₦airaland Forum

@ Kuylie,

I won't bother with a response to the incoherent mess you penned up there. Rather, let me give you some free advice. You cannot serve two masters. The militant feminist ideology is contrary to the truth. Please abandon it for your own well-being.

Whatever it was that hurt you, don't let it warp you. What ever fear, you can get past it. Seek healing.

"Mfufu feminism" (apologies, but you warrant the demotion) will not benefit you, not here and now, nor in the hereafter.

I'm rooting for you girl.

TV

Red_Card: my dear sit down again and think deeply. If sodomy gets legalised, it will help in @least depopulising d country. Am very sure no sodomite ever wants to get more dan 2 kids either through surrogate (spelling might be wrong) or adoption. Nigeria's population is nothing to be proud of. Couples needs to start having a reasonable family plannings. 5 kids and above is too much for a couple. Am just 19 but I'hv seen things. I have seen a family of 14...too bad.

Listen carefully; no to sodomy, no to sodomitic "marriage", no to adoption by sodomites and no to sodomites using technology or surrogates to procure children. It's against nature, bad for social order, a travesty and abuse of children.

If indeed population is a problem sodomy is not the solution.

And I'm not your dear - no homo.

TV

Red_Card: Nigeria's population is just getting higher. People are just giving birth here and there, every now and then. This is one of the major reasons why same sex marriage should have been patronised....to control/cut down the population size.

Assuming that "Nigeria's population is just getting higher", i.e. is out of control, you really mean legitimising sodomy - whatever men legislate for,there cannot truly be marriage between the same sex - is one of the solutions?

Are you concerned about the population or seeking to - excuse the pun - slip sodomy in via the back door? Having said that, if it does curb population, it may be because "active" sodomites tend to have greatly shortened lifespans due to the pathological consequences of what is a degraded and destructive lifestyle.

Check out this link. It's the memorial page for the worlds largest sodomitic choir. Hardly any of them see out their 5th decade. Sodomy is pathological, both in cause and effect and has no place in decent society. Lifespan is typically 20 years less. I suppose that's one way of curbing the population

http://turtlecreek.org/index.php?/memorial/#pA


TV

kulyie: dont bother,keep your hopes to yourself.not every woman is intrested in marriage so i dont see the likelyhood of any man weakening my knees.

Don't worry, hopefully he will appear one day. The question is "will you be able to discern?". Please don't let this reach the stage of shrivelled ovaries and a calcified womb. Many are the misled feminists lamenting this very point.

kulyie: Suggest that to the women that need the african conventional marriage desperately.it will give them hope and succour

See how your hubristic - and seriously misguided - ideology causes you to disdain your fellow women? What is wrong with marriage or aspiring to it? I thought feminism was all about choice for women. Not just confused and conflicted, contradictory as well. Choice is fine as long as they choose the dictates of the "Feminocracy" right?

kulyie: plus when i am ready to have kids in very few years to come,it will be in my house not in a man's plus through surrogacy.

Perverted ideology. Don't children have the right to both know and be raised by their birth parents? Is denying them knowledge of their fatherly inheritance the best you can do for them? Womens rights at the expense of childrens wellbeing? Unconscionable. Lets add callous to that list

kulyie: meanwhile i am just having them for the sake of my parents so that they will see all their grand kids before they leave this filthy world not that i am that fragile or emotional to babysit.those instincts are not really existent in me

Such sacrifice, how kind of you. Listen to yourself. Add calculating. And top that with cold.

kulyie: Then as per been conflicted and confused,the more you gain wisdom,the more you have more understanding to read in between the lines and not be confused.you are the one been confused.i have a sound mind,so i know what i am talking about,i am very far from confusion

A perverted ideology will bring about a corrupt mind. And you are far from the truth, with a darkened understanding. If only you knew. What a crying shame.

kulyie: then as per been repented,i apologized to men,REAL MEN,MEN THAT ARE MEN IN ALL RAMIFICATIONS not animals in men's clothing in case i unknowingly treated them with contempt and disdain,i dont owe any debased,warped animal an apology so that apology is for men but not all kinds of men,period!

I doubt you would know a real man if one drew you a picture, let alone possess the understanding to articulate what constitutes one.

kulyie: N.b you must be a repulsive swine to refer to me as 'billie jean' feminist.no one needs to tell me you do random groupies.smh.perversion and beastly behaviours is reeking all over you

Actually, you do have a point here. I owe Billie an apology. Your current level of understanding and uncouth conduct mean you are not at that level. Not worthy of even that name.

Real men can only pity foul mouthed ignorant women. May you come to understanding. And before it's too late.


Shine eye, lest you end up bitter.

TV

...lol @ Kuylie...Nairalands own "Billie Jean" Feminist. I thought you repented a few posts back? You sound both conflicted and confused.

Don't worry sis' I'm rooting for you. You'll meet the type of man who'll make you weak kneed, recant militant feminism quick time, and settle down to blissful domesticity and making babies. I won't say an amen to your "any type of marriage arrangement goes, but it's not for me" rhetoric. I actually wish you well.

