News Headlines | homosexuals gain favor in Iowa

Page tools: add reply; start topic; rss; hall of fame; who's online

homosexuals gain favor in Iowa

read 190 reaction(s)

@ 31-08-2007 11:56 WH1
290 posts	An Iowa district court judge ruled against the natural laws of nature and ok'ed lesbians and homosexuals to dysfunctionally marry in that now Sodom and Gomorrah state. title of this thread has been changed -- PF

Showing posts 1-25 of 190

Page 1 of 8

Select page : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next »

Discussion
0 @ 31-08-2007 12:03 Dagor
33,246 posts	YAAAAAAY!
0 @ 31-08-2007 12:03 Dagor
33,246 posts	I mean .. YAAAAAAAY!
0 @ 31-08-2007 13:22 PinkFloyd
25,789 posts	And this is bad because...? Oh yeah, the silly bible thing. Congrats to them, hopefully other places will wise up and eventually do the same.
0 @ 31-08-2007 13:46 PunkRckr8
9,388 posts	so lesbians are different from homosexuals? huh, I learn something new everyday Good for Iowa
+1 @ 31-08-2007 15:18 Bucephalus
1,979 posts	Three cheers for fudge
-3 @ 03-09-2007 13:19 WH1
290 posts	Sodom and Gomorrah x 3
0 @ 03-09-2007 14:43 icefyre
10,965 posts	damn those gays, taking our jobs and our women. i can hardly contain my yawns of rage. incidentally, Iron And Wine - Sodom, South Georgia is a great song
+1 @ 03-09-2007 15:00 PunkRckr8
9,388 posts	Its a shame this didn't happen in Idaho, then that senator might not have had to resign for soliciting sex from an undercover policeman in an airport bathroom
0 @ 03-09-2007 15:23 JDolla
6,880 posts	this dosent bother me on a political level, im pretty liberal. on a spiritual level it does. but in this country, politics and spirituality should not be intermingled. so let the gays marry in a legal sense. if it bothers you that much, move.
0 @ 03-09-2007 15:44 mayana07
17,036 posts	so lesbians are different from homosexuals?
0 @ 04-09-2007 07:00 WH1
290 posts	^2 up JD No because it's Queer homosexual.NOT so called "gay"
+2 @ 04-09-2007 13:39 NightShade
2,772 posts	I'm pretty glad about this to be honest. If there was no-one to pack our fudge it'd just be on the shelves with no packaging round it which'd be pretty unhygenic really.
0 @ 04-09-2007 20:05 JDolla
6,880 posts	wtf are you talking about "queer homosexual"? queer and gay are semantics of the term homosexual. if you want to argue semantics like a third grader, pick on someone else's post. i dont play that schitt
-1 @ 10-10-2007 10:21 WH1
290 posts	^ wtf schitt onU previously that was grounds for banishment but since you re a regular annoyance it must be acceptable now as it was my topic to begin with since yur too "pretty liberal" and are part of the foundational cause of this nations decline YOU can move with yur kind to Sodom & Gomorrah As I stand with my forefathers who worshipped Our Creator and Jesus His Son Ill cling to the moral absolutes of His Word and leave yall to yur own suicides
0 @ 10-10-2007 14:22 Dagor
33,246 posts	All come to Sodom and Gomorrah .. we have free biscuits!
0 @ 10-10-2007 15:39 Juliet86
7,717 posts	Yummy. Thanks!
0 @ 10-10-2007 20:29 Bucephalus
1,979 posts	LudMan, your father should have just used that trojan
0 @ 10-10-2007 23:07 JDolla
6,880 posts	so democrats are killing the country? explain.
0 @ 11-10-2007 08:45 WH1
290 posts	I don't recall writing or reading the term democrat here before but "if the dress fits" egotistical excesses squanderously enjoyed the past three or four decades have had a socially,politically, and economically declining effect upon our now dysfunctional soul-desentisized society If you can grasp that fact then you know Our liberal,CULTURAL FREEDOMS have BECOME transformational into our present condition of CULTURAL SUICIDE (dont toy with me again by questioning when The Creator gave you this knowledge)
0 @ 11-10-2007 14:51 superman14
364 posts	I'm with WHI on this one. I am also against homosexuality. I do not think you are damned to Hell because you are gay, because love covers a multitude of sins, but sin is sin none-the-less. Our country is truely on it's way to being Sodem & Gomorah. What happened to the sanctity of marriage? What happened to marriage is a covenant between a man and a women? Does no one care that our country is loosing the morals it was found on? Let me leave you with this...Sodem & Gomorah were distroyed because of this. (I'm a republican, I'm a conservative, I'm a Christian. This is my oppinion if you don't like it fine, but it's my side and I'm sticking to it)
