jesusjnr:
Yeah you're right!

For however you choose to look at it, the homosexuals depend on those who are not homosexual not to go extinct. Fact!

Hence if the homosexuals killed off all those who are not homosexuals, the homosexuals would never have any chance of having any other homosexuals if they choose to remain homosexuals.

But those who aren't homosexuals don't need the homosexuals, for they would be able to continue to procreate and produce future generations without the help of homosexuals who can't produce anything.

So even from the practical, biological perspectives, the homosexual need those who aren't homosexuals, otherwise they'd go extinct. Fact!

You said "they need homophobic people" not "they need heterosexual people". Those two groups are not one and the same.

jesusjnr2:
Genesis 18:23-32 (KJV)

23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

So God would have spared the land of Sodom and her people, for the sake of just ten righteous men, to illustrate how important it is to have the presence of righteous men in a land.

And to fully appreciate this saying, this is what was said concerning the people of the land:

Genesis 13:13 (KJV)

13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

So they were exceedingly wicked and sinful men in the sight of God, hence God said to Abraham:

20 "...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." Genesis 18:20-21 (KJV)

So it was because of their sin which was very grievous, that God wanted to destroy the land, but ten righteous men would have stopped Him from doing so.

Now this is not that God would take the righteous men out of the land, as He had done to Lot and his family, and still destroy it. No!

This was that that He would not destroy the land of Sodom with all the exceeding wickedness of the men of Sodom and how grievous their sin was, for God told Abraham that He was going to spare the land for the sake of ten righteous men.

I expect that Abraham would have been shocked to hear that, for it shows the extent of the relevance that the righteous bring to any land or people.

So it would have been foolish of the exceedingly wicked and sinful men of Sodom to take the righteous persons in their land for granted, for ten of such persons would have made them and their land to remain up till this very day.

However considering what the men of Sodom did in the instance of Lot, when he had some visitors in the city, it wouldn't be farfetched that there were up to ten righteous men in the land of Sodom at some point, but they had either killed them, or driven them away from their land, because the righteous men had tried to tell them the truth, that what they were doing was a very grievous sin, and hence that they should stop it. For it was said:

Genesis 19:4-9 (KJV)

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

So the homosexual men of Sodom wanted to "deal" with Lot, supposedly the only righteous person left in the land of Sodom, for telling them the truth, that they should not to do such a wicked thing to the men that came to visit him, to suggest that they had done similar thing to the other righteous men that were in land with them, and perhaps why they didn't have up to ten righteous men in the land at the time they needed them the most, and hence the land of Sodom and her people are extinct today.

But what else would the homosexuals of Sodom have called a righteous man as Lot who told them the truth that homosexuality is a very grievous and abominable sin, had it been in this day and age, but a homophobic?

But they yet needed ten "homophobics" as righteous Lot, who told them the Truth about the grievous extent of the sin of homosexuality, just ten, within their city and their land would have been saved from the impending destruction and preserved til this very day.

So homosexuals think that the homophobics hate them, and yes it's true that there are those who take it too far beyond what it should be, even telling them the truth, as Lot would, and also as Christ would, that homosexuality is an abominable sin, and therefore that they should desist from it.

And I understand that, and would never support such extent of homophobia, which condemns, for if Christ who was perfect never condemned any sinner, I don't think that any other human has a right to condemn any sinner to that extent. So that's not issue here.

But that when it comes to the righteous homophobics as Lot telling the homosexuals the truth that such a lifestyle is an abominable one, and hence that they should not continue in it, that the homosexuals should never pray a day ever comes that such ones are no longer with them upon the Earth. For the day that happens, that would mean the end of the world.

So even though they may not like hear the truth concerning homosexuality, they need such righteous homophobics to be with them on Earth, if not within any of their cities, so that even if their sin is so grievous in the sight of God, that He wants to destroy their land, that He would spare the land and her people for the sake of those righteous ones.

For if the homosexuals of Sodom just had ten righteous homophobics, it would have yet remained till this very day.

The Homosexuals Need The Homophobics

so in your mind a homophobic person is righteous?

Michellekabod2:

You can never answer questions straight up ,you must beat round the bush and claim victorious like you did with advocate 666....
For example if you are caught stealing,u will refuse to be called a thief but will rather talk of others that are stealing as well...I have given you an instance where homosexuals don't need homophobics for proceation,you will not learn and acknowledge the fact that science has evolved but still retain your "truth"...counter what I said with fact,you will not,what is deep or beyond my carnal mind you can't explain plainly with beating round the bush?don't know for you again jesusjnr,in fact...I am done with this conversation as I gained nothing,you didn't pass any point and will not still do with the way you are going...

I expect an epistle from you filled with blame shifting and defensiveness and stubbornness with no point being raised but I will not reply

You really seem to love the blasphemers of God's name don't you?

That's you didn't have any problem with his blasphemous question but are pained that I opened a thread to embarrass the blasphemer of God's name for his blasphemies?