@ All,

A God fearing "Patriarchy" is good for men, women, children, families and society as a whole. The right kind of patriarch is a feminist.

The problem with the current incarnation of feminism is that it's hellbent on emasculating men. Apart from the inevitable backlash, it will benefit no one.

What should be sought - by all - is harmonious and sympathetic- loving anyone? - engagement between the sexes. The real rub here is that whatever marital type prevails, if it's dysfunctional or perverted it hurts women and children most.


In fact, to set that ball rolling, here's a hug for my favorite idiopathic misanthrope - Ileoba how now ?

Best
TV

Matthew briggs: ^^ I had pure motive, wanted to strike friendship and hopefully take it further, she's reached marriageable age. I had to withdraw cos I thought I rude and disrespectful once I discovered she was her daughter. Time will tell.

Brother, based on the fact that your motives were pure, permit me to say this; absolutely nothing wrong at all. The key is how you handle the situation.

When I spotted the woman who was to become my wife (although I didn't know it at the time), her mum was in situ. Was that a deterrent or a problem? Dude, that was an opportunity! I made a beeline for her mum and fell flat on my face! Without having met or spoken to either of them previously.

Greeted mama in fine style - in a crowd - while she was wondering "who is this?" I had switched play and honed in on WTB...woo Mama, court daughter...not just game sir...end game!

Let me leave story - needless to say my MIL loves me to bits - but I hope you get my point.

There is no charge for the advice sir, but please promise me 2 things

1. Get it right next time (that wasn't a template I gave you it was a testimony, innovate as required)
2. Don't go to women to ascertain appropriate manly behavour.

Best
TV

baby_123: ok, cool. I think what i have heard of the reproductive system is that it is the outside that is different. So they focus more on reconstructing the looks. For woman to man, i dont know if the ovaries are removed. Infact, i am confusing myself now. LMAO. Let the biologists come and confirm. But i have heard of hermaphrodites who have both reproductive sytems and they are fine.

That's old style transgender. Trannies as they are/were called. It was nothing more than cross dressing. Men wearing falsies, lipstick, bad wigs and womens undies. This new style is planets away from that. Hormone treatment and surgical re-assignment. Started as early as possible. Paediatric hormone treatment followed by surgery. A penis will be constructed for transgender males and a vaginal opening for transgender girls. I don't believe they are potent or fertile, just wanted to check. And some change their mind and have it reversed, but how far reversed it can be beats me.

Compounded with - and by - the fact that the sex, gender and orientation do not have to align means the possibilities - or maybe that should be "pissobolities" - are literally endless.

http://gendertrender./2012/10/29/uks-youngest-transgender-patient-seeks-to-reverse-sex-change/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2309385/Transgender-couple-Felix-Laws-Helen-Morfitt-marry-BOTH-gender-swap.html

damiso: 6 is faaaaaar too young to be carrying gender issues this far.How are they sure it was not just a phase? My brother is an only boy and I think he played with dolls till he was about 5.Oyinbo and political correctness.I sure would not want my daughter sharing the same toilet cos he is a boy.

My point exactly. Human beings are of the male or female sex. Children are vulnerable and although most will conform to the norm with no real issues, care should be taken not to expose them to or re-inforce wrong notions. "Gender" is an arbitrary construct. And is also considered fluid. The confusion means some states in the US are restricting. Gender changes to 3 times in 18 months. You can be a boy today and a girl tomorrow. Pee standing up one day and sitting down the next (although I hear the Swedes have resolved that particular problem). Utter madness.

damiso: To be able to properly say am transgender, I feel they should go through puberty (my thoughts though.I have heard from pro LBGT groups that the hormone and s.ex change is more complex after puberty).At least by then to some level (still young to me) they are more aware of who they are

That is the whole point. Scientifically, the transformation works better if procedures and treatment are carried out early, pre-pubescent. So the ideology forces this. Preventing any confusion to clear up naturally and pushing borderline cases over the edge. Science is not a moral force or judge. It follows where we lead.

Homosexual and gender activism is conjuring up rights based on feelings and behaviour and forcing the rest of society to accept and endorse therm regardless of contrary feelings or beliefs.

Fhemmmy: I just hope that the future of the boy will not be affected . . .

...legally I believe, he is now a she.


TV

Fhemmmy: ^^^ But do you think that the child really is able to make that decision, or is it being made by her parents?

Of course not, and she shouldn't be permitted too either. It's her parents, influenced or subscribing to the ideology behind it

baby_123: With all the points you have raised which prove my point that it is wrong, you still think a 6yr old can make a decision on what gender he wants to be for the rest of on average his 72years on earth? Just because you think it will be easier on his body? I have read instances of adults doing gender reassignment, and they look just fine. And i have no problem with that. They are adults, and can make that sound decision. But a 6yr old, it is just too much. The parents in my opinion made a drastic and potentially terrible decision. All that is needed even as an adult is surgery and hormones. Whatever age, it doesnt matter. It can be done perfectly. But the issue is mental readiness.

