Joy Behar Lectures Pastor About Homosexuality on 'The View', Insists Biblical View Leads to Bullying
ABC's "The View" hosted pastor Joel Osteen Tuesday, author of the book The Christmas Spirit – but the conversation took a controversial turn and went from Christmas to homosexuality. Co-host Joy Behar belittled Osteen about his conservative Christian beliefs on the matter.
ABC's Barbara Walters first popped the question in the middle of the interview, flagging it was a "controversial" topic. She referenced a previous quote made by Osteen on the show about homosexuality not being "God's best" for a person's life. Walters asked him how he felt about a Georgia pastor who recently came out and said he was gay.
After Osteen's tepid response, Behar interrupted him and flatly lectured him that homosexuality is natural. "It's not a choice, Pastor," she asserted. "It's not a choice, and therefore I don't think that God would look askance at homosexuality in that way, because it's not a choice. They're born this way, people are born this way."
[Video embedded after page break]
When Osteen tried to respond, the comedian-cum-theologian butted in again to assert that "the Christian church should embrace that notion." She later accused Osteen of being a part of the gay bullying problem, telling him that his Biblical interpretation of homosexuality leads to bullying.
"But when you say that the Bible is against gays, that makes people get bullied, and bad things happen to people because of what the people say about that," she told Osteen.
After Behar further interrupted the guest to make her point, Osteen defended his church's stance and said that it welcomes all sinners. "If you came to our church, Joy, you would see people from all walks of life," he explained. "We're for everybody, we're not against people."
"We're not for bullying," he added. "I mean, if you follow our ministry at all, we're for uplifting people. But there's the Scripture that we can't necessarily change."
Co-host Whoopi Goldberg also joined the debate, quoting Scripture to try to prove that God doesn't judge, so neither should humans judge homosexuals. "I really believe that God said very clearly 'Noone else can judge you, but Me'," Goldberg expressed.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on November 16 at 11:27 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
BARBARA WALTERS: You know, I'm sorry. I just want to ask you a controversial subject, although I know you stay away from – try to stay away from controversy. But the last time you were here, you said that homosexuality is not, and I'm quoting you, "God's best." And recently a pastor of an evangelical church in Georgia named Jim Sully came out and said that he's gay. He's married, he has children, but he's gay. What's your feeling about that?
Rev. JOEL OSTEEN: Well first off, Barbara, I should finish that sentence. I should make it clear. I don't think it's God's best for your life, I don't think it's not God's best making us. As far as that pastor is concerned, I don't know that individual situation. I think that – I believe the Scriptures teach us that a pastor in leadership like that is not going to stay in a Christian church like ours. But I don't know whether he's, whether he should come out or not. I believe maybe being open –
WALTERS: If he's in a Christian church, should he get out of the Christian church if he's gay?
OSTEEN: You know, I think that's totally up to him. I don't know. I mean, the main thing Barbara, is we are for people. Sometimes we get stuck on –
JOY BEHAR: You know it's not a choice, Pastor. It's not a choice, and therefore I don't think that God would look askance at homosexuality in that way, because it's not a choice. They're born this way, people are born this way. They are what they are.
OSTEEN: Well, I think that's –
BEHAR: And so the Christian church should embrace that notion.
OSTEEN: Well, you know what Joy –
BEHAR: You wouldn't reject somebody that had a deformity.
OSTEEN: Yeah, no I agree.
BEHAR: Or something else.
OSTEEN: Yeah, I think that – (Applause)
BEHAR: I don't mean to say it's a deformity, but there are other things that are embraced.
OSTEEN: But if you came to our church, Joy, you would see people from all walks of life. We don't have a sign at the door no gays, no drunkards, no people on drugs. We're for everybody, we're not against people. So we're helping them to become –
BEHAR: But when you say that the Bible is against gays, that makes people get bullied, and bad things happen to people because of what the people say about that.
OSTEEN: Well, it's –
BEHAR: It's terrible.
OSTEEN: I think the difficulty Joy is we're not for bullying. I mean, if you follow our ministry at all, we're for uplifting people. But there's the Scripture that we can't necessarily change.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I-I have a question, because I really believe that God said very clearly "Noone else can judge you, but Me. If you have an issue, if something's going on, you don't need to hear what anybody else says. Come to Me and I will forgive you."
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oh, the irony
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 4:32pm.
Blowhard Behar preaching theology to a pastor.
Well Joy, let me see if I can
Submitted by inquiringmind on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 4:36pm.
Well Joy, let me see if I can change what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. Would that plaese you?
Behar is a genius scientist pastor
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 4:38pm.
She knows all.
She is a moron's moron......
Submitted by merly1 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:02pm.
and in the end, it is always a choice, even if one has a genetic predisposition towards same-sex attraction.
Genetic???
Submitted by Casey97 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 11:03pm.
How can a trait that is non-proceative be passed on? If you had a genetic trait that made you unwilling to have intercorse you would not pass that gene on to your offspring, becasue you would not have any children. The hypothetical gay gene would necessarily be a recessive trait since it does not promote itself. All this being said...it is a problem people are born with. We are all born with a sin nature. Some are born gossips, born liars, born thiefs, born homosexuals, etc.
/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-/*-
With Democrat revisionist history and liberals guaranteeing the future (global warming, nuclear destruction, etc.) only the future is certain; the past is always changing.
Genetic??
Submitted by Funbowhunter on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:05am.
And some like Joyless Behar are born stupid, ugly, and anti-god.
Poor Joel
Submitted by rockyracoon on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 4:42pm.
I hope his wife had a handy asprin or two in her purse, after dealing with these broads.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Yeah and being a lover of
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 4:47pm.
Yeah and being a lover of small children is ok too, people bully those unfortunates who were just born that way. And while we are at it how about the animal lovers out there, people really frown on relationships with their animals ... but they were just born that way. We shoul realize that we should not judge the child molesters and rapists and serial killers and the list goes on .... peopel they were just born that way.
I have seen the light ... its just that its a train coming right down on me.
they were just born that way...
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:48pm.
What a lame explanation. Who's science says someone is born to be gay, a killer, an abortionist?
"it's not a choice, it's not a choice..." It's all a choice. We spend our lives making choices, good and bad.
Preaching to a preacher, now that was a bad choice. She needs to stick to things she knows, but not sure what that would be!
v
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Ullathorne
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
Genetics Question
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 4:51pm.
IF homosexuals are "born that way" and you believe in genetics, wouldn't homosexuality have been bred out of the population by now? The population numbers over the centuries would seem to imply it- or is it a recessive gene, Joy?
Genetics is not static. It it
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:51pm.
Genetics is not static. It is ever changing..ever mutating..that's nature's design.
Where's the mutation.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:02pm.
over the last 100,000 years, mandrake? What evolution (or devolution) has taken place?
Just askin'.
Well just go visit one of the
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:13pm.
Well just go visit one of the major museums in the world (New York, London, Paris..etc). They all have evidence of man-like animals that were not quite human..oh wait, I forgot the earth ,is only 6000 years old. My bad.
So Mandrake....homesexuals
Submitted by red_dragon311 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:25am.
So Mandrake....homesexuals are mutants? I have said that for a long time....
You make want to rethink the "gay gene" and being born that way..., Speaking in total gentic terms, IF there is the Gay Gene that would make homosexuals almost handicapped. Or is the "gay gene" like the Alcoholic gene?
They have a gene they makes them WANT to procreate with the same sex. You are a believer in evolution right, so two gay cro-magnons would not be able to pass on the gay gene, so homosexuality would have died with the promenant brow would it not?
I really dont care if you want to ave sex with another man or not...to each his own I like to have sex with a cored pineapple, I was born that way what can I say. I am a strong enough person to disreguard any person whom makes fun of me, (which is really all they are crying about "stop making fun of me" )
Even the Bible argees Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office."
Mutants?
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:34am.
Mutants..well we all are. DNA changes all the time. I recently read about mosquitos with modifed DNA being released in the Cayman Islands to combat some virus.
And just for the record..I'm not homosexual. Been married 30 years and have three children..I just like to argue that's all.
I wasn't talking about you
Submitted by red_dragon311 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:50am.