It's beginning to seem that I'm also dealing with a blasphemer of God's name here, for I don't really see the difference, that's why I asked you to tell us what you're up to Mich?

And you felt insulted when I suggested you two were a match made in hell that you deactivated your other account?

So don't expect for us to have any meaningful conversation or to gain anything from my comments when you are exhibiting the symptoms of an Antichrist and someone who hates God, and seem to only gain something when God's name is blasphemed or those who serve Him as the Christians are abused.

For you're the same person that was very furious when I called out your pope, for endorsing homosexuality, but it means nothing to you when my God is abused and insulted?

You should be furious with those who blaspheme the name of God, if you're truly of God, and caution those who do it.

But you are not for some reason known to you, for instead of cautioning them, you're instead supporting them, and cautioning those of us who do caution them.

Says a lot about you Mich, and explains why you cannot understand my language here etc.

Bojack:
it's the same thing as saying adulterers need to be stoned

The things with Christians is hypocrisy,they will call others out for committing a sin different from theirs...adulterers and fornicators are still calling out gays. Baby killers(people who abort)find nothing wrong in it as they say it's their body whereas they call out gays for doing what they want with their bodies...


I was just called Antichrist,lol

LordReed:


You said "they need homophobic people" not "they need heterosexual people". Those two groups are not one and the same.

Yes I said it from with respect to the thread post, but i was not speaking from that perspective for it's well obvious that if I was, you may never be able to accept that.

But I was doing it from the perspective of the homosexuals being a self-extinctive lifestyle, without those who are not homosexuals, to at least establish that fact.

For it's supposed to say something about homosexuality, with the heterosexuals being able to continue to exist without the homosexuals, but the homosexuals not being able to do same without the heterosexuals.

Ubenedictus:
so in your mind a homophobic person is righteous?

No you got it wrong, for it's the other way round, a righteous person is homophobic.

For righteous men like Lot, Abraham, Moses, Joshua etc. were all homophobics.

So if you are not homophobic in the righteous sense as I explained there, but endorse homosexuality as you're doing, you know the kind of mind you have.

jesusjnr:
Yes I said it from with respect to the thread post, but i was not speaking from that perspective for it's well obvious that if I was, you may never be able to accept that.

But I was doing it from the perspective of the homosexuals being a self-extinctive lifestyle, without those who are not homosexuals, to at least establish that fact.

For it's supposed to say something about homosexuality, with the heterosexuals being able to continue to exist without the homosexuals, but the homosexuals not being able to do same without the heterosexuals.

It still won't be the case unless the homosexuals will not be still men and women. If there are both female and male homosexuals all grouped together, what stops them from cooperating and having as many babies as they want?

LordReed:


It still won't be the case unless the homosexuals will not be still men and women. If there are both female and male homosexuals all grouped together, what stops them from cooperating and having as many babies as they want?

Cooperating meaning male and female right?

That mean they are going have to become heterosexuals at least for that purpose to able to have any chance of doing that, that should say something right?

Because if they don't do that but stick strictly to their homosexuality, it is strictly extinction things.

jesusjnr:
Cooperating meaning male and female right?

That mean they are going have to become heterosexuals at least for that purpose to able to have any chance of doing that, that should say something right?

Because if they don't do that but stick strictly to their homosexuality, it is strictly extinction things.

No, they don't have to. There's a thing called artificial insemination.

LordReed:


No, they don't have to. There's a thing called artificial insemination.

So where is the sperm that is being inseminated gotten from, and where is it being inserted into?

That's the point!

jesusjnr:
So where is the sperm that is being inseminated gotten from, and where is it being inserted into?

That's the point!

Your are shifting goal posts. You were implying that they would need to have heterosexual sex. BTW cloning techniques do not require the sex gametes, I hope you are aware?

LordReed:


Your are shifting goal posts. You were implying that they would need to have heterosexual sex. BTW cloning techniques do not require the sex gametes, I hope you are aware?

No i'm not!

You are the one shifting post for suggesting a fundamental heterosexual procedure of male and female for the homosexuals to be able to continue to exist.

But i have remained in my post of them not being able to continue to exist alone without resorting heterosexuality in any form, but strictly sticking to the fundamental procedure of homosexuality which in the respect of male and male, or female and female.

For if the homosexuals have to resort to artificial insemination (cooperate) as you've suggested, that's as good as them admitting that they cannot continue existing by strictly adhering to the procedure of homosexuality alone, without following heterosexual procedure of male and female, which should count as them also admitting to homosexuality being flawed.

For to that extent they are being heterosexual, even though they did not have physical sex, for the combination of male and female fluids by homosexuals is heterosexual not homosexual which is in the respect of male and male fluids, or female and female fluids.

So bottom line, if homosexuals are alone, and they stick strictly to their homosexuality, it is self-extinctive. Fact!

But if heterosexual are alone, and strictly stick to their heterosexuality, it is procreative! Fact!