About it being reversible, i really dont know.

If my points prove your position, that would suggest that I agree with you (or perhaps I'm arguing irrationally). Hence my terming your position the "obvious" one. That is normal/expected/sensible. I was merely outlining the ideology behind it and the way this ideology justifies it. I was not agreeing or supporting it.

I actually pointed out I don't subscribe to gender notions. Humans beings are "sexed" as male or female (with the odd unfortunate exceptions who are physically deformed)with an undeniable biological function - procreation. Anything that tries to deny or confuse this is simply a disorder, confusion or lie. I feel likewise on notions of "sexuality" and "orientation"

I know some people have had it reversed, but I don't think the hormonal/surgical changes are utterly eradicated.I think the treatments leave you infertile/impotent, but I was hoping someone could confirm that.

TV

Surrogacy is an ethical and administrative minefield.

The short response here - to put it politely - is that Nigeria is simply not ready for it. For the simple reason that it needs to be highly regulated. Any country would do well to tread very cautiously here and take a leaf out of the UK's playbook.

Sure, surrogacy can work and successfully, but there are very real dangers of commoditising babies and exploiting women. In it's worst form, it's not far removed from the baby factory phenom. And invariably it's worst form is in "3rd world countries". It works best where money is not a motivating factor.

In Naija it would be fraught simply due to the inability to regulate as mentioned. Money is typically the driver for 3rd world surrogates and money and corruption are Siamese - no pun or offense intended - twins in Nigeria. And we have the added problem of ritualists to consider. By the time ""egg harvesting" comes along...I shudder to think.

With the advent of Gay marriage the picture worsens - for those who have concerns about this - as rich middle class westerners will also be on the prowl.

I have nothing against social crusades that are based on sound moral and ethical considerations. Feminism 101 has given us many who jump on Western ideology - and some of the more extreme ones - without thought to our cultural circumstances and morés. We should be both judicious and cautious in adopting ideology or technology

CC, you have been temperate here and were absolutely right to voice concerns.

For the record I'm a feminist .

TV

babyosisi: My God
I remember this name from wayyyyy back in my early years here in 2006
When we terrorized olabowale and babs in the religious section
That was the happening section back then.
Times have changed

- Yes, it's the same TV, figured it was the same Babyosisi.
- "We" wouldn't have included me as I tend not to face off too other religions. I had my moments though.
- Agreed
- But you have not. Still unable - like many here - too square your proclaimed faith with your utterances and actions.


It seems all but over here so, perhaps I'll start another thread to put my POV.

However it's hard to understand how one can claim to be "married in heart" to someone you would have moved on if he had not tested right.

Hard to grasp how one can "test drive" without knowing how to drive in the first place? What driving competencies must one possess to be able to test properly?

Bellong, Admonition Aluta? (apologies if I got the names wrong)and a few others spelt it out, but truth is hard to receive if you don't really believe or just want to profess without actually practicing.

TV

baby_123: 6yr old is too young for such an experience and transgender tag. Truthfully i am all for freedom, but i think his parents are insane. Why not wait till he is 18 or 21 or maybe even 16?? And why should other parents children be forced to share bathroom with a boy that plays dress up. I would not be happy with this if i had a child in that school. Like really

The obvious response. However, you have to have some insight into the ideology and science behind some of the thinking of this lobby to better understand.

Ordinarily whatever feelings a vulnerable and confused child had regards "gender" (don't actually like that word) would be treated as just that and at the very least given the benefit of time to perhaps resolve themselves.

By 16 most girls are all but women. At that point hormonal treatment and gender re-assignment surgery will not have the same effect as if carried out while the child is prepubescent. The younger the better. Obviously there is a good chance this would have naturally resolved itself by then anyway.

Once the irreversible treatment and surgery has been carried out, it kills any chance of a natural resolution. stifles any debate and reinforces's the notion that this was the correct thing to do.

As someone asked "what kind of exposure" would have led to the child thinking this? It could be something as simple as having all female siblings or neighbors and feeling left out or hearing a preference for a child of the opposite sex expressed. Or something more insidious, as in the case of the Canadian couple raising their child "genderles". Both genders need to be modelled and reinforced, as still developing children mature. Some confusion is possible, but most will naturally clear, especially where there are no accompanying physical issues.

There are case of people wanting the treatment reversed. I'm not sure if people who undergo this are still fertile/potent?

In this mad new world, gender, sex and orientation (another ruse), no longer have to be aligned.


TV

...hmmmm. This garri drinking party urgently requires a sandman. Let me get my my bucket. I'll be right back!