I wasn't talking about you personaly...I was saying "you " in general...sorry ifg I came off that way
Even the Bible argees Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office."
modified mosquitoes
Submitted by diskinetic on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 12:03pm.
That would be genetic manipulation, not evolution. I take a car and put a turbo in it, the car didn't evolve, it was redesigned.
A car is not an organic
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 12:15pm.
A car is not an organic being. Who is to say that the fact we have figured out how to manipulate DNA is not part of the evolutionary process itself?
Born that way?
Submitted by jimbo297 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 4:54pm.
So let's increase funding for genetic research and find the "gay" gene. Once identified, we can start testing neo-natal humans for the gene and let people selectively abort the "deformed."
Obviously I'm kidding, but I always find it interesting when someone comes up with the "born that way-not a choice' argument. Oh they're born that way? You must be anti-abortion then, right? You must, cause most parents aren't looking to have a homosexual child on their hands, and if given the choice in a society that embraces abortion (safe, legal, and rare) they'll make the choice to terminate.
Logic
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:15pm.
I don't follow your logic..if it exists at all. You jump from a homosexual gene straight to abortion?
If I had a homosexual child I would love him/her anyway!! Got it!!!
If you had a child I would be
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:02pm.
If you had a child I would be scared.
Me too..seeing that I'm male
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:06pm.
Me too..seeing that I'm male ;-)
I think he means...
Submitted by C-townGiant on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:38pm.
If you were to father a child.
You obviously have a problem with logic, from reading your posts here. A good point was made above, in that if homosexuals were simply "born that way" and we must all accept that as fact, then pedophiles were likewise "born that way" and yet society does not accept that. Do you see the dichotomy there?
If, indeed, homosexuality was a trait people are born with, then nature would have found a way for homosexuals to propagate. That they cannot reproduce is scientific proof that homosexuality is not "natural."
And we still fear you fathering any child, gay or straight.
Nephew
Submitted by mandrake on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:57pm.
Just hold on a second, I was questioning the jump from homosexuality to abortion. Now you're going from homosexualilty to pedophiles? And you are questioning my logic?
"Yeah and being a lover of
Submitted by C-townGiant on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 11:00pm.
"Yeah and being a lover of small children is ok too, people bully those unfortunates who were just born that way. And while we are at it how about the animal lovers out there, people really frown on relationships with their animals ... but they were just born that way. We shoul realize that we should not judge the child molesters and rapists and serial killers and the list goes on .... peopel they were just born that way."
Dan's point, which I referred to, is well taken. If homosexuality is genetic, than so is pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and any other sexual perversion. Why? Because they are all, ALL OF THEM, unnatural acts. But you and people like you want the rest of the world to believe that, hey, being gay is OK! We all just have to accept homosexuality! It's really OK!
But THE FACTS speak for themselves. If there is a "gay" gene, then there is likewise a "pedophile" gene. So...you want to make it OK that 40-year old men are having sex with 9-year old girls, its just fine and dandy. After all, they were born that way.
Your argument falls flat because you are arguing from emotion rather than the facts. You can't have one (homosexuality is OK because they were born that way) without the other (raping children...maybe YOUR children... is OK because, hey, they were born that way!
Not the same thing
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:22am.
It's not the same thing at all. We are human and therefore can reason. We can tell the difference between right and wrong. Some actions hurt the innocent and therefore we make laws against them. Homosexual acts between consenting adults don't hurt anyone...pedophile does..therefore it's illegal..case closed.
That's a very efficient methodology. Let me put it to good use.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:49am.
Homosexual acts between consenting adults injury the people committing them, just as any other act of sexual deviancy does, and such acts preclude a right relationship with God.
Therefore, they're immoral. Case closed.
--Mike
how does this "mandrake" feel
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:14pm.
how does this "mandrake" feel about polygamy - or a mom and son getting married? no one is getting hurt are they? he must approve then...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Nephew
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:13pm.
You must have been born stupid..let's hope nature doesn't make any more of you..well I guess it will anyway!
Always tough when a bad argument's taken to its logical end.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 2:31pm.
Is that the best response you have?
--Mike
...you are questioning my
Submitted by bretzysdude on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:25am.
...you are questioning my logic?
YES! HELL YES!
Well, go ahead. You haven't
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:34am.
Well, go ahead. You haven't said anything to me yet.
If, indeed, homosexuality was
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:57pm.
If, indeed, homosexuality was a trait people are born with, then nature would have found a way for homosexuals to propagate. That they cannot reproduce is scientific proof that homosexuality is not "natural."That's just flat wrong. First of all, "being born that way" does not mean that the trait is determined by genetics. It could be due to hormones, the action of the mother's immune system, even perinatal experience. You'd probably be surprised to know that your male parts aren't getermined by your genes, but by hormones produced by your gonads. Does that mean you could choose to be a girl? No, it doesn't.
Mamabear, But you CAN
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:02pm.
Mamabear,
But you CAN choose who you have sex with or who you don't!
Or are you saying that homosexuals are crazed out, sexual animals that are incapable of controlling their sexual urges? eh?
why do Liberals reduce human beings, homosexuals, to sexual animals who supposedly are incapable of self-control?
You can't choose whether or not you are born a male or female, but you CAN choose who you have sex with.
Sure, you could choose not to
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:19pm.
Sure, you could choose not to ever experience intimacy with someone you love. Some people have good reasons to deny themselves that joy. But the idea of telling someone else that they, by virtue of their very nature, don't get to experience it when you do is-- well, fankly it's hard for me to come up with a nice word for people who think it is their place to lay that sentence on someone else. The fact that God told you to does not, in my opinion, make it any nicer.
"By virtue of their very nature"?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 2:28pm.
It's a choice. A poor choice, one you'd love to enable.
And since you're big on laying death sentences on defenseless children, I'd think you'd be the last person to criticize someone else for an opinion that's actually based in morality.
--Mike
It's a choice. I'm afraid
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:27pm.
It's a choice.
I'm afraid you do not have facts on your side on that one.
No mamabear, no matter how
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:39pm.
No mamabear, no matter how many times you come on this site peddling your psuedo science, you haven't proven a thing.
For all the complaints here
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 12:08pm.
For all the complaints here about the evidence I bring to the table, I have yet to see anyone do anything other than try to poke holes.
Certainly, no one has ever shown me a reputable, peer-reviewed piece of scientific evidence that proves that gay people have all chosen their orientation and there is nothing biological involved.
I was very careful in my response not to just say "You are wrong," or "I can prove that it isn't a choice," because I can't. But I can say that the weight of evidence is not on Mike's side, so that's what I said.
You can say what you like, but that doesn't make you right.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 1:19pm.
You can say you're a salt marsh harvest mouse, but that doesn't make it so.
And the weight of evidence is on the side of those who understand that, at the end of the day, sexual deviancies are choices, not unalterable orientations.
--Mike
You don't need to take it a bit farther.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:48pm.
If that's supposed to be a substantive response, don't bother yourself with any more attempts, as they would be a waste of bandwidth.
There is no biological license to sin. And human beings are not, or do not have to be, slaves to every base, craven impulse that jolts our brains.
--Mike
slaves to every base, craven
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 12:09pm.
slaves to every base, craven impulse that jolts our brains.If that's the way you think of being in love, I feel bad for you!
No, that's the way sexual deviancies must be viewed.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 1:21pm.
But, please, make it about personalities rather than an issue.
Interesting that you would try to paint base, craven, deviant impulses as "love." They are not.
--Mike
You can think what you want
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 6:16pm.
You can think what you want about the way they express intimacy, but gay people fall in love with each other the same way that stright people do. Ignoring that is just dishonest.
Mamabear, Ah, the "love"
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:38am.
Mamabear,
Ah, the "love" argument. LOL.
So, no doubt then that you would not mind it if your spouse cheated on you because he fell in love with someone else, right? I mean falling in love justifies anything, correct?
If you want to justify homosexual sex acts by claiming it is all about love, please tell us all how you are able to say that cheating on your spouse because you fell in love with someone else is wrong.
Using the love argument we can justify all type of discusting sexual behavior. I mean how about that 15 year old girl who falls in love with a 35 year old man? I mean, it is love, why not right Mamabear? It's about love.....