That should say something!

jesusjnr:
No you got it wrong, for it's the other way round, a righteous person is homophobic.

For righteous men like Lot, Abraham, Moses, Joshua etc. were all homophobics.

So if you are not homophobic in the righteous sense as I explained there, but endorse homosexuality as you're doing, you know the kind of mind you have.

no dear, neither lot, nor Abraham or Moses or Joshua was homophobic.


Infact lot was pretty catholic in his behavior with them. He lived with them for years, there was not a single recorded incident of him discriminating against them, abusing their inclinations or spitting at them, calling them gays, removing them from work, driving them from their homes and killing them. He lived at peace with them.

Abraham knew his relative was living among gay people and his didn't raise an army to murder them.

Moses didn't write a single law against people who were gay, he only legislated against those who practiced sodomy, so unlike you he wasn't a homophobic person scared of peoples inclinations, he only talked against their actions.


No dear you are the only homophobic person, you believe in discarding people because of their unwholesome inclinations. There is nothing righteous about that.


There is no sin in an inclination unless one accepts it and practice it

Even those who may have sinned are to be led to Jesus not discarded, abused, insulted or killed like homophobic people do

If Lot wasn't homophobic and you say I am, then provide proof of what I've done differently from Lot, for Lot told them not to act so wickedly, the same way i'm doing here.

For you say he was pretty catholic and you and your unchristlike pope have not told them not to act so wickedly as I have done, but are talking about gay being an adjective, and hence endorsing gay sex.

You are obviously being very sentimental here for that has been my issue with you and your pope, for you are supposed to tell them the truth like Jesus and Lot did, go and sin no more even though you do not condemn them.

Moses and Joshua was not homophobic, really?

But they would implement a law that stipulated that any one who engaged in homosexuality should be stoned to death?

And I would not even dare do that, but they would have then, and i'm homophobic and they're not, Lol!

It's obvious that you're very confused by the extent to which you'd go to fabricate things that have no scriptural basis, just to justify the demonic agenda of homosexuality.

Well continue working for your oga at the bottom, i'm sure he'd reward you for passionately fighting those who tell the gays the truth that the lifestyle is abominable and a very grievous sin in God's sight as Lot, Moses, Joshua, and Jesus would.

Genesis 19:6-9 (KJV)

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

The bolded is what Lot said to the homosexuals so provide your proof that I've done anything different from what Lot said, that made me a homophobic and not him.

But it's obvious that you are obsessively opposed to anyone who tells homosexuals the truth that it is a very grievous sin in the sight of God, so if doing that makes me homophobic in your sight and mind, I am highly honored.

Ubenedictus:
no dear, neither lot, nor Abraham or Moses or Joshua was homophobic.


Infact lot was pretty catholic in his behavior with them. He lived with them for years, there was not a single recorded incident of him discriminating against them, abusing their inclinations or spitting at them, calling them gays, removing them from work, driving them from their homes and killing them. He lived at peace with them.

Abraham knew his relative was living among gay people and his didn't raise an army to murder them.

Moses didn't write a single law against people who were gay, he only legislated against those who practiced sodomy, so unlike you he wasn't a homophobic person scared of peoples inclinations, he only talked against their actions.


No dear you are the only homophobic person, you believe in discarding people because of their unwholesome inclinations. There is nothing righteous about that.


There is no sin in an inclination unless one accepts it and practice it

Even those who may have sinned are to be led to Jesus not discarded, abused, insulted or killed like homophobic people do

jesusjnr:
If Lot wasn't homophobic and you say I am, then provide proof of what I've done differently from Lot, for Lot told them not to act so wickedly, the same way i'm doing here.

For you say he was pretty catholic and you and your unchristlike pope have not told them not to act so wickedly as I have done, but are talking about gay being an adjective, and hence endorsing gay sex.

You are obviously being very sentimental here for that has been my issue with you, for you are supposed to tell them the truth like Jesus did, even th

gay is an adjective used to describe people who are attracted to same sex, it certainly is an adjective. Someone can be gay and not be a sodomite. You can be gay and not act wickedly, you can be gay and be chaste and a virgin. That someone is attracted to same sex doesn't mean he is sining so far he doesn't encourage the thought or act on it.

NOBODY IS ENDORSING GAY SEX, but I am certainly against unjust discrimination against gay people as I am against sodomy.

The truth has nothing to do with been homophobic

If Lot wasn't homophobic and you say I am, then provide proof of what I've done differently from Lot, for Lot told them not to act so wickedly, the same way i'm doing here.

For you say he was pretty catholic and you and your unchristlike pope have not told them not to act so wickedly as I have done, but are talking about gay being an adjective, and hence endorsing gay sex.

You are obviously being very sentimental here for that has been my issue with you and your pope, for you are supposed to tell them the truth like Jesus and Lot did, go and sin no more even though you do not condemn them.

Moses and Joshua was not homophobic, really?

But they would implement a law that stipulated that any one who engaged in homosexuality should be stoned to death?