...Ideye Brown ; The case Against affirmative action !

debrief08: Same old same old hypocrisy.
Off course now she is dead we can curse out the man.
Had she chosen to leave earlier we would have abused her and tagged her a divorcee, a failure at marriage, a woman who can't "keep" her home.
We would have told her to be more tolerant, asked her what she was doing wrong, told her to dress better, told her to "stay for the kids" same kids who are now scared of marriage.
Spare me the curses, when a woman dies abused we pity her and curse the man, when she walks and chooses to live instead we curse her out.
Have fun, support her now she is dead, enjoy "cursing' him out as if it would help.
Am sure some would have even said Cancer was her "punishment" for leaving him eventually, had she lived.
Please spare yourselves the hypocrisy, we can only "understand" because she is dead.
If she was alive, and came here 90 percent would have told her to stay, it would have broken into a war of curses to those who ask her to put her life first.

…do you ever ponder as you think or think before you give utterance?

A woman has died – and a most excruciating death at that.

And apart from passing in such a painful manner, the one person she should rightly have expected to provide comfort and offer support not only abandoned her, not just played her for a fool, but seemed to be willing her demise. And dying, believing that the four children she bought into the world are all but fatherless in name only. Effectively orphans.

And do you show any empathy? Especially as one who by her own account has cause to say “there but for the grace of God go I". As a mother of children or simply as a woman. Do you spare even a modicum of sympathy, or the merest thought of pity? Alluding perhaps to mercy & peace in rest as a benediction. Pausing on the loss and/or well-being of the loved ones she left behind? Or perhaps simply hold your peace – as decency would demand - if you have nothing but harsh cant to offer?

No true to form, in your blind and unrelenting pursuit to erect an altar to divorce, you sinks to a new low. You calumnise Nigerian men, slander Nigerian women and mock their unions. And now you despise the untimely demise of a sister, seeing not a tragic situation, but an opportunity to “self-justify” and enliven the campaign keep your divorce bandwagon rolling.

Never mind that you’ve sold it as God’s failure, your husband’ failure, your fathers failure, your mothers failure and even your siblings failure. Regardless of the fact that you’ve implicated, the elders in your church, the congregation, neighbours, everyone but yourself. Because in truth, marriages don’t fail. People do. You did.

Kindly focus on getting over it. There’s healing available. Campaigning amongst men does not effect peace with God – or even within yourself it appears. The gall is all too evident, the bitterness is palpable. Your efforts to justify yourself are certainly zealous, but unfortunately misguided. No matter how many cohorts you have, how many acolytes you gather, how many marriages you help steer on the path to ruin, or how much you succeed in your efforts to normalise “divorce”, marriage remains a divinely blessed union, instituted by God, and divorce a fail and a tragedy.

Your cause and your campaign are not merely unjust, but positively evil. Some of us are not fooled by “recharge card largesse” and publicity seeking dash.

Can’t you see? It’s searing your conscience. Please cover your shame, rather than glory in it and continue to plumb new depths of wickedness.


RIP Sister Yetunde.

May the God of all consolation comfort the bereaved.

TV

@ WhyMe222, good evening my brother,

Your post literally moved me beyond words. So much so, that I had to write, if only to comfort you and wish you well.
You are undoubtedly torn and in great despair. I hold marriage sacred, and would not wish your experience on the vilest of people.

I realise that right now you are raw and hurting, rewinding and playing back events in your head, reviewing the evidence, looking for fault, ascribing blame, feeling utterly betrayed. It must be torture.

As painful as this obviously is, I am heartened by your desire to forgive your wife and restore your union. We all know what the default position is – especially for African men. It was likewise my position. But in coming to and growing in Christ I am fully persuaded that forgiveness and restoration are available and would be a wonderful thing.

You have persevered for at least 6 months. You know why? There was great hope and expectation when the two of you wed. You were both committed, loving and you have a precious daughter. Even now you declare your love. Sir, please believe that both hope and joy are still possible.

Your wife has shown remorse, if this is genuine, please continue to seek forgiveness, healing, reconciliation and restoration.

You need to be prayerful – the both of you - if you are a Christian. Get deeper into your faith, closer to God. One should enter marriage with a sacrificial mindset, and although sacrifice is not always required, I urge you to make a very big – but worthy – one in this instance.

She needs to be utterly open and honest and totally re-committed to her husband, daughter and home. The betrayal was manifold. She needs to be humble and penitent.

But you have to communicate through all of this – intensely. Perhaps you could find time alone, just the two of you. Talk, talk, talk. Discuss, discuss, discuss. You need to have this out fully.

Be clear on your desires and expectations. As a man and as faithful and committed, you need to know why? Continue to show the admirable qualities you have thus far. Be angry, rage even, but remain restrained. You have done so in your hurt and also held your tongue, that is thoroughly commendable. You have been wise to not spread this abroad. Whilst you will get to the point of forgiveness, others may not forget.

Did you miss something, was it truly a mistake or is your wife simply wayward. Even waywardness can be repented of. You both need to be clear on what’s at stake and where you stand. Trust needs to be rebuilt. That takes time and commitment from the both of you.

Having said that, if it proves too much and you feel you must unburden yourself, choose wisely. Someone mature and god-fearing who will respect your privacy.

As for the man in question; Your wife needs to be away from him. And as soon as is conveniently possible. He is not a family friend. He never was. Utterly expunge him.

You have rightfully bourne your daughters well-being in mind. Please continue to do so. I believe you know the resolution that is in her best interest.