How about siblings who fall in love with each other. Using your love argument, it should be ok, right? Or are you saying that the love argument should only be used to justify homosexual sex acts?
where do we stop with the "love" argument?
I have always found it amusing how individuals like Mamabear who support homosexual sex acts love to preach to us what is Right and Wrong, but the second that we tell her what is Right and Wrong, she is offended and tells us all, "how dare YOU tell me or homosexuals what is Right and Wrong. Shut up, since only we can tell you what is Right and Wrong!".
Love justifies lots of things
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 6:15pm.
Love justifies lots of things between two consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone else. It doesn't justify everything! Cheating on someone isn't wrong because you are in love with the wrong person, it is wrong because committments should be honored. Both straight and gay people think that, you know. But at the same time, people fall out of love with each other. They marry the wrong person and make mistakes. I don't really consider it my place to judge how someone deals with that situation.
Children aren't capable of giving consent to a relationship with an adult, that makes that relationship wrong. I don't like to tell people what I think they should do with their lives, but don't we both think that relationship is wrong?! If you disagree with me, feel free to tell me why you think it's fine!
The fact that you need to take my argument to great extremities in order to find something wrong with it, is just a nice indication that there's really nothing wrong with it :)
That is a great response Mamabear
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:28pm.
I do not condone gay marriage, but I do condone homosexual acts. It's really none of my business what they do behind closed doors. Sorry LL comparing gays to pediphiles or people cheating is pretty silly.Mamabear, Well that settles
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:49am.
Mamabear,
Well that settles it, homosexual sex acts ARE A CHOICE! thank you for admitting as much and admitting that homosexual sex acts CAN be controlled. Everything else that you say in the posts here is irrelavent since we all know that you can choose who to sleep with. There is no gene in our human DNA that forces us to have sex with anyone. Who we sleep with IS A CHOICE.
But sadly, you still devalue human beings, in this case homosexuals, as individuals that should not deny themselves the passion of sex, as if they were some sort of animals that can't control their sexual urges.
Should a married man control his sexual urges of wanting to have sex with another woman other than his spouse if he falls in love with another woman? Using your logic the answer is no.
You never answered, why do you see homosexuals as being incapable of controlling their sexual passions?
Just because we have an impulse to do something it doesn't make it Right, Moral.
Whether it is nature or nurture it is completly irrelavent argument!
There are some human beings who are taught how to be murderers, there are others who are born murderers. Should we allow them to murder because they were born that way?
There are human beings who are taught how to cheat on their spouses, others are born cheaters. Should we allow them to cheat because they were born cheaters? I mean geez, they will miss on all that excitiment and love.
The problem with pro-homosexuals like Mamabear is that they love to reduce human beings to mere animals who are supposedly incapable of controlling their sexual, animalistic urges. Sorry Mamabear, I have more respect for homosexuals than you. I know they are human beings not animals. Human beings can and should control their sexual urges whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
Nice strawman! I'm not
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 6:19pm.
Nice strawman!
I'm not saying that urges justify everything. I think real love is an amazing thing, that's all. Feel free to continue pretending that you are addressing my point!
What controls the release of
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:18pm.
What controls the release of hormones produced by your gonads?
All kinds of things,
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:21pm.
All kinds of things, including neurons, other hormones, even chemicals that mimic the action of hormones. During gestation maternal hormones, which can be affected in many ways by the environment, affect fetal development in addition to the endogenous hormones produced by the gonads.
In the end, hormones are
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 2:49pm.
In the end, hormones are produced by a signal from the DNA of a cell.
We can rise above our DNA. We can aspire to more than our physical selves, our wants and desires for ourselves.
In the end, hormones are
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:38pm.
In the end, hormones are produced by a signal from the DNA of a cell.That's kind of right, in so far as I think I understand what you are getting at. It's just a vastly oversimplified view of how our bodies work. For instance, our DNA codes for a perfectly symmetrical body, but no one actually has that, because we are also affected by thousands upon thousands on perturbations and environmental stressors and external influences. Soy milk activates estrogen receptors, just as one tiny example, and your genes can't do a darn thing about it.
Are you saying that being gay
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:40pm.
Are you saying that being gay is a biological mistake?
From an evolutionary sense,
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 12:27pm.
From an evolutionary sense, yes, it probably is. But so what? We are full of personality traits that decrease our evolutionary success-- a mother sacrificing her life for her child, for instance, is a strong instinct that society considers admirable. Evolutionarily, it's a dumb move unless you are already at the end of your reproducitve life. In the animal kingdom, that behavior is rare. Does that mean that the instinct is a mistake? Who cares? Variation is the norm in nature, and what you decide is "normal" and what isn't is pretty arbitrary.
Here's an example with no political weight to it: Hamsters are strongly responsive to daylength, and they use it to time hibernation. We study hibernation and biological rhythms by bringing animals into the lab and studying what they do under different photoperiods. But about 10% of hamserts that you bring in turn out to be totally unrepsonsive to day length. Why? We don't know. Is it a mistake? Sure seems like one, but the percentage stays consistent, it doesn't disappear from the population. Maybe it serves some function that we don't understand yet, because we weed those individuals out of our studies because we want to study "normal" hamsters. But that is our bias, whatever is going on with those hamsters is real and in some way maintained.
The point is not whether being gay is evolutionarily useful. If we treated people differently based on their evolutionary usefulness, it would affect a lot more than just gay people. But people decide to care about whether behavior is evolutionarily successful just in this one case, ignoring all others, as a justification for prejudice. It's transparent.
From a civil rights perspective, the only question is whether it is a biologically determined or chosen. If it is biologically determined, and it doesn't harm others, then we don't get to discriminate based on it, at least according to the moral code I was raised with.
"From a civil rights perspective"??
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 1:27pm.
It's always hilarious when people try to equate deviancy with race or gender, so that it's really supposed to be a civil rights issue. I don't think there's a more offensive way to insult people who have seriously fought for civil rights advances.
And I'll remind you again, "mama," that you're the last person around here who gets to bring up a personal moral code. You burned that privilege awhile back. Stick to the issues.
--Mike
What we discussed earlier (or
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 1:42pm.
What we discussed earlier (or was another thread?) was my right to believe homosexual behavior is a sin. You asserted that I needed to change my belief needed to change because it affected other people, That is an infringement of my civil rights. As long as I don't infringe on the rights of others, I am allowed to have my religious beliefs, even if you feel they are hurtful.
As far as a mother sacrificing her life for her child, it is consistent with higher level thinking. We should protect the life we already have, sacrifice the future for the present.
Radical1979, But that is
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:56am.
Radical1979,
But that is just it with Liberals like Mamabear. They love to yell at Conservatives because we supposedly impose our ideas and beliefs on Liberals. We supposedly force them how to live and how not to live. Then they turn around and tell us that we must change our way of thinking and beliefs. HOLY COW! Liberals are something else.
Liberals love, adore to impose and shove down our throats their "moral" standards and beliefs, but if they feel that Conservatives are doing the same to them, they have go nuts, scream and yell, tell us that we do not have a right to impose anything on them. don't you see, only Liberals can impose their beliefs and way of thinking on others, Conservatives must shut up, stay quiet and do as Liberlas say we must all do. Ridiculous!
Using mamabear's radical and dangerous way of thinking of telling you that you must change your way of thinking and beliefs because it hurts others, she must also change her way of thinking and beliefs because she is hurting others with hers! But leave it to a Liberal to lack logic in their argument.