And I would not even dare do that, but they would have then, and i'm homophobic and they're not, Lol!

It's obvious that you're very confused by the extent to which you'd go to fabricate things that have no scriptural basis, just to justify the demonic agenda of homosexuality.

Well continue working for your oga at the bottom, i'm sure he'd reward you for passionately fighting those who tell the gays the truth that the lifestyle is abominable and a very grievous sin in God's sight as Lot, Moses, Joshua, and Jesus would.

Genesis 19:6-9 (KJV)

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

The bolded is what Lot said to the homosexuals so provide your proof that I've done anything different from what Lot said, that made me a homophobic and not him.

But it's obvious that you are obsessively opposed to anyone who tells homosexuals the truth that it is a very grievous sin in the sight of God, so if doing that makes me homophobic in your sight and mind, I am highly honored.

Ubenedictus:
no dear, neither lot, nor Abraham or Moses or Joshua was homophobic.


Infact lot was pretty catholic in his behavior with them. He lived with them for years, there was not a single recorded incident of him discriminating against them, abusing their inclinations or spitting at them, calling them gays, removing them from work, driving them from their homes and killing them. He lived at peace with them.

Abraham knew his relative was living among gay people and his didn't raise an army to murder them.

Moses didn't write a single law against people who were gay, he only legislated against those who practiced sodomy, so unlike you he wasn't a homophobic person scared of peoples inclinations, he only talked against their actions.


No dear you are the only homophobic person, you believe in discarding people because of their unwholesome inclinations. There is nothing righteous about that.


There is no sin in an inclination unless one accepts it and practice it

Even those who may have sinned are to be led to Jesus not discarded, abused, insulted or killed like homophobic people do

Ubenedictus:
gay is an adjective used to describe people who are attracted to same sex, it certainly is an adjective. Someone can be gay and not be a sodomite. You can be gay and not act wickedly, you can be gay and be chaste and a virgin. That someone is attracted to same sex doesn't mean he is sining so far he doesn't encourage the thought or act on it.

I have so far been following in the quiet background, your interaction with keen interest and fully enjoying reading your comments on this matter with a gladdened heart

Ubenedictus:
NOBODY IS ENDORSING GAY SEX, but I am certainly against unjust discrimination against gay people as I am against sodomy.

The truth has nothing to do with been homophobic

Why are you saying nobody is endorsing gay sex Ubenedictus? Especially when God never, at any instance, is against gay sex huh?.

The Bible never has said, it is a sin to have sexual feelings with anyone of the same sex. God too, has no problems with same sex couples, as in, consenting adults loving each other. God never said homosexuality was an abomination either Ubenedictus and trust me, jesusjnr knows this and more.

Nowhere in the original manuscript of the bible Ubenedictus, is homosexuality, even in the remotest, being mentioned as wrong or a sin. That nonsense and its accomplice other bunch of lies werent put into the bible, until the King James version was written.

Ubenedictus, I repeat the bible does not say same-sex love is sin, but it does say that lust, lasciviousness, being promiscuous, being unfaithful, infidelity, cheating, straying, fornication etcetera are sins.

Being gay is not a sin, gluttony, shaving your beard, eating seafood like lobster, shrimp, crab, catfish or pork etcetera is sin. God encourages people to love everyone even your worst enemies. By loving someone, you're doing what God asks us to do. When homophobes and/or homophobics, the likes of jesusjnr, elated177, Shepherd00, Agrogbeide, Alexandro15, TV01, ThothHermes condemn others for being gay, they're condeming love with hate, and this goes directly against, all that God and the teachings of Jesus says.

Ubenedictus reflect and ponder further more on the subject matter long enough please. Think about it, being gay, as in, same sex couples in a kind, caring, loving, committed, trusting and faithful relationship, is the only alleged and so-called "sin thing" that doesn't harm nor hurt anyone, doesnt have a victim, doesnt abuse a partner, doesnt cheat on partner, not into infidelity etcetera

Ubenedictus, if being gay, as in, same sex couples, in a kind caring, loving, committed, trusting and faithful relationship is not an affliction, then what is with you having qualms endorsing gay sex, hmm? If you know Ubenedictus, what it feels like to lie, cheat, steal, hurt, hate, lust, be jealous, practice idolatry etcetera and you've felt the negative consequences, please list what are the negative consequences and obvious negatives brought into the world by gays that compels that they be looked at as bad and threatening please?

Isnt it ironic Ubenedictus that being gay, condemned and purported as sin, shares the same passage with forbidding wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, cutting and trimming the hair on the sides of one's head etcetera but they arent the squeaky wheels, like being gay, getting the oil attention, huh?

We can, maybe later Ubenedictus, have you elaborate more on what you in toto mean by sodomy in your "... I am against sodomy" comment
cc Baddiezz, TV01, ThothHermes, VBCampaign, Michellekabod2

jesusjnr:
No i'm not!

You are the one shifting post for suggesting a fundamental heterosexual procedure of male and female for the homosexuals to be able to continue to exist.

