crush thy head, but thou shalt crush his heel. (Rotherham Emphasized Bible)



Perhaps the greatest difficulty any student of the Bible has is coping with the symbolism that permeates scripture. The authors of it used considerable license, to describe in poetic terms, prophetic events to come or conditions or actions as they occurred in the past. It is, therefore, often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a clear understanding, in modern terms, of what the authors intended. The original Holy Scriptures have been abused by thought altering translations, from language to language. In the Masoretic Text (from the masora, a collection of criticisms and marginal notes to the Old Testament made by Jewish writers before the 10th century) there are deliberate alterations of the original intent. It is no wonder that most “Christians” give up trying to fathom the Old Testament and even parts of the New Testament. It is to the credit of many dedicated Bible expositors, that the world has understandable opinions about what the various symbolism means. There are differences of opinion, however, that keeps the Bible a subject of controversy generation after generation.



SATAN PROMOTES HUMANISM



When Satan “beguiled” Eve he established disobedience to the Divine Law and initiated HUMANISM. This is a perfect example of Humanism which is “a system of thinking in which man, his interests, and development are made central and dominant…(1). Humanism today involves self-determinism in moral values, gnosticism, communism, socialism, and liberalism. Humanism is free thought excluding God’s will and purpose. Through this separation from Yahvah, man was to become his own god, doing as he willed. This, of course, made him an easy pawn for Satan and his progeny to manipulate.

Yah clearly forbade experimentation with evil. The violation of God’s Law was death (Gen 2:17). But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die.

By the removal of the Word (Law), Adam and Eve were capable of becoming their own gods determining good and evil. Throughout history, kings, pharaohs, and emperors have established themselves as gods, decreeing their own law in place of Divine Law.



Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The Bible does not specifically state what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. However, the book of Genesis provides valuable clues to assist Christians in understanding the truth.



1. EAT – #398 aw-kal prime root; to eat (lit. or fig.), burn up, consume, devour, dine, eat, feed, food, wise, (deed, plenty), (lay) meat, quite, in the Hebrew Dictionary.



In Gen.3:3, Eve told the serpent (magician) she was forbidden from touching or eating of the tree. The word EAT, aw-kal, also means LAY and WISE. The evidence shows that Eve figuratively ate of a racial tree. She did not lay with food or become wise from eating a literal apple or peach off a tree. Since the whole issue is about literal, physical progeny, established by the authority of Yahvah in Genesis 3:15, the word EAT is a metaphor used as a substitute for sexual intercourse. Eve was sexually seduced by Satan who convinced her that she would become as Yah enjoying great benefits with the knowledge of Good and Evil).



2. FOOD – #3978 mah-ak-awl in the Hebrew Dictionary from the same root meaning as #398 described above under EAT.



3. FRUIT - #6529 per-ee from a prime root paw-raw #6509 to bear fruit, be fruitful, grow, or increase. These words convey OFFSPRING or PROGENY. The fruit of Genesis 3:6 was the seed or offspring of Satan who sexually seduced Eve. See Gen 30:2. In Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, fruit is defined as “(5) off-spring or progeny”.



4. DESIRE - #8669 tesh-oo-kaw a sense of stretching out after, a longing. Dictionaries define Desire as a sexual urge or sexual appetite. In Genesis 3:6 Eve’s desire was to have sexual intercourse with Satan, whose angelic appearance and deceit in passing himself off as an angel of God, convinced Eve and Adam they would not die but would be like gods who know good from evil. This is confirmed in Gen 4:1 when Eve gave birth to Cain she said ...I have gotten a man, even Yahvah! In Ge 3:16 Eve is commanded that her desire be unto her husband, Adam.



5. WISE - #7919 saw-kal make or act intelligent. Dictionaries define WISE as related to discernment. Genesis 3:5 - Satan duped Eve into believing that through the sex act her eyes would be opened as a god, knowing good and evil. Babylonian pagan religions were permeated with the concept that WISDOM came through the power of sexual intercourse. Hence the common practice of sexual prostitution in pagan worship with the phallus (male reproductive organ) as an object of worship. The worship of sex was the primary reason for the debasement of the nations of Canaan. Satan’s lie was that wisdom could be found in sexual union.



