Homer Kids

[Cpt X, FencrExtraordinare]

My son is going to take after me, he is gonna be ravishing women left and right.

I ravished RL's mom.

[ReverseLunge]

I ravished RL's mom.

Dad, is that you?!?

[Cpt X, FencrExtraordinare]

Who's your daddy?

[Maester]

Gay people are fun to watch on tv.

[lochinvar]

Whatever as long as the homers don't try to recruit young children.

So, it would be okay for them to recruit older children? I'm confused...

[ReverseLunge]

So, it would be okay for them to recruit older children? I'm confused...

The ones above 18.

[Zilverzmurfen]

I have to agree with RL on this issue, not only is it wrong it's also against nature. Homersexual people made the chocie to be gay and it's totally disgusting.

Dear Josephine, I think when you become a little older you will realise that there are far worse things going on in the world than two people being in love with each other.

Also, I take it you made a conscious choice about your heterosexuality..?

[KD5MDK]

RL is right and it's against nature because God didn't make animals or humans that way, as one of my friends like to say, "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

Which is a best a decent explanation of why there are women in the world.

Personally, I've always assumed that since Adam and Eve's kids were the only humans on the planet at that point, and we'll presume they weren't making families with their siblings, that's how all the primate DNA made it into our systems.

[Josephine25]

I pity you.

You know most people do, but it really doesn't bother me. "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will enter the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

[keropie]

You know most people do, but it really doesn't bother me. "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will enter the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

I love the way things like this but such stress on the difference between male and female. Clearly female prostitution is ok, because we all know, women are the weaker, dumber, and less moral sex. I mean, is there any other possible explanation? Well, perhaps that whoever wrote the passage in question (which I'm sure was written in English to start with) had a hard enough time getting any that he needed female prostitutes to be allowed.

And let's face it, the person who tries to use the entire bible as their guide to life is going to have to have some hundreds of personalities to deal with all the conflicting information.

The bible is what it is, a translation of translations of writings of many people trying to explain the will of what they feel to be the Divine Will. Maybe the original writers of some parts of it were indeed divinely inspired, but to accept the divine inspiration of the translators and the editors who have touched in since and thereby to accept the copy on your nightstand as holy writ is beyond me.

'God' will know his own, as will Jesus, if it comes to that. Our laws in this country cannot attempt to enforce this, or any other, religous morality. In my heart, do I think homosexual people should be allowed to adopt? It's irrelevent, but yes I do. The relevent question is can I find any legal rationale to exclude all homosexuals from adopting, which I cannot, for the simple reason there is none. Should all hetereosexual people be allowed to adopt? Clearly not. Nor should all homosexuals, but there are many who would make fine parents.


Oh, and I dunno that I'd take RL too seriously... about this or anything, for that matter.

[Josephine25]

"You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God." 1 Cor. 6:20

[bmcfencer]

"You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God." 1 Cor. 6:20

I'm confused. Does this mean someone is paying you to be homophobic and believe in a hateful deity?

[Inquartata]

The original Greek of Paul has been translated in other ways, you know, Jo. The King James version, for instance, does not translate arsenokoitai as "homosexuals". In fact, it's not actually a translation at all, since there is not even a word for "male homosexuals" in the common Greek of Paul's time. Rather it's an assumption...

Meanwhile, is it not curious that the Bible doesn't specifically say that the people of Sodom were condemned for what we all suppose they were condemned for? One would think that if there were one passage in which homosexuality were going to be inveighed against, it would be one involving Sodom...

[sandworm]

cant we all just get along? *emo cry* hahha jk. seriously no ones opinion is going to be changed in this forum....it can only be settled onthe strip. haha, ok no.

[bmcfencer]

The original Greek of Paul has been translated in other ways, you know, Jo. The King James version, for instance, does not translate arsenokoitai as "homosexuals". In fact, it's not actually a translation at all, since there is not even a word for "male homosexuals" in the common Greek of Paul's time. Rather it's an assumption...

Meanwhile, is it not curious that the Bible doesn't specifically say that the people of Sodom were condemned for what we all suppose they were condemned for? One would think that if there were one passage in which homosexuality were going to be inveighed against, it would be one involving Sodom...

Isn't Sodom condemned for male rape?

[Inquartata]

Not insofar as I've been able to ascertain. There's much talk of sinning and wickedness, but the sort is never expressly mentioned.

Albeit the painstaking analysis of scripture is not exactly my metiér, so I may be wrong...

[lochinvar]

Isn't Sodom condemned for male rape?

A common assertion, but by no means decisively supported by scripture.

In Genesis 13:13 the men of Sodom are described as "...wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."

And again in Genesis 18:20-21:

"20: And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21: I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."

The passages most often cited to support the "male rape" case for destruction is Genesis 19: 4-9, which is the story of how the men of Sodom surrounded Lot's house and demanded he bring out the strangers he was sheltering (the angels of the Lord) so that they could "know" them. All of the men attempting to break into the house are subsequently struck blind.

The punishment, according to some scholars, was retribution for the sin of male rape; it has also, however, been interpreted by other scholars as a punishment for violating the obligations of hospitality, a sacred duty among the Israelites and still among the desert dwellers of that region.

So, Sodom was destroyed for wickedness, but that the wickedness in question was homosexuality or male rape is merely an inference from this one story. It is never actually explicitly stated the type of wickedness for which the cities were destroyed.

[Josephine25]

I'm confused. Does this mean someone is paying you to be homophobic and believe in a hateful deity?

Hateful, Moi?

[bmcfencer]

Hateful, Moi?

homophobia = the fear/hatred of homosexuals, so yes, though I hate to call anyone such a thing, I do find you to be so.

[Feltan]

I don't have anything against gay people, but I do confess I don't understand the attraction they find.

As a guy, I have no idea how one guy looks at another guy's hairy ass and says, "I love you." It is enough to make me wretch just thinking about it.

Adoption?

Sure. When you consider the number of kids in foster homes, the number of special needs kids.....the tragedy of their condition....I have no problem with gays adopting. There could be reasonable arguments made about the wisdom of bringing up kids in a gay home, but those arguments would pale in comparison to the conditions and lack of stability so many kids face every day.

Regards,
Feltan

P.S. I think some people have got RL pegged.....I am guessing he is a cigar smoker in secret.