I mean does Mamabear not realize the countless of individuals that are bullied because of her way of thinking? Mamabear is supposedly a college professor, I have zero doubt that she has seen and maybe taken part in bullying Christians in her classes or on campus who stand up to the radical Left wing beliefs that are so prevelant on USA colleges today.
d earlier (or was another
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 6:29pm.
d earlier (or was another thread?) was my right to believe homosexual behavior is a sin. You asserted that I needed to change my belief needed to change because it affected other people, That is an infringement of my civil rights.I absolutely did not tell you that you needed to change your beliefs. I even corrected you on that on the thread in question. However, it is very clear that you much prefer the narrative created by pretending that I told you you had to change your beliefs. I know you love talking about how annoying liberals are for telling you what to think, and if you say it often enough, it won't matter that I didn't tell you what to think! What I actually said, just in case you are interested in an honest discussion, was that you are entitled to your beliefs. However, I believe that your beliefs are incompatible with wanting everyone to be safe, happy, and comfortable in their own skin, which was another stated desire of yours (apologies if I'm paraphrasing that wrong, my memory isn't great!). I base that assertion on the fact that you think the way some people are born is wrong. I don't see that as much different than making a big-boned girl feel bad that she can't get thin enough. I know that you have a deep-seated, cultural reason for thinking the way you do, I just don't see how you can want both things-- everyone to feel good about themselves and also for gay people to change because they realize how wrong they are. What I said was that if you are serious about wanting everyone to feel comfortable in thier own skin, then you need to relent a little in your opinion on homosexuality. If you want to continue feeling the way you do about homosexuality, then be honest about your other desire-- what you really want is not for EVERYONE to feel comfortable in their skin, but for people you approve of to feel comfortable in their own skin.
And we're all held victim by our "traits," is that about it?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:42pm.
The hinge point of this discussion is the morality, not the genetics.
And the morality of the issue is that homosexuality is a sin.
--Mike
Wait...
Submitted by C-townGiant on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 11:02pm.
The argument mandrake is putting forth is that its nature, not nurture.
Now you come back and say, no, its nurture, not nature.
Can't you pro-gay caucus people get your damn stories straight?
Go away..I have pounded you into the ground before, and its not fun anymore. See above for my total destruction of the "nature" argument.
I'm sure you'd love it if the
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:26pm.
I'm sure you'd love it if the world was a simple place where all questions have one right answer. It's a little more subtle than that! By the traditional definition of the "nature vs. nurture" debate, in any case, "nature" is not limited to genetic factors. Endogenous hormones would be considered a factor on the "nature" side.
Any serious study, of course, reveals it as a false dichotomy. After all, if you want to claim that gay people have a choice about their orientation, all that matters is whether it is deterministic. Deterministic because of an internal factor or an environmental effect early in development doesn't really make much difference for the moral debate, does it? If your orientation is determined when you are -1 months old or when you are 2 years old, it is still determined before you have any "choice" in the matter.
Where do ignoramuses like you come from?
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:07pm.
"You'd probably be surprised to know that your male parts aren't getermined by your genes"
The above is a flat-out falsehood.
"In actuality, it is merely the presence of a Y chromosome that makes a person male and its absence that makes a person female."
The reference goes on to say :
"The biological law that XX results in a female and XY results in a male is true not only in humans, but in all mammals."
You misunderstand me,
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:30pm.
You misunderstand me, probably because I was trying to be delicate and not use any terms that people might find too graphic. You are male or female because of your genes. Those genes directly determine your internal morphology.
My point was that external sexual characteristics, your genitalia as you probably most commonly think of them, are actually determined by hormones produced by your gonads. That was what I meant by your "male parts." Usually that system functions perfectly, and internal characteristcs match up with external characteristics match up with chromosomes. Sometimes it doesn't work perfectly.
My only point was that "non-genetic" does not mean "chosen." Your external genitalia were not determined by your genes, but that doesn't mean you chose them. The fact that orientation is not directly determined by genes does not mean that it is chosen.
Did you ever wake up to find
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:42pm.
Did you ever wake up to find you started a discussion you shouldn't have? Well I have..sorry 'bout that.
See, that's what I was trying
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:40pm.
See, that's what I was trying to avoid.
Sorry.
"You are male or female
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 3:33pm.
"You are male or female because of your genes."
"Your external genitalia were not determined by your genes"
The above statements are mutually exclusive. Why? :
Chromosomes are one and the same as genes since 100% of all genes are contained by chromosomes. In all mammals, chromosomes control gender. XY --> male. XX--> female. All mammals with XX karotype lacking female or possessing male organs are diseased. All mammals with XY karotype lacking male or possessing female organs are diseased. Any individual possessing external genitalia different than their karotype is diseased. Since karotype IS genes, external gentalia are determined by genes, at least in all undiseased mammals.
Such thinking as yours is the province of the irrrational.
Nl
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 3:52pm.
Ok, I've been down this road before but I'll try just one more time. When I was young there was a kid on the street who was clearly different. He was like a girl trapped in a male body. We tried playing sports with him but nothing worked..he was just wired wrong. In the end we all accepted him as a friend anyway. You know, he was a lousey baseball player cause he couldn't run very well!
And you contend this person
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 8:08pm.
And you contend this person was of karotype XY and did not have male genitalia?
Or are you just as confused as mamabear?
Well I'm generally confused
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 12:20pm.
Well I'm generally confused most of the time..which is why I logon here.. my priorities are all wrong.
Anyway, I don't know what karotype XY means..but this kid used the male locker room at school but like to play with dolls and cook..he was definately wired wrong.
I agree. You are very confused
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 2:16pm.
Do you have a dictionary or are they banned in Canada?
karotype
It means a particular genetic or chromosomal makeup.
Again, do you contend that this person was genetically male and did not have male organs? Or do you contend that his behavior, which you regarded as effeminate, stems from genetics?
If the latter, then you should congratulate yourself for accepting one of the base principles of eugenics.
Huh?
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 3:09pm.
Ok, for the last time already. Yes this kid had 'male' organs and he was and still is gay. (I've kept in touch with the family. Look I can't change what I've witnessed. If you want to paint me as some sort of eugenics monster..go ahead..at this point I really don't care.
Love and kisses - mandrake
If it looks, smells and
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 7:45pm.
If it looks, smells and tastes like a cassaba melon, it might BE a cassaba melon.
Anyone who contends that effeminate behavior in a male is genetically controlled is partaking of the eugenics pie whether they want to admit it or not.
The above statements are
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:47pm.
The above statements are mutually exclusive
You aren't making any sense. First you say that the statements are mutually exclusive, then you say that they aren't, but that someone whose external and internal morphology don't match up is "diseased." First of all, I think you mean "disordered." Second of all, of course it is a disorder!
My only point was that saying "if something isn't genetic than it's a choice" is stupid. Plenty of things which aren't genetic also aren't a choice. I'm not trying to claim that gay people have their gentalia mixed up, I'm simply giving you an example of why the insistence, primarily among people who want to discriminate against gay people, that biologically determined must mean genetic is ignorant and completely at odds with biological fact.
How difficult is this?
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 12:38am.
You claim human genitalia are simultaneously genetically and non-genetically controlled. This is obviously an impossibility.
I have clearly shown that except in cases of disease, that is abnormal development, all humans will be male or female according to their genetic karotype.
I'm claiming that internal
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 1:57pm.
I'm claiming that internal morphology is genetically controlled and external morphology is controlled by the endocrine system. That is completely possibly and any basic endocrinology textbook will tell you so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_determination_and_differentiation_%28hu...
I know we don't like wikipedia, but I don't know of any free online endocrinology textbooks.
again demonstrating yourself an ignoramus.
Submitted by NL207 on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 2:55pm.
The endocrine sysem of any organism, in the absence of a disease process or artificial pharmacological intervention is 100% controlled by genetics.
This leads us to the same conclusion. All mammals and therefore all humans who are not diseased are 100% gender determined by their chromosomes and their genitalia are therefore 100% controlled by their genetics as well, even those who are diseased.
All of the people you are discussing, who have abnormal genitalia, are classified as victims of disease processes by the medical community. They are "abnormal". They are lots of papers and textbooks on the web about these disorders. This is one of them.
My point is in no way
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 11:21pm.
My point is in no way diminished by the contention that people whose phenotypic sex does not match their genetic sex are "diseased."
You do get that, right?
Then you disagree with
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 11/24/2010 - 7:14pm.
Then you disagree with accepted science.
Q.E.D.
Seriously. You can't
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 6:30pm.
Seriously. You can't possibly understand the point you are arguing against, because that makes no sense.
The accepted science says
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 11/28/2010 - 10:04pm.
The accepted science says that sexual deviance is not the product of genetics.
You say otherwise. What is it I can't possibly understand?
What is it I can't possibly
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:04pm.
What is it I can't possibly understand?
My whole point is that genetics is not the only way in which biology determines your anatomy or behavior.