6. PLEASANT - #8378 tah-av-aw a longing, by imp. A delight, dainty, desire, greedily, lust (ing) pleasant. The tree in Genesis 3:6 was PLEASANT to the eyes. Eve lusted after the flesh when she saw the tree was pleasant to the eyes.



7. TOUCH - #5060 naw-gah. This has several meanings; one of which is a euphemism, to lie with a woman. This obviously applies to both sexes, Eve as well as Adam, so it would apply equally to Eve in to lie with a man.



8. NAKED from Genesis 2:25 is #6174 aw-rome nude, partially or totally: naked. Here Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness. After their fall, in Gen. 3:7-11, they were ashamed.



9. NAKED – from Genesis 3:7-11 is #5903 ay-rom from #6191 aw-ram, to be (or make) bare; used only in the derogatory sense, to be cunning, deal subtly. Adam and Eve hid their nakedness because of their sexual intercourse with Satan (Satanic seed) under the deception that they would become as gods. The covering of their reproductive organs indicates the nature of the original sin – race mixing!



10. SKINS #5785 ore skin as naked. God made them coats of skins Genesis 3:21. The implication is that Adam and Eve originally had an immortal body different than the pre-adamic races while living in the Garden of Eden, a place of immortality. This is made clear in Genesis 3:22-23. Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man (Aw-dawm) has become like one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, (see No. 1, tree) and eat, and live forever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.



11. SEED - #2233 zeh-rah seed, fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: – carnally, child from #2232 zaw-rah, a prime root: to sow, to bear, conceive seed. In Matthew 13:24 it is from the Greek #4690 SPERMA: something sown, i.e. seed (including the male sperm); offspring is implied. The seed of Genesis 3:15 was sown in the act of pro-creation between Eve and the Satanic seed line.



KNOWLEDGE OF EVIL VERSUS SOURCE OF EVIL



The anti-seedliners emphasize that the knowledge of good and evil is the issue. They say The Tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden was Yahvah’s Divine Law. They quote sufficient passages to show that knowledge of sin [evil] comes by means of the Law. We would never dispute that fact. But, if the metaphorical tree, that we have no real, specific, description of, was the Word of God, then the anti-seedliners have a monumental contradiction to cover up. They say this same Divine Law that totally governed their lives for good, Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat from under penalty of death! How does Weiland deal with this fatal flaw?



On page 42 of “EVE” Weiland states: At this point someone is likely to inquire: ‘If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the law of God, would not that have made God’s law evil because God did not want Adam and Eve to partake of it?’ The Apostle Paul essentially asks and answers this same question:

‘What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence [lust]. For without the law sin was dead. (Romans 7:7-8 )’



There may be Christians, especially those who understand the vital goodness and importance of God’s law for us today, who may still have difficulty reconciling in their minds that Yahweh would ban His law from Adam and Eve. Such Christians should consider that when God prohibited Adam and Eve from partaking of the tree of life, that prohibition did not make the tree of life evil. [Editor’s note: the tree of Life was not forbidden while Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden. It was only after their fall that the tree of life was denied them.]

So why would Yahweh want to keep Adam and Eve from His law? Consider again the latter part of the Apostle Paul’s declaration in Romans 7:

…without the law sin was dead. (Romans 7:8 )



Consider also the Apostle Paul’s declaration in Romans 5:

…sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)



Perhaps God initially forbade Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil by way of His law because He knew He would have to hold them accountable to it, and He knew the heartache and death that would ensue as a result.



AIT: Paul is right, of course, in his frame of reasoning about sin and the law. But do these statements offer any reasonable explanation in the way of substantiating the hypothesis by Weiland and camp that Divine Law was actually the critically important tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Does this explain Why Adam and Eve lost their first estate, were found to be naked, that Eve was cursed with painful childbirth, and Adam toiled under hardship – that were all punishment for partaking of the tree? No, it does not.

Weiland is wrong and displays only confused reasoning. Can any intelligent true Christian really believe Weiland’s conclusion above is proof that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Yahvah’s Divine Law? This Divine Law was originated by Yahvah for the good of the entire world, starting with Adam and Eve. How can Weiland’s appraisal, above, have any reasonable connection with Yahvah’s purpose for His administration of the earth? The answer is obvious; there is no connection. There is only the leaven of confusion producing the worst kind of heresy.