But i have remained in my post of them not being able to continue to exist alone without resorting heterosexuality in any form, but strictly sticking to the fundamental procedure of homosexuality which in the respect of male and male, or female and female.

For if the homosexuals have to resort to artificial insemination (cooperate) as you've suggested, that's as good as them admitting that they cannot continue existing by strictly adhering to the procedure of homosexuality alone, without following heterosexual procedure of male and female, which should count as them also admitting to homosexuality being flawed.

For to that extent they are being heterosexual, even though they did not have physical sex, for the combination of male and female fluids by homosexuals is heterosexual not homosexual which is in the respect of male and male fluids, or female and female fluids.

So bottom line, if homosexuals are alone, and they stick strictly to their homosexuality, it is self-extinctive. Fact!

But if heterosexual are alone, and strictly stick to their heterosexuality, it is procreative! Fact!

That should say something!

From them needing homophobic people to them needing heterosexual sex to them needing heterosexual exchanges, it is all you shifting the goal posts. Modify your topic to say they need heterosexuals then.

Besides the conclusion that they will go extinct if left alone is not true. Even if it was only all male or all female populations, cloning techniques do not require sex gametes so your conclusion is still wrong.

LordReed:


From them needing homophobic people to them needing heterosexual sex to them needing heterosexual exchanges, it is all you shifting the goal posts. Modify your topic to say they need heterosexuals then.

Besides the conclusion that they will go extinct if left alone is not true. Even if it was only all male or all female populations, cloning techniques do not require sex gametes so your conclusion is still wrong.

From the onset my conversation with you here has not been in the respect of the homosexuals needing the homophobics with respect to the topic, for that is from a spiritual perspective which you would not be able to comprehend, hence there was no need to even go there.

So i have not shifted post with you in that respect, but if i've shifted post, it's yet within the boundaries of homosexuality being fundamentally self-extinctive on it's own. Fact!

For that's the point i've been trying to make which I believe could also be argued on a logical basis, that the fundamental procedure of homosexuality which involves a male and male, or a female and female has never and would never be able to produce fruits.

For it must be achieved fundamentally through the heterosexual procedure which is in the respect of male and female, otherwise no procreation.

For even the cloning you talked about is fundamentally a heterosexual procedure that is with respect to male and female, never male and male or female and female, for that's the only way procreation could be achieved in humans.

So unless you can bring an example that's fundamentally a homosexual procedure that results in procreation, you have proven my assertion right, that homosexuality is fundamentally self-extinctive on its own.

jesusjnr:
From the onset my conversation with you here has not been in the respect of the homosexuals needing the homophobics with respect to the topic, for that is from a spiritual perspective which you would not be able to comprehend, hence there was no need to even go there.

So i have not shifted post with you in that respect, but if i've shifted post, it's yet within the boundaries of homosexuality being fundamentally self-extinctive on it's own. Fact!

For that's the point i've been trying to make which I believe could also be argued on a logical basis, that the fundamental procedure of homosexuality which involves a male and male, or a female and female has never and would never be able to produce fruits.

For it must be achieved fundamentally through the heterosexual procedure which is in the respect of male and female, otherwise no procreation.

For even the cloning you talked about is fundamentally a heterosexual procedure that is with respect to male and female, never male and male or female and female, for that's the only way procreation could be achieved in humans.

So unless you can bring an example that's fundamentally a homosexual procedure that results in procreation, you have proven my assertion right, that homosexuality is fundamentally self-extinctive on its own.

And I told you that whether or not homosexuals can procreate is irrelevant to their continued existence as a subset of the human population.

Who told you cloning has anything to do with sex cells? You do not need any sex cells in cloning so a female female or male male set of cells will do quite nicely.

LordReed:


And I told you that whether or not homosexuals can procreate is irrelevant to their continued existence as a subset of the human population.

Who told you cloning has anything to do with sex cells? You do not need any sex cells in cloning so a female female or male male set of cells will do quite nicely.

You wish!

So can you explain to me in human reproductive cloning how the male male set of cells work?

And why there's the need for female eggs, and what the female eggs fertilizing? Female eggs?

Female eggs can only fertilizes male eggs or seeds, for males are the seed carrying members of the two genders.

So it's male and female even in human reproductive cloning, never male and male, or female and female, for that would never be able to produce fruits.

For cloning as the name sounds is a copy of an original thing or procedure.

And you know what the original procedure of procreation is right? Male and female, never male and male, or female and female.

I have made my point on the self-extinctiveness of homosexuality but it's up to you to take it or leave it.

Bye.

jesusjnr:
You wish!

So can you explain to me in human reproductive cloning how the male male set of cells work?

And why there's the need for female eggs, and what the female eggs fertilizing? Female eggs?

Female eggs can only fertilizes male eggs or seeds, for males are the seed carrying members of the two genders.

So it's male and female even in human reproductive cloning, never male and male, or female and female, for that would never be able to produce fruits.