Once again I commend the character you have shown and your pursuit of a non selfish outcome. Marriage is worth fighting for, worth persevering through the difficult times.

Please be strong, you will surely make it through this by the tender mercies and unyielding grace of God. May He restore you to overflowing.

God bless
TV

...this old thread may be a useful reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/30552/church-structure-sole-authority-pastors

Best
TV

Kay 17: Pls refer me to the verses in the bible that abolished slavery. Also tell how the Slavery in the Roman World, wasn't as horrific as Trans altantic slave trade?

Please refer me to the verses in the Bible that instituted slavery. The difference between slavery in ancient Rome and the trans-atlantic trade has been clearly depicted on this thread.

As has the the overarching message of the Bible and the relevant understanding of Gods redemptive plan for mankind and how it would effectively eliminate personal and societal ills.

And, it is worth mentioning again, the intellectual dishonesty of trying to justify or parallel slavery with homosexuality.

Please show us anything in the OT that was termed an abomination, that was repealed in the NT without being specifically mentioned.

And please apply some thought of your own, this is becoming a bit tedious.

Best
TV

amdatam: @TV01

Thank you for making attempts to answer the question.

You are welcome. However, "I did not make an attempt", I fully answered the question. I cannot be held responsible for your failure to comprehend.

amdatam: Sorry, if you felt being put on the spot

Apologies are not necessary. I like to keep the discussion about principles, not persons. I was merely trying to forestall that happening. The integrity of my posts and my position preclude my being "put on the spot" in this instance.

amdatam: I suppose "If anyone I know or is related to me comes out “as gay”, my response would be as if they were a complete stranger – i.e., the same is or was your answer if sibling(s) or child(ren) was gay

Whatever this ". . . my response would be as if they were a complete stranger. i.e. the same" means. You didn't in no uncertain terms give a clear and direct answer

The response was clear complete and direct. I'll break it down into bite-sized chunks to aid digestion;

I first made it clear that my response would not hinge on kinship.

TV01: If anyone I know or is related to me comes out “as gay”, my response would be as if they were a complete stranger – i.e., the same.

I then went on to outline my two possible responses which would be based on Christian belief - or not as it were.

TV01: For those that do not believe, I would not seek to impose my worldview on them. I shall continue to love and care for them as before, which affection was never based on sexual practice, but on kinship. Am I a hypocrite? Is fornication, adultery and the like unknown amongst my kindred? What of those things I am not even aware of?

TV01: For those that do, I would point out that my reading of scripture demands abstinence from secs outside the marital relationship, which is between 1 man and 1 woman. Again, no forced imposition of my views and if they wanted us to discuss, study and pray about the issue, I would willingly do so.

Hope the above was easily understood. Happy to break it down further if it helps.

I then posed two questions of my own, which you point blank ignored. Even though I was happy to take simple yes/no answers?

TV01: Now let me ask you a few questions, which I trust you will afford me like consideration and respond to. Simple yes/no answers will suffice;

Would you be happy for a son of yours to live a homosexual lifestyle? Even in the type of relationship the site you referenced (yes I visited and yes I read some articles) terms “monogamous non-cultic permanent unions”. Knowing the physical pathologies and psychological damage that will almost certainly result to some degree? Either forego having children, or have children that were not biologically his or his partners. And in any event not have the children’ natural mother play her rightful role in raising them.

Secondly, would you insist that the bible narrative suggests such unions are acceptable, blessed, equivalent to male/female unions and should be promulgated as such in church and in the wider society, with enforcement by legislative decree if required?

amdatam: Well, it was all about exploring your "Adam where art thou" factor; a bit of self discovery and/or self disclosure dabbling, as it were

Happy to explore and discuss freely and be enlightened by anyone at anytime.

amdatam: Trust you read and understood from a previous post, the italics snippet repeated below

"Let's take off the halo for a moment and step aside the holier-than-thou self righteous indignation . . .

So, no halo, not H-T-T, not S-R, not S-I. Just happy to state my position without imposing it on others. I am unequivocal about naming sin as sin. And I am not intimidated by those with opposing views no matter how condescending or arsey - excuse the pun - they happen to be.

amdatam: to without prejudice or a biased mindset, go through these links, selected from the plethora of information off the main web portal to ponder and share thoughts"

I am not in a rush for you to clinically and meticulously go through the link articles.

even if it'll take a year to devour, I am patient and can wait until ALL the linked articles, if not the entire site is read

I will be very pleased to answer yours question(s) after you have carefully and completely read through all the links

and when you are done, it would be a bonus and nice to know where you stand concerning the errancies of bible translations before you pose, if any, more questions

I likewise could ferret out a website with opposing views, point you to a few choice articles, suggest you take a year or so to read and digest, and then return with reformed theology and questions to sit at my feet. Oddly facetious at best. Instead, I posted as follows;

TV01: Happy to discuss anything from the site referenced or any other related issue.

Happy for the exploration and discovery to happen here and now. So if you have anything to offer except anothers self-justifying website, I'm happy to hear it.