I take it back. Perhaps you understand my argument and are just choosing to pretend it doesn't exist because you don't like the implications!
so if you had a test to see
Submitted by red_dragon311 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:33am.
so if you had a test to see if your child had downs syndrom and that test came out positive you would not abort? So whats the big deal about abortion.....as I have always suspected it;s post-sex birth control instead of pre-sex birth control.
Even the Bible argees Psalm 109:8 "Let his days be few; and let another take office."
Ya see...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:48pm.
...Joy is a lib's lib. Another post here on NB is focused on her views of 'overpopulation' and 'breeders.' Hence, the jump to abortion. She is basically following a eugenicist line of thinking, yet she is too stupid to know what that means. If someone took the afternoon to explain it to her, she is such a ruckin fetard that she wouldn't understand what the problems with selective abortion and sterilization would be.
It's great that you would love your homosexual child if...if...if...
With the identification of a 'gay gene' it would be a hop, skip, and a jump to the practice of testing for 'gayness' and taking all the guesswork out of having kids. I've seen my wife through two pregnancies, and I can tell you that the pre-natal screening for all kinds of outcomes is exhaustive--they can tell so much about the baby. Thank God nothing came up, but the unspoken agreement was that we would accept whatever happened. Someone on later post mentioned Downs Syndrome--more and more peopla are choosing to terminate than bringing the fetus to term. Not so 25 years ago, but today, fairly common. While these circumstances provoke an unavoidable situation of choosing between two options, neither of which are ideal, there are also many would be parents who are aborting their children for much less reason, like gender. How many self-absorbed, vain parents out there would decide that, even though they don't see anything wrong with being gay, having a gay kid just isn't for them? So you see, if they are indeed 'born that way' than pro-choice advocates become a threat to the gay segment of society.
Jim
Submitted by Samshile on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:14pm.
It is not an arguement, it is science. It may be a choice for some. However, Your born homosexual. Every 6,000 people have mixed genitalia. Having a small penis is not a choice for most men. Partial even less. Some men have many more female genes than others and vise versa.
The view needs to have Muslims on and challenge them with ther anti women and homosexual views. Everyone judges. The trick is too judge wisely.
"Science," right...
Submitted by C-townGiant on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 11:16pm.
Just like that good old "global warming" story, right Sam?
It is a choice for all. And by making excuses for those that choose to be gay/pedophiles/zoophiliacs/necrophiliacs/coprophiliacs/urophiliacs and any other sexual perverts I may have inadvertently forgotten, you only open the door to them someday being "understood...after all, they were born that way."
Sure Whoopi, show me exactly
Submitted by scarebear83 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:11pm.
Sure Whoopi, show me exactly where God said "you don't need to hear what anybody else said," cause I think I do remember a part that says, "How can they hear without a preacher?" That would be found in Romans 10. Also about judging, Christ also told us about a righteous judgment, not that we couldn't. Matthew 7:1-5 talks about hypocritical judging.
excellent points. i also
Submitted by sometimesright on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:07pm.
excellent points. i also recall Christ putting his words into action when he whooped those money changers who were exploiting his people in the very temple believers came to worship in. these money changers prided themselves in their "piety", firmly convinced they were right. Jesus taught those hypocrites a valueable lesson. sorry, don't mean to preach but these ladies are very mistaken if they think for a minute Christ loved the sin too. would whoopie and joy call that "bullying" too?
People vs actions
Submitted by GW on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:26pm.
They (Joy and Whoopi) don't seem to recognize the difference between judging actions and judging people. In fact, they themselves are judging. They are judging that the attitude that homosexual actions is a wrong attitude.
They probably also make the jump from judging the attitude as wrong to judging people with that attitude as bad people. I find that ironic.
God Bless Joel Osteen -- he
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:31pm.
God Bless Joel Osteen -- he sure does try.
Wrong, Whoopi
Submitted by Anniee451 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:38pm.
Figures she'd get it wrong. She ought to take a deeper look into the Pauline epistles - we are absolutely commanded to make righteous judgments, within the context of the church. We can not tell the world how to live because they *are* the world and are steeped in sin unless they get saved, but within the church we are supposed to make righteous judgments according to scripture. So while I wouldn't complain about a gay atheist being openly gay (sin is sin is sin is sin - it's all the same; if you aren't saved, you aren't saved) I would have a LOT to say about a so-called Christian leader who declares himself gay, or an active drunk, or an active adulterer, or whatever else. And rightfully so.
With a leader *especially* it would be a very strong judgment; with a struggling church member who is not a leader, a more gentle approach might be best at first. And of course we are to forgive 70 times 7 ***IF*** the person repents.
And what is Behar, a scientist now? How does she know people are **born** that way or if it has to do with choice? Has she never heard of lesbian separatists? (Political lesbians who would normally have been straight but became indoctrinated with radical feminism and reject all things male.) And who is born with sex on the brain anyway? Babies don't have a sense of gender identity or sexuality for heaven's sake.
Can someone really
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:22pm.
"repent" 490 times in one day?! The Lord says "as we forgive our trespassers", without a hint that only if the those people who trespass against us repent.
I like what you said about the Church vs. the world, though.
70 times 7
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:46pm.
See Matthew 18:21-22
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
So it isn't about how many times someone repents but how many times we forgive them their trespasses against us.
I think you're choosing a more adversarial tone than
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 7:04pm.
you need.
But I think you're missing something the "oft" in the KJV is closest too "my brother sin against me". The KJV captures it in a sort of present continuing tense, but we don't use that tense much any more. It's like the subjunctive case, not many people say "If my brother sin against me" and "if my brother sins against me" is quite unobjectionable these days. So most people do not know that "sin" is more than first-person singular and plural form of the present tense.
NASB has it like so : "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?" So, the translators of the NASB seem to have seen the same thing." Besides, posakis (the Greek for "how oft(en)") indicates not number, but frequency. Besides if you forgive somebody 490 times for one act that they have already repented of and asked forgiveness for, in what way can you have been said to truly forgive them the first time? So we either cheapen repentence or forgiveness.
But the complete act of occurance is sin and forgiveness, that is what is given a frequency. And to punctuate that, in both versions the often is closest to the sin not forgiveness. So we are not talking simply about the number of times you strive to get over yourself--although that would be a good message too.
Also to explain it, Jesus tells the parable of the Unforgiving Servant. "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. "(23) Neither servant can "repent" any more earnestly than by continuing to intend repayment. The second servant is in no position to plead anything but that the first servant continue to trust him.
Jesus' point is that God has forgiven us so great a debt that our petty squabbles about who hurt who should be considered nothing. It's not about repentence. Because Jesus explains it in a parable containing nothing but grace and mercy. Nobody did anything or completed anything to get back in good standing--they just expressed their earnestness to continue in the grace of the other person.
I wish believers would stop treating Jesus and Paul like they were addle-brains who swing wildly from topic to topic every couple of sentences. Paul takes pages to get to a point sometimes, if you have the discipline to follow the train of thought.
It's not a case to stand your brother up to some standard of repentence or amends that you think they need to qualify under. It's a case for forgiving trespasses as the Lord has forgiven everything you will ever do.
We need to boycott The View.
Submitted by semby on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:40pm.
We need to boycott The View. Joy's behavior, and not just this segment, but a whole host of others, is completely unacceptable behavior. We have to stop supporting idiots like these. She's only on TV because another idiot hired her. She's nobody.
Boycott?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:06pm.
I'm a man. I don't watch The View.......or Ofrah.
almost~~
Submitted by Kat Outta the Bag on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:38pm.
I'm a woman and I don't watch them either. Thanks be to God for giving me a brain of my own to use.
And she walked out on O'Reilly....WHY????
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:50pm.
Is this the same Joy that, a few weeks ago, walked out on Bill O'Reilly because he connected Islam with the 9/11 attacks???
She doesn't believe that anything in the Koran led Muslims to kill "infidels."
But what's in the BIBLE is to blame for gays being bullied.
<sound of duct tape ripping off roll>
Did he ever get a word in edgewise?
Submitted by Calypso Jones on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:54pm.
It doesn't seem like he did from what little was in the video. But if that was the sum total of his words then he missed a great opportunity. of course with this loud mouth bunch that might be debatable. Still. I'm rather disappointed.
they were BULLYING him so he
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:23pm.
they were BULLYING him so he couldn't get a word in edgewise
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Is there a conflict?