For cloning as the name sounds is a copy of an original thing or procedure.

And you know what the original procedure of procreation is right? Male and female, never male and male, or female and female.

I have made my point on the self-extinctiveness of homosexuality but it's up to you to take it or leave it.

Bye.

That's why I asked if you know how the cloning technique works and its clear you don't.

Lemme summarise it for you. Genetic material is taken from one cell and injected into another cell and it is stimulated to begin cell division and viola you have an embryo. The cells can be from any part of the body if I remember correctly and can be from the same person or different people. It has nothing to do with sexual differentiation.

So there you go, no self extinction.

LordReed:


That's why I asked if you know how the cloning technique works and its clear you don't.

Lemme summarise it for you. Genetic material is taken from one cell and injected into another cell and it is stimulated to begin cell division and viola you have an embryo. The cells can be from any part of the body if I remember correctly and can be from the same person or different people. It has nothing to do with sexual differentiation.

So there you go, no self extinction.

You claim it's clear I don't know how cloning technique works, yet you that claim to know doesn't know that female eggs are required in the fertilizing process of those said cells that results in the formation of the embryo.

Now tell me why that is you that know, or maybe you can ask me that you say doesn't know to tell you why.

Clue: It's fundamentally a heterosexual procedure, which involves male and female.

I've not gone anywhere for homosexuality is self-extinctive on its own. fact!

jesusjnr:
You claim it's clear I don't know how cloning technique works, yet you that claim to know doesn't know that female eggs are required in the fertilizing process of those said cells that results in the formation of the embryo.

Now tell me why that is you that know, or maybe you can ask me that you say doesn't know to tell you why.

Clue: It's fundamentally a heterosexual procedure, which involves male and female.

I've not gone anywhere for homosexuality is self-extinctive on its own. fact!

Ok so female female cloning is a heterosexual process?

MuttleyLaff:
I have so far been following in the quiet background, your interaction with keen interest and fully enjoying reading your comments on this matter with a gladdened heart

Why are you saying nobody is endorsing gay sex Ubenedictus? Especially when God never, at any instance, is against gay sex huh?.

The Bible never has said, it is a sin to have sexual feelings with anyone of the same sex. God too, has no problems with same sex couples, as in, consenting adults loving each other. God never said homosexuality was an abomination either Ubenedictus and trust me, jesusjnr knows this and more.

Nowhere in the original manuscript of the bible Ubenedictus, is homosexuality, even in the remotest, being mentioned as wrong or a sin. That nonsense and its accomplice other bunch of lies werent put into the bible, until the King James version was written.

Ubenedictus, I repeat the bible does not say same-sex love is sin, but it does say that lust, lasciviousness, being promiscuous, being unfaithful, infidelity, cheating, straying, fornication etcetera are sins.

Being gay is not a sin, gluttony, shaving your beard, eating seafood like lobster, shrimp, crab, catfish or pork etcetera is sin. God encourages people to love everyone even your worst enemies. By loving someone, you're doing what God asks us to do. When homophobes and/or homophobics, the likes of jesusjnr, elated177, Shepherd00, Agrogbeide, Alexandro15, TV01, ThothHermes condemn others for being gay, they're condeming love with hate, and this goes directly against, all that God and the teachings of Jesus says.

Ubenedictus reflect and ponder further more on the subject matter long enough please. Think about it, being gay, as in, same sex couples in a kind, caring, loving, committed, trusting and faithful relationship, is the only alleged and so-called "sin thing" that doesn't harm nor hurt anyone, doesnt have a victim, doesnt abuse a partner, doesnt cheat on partner, not into infidelity etcetera

Ubenedictus, if being gay, as in, same sex couples, in a kind caring, loving, committed, trusting and faithful relationship is not an affliction, then what is with you having qualms endorsing gay sex, hmm? If you know Ubenedictus, what it feels like to lie, cheat, steal, hurt, hate, lust, be jealous, practice idolatry etcetera and you've felt the negative consequences, please list what are the negative consequences and obvious negatives brought into the world by gays that compels that they be looked at as bad and threatening please?

Isnt it ironic Ubenedictus that being gay, condemned and purported as sin, shares the same passage with forbidding wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, cutting and trimming the hair on the sides of one's head etcetera but they arent the squeaky wheels, like being gay, getting the oil attention, huh?

We can, maybe later Ubenedictus, have you elaborate more on what you in toto mean by sodomy in your "... I am against sodomy" comment
cc Baddiezz, TV01, ThothHermes, VBCampaign, Michellekabod2

Why did you run away from the other thread only to be shouting my Moniker here?

A.nus warrior

@VBCampaign, come and see your pal here o. You said he didn't run away, why has he abandoned the other thread to come to this one?

The mention of homosexuality gives him a kick.

Shepherd00:
Why did you run away from the other thread only to be shouting my Moniker here?