Best
TV

What of Frosbel?

amdatam: This question "What you'll do, if your sibling, kid (i.e. child(ren)) etc is gay, turned out gay or comes out gay" ashamedly went unanswered

@amdatam

I have no problems answering your question and indeed, I will do so hereafter. However my response should come as no surprise, as I have always been – and will happily recant where I have not – consistent in my worldview and approach. I’m pretty sure that those that are familiar with my views/posting history would be able to give a fair approximation of my response here. I didn’t want this to get personal. I'd rather we focus on the scriptural narrative and a considered response to situations.

If anyone I know or is related to me comes out “as gay”, my response would be as if they were a complete stranger – i.e., the same. For those that do not believe, I would not seek to impose my worldview on them. I shall continue to love and care for them as before, which affection was never based on sexual practice, but on kinship. Am I a hypocrite? Is fornication, adultery and the like unknown amongst my kindred? What of those things I am not even aware of?

For those that do, I would point out that my reading of scripture demands abstinence from secs outside the marital relationship, which is between 1 man and 1 woman. Again, no forced imposition of my views and if they wanted us to discuss, study and pray about the issue, I would willingly do so.

Now let me ask you a few questions, which I trust you will afford me like consideration and respond to. Simple yes/no answers will suffice;

Would you be happy for a son of yours to live a homosexual lifestyle? Even in the type of relationship the site you referenced (yes I visited and yes I read some articles) terms “monogamous non-cultic permanent unions”. Knowing the physical pathologies and psychological damage that will almost certainly result to some degree? Either forego having children, or have children that were not biologically his or his partners. And in any event not have the children’ natural mother play her rightful role in raising them.

Secondly, would you insist that the bible narrative suggests such unions are acceptable, blessed, equivalent to male/female unions and should be promulgated as such in church and in the wider society, with enforcement by legislative decree if required?

Happy to discuss anything from the site referenced or any other related issue.

Best
TV

Kay 17: Most of TV01's post is unrelated to the OP, all that's relevant is how you explain away slavery as a cultural mess and leave homosexuality.

The OP was a ruse. It was posted in an attempt to marry - excuse the pun- the biblical narrative regards slavery and homosexual practice and suggest that as slavery had ultimately been discontinued, the prohibitions against homosexual acts should likewise be considered outdated. Even as the OP' premise was doomed to fail, it was actually designed to plant the seed of doubt and and raise questions, ultimately making people more receptive to and moving further along the path of acceptance of homosexual acts. Fail!

This was an obvious false dialectic, so I chose not to take the bait.

It would have been infinitely more honest to parallel it with other prohibited sex acts such as incest or bestiality and see if parallels could be drawn there. Slavery was a man made condition from which the bible immediately gave succour and ultimately eradicated. As noted it was nothing like, nor did it justify the trans Atlantic slave trade.

People are happy to piggy back off, and at once belittle the historical suffering of Afro-Americans, in both slavery and the fight for civil rights, in order to push this abominable behaviour. Doubly repugnant

Strangely enough it is the AA that is suffering most from sexual licentiousness and the erosion of the moral fabric in society. It's estimated that 60% of pregnancies (for AA'in New York city) are aborted. 60% of kids are born out of wedlock and more than 1 in two marriages end in divorce - do the math. If such trends persist, soon there will be very few AA families and little or no AA community - not substantively anyway.

God have mercy on us all
TV

Any discussion around homosexuality and the Christian response has to take into account the times we live in. I fully understand the point you are making. And I've been clear that its a logical part of the conversation we are having. However, this has to be considered in light of a number of other factors, particularly the mood at this time.

1. God. His will. His ways – we are not our own to willfully determine who, what and how we worship. Looking for ways to distort His template or alter His eternal plan will not end well. No matter how heartfelt and sincere meaning.

2. Christ. His gospel, His message – we are messengers, ours is not to dilute or sweeten the message; even if we get shot for delivering it. The gospel demands an acknowledgment of sin and repentance from same. Getting people into church doesn’t save them. Getting them to the cross of Christ on the basis of real conviction does

3. The 5th column already within the church – there are those who will re-interpret the scriptural narrative to satisfy those implacably opposed to the message. Where The Lord used the word "divide", they use inclusive. While the Bible talks of vile unnatural act, they talk of inherent natural orientation. Are we to be blind to this? Whom will we believe?

4. The raging contra-ideology without – They will not desist until our message (if not our very presence) is all but eradicated, if not effectively marginalised. They started with “we don’t want to be criminalised for this”, then it was “we just want to be left alone”, that became, “we are entitled to our human rights”, it has now become “you will endorse and celebrate this lifestyle on a par or above your own or else”.

Let me be clear. There are certainly some gay people who are amenable to hearing the gospel. And I have little doubt that God is leading some even now to that place of repentance and healing. But there are a whole load - indeed a very powerful LGBT lobby - that are warring per point 4. I'm not sure they are after or will be receptive to your sympathy.