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:57pm.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I-I have a question, because I really believe that God said very clearly "Noone else can judge you, but Me. If you have an issue, if something's going on, you don't need to hear what anybody else says. Come to Me and I will forgive you."
I'm not a Christian, so I'm not in a position to speak for Christians here. But it would appear to me that nothing in Goldberg's comment conflicts with what Osteen preaches. I've seen parts of Osteens Sunday morning program and he appears to be a very positive thinker.
From what I was taught in my youth, the pastor merely teaches the Biblical standards by which mortals can expect to be judged by God. Unless Goldberg is saying that pasters don't have a mandate to preach, I don't see where the issue is.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Yes, there's a massive conflict.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:02pm.
While Whoopi and Joel don't particularly collide, Whoopi and God do.
The standard by which one is judged is the standard of Jesus Christ, and whether or not one has a salvific relationship with Him.
Indeed, Osteen preaches positive thinking, the notion that one can have one's "Best Life Now." Frankly, for those of us who are Christians, the best portion of our lives will be that portion when we see Jesus face to face, when we know as we are known, and when we will enjoy God's presence throughout eternity. As the old hymn goes, "When we've been there ten thousand years, bright shining as the sun, we've no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun."
--Mike
Olsteen preaches a prosperity
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:05pm.
Olsteen preaches a prosperity gospel, he is not very Biblical. He is one of those false prophets the Bible warns us about.
Amen!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:07pm.
Dan, Amen to that!
To be honest, something about
Submitted by Kat Outta the Bag on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:42pm.
To be honest, something about him has always creeped me out. I can't decide if it's the constant freaky smile or the fact that be blinks way too much. But between him and the screaming mimis of The Spew, I'm going to have to root for him.
Well, according to Whoopi's
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:22pm.
Well, according to Whoopi's interpretation, no one can find fault with what anyone else does, because only God can judge.
Yet there is Whoopi sitting there, big as life, finding fault with Osteen.
But liberals never carry their "thoughts" to the logical conclusion.
It works out better for them that way.
Good point
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:37pm.
Maybe she's not planning on meeting her Maker. :-)
Promiscuity and the bible
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:57pm.
Hey Joy Bonehead, does saying the Bible is against promiscuity cause the promiscuous to be bullied?
I have no overwhelming love for Osteen...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 5:57pm.
...but who in the world thought it was a good idea for him to appear on The Skew?
Talk about your bad advice. He's not built of stern enough stuff to handle even Joy, much less Barbara.
"Barbara, if that pastor prefers his sin to following Jesus Christ, then he should step down from his pastorate because he was never a Christian in the first place, much less someone called to a pastorate."
"Joy, you couldn't be more wrong, and I'm sorry you've been given such bad information. Homosexuality, just as with any other sin, is indeed a choice. Different people may have different predilections, different problem areas in their individual lives, but that still does not justify going against God's clear instructions for living, found in the pages of the Bible."
Osteen couldn't say those things, unfortunately, because he's about accommodating rather than about God and His Word. He even regrets not being able to fix Scripture, lamenting that it's something "we can't necessarily change."
And poor Whoopi. Would that Joel could've looked at her, looked at all of them, and said "Yes, Whoopi, God forgives. God says what the sins are, too, and He forgives sinners like you and like me--when we ask for that forgiveness. The problem comes when people think they can live their lives any way they please, and that God is somehow obligated to forgive them. He is not. Oh, and by the way, that forgiveness is tied to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, and faith in Him alone. Would any of you ladies like to pray with me, be forgiven of your sins, and be saved by Him today?"
Osteen had a great chance, but even The Skew was beyond his pay grade.
--Mike
No only that....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:56pm.
Not only does God forgive, but he also judges and punishes.
LESS JOY PLEASE!
Submitted by cobokat on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:06pm.
I think it would be in the best interest of every good conservative person to stay off The View, MSNBC and any other liberal network shows. It really does no good since no one watches them anyway.
Why
Submitted by grammajane on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 6:47pm.
Why would anyone who has their own opinion go on this stupid show?? No matter what is said, those radical lib women will argue with anyone who doesn't agree with them. Their agenda in life is to make everyone look as stupid as they are , daily. They are washed up actors, comedians, journalists who for some reason, think people listen and believe anything that comes from their flapping jaws. Their arrogance will soon end the show....I hope!!
whoopi and joy just can't
Submitted by sometimesright on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:15pm.
whoopi and joy just can't accept any view except their own. i get so tired of hearing them "debate". they talk over you while their syncophants applaud, which just fuels their bravado. who cares if the rest of the world outside their little studio believe differently. the Bible is VERY clear regarding homosexuality. if either of these blowhards took the time to read the Bible and study the life of Christ they'd know that he spent time with the prostitute and tax-collector. he NEVER approved of or accepted/tolerated their actions. he loved the sinner above all else but NEVER approved of the sin. typical liberals...emotion over substance.
Yes, Joy, homosexuality is a
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:25pm.
Yes, Joy, homosexuality is a choice. Correction: homosexuality can be a choice, and here's the perfect example: men like smart or attactive women. Since you are neither you cannot have the pleasure of a man. That leaves nothing for you but other equally stupid ugly women with obnoxious voices.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
what is the big deal with homosexuality?
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:33pm.
Joy is an idiot. She can't even let the man finish his sentence. There is nothing wrong with a religion being against homosexuality. There are two sides to this. Libs want to make people change laws and allow homosexual marriage and think they are entitled because they are special, and social conservatives want society to frown upon homosexuality and tell them how wrong they are.
As long as they are not asking us to change laws, I am fine with them and their lifestyle as long as they don't expect special treatment. People that want to make sodomy laws are way out of touch.
Brain trust
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:43pm.
Joy Behar lecturing Joel Osteen on sin. Well, Osteen isnt such a theological brain trust anyway. I guess those two are soul mates by now. Osteen made a fool of himself on Larry King a few years ago. And Osteen is no more of a preacher/pastor than my basset hound. He's a name it and claim it motiviational speaker along the lines of Rober Schuller. I'd like to see Behar take on a real Christian apologist like Norm Geisler or Ron Rhodes.
Don't Behar and Whoopi
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 7:48pm.
Don't Behar and Whoopi constantly preach to us how Liberalism is the way to go?
so, I am confused, why can't Christians preach that the Bible is the way to go?
As always, in the mind of Liberals some are more equal than others.
Liberals=hypocrites
and if we are going to talk about bullies, I encourage these two airheads to head to their local State university and see how professors, Liberal students bully Christian students who stand up to the Liberal radicalism that is running amock in our colleges today.
getting bullied is not something that only happens to homosexuals, it happens to all kinds of people, with all types of beliefs, from all types of backgrounds.
In fact, Whoopi and Behar love bullying, especially Behar, any and all Conservatives.
He shoulda knocked her down
Submitted by the struggler on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:04pm.
He shoulda knocked her down and stole her milk money.
My biology tells me I should
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:22pm.
My biology tells me I should be able to take what someone else has if I want it. And when I get mad at my kids, I should just whack 'em.
But being an adult human being I rise above my biology.
There is nothing new about
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:31pm.
There is nothing new about bullying. What is new is the proliferation of mama's boys, and girls, in our culture.
Behar would rather walk off
Submitted by Kat Outta the Bag on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:35pm.
Behar would rather walk off or verbally attack rather than have a healthy debate. She's a sad, bitter old hag.
As a pastor myself. I have
Submitted by okie-pastor on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:45pm.
As a pastor myself. I have confronted this issue several times. I refer people to read Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10. And read the testimony of Dennis Jernigan a man who was molested several times by (ironically) bishops from different catholic churches and later said that is when he believed he must be gay. Later he surrendered his life to god and forsaken the homosexual lifestyle and is happily married with many children.The View = THE HEN HOUSE!
Submitted by gruyere cheese on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 8:53pm.
Regardless of our differences of opinion, Joy owed Joel some respect as a guest of their show. As usual, she talks down to anyone who disagrees with her beliefs -- whatever they are.
For the life of me I cannot understand why someone like this sorry excuse for a woman (if she is one) is part of a show on TV.