"... ... MuttleyLaff never runs. He'll be back..."
- Re: An Open Letter To Daddy Freeze By Deji Yesufu by VBCampaign:

Shepherd00:
A.nus warrior

"But the LORD is with me to help me like an awe-inspiring warrior.
Therefore those who persecute me will fail and will not prevail over me.
They will be thoroughly disgraced because they did not succeed.
Their disgrace will never be forgotten."
- Jeremiah 20:11

I rather be a honest a.nus warrior than be a pathetic liar, ignoramus and ignoranus but hey, it doesnt really matter, as, if same sex couple consented adults, are female and female or male and male, then I am a warrior for both.

Having arse, by the way Shepherd00, is a beautiful thing. A woman's bacca, booty, rear light, butt or arse is a beautiful body part, especially the talking arse types. The shape of an arse besides being sexy, whether you're male or female, can make or break an outfit. I love my pert arse and my missus' too. The arse, aside her heart and brain, was one of her other bodily parts, that first got me attracted to her. I am a bonafide and certified arse person.

So Shepherd00, one out of my favourite many hecklers and one of the most impatient person that ever trolled NL Religion forum, in your arrogance, you underestimate me because you're unaware of what true power, knowledge and info, I am holding in. Your hubris, temerity and complaining peevishly will be your nemesis, because you are not strong enough to withstand the calm and silence before the storm and trouble ahead of you.

Dont you know that a warrior never vanishes in a distant? What you perceive to be silence Shepherd00, actually is, thunder fiercely rumbling and roaring up hidden inside me. Inexperienced warriors, like to engage head-on, experienced warriors, like to wait Shepherd00, let their opponents expose themselves and/or work themselves into a corner, noose or walk into a dead end

"Waa gburo nigbe hin Shepherd00", loosely translated means "Las, las, you'll hear Shepherd00"

Shepherd00:
@VBCampaign, come and see your pal here o. You said he didn't run away, why has he abandoned the other thread to come to this one?

[s]The mention of homosexuality gives him a kick.[/s]

I do what I do Shepherd00, I write on whatever thread because it is the right thing, the right time and right place, at the particular moment to type from. It is the way of the warrrior to behave in those manner(s), besides me typing in this particular thread, that is not just only paining you but is giving you severe pains, actually it gives you the opportunity to have a premonition of the imminent disaster coming your way, and indeed served as a sample of what you can expect come your way, unleashed, in the other thread.

MuttleyLaff:
"... ... MuttleyLaff never runs. He'll be back..."
- Re: An Open Letter To Daddy Freeze By Deji Yesufu by VBCampaign:

"But the LORD is with me to help me like an awe-inspiring warrior.
Therefore those who persecute me will fail and will not prevail over me.
They will be thoroughly disgraced because they did not succeed.
Their disgrace will never be forgotten."
- Jeremiah 20:11

I rather be a honest a.nus warrior than be a pathetic liar, ignoramus and ignoranus but hey, it doesnt really matter, as, if same sex couple consented adults, are female and female or male and male, then I am a warrior for both.

Having arse, by the way Shepherd00, is a beautiful thing. A woman's bacca, booty, rear light, butt or arse is a beautiful body part, especially the talking arse types. The shape of an arse besides being sexy, whether you're male or female, can make or break an outfit. I love my pert arse and my missus' too. The arse, aside her heart and brain, was one of her other bodily parts, that first got me attracted to her. I am a bonafide and certified arse person.

So Shepherd00, one out of my favourite many hecklers and one of the most impatient person that ever trolled NL Religion forum, in your arrogance, you underestimate me because you're unaware of what true power, knowledge and info, I am holding in. Your hubris, temerity and complaining peevishly will be your nemesis, because you are not strong enough to withstand the calm and silence before the storm and trouble ahead of you.

Dont you know that a warrior never vanishes in a distant? What you perceive to be silence Shepherd00, actually is, thunder fiercely rumbling and roaring up hidden inside me. Inexperienced warriors, like to engage head-on, experienced warriors, like to wait Shepherd00, let their opponents expose themselves and/or work themselves into a corner, noose or walk into a dead end

"Waa gburo nigbe hin Shepherd00", loosely translated means "Las, las, you'll hear Shepherd00"

I do what I do Shepherd00, I write on whatever thread because it is the right thing, the right time and right place, at the particular moment to type from. It is the way of the warrrior to behave in those manner(s), besides me typing in this particular thread, that is not just only paining you but is giving you severe pains, actually it gives you the opportunity to have a premonition of tresponent disast won't er coming your way, and indeed served as a sample of what you can expect come your way, unleashed, in the other thread.

Anus warrior get back to the thread. I won't respond to you here.

Shepherd00:
Anus warrior get back to the thread.

It is already obvious that impatience and frustration are plaguing you Mister Fixation on Anus Worrier, Shepherd00.

A warrior of God, knows when and where to swing his sword of the Spirit. Trust me Shepherd00, I always pays my debts, you should be more worried about that because just like the sun and moon, the truth cannot be for long hidden.