Stephan Jones: There is only one thing in the entire Bible that fits the description given in Genesis 3:6. The tree of knowledge is not symbolic of Satan, nor is it symbolic of sex, for the Bible does not teach either of them to be our source of wisdom or of our knowledge of good and evil. This tree can only represent the “Law of God” [editor’s emphasis].



This is a direct quote from page 49 in “The Babylonian Connection Between Ancient And Modern Religions” by Stephen Jones, published in 1978. Weiland subscribes to this very same doctrine. Weiland’s book, “Eve Did She Or Didn’t She” was published in April 2000. This book has so many similarities to Stephen Jones’ book that it appears to be an updated, insulting version, with a poorer quality of presentation.



Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil = Yahvah’s Law???



Subscribing to this doctrine, Adam and Eve’s sin was obeying God’s Law. The Serpent (Satan) then would have been guilty of encouraging Eve to obey Yah’s Law. The penalty for disobedience was death (Gen 2:17).



Obedience to Yahvah’s Law = Death???



Are we to believe that by partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Yahvah’s Law brought about death and required the direct intervention of God incarnate, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins??? Sin, therefore, would become obedience to Yah’s Law. No matter how many times Weiland quotes Paul, the critical question is NOT asked and answered satisfactorily.



Sin = Obedience to Yahvah’s Law???



Weiland (“Eve”,p. 42): Perhaps God initially forbade Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil by way of His law because He knew He would have to hold them accountable to it, and He knew the heartache and death that would ensue as a result.



AIT: This is pure leaven.

Leaven in the Hebrew is se’or, she-ore, no. 7603, meaning barm or yeast-cake (as swelling by fermentation). Fermentation is the gradual decomposition of organic compounds induced by the action of living organisms (3). Leaven, therefore, is the gradual decomposition of the Word of God induced by the action of humanism.



What is sin? Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law (I John 3:4). Sin is the violation of Yahvah’s Law. John 1:1 states, In the beginning was the Word (Law), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. As we said earlier, Yah’s Law was established in the very beginning. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The violation of Yahvah’s Law brings about what result? For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 6:23).







Violation of Yahvah’s Law = Sin

Sin = Death



Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entereth into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. The penalty for sin is death. Therefore, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission of sin (Heb 9:22).



Remission of Sin = Blood Sacrifice =

Yahshua the Messiah =

Redemption



Deuteronomy 30:15-17 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to posses it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt no hear…I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall perish…



The heresy of the Law being the tree of knowledge of good and evil is both inconsistent and adversarial with scripture. Throughout the Bible, Israel was punished for disobedience to Yah’s Law. Now therefore hearken, O Israel unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you (Deut 4:1,2).



If the tree of knowledge was the Law of Yah, as Weiland, Jones and camp believe, then death was imposed for partaking of God’s Law (!!!). Again, this is clearly inconsistent and adversarial with God’s Word. Keep in mind that this same law was (and is) the basis for the whole culture of the white race in everything we do.) So According to the anti-seedline heretics the following is their hypothesis:



Obedience to God’s Law = Death

Before the Fall of Adam and Eve



But then



Disobedience to God’s Law = Death

After the Fall of Adam and Eve



This absurd leaven is aimed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to attack the very structure of the Anglo-Saxon Christian message. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Gen 3:15). Satan seduced Eve to partake of the tree of knowledge resulting in physical progeny from Satan and the woman. God incarnate had to come through the seed of the woman to become our sacrificial lamb and make an atonement through the shedding of His blood for the sin of Adam and Eve (as well as our own sins). Through Yahshua the Messiah, our sins are forgiven. The first advent of Christ freed man from death, and the second advent of Yah will result in the crushing of Satan, his progeny, and his system.

Chapter Five

The Two Seeds



Starting with Genesis 3:14 the Creator of the Heavens and the earth (and YHVH Elohiym said…) is speaking directly unto the serpent. (Serpent comes from the root word nachash No. 5175. 5172 meaning to “hiss, whisper a bold magic spell, prognosticate.) Obviously this is no reptile serpent.

Who is this serpent that God is condemning? We choose Rev. 12:9 for the answer: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world…

In the Greek, serpent is ophis (3789) meaning “a snake, an artful malicious person, especially Satan-serpent.” And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman…(Rev. 12:15). And he (angel) laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years (Rev. 20:2).