5. Our children and their godly heritage – if we dilute or corrupt the message, they will be easy prey. Which in one aspect is the whole point of this. They can’t breed, so they must recruit. I always felt the sting of this move was in gay adoption, not SSM.


This conversation is way, way wider than what we have touched on. This is all designed to destroy the family and utterly corrupt society at large. Society has been carpet bombed with sex from literally every angle and it’s all but saturated. To the point we are close to being desensitised - and sex itself almost meaningless. Once sexual morality becomes permissive, ultimately everything will become tolerated and acceptable.

Go to the family section and see them erecting a temple to divorce. Sexual licentiousness is all but winked at, meaning that deviant sex becomes ever more acceptable. Pornography is just out there, eating away at the fabric and norms of sexual morality. Promiscuity is totally acceptable and encouraged. Celebrated even. We are all but resigned to rampant adultery and fornication no longer has real meaning for many in this age.

We’ve decoupled sex and marriage, doing likewise with marriage and children. We have no-fault divorce, readily available contraception and on demand abortion. Co-habitation is now normal.

The family has a significant role to play in Gods eternal plan. The enemy wars earnestly to destroy or distort it and make profane that which is holy. I could go on, but I can't believe that as this plays out people simply don't see it?

Best
TV

@Debosky, evening.

I've distilled your last response into what I believe your main point appears to be? Whilst it is laudable in itself, I think it misses the bigger picture of any discussion around this issue.

debosky: Authority here refers to understanding of the 'condition' in order to adopt a compassionate approach that enables the individual to be reached for Christ. If it's simply pontificating we're interested in then everyone can do that from their armchairs, but that achieves nothing.

debosky: They are not strawmen in my view. Let's give an example - if someone steals out of hunger, the approach to dealing with stealing will differ from someone else who suffers from greed. The nature/root cause of an issue is vital to proper understanding in my view. Take the man that Jesus healed - those around him were regarding his sin as caused by his parents' sin. Not an exact comparison I agree, but I hope you see my point.

debosky: A wrong response can reframe the discussion - if the response paint homosexuals as virtually irredeemable then it is unhelpful if the aim is to reach them for Christ.

debosky: I would not re-think my reading of the bible (which isn't the issue here) but my approach should reflect the how well I understand the 'problem'.

debosky: A compassionate, understanding standpoint - one that seeks to place one's self in the person's shoes in order to best minister to them. Not acceptance of homosexuality in any sense, but definitely not rejection in a manner that is so hostile and vitriolic that it viewed as precluding the possibility of salvation for those involved.

I'll follow up shortly.

Best
TV

amdatam: @TV01
I have been reading you blowing off steam - no offense meant

And none taken

amdatam: and none the wiser, your attitude or stance towards homosexuality as such

Please read again, believe I have been clear. Or at least advise on which specific point you'd like me to clarify.

amdatam: God, please, spare us a burden we are unable to carry or handle . . .

A resounding Amen to that.

amdatam: God forbid, but whatcha gonna do, if you have a sibling, kid etc that is gay, turns out gay or comes out gay?

God forbid indeed
I can only trust God, pray and raise my children as best I can - in His nurture. I want Gods will for them and that is not His will. May He also have mercy on me and mine - and may we not fall foul of His wrath for not glorifying Him or the deception He sends for believing the lie - but receive the love of the Truth, so as to be saved.

amdatam: Your reply can be liberating. Thank you in advance.

True liberty is in Christ, who frees us from sin and asks us not to become slaves of men. But I hope this helps.

God bless
TV

Evening Debosky,

I am by no means denying your right to do so, but it seems your approach to issues is Christian only in a purely academic sense? It often appears to omit God, His word, His will and His ways.

debosky: My issue is thus - how do we deal with the issue of homosexuality in practice? While it is clear there are those that voluntarily engage in homosexuality, there appears to be those who feel they are 'made' that way, or did not 'choose' to be that way. Simply harping on 'design' in those cases isn't helpful.

Scripturally speaking, as practice it cannot be condoned or encouraged, even if those with such inclinations should be treated sympathetically - which I fully understand may have not been the case in the past. The Bible denotes it as clear evidence of Gods wrath (at some point at least).

Practically, it seems that there are a number of factors that may predicate homosexual leanings, but familial and social factors are evidentially key. We should be aware of this and not engender the circumstances for it to flourish. It is historically clear that where it is condoned it proliferates.

As for being made that way, whilst I can't empirically refute that, I can query that supposition. Who can tell exactly how they were born? Who can recall every childhood incident or memory? Causative factors could be forgotten, repressed or be things the individual was not and will never be aware of. That claim has also been made and there is documented evidence of people being delivered from a homosexual lifestyle.

Harping? The conversation has been progressive. It is important to establish facts and terms of reference. After all, someone posted claiming it was natural, a "human right" and anyone against homosexual sex was a bigot. Despite the evidence by design, in nature and through science.

debosky: I am clearly not talking about scriptural authority here - I am referring to those who claim to know the origin and 'cure' for homosexuality with little or no evidence to back up their assertions.