The lull or calm before the storm Shepherd00, so please, dont ever think that the reason why there seems to be a calm, is because I dont know or havent got what to type.

Shepherd00:
I won't respond to you here.

I suggest you go back to reading the above post, you've commented and responded to, because if you had put effort into reading it at all, you wouldnt have come here, thinking that a response was required of you. You are just so ridiculously predictable, arent you. SMH

MuttleyLaff:
I have so far been following in the quiet background, your interaction with keen interest and fully enjoying reading your comments on this matter with a gladdened heart

Why are you saying nobody is endorsing gay sex Ubenedictus? Especially when God never, at any instance, is against gay sex huh?.

The Bible never has said, it is a sin to have sexual feelings with anyone of the same sex. God too, has no problems with same sex couples, as in, consenting adults loving each other. God never said homosexuality was an abomination either Ubenedictus and trust me, jesusjnr knows this and more.

Nowhere in the original manuscript of the bible Ubenedictus, is homosexuality, even in the remotest, being mentioned as wrong or a sin. That nonsense and its accomplice other bunch of lies werent put into the bible, until the King James version was written.

Ubenedictus, I repeat the bible does not say same-sex love is sin, but it does say that lust, lasciviousness, being promiscuous, being unfaithful, infidelity, cheating, straying, fornication etcetera are sins.

Being gay is not a sin, gluttony, shaving your beard, eating seafood like lobster, shrimp, crab, catfish or pork etcetera is sin. God encourages people to love everyone even your worst enemies. By loving someone, you're doing what God asks us to do. When homophobes and/or homophobics, the likes of jesusjnr, elated177, Shepherd00, Agrogbeide, Alexandro15, TV01, ThothHermes condemn others for being gay, they're condeming love with hate, and this goes directly against, all that God and the teachings of Jesus says.

Ubenedictus reflect and ponder further more on the subject matter long enough please. Think about it, being gay, as in, same sex couples in a kind, caring, loving, committed, trusting and faithful relationship, is the only alleged and so-called "sin thing" that doesn't harm nor hurt anyone, doesnt have a victim, doesnt abuse a partner, doesnt cheat on partner, not into infidelity etcetera

Ubenedictus, if being gay, as in, same sex couples, in a kind caring, loving, committed, trusting and faithful relationship is not an affliction, then what is with you having qualms endorsing gay sex, hmm? If you know Ubenedictus, what it feels like to lie, cheat, steal, hurt, hate, lust, be jealous, practice idolatry etcetera and you've felt the negative consequences, please list what are the negative consequences and obvious negatives brought into the world by gays that compels that they be looked at as bad and threatening please?

Isnt it ironic Ubenedictus that being gay, condemned and purported as sin, shares the same passage with forbidding wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, cutting and trimming the hair on the sides of one's head etcetera but they arent the squeaky wheels, like being gay, getting the oil attention, huh?

We can, maybe later Ubenedictus, have you elaborate more on what you in toto mean by sodomy in your "... I am against sodomy" comment
cc Baddiezz, TV01, ThothHermes, VBCampaign, Michellekabod2

kikikikikikikikikikiki..........looooool
I don't condemn homosexuals oga because I'm not their God. I condemn SAME SEX SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP!!!!!

HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABOMINABLE!!!!

BTW we are still waiting for you to bring your gigantic proves that homosexuality is right with God in that other thread. Also remember to come with your Bible references.

Thanks.
God bless.

Agrogbeide:
kikikikikikikikikikiki..........looooool
I don't condemn homosexuals oga because I'm not their God. I condemn SAME SEX SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP!!!!!

HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABOMINABLE!!!!

I just hope and wish, but you are incapable of standing toe to toe with me trying to defend the emboldened above, that characterises a complete miscarriage of justice against same sex couples, as in, consenting adults in same sex trusting, loving and faithful relationships, but hey, no problemo, you'll meet with me and the truths, on the other thread sha.

Agrogbeide:
BTW we are still waiting for you to bring your gigantic proves that homosexuality is right with God in that other thread. Also remember to come with your Bible references.

Thanks.
God bless.

Yes Sir, your wish, as usual, is my command and you shall not be disappointed.

Like I've told Shepherdoo, a warrior of God, knows when and where to swing his sword of the Spirit. Trust me Agrogbeide, I always pays my debts, and just like the sun and moon, the truth wont be for long, anymore hidden.

It is called the lull or calm before the storm Agrogbeide, so please, dont ever think that the reason why there seems to be a calm, is because I dont know or havent got what to type. What you erroneously perceive to be silence Agrogbeide, actually is, thunder fiercely rumbling and roaring up hidden inside me. Inexperienced warriors, like to engage head-on, but experienced warriors, like to wait Agrogbeide, wait to let their opponents expose themselves well and/or let them work themselves into a corner, noose or walk into a dead end.

Dont fret Agrogbeide, "Waa gburo nigbe hin", loosely translated means "Las, las, you'll hear in the end"