YHVH (pronounced Yahvah) God said to the serpent: because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field (Genesis 3:14). God is cursing the serpent, subtler than any beast of the field, for beguiling Adam and Eve to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Beguiled in Hebrew is nacha meaning “to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce.” Once Adam and Eve sinned against Yahvah God, their eyes were opened: (Genesis 3:7): and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons (to cover up their genitalia).



God said: because thou hast done this (terrible act) Satan, you are cursed. Yahvah God continues: I (God) will put enmity (hatred) between thee (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between thy (Satan’s) seed and her (Eve’s) seed; it (Yahshua) shall bruise thy (Satan’s) head, and thou (Satan) shall bruise his (Yahshua’s) heel. The first promise of a Redeemer begins here in Genesis 3:15.

After Yahvah God cursed Satan, God punishes Eve. Unto the woman he (Yahvah) said, I will multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children (Gen. 3:16). Sorrow comes from the Hebrew word etseb (6089) “pang, grievous, idol, sorrow, labor.”



The indisputable facts so far are:



1. The serpent is Satan, the Devil, or the Dragon that drew the third part of the stars (angels, see Rev. 12:9) of heaven, and cast them to earth (Rev. 12:4) and which deceiveth the whole world (read also: Rev. 12:9, Rev 20:3, Rev. 20:8 )

2. Yahvah God curses Satan for deceiving Adam and Eve

3. The serpent deceiveth the whole world (Rev. 12:9; 20:8 )

4. Adam and Eve felt naked after disobeying God’s Law

5. Adam and Eve covered up their genetalia with fig leaves

6. Yahvah God put hatred between the seed of Satan and the seed of the woman

7. Jesus Christ shall come forth from the seed of the woman.

8. Jesus Christ will crush the head of Satan at His second advent as King of Kings

9. Satan shall bruise (sacrifice) Yahshua for the sin of Adam and Eve.

10. Eve as punishment will experience sorrow (pain) in childbirth.

The serpent, dragon, devil, wicked one, red dragon is one entity. His job is to wage war with the remnant of her (Eve’s) seed (Anglo-Saxon race), which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev 12:17).





Seed



The word seed, mentioned twice in Genesis 3:15, comes from the Hebrew word zera. It is pronounced Zeh’-rah (no. 2233 in Strong’s Exh. Concordance), and defined as “seed, fruit, plants, sowing-time, posterity.” Seed in this context means progeny or posterity.

Posterity is the “stock that proceeds from a progenitor; a person’s descendants; also, succeeding generations, taken collectively; as the posterity of Adam.” (1)

Seed is a crucial word that must be carefully examined for proper interpretation. The word seed is a collective noun, like the word team. One team includes many members. Likewise, seed in Genesis 3:15 is singular, but included many members. (2)

In the New Testament, the word seed in reference to Rev 12:17, her seed is sperma. See Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance under the Greek Dictionary, no. 4690. The definition is something sown, i.e. seed (including the male sperm, by implication offspring, spec. a remnant.



For further evidence the following has been provided.



W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 338, under the word seed states: 1. Sperma, akin to speiro, to sow…3. Spora, akin to No.1, and like No.2, a sowing, seedtime, denotes seed down, I Pet. 1:23, of human offspring…



E.W. Bullinger’s A Critical Lexicon And Concordance, pp. 677-678, under the title seed: 1. That which is sown, the seed or germ of anything, children, offspring, posterity; also a remnant, a few survivors, like seed kept over from a former year…3 A sowing, a begetting of children; the seed sown…



Gensenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, pp. 254-255: (3) semen virile, Lev. 15:16, seq.; 18:21; 19:20…(a) offspring, progeny, descendants, Gen 3:15; 13:16; 15:5; 13:17,…



God’s declaration to the serpent (Satan) begins by mentioning the serpent’s progeny first, and then the woman’s progeny second. Hebrew and Greek idioms confirm the word seed in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:17 is a physical offspring, progeny, or people.