0 @ 11-10-2007 19:20 JDolla
6,880 posts	hey im liberal as can be. that dosent mean i condone morally wrong behavior. i think personally that homosexuality and divorce and abortion and, well, you name it, is wrong. i just think that gays have the right to be tmemselvs, people can choose to end their own marriages, and if you can live with yourself after aborting a fetus, then nobody should push their opinions onto you. if you're insisting that everyone should return to your religous belifs for a system of society, then you're posing a theocracy. guess who else has a theocracy: Iran. they dont have any homosexuals because they kill them. is that what you want?
+2 @ 11-10-2007 19:30 KateKateKate
5,285 posts	I love how everyone places soooo much emphasis on the fact that the acts in Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual in nature and completely ignores the gang rape, cruelty, and intent to humiliate the angels and inhospitality in general. But of course there was nothing wrong with the fact they were going to gang rape them, it's all about the homosexuality. Oh yes. Yeesh. Talk about taking the entire thing out of context and using it as a means of justifying something that you can't otherwise justify.
0 @ 11-10-2007 19:50 superman14
364 posts	I love how everyone places soooo much emphasis on the fact that the acts in Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual in nature and completely ignores the gang rape, cruelty, and intent to humiliate the angels and inhospitality in general. But of course there was nothing wrong with the fact they were going to gang rape them, it's all about the homosexuality. Oh yes. Yeesh. Talk about taking the entire thing out of context and using it as a means of justifying something that you can't otherwise justify. Maybe you should read about it, because the issue was their sexual imorality. Doesn't matter though. They were distroyed because of it anyway.
0 @ 11-10-2007 19:58 KateKateKate
5,285 posts	Yes, sexual immorality! Do you consider gang-rape to be not sexually immoral? Do you consider that mass humiliation to be okay? What if it was a woman angel rather than a male and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah came and said "Yo, bring this biatch out, she's hot." Would it be more right? Also in the time that this was written, men were at a much higher level than woman, and anal sex was considered to be bad because they believed the semen was the actual baby, and the female merely an incubator. Also anal sex was part of the Canaanite rituals. They would have a male priest dress up as a woman and men would go and have sex with them. The male was then brought to a lower level than the priest, and the sex was no longer a special act between two people, just part of worshipping God. This is made especially clear in Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 , that the references to homosexuality were merely against the use of it as a means to worship God, NOT in the context of a loving relationship. Clearly clearly established. I've done my homework on this so don't even try to jack with me.
0 @ 11-10-2007 20:00 superman14
364 posts	Yes, sexual immorality! Do you consider gang-rape to be not sexually immoral? Do you consider that mass humiliation to be okay? What if it was a woman angel rather than a male and the men of Sodom and Gomorrah came and said "Yo, bring this biatch out, she's hot." Would it be more right? Also in the time that this was written, men were at a much higher level than woman, and anal sex was considered to be bad because they believed the semen was the actual baby, and the female merely an incubator. Also anal sex was part of the Canaanite rituals. They would have a male priest dress up as a woman and men would go and have sex with them. The male was then brought to a lower level than the priest, and the sex was no longer a special act between two people, just part of worshipping God. This is made especially clear in Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 , that the references to homosexuality were merely against the use of it as a means to worship God, NOT in the context of a loving relationship. Clearly clearly established. I've done my homework on this so don't even try to jack with me. Yes it's gang rape, but that's not what I am talking about. What I am refering to is how they were distroyed because of their sin. You're missing my point. They were distroyed. That's my point.