We call people like Joy and her partners in crime with the exception of Elizabeth "GALLINAS" in Spanish, or Chickens in English:
Translation: Gallinas (Chickens); they make a lot of noise, they shit everywhere and they don't do anything.
I'd say everyone on The View,
Submitted by cc1975 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:50pm.
I'd say everyone on The View, including the Pastor, are interpreting the Bible to fit their own agenda. Problems with homosexuality was a matter of Jewish law, as was much of the Old Testament, and was more of health issue, rather than "God's Word". They had to maintain order and cleanliness for the primitive times they were in. They no longer apply in our modern society. The fundamental ideas would still apply of course, in both Judaism and Christianity, but the little things, such as not touching your wife when she's on her menstrual cycle, or even sitting in the same chair she's sat in, were simply rules put in place to avoid possible infection. Many of the Old Testament claims on how one should live have everything to do with cleanliness, and I'm not referring to cleanliness of the soul! Where do you think circumcision came from?
People shouldn't take the Biblical "rule" against homosexuality so literally today. There's an excellent talk given on the Ted.com site. It's called, "My Year of Living Biblically". For one year this man followed all the rules of the Bible as literally as he could (and legally). Unless you're willing to live like this this man did, taking the ENTIRE Old Testament to heart as God's wishes, you have no room to judge the minor mention of homosexuality.
If you break the menstrual rule you're just as "guilty" as gays/lesbians according to the Old Testament.
I suggest you read the Bible
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:58pm.
I suggest you read the Bible itself and pray a bunch, because you are lost as they come. The scriptures always apply. You are teh one who interpreting and without reading the source. If you dont repent then one day you will be judged and you will get justice.
So, what's your agenda, then?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 4:18am.
And do you understand that the New Testament teaches homosexuality is a sin, just as the Old Testament does?
Two Testaments, one Bible, and one consistent message.
--Mike
Actually, no. That's a
Submitted by cc1975 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:22am.
Actually, no. That's a popular misconception mostly because of poor translations. The New Testament says nothing about gays or lesbians as being judged by God. The absolute closest mention in the New Testament is in Romans, as Paul criticizes multiple sexual behaviors, but it is not deemed sinful. Paul criticizes masturbation in an earlier passage, children being disobedient to their parents, those who debate, and even those who seek the feeling of pride. None are ranked and certainly none of these should result in an afterlife in Hell.
You, whoever you are, are in error.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:46am.
Cite a "poor translation," or abandon the tactic. Romans 1, in and of itself, is more than clear on the subject of sexual deviancy being sinful, and of those who embrace such sins being abandoned to them.
The problem with any type of sin is that, when it replaces God as the defining center of one's life, such sin separates the sinner from God by the sinner's own choice. And yes, that includes sexual sin.
--Mike
We're both referring to
Submitted by cc1975 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 2:38pm.
We're both referring to Romans, and it's only one teeny-tiny section of the whole thing. Apparently no one has a problem with the rest of Romans 1. It can't be interpreted as a sin if the rest of Paul's words are not also sinful.
dude the New Testiment
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:28pm.
dude the New Testiment supercedes the religous rites of the Old Testiment - the rites are gone but what is sinful remains sinful - its just that now Jesus takes the punishment for you...
homosexuality is also forbidden in Corinthians...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Oh, well, if it's only a "teeny-tiny" part of the Bible...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:40pm.
...then we can ignore it? Is that your worldview?
There is no "interpretation" required. The Bible as a whole addresses a variety of sins, sexual sins among them, and homosexuality one of those.
--Mike
And I belive it was Paul said
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:46pm.
And I belive it was Paul said that the sexual impure will not be welcome in heaven. Now that could mean homosexuals. But, that may be just me.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Interesting
Submitted by GW on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:54am.
cc, you are making some bold claims. I offer this question to better understand your point of view.
How would you describe your understanding of a comprehensive Biblical sexual ethic?
I'm mostly satisfied with our
Submitted by cc1975 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 2:29pm.
I'm mostly satisfied with our current laws. They're based on violence, age, lack of consent, etc. I think prohibiting any type of abusive, forceful sexual behavior is in line with the basic principles from the Bible. We should not harm others. It was written at such a different time - the lifespan was short, children got married, slavery was common, etc. This type of environment doesn't exist anymore.... at least not in America. lol
then we should not ban
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:40pm.
then we should not ban incestous marriage between a related man and woman? or polygamy?
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Thanks
Submitted by GW on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 3:46pm.
Thanks for the reply, cc. But I think you answered a different question from the one I asked. Instead of asking what you thought would be a good sexual ethic, which you answered very well, I asked you what you thought the Bible said was a good sexual ethic (which you may not agree with).
Sorry for any confusion.
You show a shocking
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 2:33pm.
lack of understanding with regard to both Christianity and the Bible."Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Goodness! Okay, a reply
Submitted by cc1975 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:33pm.
Goodness! Okay, a reply to all, and this is it. My main points:
Okay I'm done now. :)
So many herrings, so little time.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:11pm.
1) Homosexuality is a sin because God says it's a sin. In both Testaments. Just like other forms of sexual immorality, including adultery and fornication.
2) Nowhere in the Christian faith is it taught, implied, or suggested that killing children for misbehaving or killing relatives for leaving the faith is something a believer ought to be doing. As for other sins somehow justifying homosexuality, they do not. Sin is sin is sin--the question is whether or not some sins deserve their own lobbying group.
3) Where the Bible is to be taken literally, we must. Where people, such as you, seek to defame Christians and Christianity by misrepresenting what the Bible says, we must call you on your nonsense.
4) As a non-Christian, you are in no position to suggest what must, or what must not, be taken literally in the pages of the Bible.
Yes, you're done. You were done before you even got started.
--Mike
Uh, I AM Christian, and
Submitted by cc1975 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:07pm.
Uh, I AM Christian, and you clearly haven't read the Bible. It sounds like you're only going by the words of a priest/pastor, rather than studying and researching yourself.
Wow cc, what a comeback.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:14pm.
Wow cc, what a comeback. What wit, what knowledge, what a load of nothing.
Uh, really?
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:42am.
You're supposedly a Christian? Upon what do you base that statement, since from your writings you find the Bible to be wholly untrustworthy? Your answer will be illuminating.
And if I may, not only have I been a Christian for over forty years, I am a licensed Southern Baptist minister. "Sounds like" you might want to rethink that last bit of attempted character assassination.
--Mike
I am a licensed Southern
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 4:04am.
I am a licensed Southern Baptist minister
There in lies the problem Mike, everyone knows them rascally Southern Baptists just cant be trusted. I mean they purged their ranks of members who just had different beliefs and their Seminary professors were made to sign statements that actually had creeds and beliefs. Ohhh what is the world coming to.
Imagine them Southern Baptists wanting to make sure they get the real word of God as in the Bible and not some PC crap.
...both the Old and the New say homosexuality is wrong
Submitted by vrwc13 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:30am.
“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”
Proverbs 30:5-6
The New International Version
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
How liberals use words to control the argument ...
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Wed, 11/17/2010 - 10:43pm.
The liberal argument is not really against bullying. It is simply about promoting a liberal ideology and silencing those voices, beliefs and teachings with which they don't agree. People do not bully based on what they're taught in Sunday school anyway. They bully because they are mean, intolerant bullies, and most intolerance and most bullies these days come from the left. That said, who can say they have never been bullied in their lives. Growing up is learning to deal with bullies, and for some of us, the battle never ends.
Who Cares What Behar Says?
Submitted by DaMama on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:08am.
Behar knows nothing of the Bible, so therefore she has no right to say anything about it. She is an imbecile when it comes to anything Christian.
Goldberg isn't much better. Funny how she mentioned forgiveness. To be forgiven, you must be in sin. Homosexuality, just like any other sexual sin such as adultery, pedophilia, fornication (sex before marriage), beastialty, etc., is wrong.
People are NOT born homosexual. Of course there is the rare birth defect that can happen with chromosomes and problems with genitalia, but they are so few and far between, it doesn't figure into the equation. The fact is that people make the choice to act out and give in to their passions. I know many homosexuals who are Christians who are celibate because they know that their homosexual feelings are wrong and to act on it would be an abomination before God. It is no different than being married and a husband lusting after the woman down the street. You must learn to exercise self control or you will destroy your life by giving into a short time of gratification.