Thy Seed and Her Seed



This powerful verse must be accepted in its entirety as a physical offspring. The other alternative is to “spiritualize” the word seed. Most theologians declare the seed of the woman to be Jesus Christ and deny that the serpent has anything but spiritual progeny. When pressed, most clergy do admit that seed in Gen. 3:15 is a collective noun and must by implication include many seeds. On occasion they allow for the seed of the woman to consist of Jesus Christ (the one) and the seed line which He took on to be the many; but again, they deny that Satan (the one) was the head of his progeny. (3)



Enmity



The word Enmity comes from the Hebrew word eybah (ay-baw, no. 342) meaning “to hate, to be hostile, be an enemy.” Eybah comes from the prime root ayah (aw-yab, no. 340): “to hate, to be hostile, be an enemy.” Enmity is defined as “deep-rooted hatred”. (4) Yahvah God placed mutual deep-rooted hatred between the progeny of the serpent and the progeny of the woman. The battle of the two seeds is a war that has been ongoing for approximately 6,000 years. This war will not end until Yahshua returns as King, crushing the head of the serpent. Once the head is crushed, the body will die. At this time, Mystery Babylon (Satan’s System) and the Canaanite Edomite Jews (Satan’s Seed) will be destroyed.

(Mt. 13:38-42, Mt. 15:13, and Zech. 14:21)

Actually, right now, I do believe homosexuals are more persecuted, beaten, and so on.

Guess they're all going to heaven :p

Chapter Four
Satan, His True Identity




YAHVAH, OUR GOD, IS ETERNAL, WITHOUT BEGINNING OR END.



There is no way that one book, not even the Bible, could explain all events that have transpired during what might be termed eternity past. It does seem apparent, however, that within God’s plan for man, he desired that we would worship Him because we choose to.



We are told to choose life (Deut. 30:19), choose whom we will serve (Joshua 24:15), choose good and refuse evil (Isaiah 7:15). If there had been only evil in the world, we would not have known good, and visa versa. In order for us to choose, both good and evil had to exist on this planet at the same time.

SATAN – JUST A SYMBOL OF SINFULLNESS?



Ignorance about Satan is so rampant that a large percentage of Christians assume one of three mistaken doctrines:



1. Satan is just a symbol of sinfulness

2. Satan has no real power over the physical world we live in.

3. Christians are automatically protected against Satan simply because of their confession of faith.



Any one of the three denies:



· The influence of evil spirits or demons, how they affect us, and what we can do to protect ourselves from them.

· The identity of Satan’s seed line continuing in the modern world era, and the secret war they wage against Christians.

· The masquerade of Satan’s seed as God’s chosen people.

· The identity of the seed line of the Woman of Genesis 3:15.

· The parable of the tares in Matthew’s gospel, and many other fundamental doctrines of the Bible.

SATAN’S EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER



We may judge the nature and character of the evil one by the names and titles ascribed to him. To science, the existence of Satan is an open question, which cannot be denied or affirmed. The Bible, however, is very clear and definitive in its teaching regarding the existence of a personality of evil, called the Devil or Satan. Both names are given to the same person. His character embodies all forms of evil condemned by God.



SATAN MEANS ADVERSARY



The word Satan comes from the Hebrew saw-tan’ (No. 7853 in the Hebrew Chaldee Dictionary) a primary root, to attack, accuse, be an adversary, resist. In the Greek Dictionary No. 4566 and 4567 Satan and Santanas, the accuser, i.e. the devil: Satan.



An adversary is one who takes a stand against another. Satan is the adversary of both God and mankind.



In Zecharia 3:1&2, Joshua faced an angel of Yahvah and Satan stood at his right hand and resisted as an adversary.



In 1st Peter 5:8 it reveals Your adversary the devil.

The name devil, diabolos in Greek, means accuser (usually written without a capital d) is ascribed to Satan at least 33 times in the New Testament alone and indicates a liar, deceiver, or accuser:



Genesis 3:1-7 he is the serpent, (sorcerer or enchanter) and “twists” God’s command against partaking of the forbidden tree.



Revelations 12:9 The great dragon, the primeval serpent, known as the devil or Satan, who had deceived the world ...

SATAN, PRINCE OF THIS WORLD



John 12:31 Now is the judgement of this world (kosmos, world system): now shall the prince of this world be cast out.



John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world (kosmos), cometh, and hath nothing in me.



John 16:11 Of judgement, because the prince of this world (kosmos) is judged.



I John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. Here we see that Satan is not only the object of the world’s worship, but also the moving spirit of its godless activities.



SATAN, PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR



Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world (Kosmos), according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.