What would Jesus do? Just like He did to the woman caught in adultery and brought to him by the Pharisees. Jesus picked up a stick and began writing in the sand while these men picked up rocks to stone the woman. No one knows what Jesus wrote, but there are many speculations. I think He was writing the sins of the individual men for all to see. They dropped their rocks one by one and left. Jesus asked the woman "where are your accusers?". She replied "they are gone". Jesus said "Neither do I condemn you. *here's the kicker* Go and SIN NO MORE". He didn't "judge". He said do not repeat that sin ever again. The same holds true for all of us, whether the sin is homosexuality, adultery, gossip. extortion, gluttony, drunkenness, or whatever.
Everybody is born with
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:11am.
Everybody is born with predispositions to sin. The question is, do we let them control us or do we learn to control them?
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonIf I was one of ten men left on Earth
Submitted by OxyCon on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:12am.
...and Joyless Biatch-ar was the only woman left, I'd become a homosexual...so in that regard, homosexuality is a choice.
As close to a response as I get to a Behar string....
Submitted by Cowboy on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 4:54am.
Joy who?
The Bible Says?
Submitted by Gazinya on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:30am.
God, the God of the Bible, speaks to His creation through the Bible. The Bible is a book but it contains, to the believer, the spoken words of God. I could burn a million Bibles and it would not change the Word of God. The Bible is like a megaphone. We don't say, 'the megaphone says..such and such.' The person using the megaphone is say...such and such. We don't put a car in jail if it hits a pedestrian, we put the driver of the car in jail, sometimes. So it is not the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin, it is God saying this through the Bible.
There is a desire in mans' sinful nature to rationalize crticism but when God says 'You must trust in Me and not in other gods', well that is just a little over the top. So my question is 'what does it matter to the world of non-believers, what we believe?' Jesus said that we should not judge those outside of His Body. That those who have rejected His teaching are condemned already. What is that to people who don't believe? I don't, for a second, believe that the god of the koran exists. I don't want a god that promises me 'good sex' if I just act like a wild beast. Jesus says that He goes to prepare a place for those who 'follow My teachings'. If you don't follow His teachings then don't get all pissy if you are not invited to His heaven.
The Word of God does not incite people to sin, It exposes the sin that is already in the people.
"here come da judge!"
Submitted by Patriot II on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:11am.
I would not want to be behar on judgement day.....she can try to open her big mouth on that day and tell the Almighty God of creation....his book is wrong!!! Her arrogance is stifling!!!
Her arrogance.....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 1:51pm.
is exceded only by her ignorance.
No one was preaching on that show..
Submitted by sunergeos on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 2:17pm.
Don't mistake what Behar was doing as "preaching" or "correcting" scriptures - that's absurd. She was vomiting up all the crap that she has swallowed over the years on the sugject. It's the "feel sorry for me I don't have a choice" arjument. In other words, they were yelling at the preacher that God should not hold them responsible for their beliefs. Besides, the Bible teaches us to judge things wisely. We are taught to observe people's behavoir (their fruit) and know what they stand for. Call it fruit inspection - pun intended if you like, but they err not knowing the scriptures.
It never ceases to amaze me
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 2:39pm.
how some people react to God. He reaches out His hand of salvation, and they smack it away and shake their fists at Him, certain of their own superiority and virtue. "I'm OK; You're OK" is simply not sound theology."Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
But what does God say about it?
Submitted by Expert Expat on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:38pm.
I like what Gazinya said in #93. And we're all getting tied up in offering our own opinions about the topic, then trying to defend our ideas. It doesn't matter what I think about homosexuality; it only matters what God thinks about that or any other subject. In the Old Testament, God gave Moses adn the Israelis many laws of conduct, among them:
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
and
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
(and, yes, there were other laws that don't make sense to us today, but which God had reasons for giving to this family of travelers.)
In the New Testament, Jesus apparently never comments directly on homosexuality. In several cases, He tells someone who is either caught in the act of sinning, or who admits to being a sinner (sinner = one who breaks God's Laws), "Go and sin no more."
Paul wrote to the Roman Christians:
Romans 1: 24-27
"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
These are some of the things written in the Bible about homosexuality. God does say much the same thing directly about divorce and pre-marital sex. His directions to His creation seem to be, obey my rules, since I made you, and be kind to each other. Some see that as leaving the topic open for interpretation, while others see it as clear and closed. Both sides too often fall back to their own emotional opinions, rather than simply (God does try to make things simple for us!) following His directions.
fact is that about 50% of
Submitted by Old Europe on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 7:39pm.
fact is that about 50% of so-called gays were sexually abused, among lesbians roughly 80%! Others were called in school "fags" because they seemed wimpy in ph. ed. until they believed it themselves. Or kids grow up without a father and yearn for that father in another man. It is a choice and it can be cured!
Bet you're never gonna see a testimony like the one below of a man who overcame his gay addiction by finding the root cause and by giving his life to Jesus.
ihttp://www.xpmedia.com/B9xXYf2GJpNi
Either you give up gayness or you have a lower life expactation than a smoker.
"Fact is that about 50% of
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 6:36pm.
"Fact is that about 50% of so-called gays were sexually abused, among lesbians roughly 80%!"
But actually, that's not true, is it?
"It is a choice and it can be cured!" Nope. Actually, it's not even a diagnosis any more.
While I don't know about those statistics...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 9:54pm.
...I do know that the only reason "it's "not even a diagnosis any more" is because of political lobbying, rather than because of any science.
Consequently, I wouldn't wave that flag too wildly.
--Mike
How could anybody deny that
Submitted by Old Europe on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 1:44am.
How could anybody deny that sexual or emotional abuse could lead to a confused sexuality? Denying that would equal denying the disastrous effects of sexual abuse.
Old Europe*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 4:10pm.
You caught the basis of this argument. Argue genetics, psychological and environmental, as well as social aspects of homosexuality are all designed to present homosexuality as "normal". Then the next step is to demand acceptance.
These same arguments are being used regarding child sexual abuse. Those that deny sexually abused children suffer trauma that leads to sexual identity confusion have another agenda. They do not accept 30%,50%, even 80% as acceptable valid statistics. The reason is to deny any trauma or consequences to child sexual abuse so that sexual activity with children will also one day be "normal" and demand for acceptance of pedophilia.One victim of child sexual abuse is enough statistical proof to me to validate the abnormality of that crime.
Careful of those who wish to use science to distort values and morals to demand acceptance for behavior detrimental to that society.
C2
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 4:19pm.
In addition to using the methods you describe to demand acceptance, the people pushing these issues also use charges of bigotry and intolerance to turn any disagreement back on the person whose opinions differ from them. The obvious example is calling someone who disagrees with the gay agenda "homophobic" in attempt to switch the debate from the issues to having to defend oneself against charges against their character.
Dont forget the big one 26*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 4:32pm.
If you dont believe the SCIENCE then you are also ignorant, uneducated added to the bigotry and intolerant. Lets assess, for a short white conservative gray haired old lady I have also been called..ignorant, uneducated, racist, homophobic, religious zealot, extremist, tea bagger(whateverthatis), intolerant, Islamaphobic, threatening(trolls) NAZI,fear monger, and the list goes on. At this stage of my life I know exactly who and what I am and name calling bothers me none. In fact my favorite of all is GRANDMA!
I do not deny that. But
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 12:25pm.
I do not deny that. But whence come your 50 percent and 80 percent statistics?
I may be banned for this graphic comment...
Submitted by m4ster chief on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:18pm.
...but...I've read here about science, genetics, the Holy Scriptures, God's will, etc. I think in more basic terms (but not ALL the time.)
The male reproductive organ (now referred to in public as "my junk,") was not designed to be introduced into the human solid waste chute in the name of fun and/or entertainment. I could no more do that than I could eat out of my toilet. Sorry, it's just the way I feel. And I suspect millions of people think like me but are too PC to say so.
I suppose I'm what they call "homophobic"...so sue me. God made me this way, so I'm normal.
I empathize: anal sex has no
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 11/26/2010 - 4:23am.
I empathize: anal sex has no appeal for me either. But as long as the back door boys stay away from me and my loved ones, I care not where they put their junk.