Ephesians 6:11 & 12 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.











SATAN’S SOVEREIGNTY



Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.

Colossians 1:13 (God) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. The Kingdom of light is headed by Jesus Christ. The Prince of Peace, and the kingdom of darkness is headed by Satan - the Prince of the kingdom of darkness and death.



SATAN THE TEMPTER



Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.



Genesis 3:1-7 Read Satan’s temptation of Eve.



SATAN’S DISGUISE



II Corinthians 11:13-15 For they are false apostles and deceitful workers, posing as apostles of Christ. There is no marvel in this; for if Satan disguises himself as the angel of light, It is no great thing if his ministers also pose as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.



SATAN IS TO BE RESISTED



I Peter 5:8 & 9 Be vigilant and be cautious, because your adversary, the devil, like a roaring lion, walks about seeking whom he may devour. Rise up, therefore, against him, as you are steadfast in the faith, knowing that your brethren who are in the world also suffered these same afflictions.



James 4:7 & 8 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist Satan, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you...

If there is any doubt about who is running the world today, you only have to look around and observe the conditions prevailing in every country on earth. There is a general breakdown in law and order everywhere, accompanied by a governmental disregard for justice. Truly, the love of many has waxed cold (Matthew 24:12) just as Christ said it would in the latter days. Judeo-Christians are in the dark about dealing with evil in the world. This is because they do not read all of their Bible, and they fail to understand the power of evil at work in the world.



WHO WAS SATAN?



Ezek 28:14-17 And you were the Kerub, the holy protector, and sat on the hill that was sacred to GOD: You walked in the midst of the bright flashing jewels; You were right in your path from the day of your birth! Until in yourself the corruption was formed; Till your trades filled your breast with extortion and wrong! So I flung you out from the mountain of Godhood, And sent your guardian Spirit from among the bright gems! From your beauty your heart rose; your science corrupted; Not withstanding your splendour I flung you to earth; And before kings, I cast you, to show what you are!



The underlying message behind this passage is in reference to Satan, not the King of Tyre. The traits described in this chapter go well beyond a mortal king. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God (Ezek 28:13). The King of Tyre was not in the garden of Eden, but the Serpent was. The Serpent deceived me and I ate it (Gen 3:13).



“The Westminster Dictionary”, p. 99, under Cher’ub (plural Cher-u-bim) states: But the biblical writers represent the cherubim, symbolically at least, as animate beings with the intelligence of man, the strength of an ox, the courage of the lion, and the free motion of the eagle through the air. The facts at present obtainable indicate an order of angels.



Cherub in Hebrew is Keruwb, Ker-oob’, (No. 3742, 3743), a cherub or imaginary figure, also a place in Babylon.



Cherub angels were responsible for guarding the holiness of God. Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cher’-u-bims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.



Satan was an anointed Cherub angel until iniquity was found in him. He was highly intelligent, beautiful, and perfect in his ways from the day he was created.



In Ezekiel 28:15, the Hebrew word perfect is tamiym, taw-meem, (No. 8549). The word means integrity, truth, without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely, sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.



Surely, no earthy king could be considered tamiym. In the Bible, only one out of Israel did right in the sight of God. His name was Hezekiah. The remaining kings ranged from partially good to extremely wicked. This tradition of kingly disobedience has continued from generation to generation even to this very day.



Satan became corrupted by reason and brightness (Ezek 28:17). He wanted to ascend above the heights of the clouds. He wanted to be like the most High (Is 14:14). The two verses (witnesses) above confirm the Devil’s sin against God leading to his down-fall.



The subsequent rebellion in heaven resulted in Lucifer drawing out a third of the angels against God. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth (Rev 12:4). And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).





2 Pet 2:4 For if God did not spare sinning angels, but remitted them to chains of blackness of darkness, to await judgment ...



The book of Jude and II Peter witness the fall of angels from their position in heaven.

WAR IN HEAVEN!

And there was war in heaven: Mi’-cha-el (archangel, No. 4317) and his angels (No. 32, Greek Dict.) fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels. And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. ... Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! For the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. ... And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:7-17).



Herod was a Canaanite / Edomite who was from the satanic seedline. He attempted to murder Jesus Christ. Rev 12:4 And the dragon placed himself before the woman who was about to be delivered; so that when she was delivered he might devour her child. The seed of Satan (Gen 3:15) hate the remnant of her seed who follow the commandments of God. They have unsuccessfully tried to exterminate the Adamic race through war and mongrelization.



This clearly explains why Satan and his descendants hate Jesus Christ and the descendants (Adamic white race) of the most High. Today, the haters of Jesus Christ are trying to pass laws that make it a hate crime to practice and teach the commandments of God instead of the traditions of men.

ISAIAH 14:12 IS CLEARLY ADDRESSING SATAN



How fell you from Heaven, bright Son of the morning? Down, down to the earth you destroyer of Nations? In the Authorized Version, the word Lucifer (Son of the morning) in Hebrew is heylel, hay-lale, (No. 1966): (in the sense of brightness); the morning star, lucifer. It comes from the word halal, haw-lal, (No. 1984): prime root; to be clear, to shine, hence to make a show, to boast, foolish, to rave.



This is not referring just to the king of Babylon. This is a clear reference to the rebellious cherub angel cast down to earth. The king of Babylon was a mere shadow or type of Satan (The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15, p.335 by evangelist Dan Gayman). The Wicked One works through people. His descendant’s today, the Jews, work towards global dominion under Lucifer. In Isaiah 14:20, the seedline of Satan is mentioned. Thou shalt not be joined with them (Canaanites) in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers (Gen 3:15) shall never be renowned (honoured). The passage continues: Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.



Genesis 4:16 tells the story of how Cain went out from the presence of God and went to the land of Nod. There he built a city. The Canaanite / Edomite Jews dwell by majority in the big cities today. They are the merchants of the earth (Rev 18:9). This topic will be discussed in further detail in the next chapter and throughout this course



THE DOCTRINE OF SATAN

The teaching of the existence of Satan is taught in seven Old Testament books and by every New Testament writer of the Bible. Jesus Christ acknowledged and taught the entity of Satan and the dangers associated with such an adversary of Christ. The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels (Mt 13:39). See also Luke 10:18,19.



1. Satan has a personality. He possess intellect. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor 11:3).



2. The Wicked One has emotions. In Revelation 12:17, the devil has come down unto you having great wrath...



3. The Tempter has a great will. And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will (2 Tim 2:26).



4. The Prince of this world is treated as a responsible entity. Jesus said, Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.



Satan goes by many names. The list is as follows: Red Dragon, the Serpent, Lucifer, Satan, Devil, Evil One, Tempter, Prince of this World, God of this age, Prince of the power of the air, Accuser of the brethren, Angel of Light, Azazyel.



Moreover Azazyel taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, made them see that which was behind, ... so that the world became altered. ... All the earth has been corrupted by the teaching of the work of Azazyel. To him therefore ascribe the whole crime (“The Book of Enoch”, 8:1, 10:12, non-canonical book).

SATAN’S JUDGMENT’S

1. Ezek 28:16 ... therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.



2. Gen 3:14,15: So the LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, The most cursed of all animals shall you be, And of all wild beasts. On your belly you shall crawl and eat dust, as long as you live. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your posterity and hers; they shall attack you in the head, and you shall attack them in the heel.’ (Smith-Goodspeed translation)



3. John 12:31: Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of the world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. See also Luke 10:18.



4. Rev 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.



5. Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.



6. Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.



When Adam and Eve listened to Satan, the Prince of this world system, and obeyed him rather than God, they became subject to Satan’s power. Only the coming of Christ and his crucifixion redeemed us from the curse of perpetual death and spiritual bondage under Satan. We claim this freedom through the shed blood of Christ, who was the unblemished Lamb of God. But, even though we are free of spiritual bondage and death, we are still living under a physical world order ruled by Satan.

Christ, at His first coming, did not remove Satan from his ruling position (See John 14:30). Christ also said in John 18:36 that His Kingdom was not of that world (kosmos) system, or his servants would have fought for him. He said He had a kingdom but it did not originate in this world order. But when Christ returns He will take command and exercise complete control over this world, which is why we pray, Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven.

ANGELS!

The existence of angels is taught in at least thirty-four books of the Holy Bible. The word angel is mentioned over 275 times.



Angel in Hebrew is mal’ak, mal-awk, (No. 4397): to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, i.e. an angel, ambassador, angel, king, messenger.



Angel in Greek is aggelos, ang’-el-os, (No. 32): messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor, angel, messenger.

The creation of angels is explained in Colossions 1:16: Because by Him (God) was created everything in the heavens and upon the earth – the seen and the unseen; whether thrones, sovereignties, governments, or authorities – the whole were created through Him and for Him; and He Himself preceded all, and the whole was established by Him.



1. Angels are celestial beings which are on a higher plane than man. Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits (angels), dispatched to administer for the sake of those who will ultimately inherit salvation?



2. They do not die. Lk 20:36 For neither can they die again; because they are equal to the angels, and are sons of God, being sons by resurrection.



3. Angels have great power. 2 Pet 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusations against them before the Lord.

Angels predicted Jesus Christ’s birth (Lk 1:26-33), protected baby Jesus from King Herod (Mt 2:13), strengthened our Savior (Lk 22:43), announced His resurrection, and rolled away the stone from Jesus Christ’s tomb.

Angels are God’s agents. They are involved in the guidance of believers through ministry, answering prayers, encouragement in time of danger, care for the righteous at death, and inflicting punishment to unbelievers. They are the unseen forces that govern the lives of many on a daily basis.



FALLEN ANGELS!

Satan is a fallen angel whom has been given certain powers over earth, for a limited amount of time. He has a well- organized army of fallen angels or demons which implement the policies of Lucifer.



Eph 6:10-12 - From henceforward strengthen yourselves in the Lord, and with the power of His might. Put on the complete armour of God, so that you may be able to stand against the tactics of the Devil. Because our fight is not against blood and flesh; but against the sovereignties, against the powers, against the commanders of the darkness of this world, against the spirits of wickedness in the heavens.



These demons are spirit beings, which attempt to thwart God’s plans and extend the authority of Satan. They have an intellect to understand Jesus Christ and know their eventual destruction.

Mk 1:23,24 There was also in the synagogue a man in possession of a foul spirit; and he called out, exclaiming, ‘Ah! What is there in common between us and You, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know you, what you are, the Holy of God.’



Satan and his demons have a well-developed system of doctrine that has and will continue to lead many astray. This doctrine is anti-Christ and is diametrically opposed to the Word of God.



1 Tim 4:1-3 However, the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will turn away from the faith, addicting themselves to seducing spirits, and to teachings of demons; teaching lies in hypocrisy; burning up their own conscience; hindering marriage ...





THE POWERS OF DEMONS

Demons have certain specified powers listed in the Bible. The power of Satan and his fallen angels should not be underestimated. A partial list is as follows:



1. Demons have the power to inflict diseases on people. Lk 13:10-16: While He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, a women present, who, for eighteen years, was held fast by a spirit of infirmity; and she was so bent, that she could not at any time straighten herself. But when Jesus saw her, He called to her, and said to her, ‘Women, you are freed from your weakness.’ And, placing His hands upon her, she was at once cured, and praised God. ... ‘And this woman, who is a daughter of Abraham, whom his enemy has bound for eighteen years, ought she not to be loosed from this bond on the Day of Rest?’



2. The fallen angels can possess people. Mt 4:24: And the report about Him (Jesus) spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all those who were afflicted with different mental diseases and sufferings – demoniacs, lunatics, and paralytics – and He restored them to health.



3. The evil spirits can oppose the spiritual growth of God’s children (Eph 6:12).



4. Demons disseminate false doctrine (1 Tim 4:1).



5. They have the power to possess animals. Mk 5:13: Jesus accordingly gave them permission; and departing, the foul spirits entered the swine. Then the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed madly down the precipice into the sea, and were drowned in the deep.



The seen and unseen powers of darkness are a reality that cannot be ignored. We must resist Satan, his fallen angels, and his literal off-spring. The whole armour of God is required to resist such evil.



Eph 6:13-18: Therefore, take up the complete armour of God, so that you may be able to resist in the day of danger, and having done all your duty, to stand. Stand then, your waist belted with truth, and covered with the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod in readiness for the good news of peace; lifting up over all the big shield of faith, upon which you will be able to quench the blazing artillery of the Devil.



The question might be asked: What does all this information about Satan, Angels, Etc. have to do with leaven? We feel it is vital that the reader have adequate knowledge of Satan, angels, and demons to help discern the truth about the two seed lines.