I don't see what other authority Christians have? Whatever knowledge we possess is to some degree indeterminate. However scripture is clear in this case. It's an abomination - a vile affection - a turning away from God and ultimately a sign of Gods judgement. I don't deny the right of unbelievers to reject that. They will ultimately answer to their Creator. As a Christian, intercession is one thing, taking God to task is another.

For a Christian, knowledge of the origins and cure are both strawmen. It's about what the bible says and the response based on that.

debosky: And what extent do congenital factors determine sex-ual inclination? That is an important question that many of those pontificating have yet/unable to examine. For people who have no inkling of what it means to have/struggle with homosexual inclination, it is quite easy to make assertions on cures without understanding the origin.

For congenital read genetic. There is no proven link. And if there was, how would that change our reading of the Bible? Agreed, there can be seemingly little sympathy, even vitriol. A wrong response perhaps, but it does not change the scriptural narrative or re-frame the discussion.

I do not struggle with inclinations towards a number of things God calls sin and lack understanding of others. But I know what the word says about them - and that the cure for all are in Him.

debosky: What classes as design? Is it only the external? Like you said earlier, do the 'congenital factors' not count as design? I'm glad you mentioned deformities - if one is deformed (physically or 'orientationally' due to congenital factors) and hence doesn't fit the 'design' does that then constitute sin?

Design and function have been discussed. Please present something new here or force me to harp. Congenital is de facto genetic for the purpose of this discussion. Unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise. Why focus on outliers or extremes? But I daresay God can glorify Himself in those cases also

debosky: Normality is not the issue being debated - from a Christian perspective, it is whether this aberration is equivalent to sin, taking the origin/source into consideration.

What does the Bible say? What is your reading of it? As the sources may not be clearly explicated in the Bible, if a study claimed 100% certainty that it was genetic/congenital/inherent, would you re-think your reading of it and hence your response?

debosky: Again, for the sake of argument, this is debatable - if the gene was say 'recessive', it wouldn't breed out because it could be 'latent' in one generation and passed on. Besides, I am not advocating for homosexuality from an evolutionary/functional design standpoint, so don't feel a need to rebut.

Exactly what standpoint are you advocating for homosexuality?

debosky: I am not straddling anything - my point is that there appear to be some/many cases of homosexuality that aren't simply a 'self-selected' practice. Call it an aberration, call it a 'deformity', call it whatever you like. The issue is, if the individual has not 'chosen' to be that way, do you treat that as identical to someone else who simply experimented?

If the Bible says something is sinful, unnatural, vile, is that invalidated or cease to be applicable if it's claimed to be "not by choice"?

[quote author=debosky]I am talking about the practicality of dealing with these people, not just an academic debate on whether it's 'normal' or 'by design'.

I believe I have responded to all points here.


God bless
TV

Kay 17: ^^^

You can discuss Love if you wish, however it seems Wilberforce turned a blind eye to the numerous EXPRESS biblical verses that support and promote slavery. And they are quite self-evidential.

I can't see how you"d maintain love and then keep slaves. Because slavery is a destruction of personhood.

You are doing a very good job of making me appear prescient

Kay 17: @TV01

I painstakingly complied the verses in the Bible that supported and promoted slavery.

I disagree. You cut and pasted scripture that touched on slavery/indentured servitude. There was no real contextual or situational analysis. There was no consideration given to Gods eternal plan of redemption. I don't see anything painstaking in that.

Kay 17: @TV01

I'm yet to receive your response on such verses

Sir, I summed up the whole message (not the purpose mind)of the bible for you thus;

The greatest commandment is to love The Lord your God with all your strength, all your heart and all your soul. And your neighbour as yourself. Love does no harm to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I further expantiated on believing and trusting God to work His will in you, how that would ultimately cleanse us individually of all destructive and dysfunctional behaviour, and corporately rid us of all societal ills.

Kay 17: @TV01

and from what angle should they be looked from.

In the light of bigger picture view outlined above. There is no angle required. Although I do find you approach rather obtuse.

More than happy to further discuss the "love" or other aspects if you so desire, but I have nothing further to say regards the biblical position on slavery or sodomy. And I consider efforts to force inaccurate reasoning into one to erroneously justify the other, a complete and utter waste of time.

Also happy to hear any well considered postulations you'd like to put forward; yours or anyone elses.

God bless
TV

debosky: I'm not making any points per se - I simply challenged the ignorance of truthislight's claim that there is 'no evidence of homosexuality in animals'. His argument was that if it was 'natural' we would find it in animals, which we do.

I can't claim to have studied secsual practices in animals, but I would question what is being termed "homosexual" here? Is it really male animals (and vice-versa) purposely shunning females and copulating with other males in the absence of any adverse or abnormal conditions?

There are inmates who only have gay sex when incarcerated; justifying it by the conditions, refusing to acknowledge themselves as homosexuals and not indulging in the behaviour upon release. I't's a practice. Even if it's a preferred one, it's not how we were designed. It is dysfunctional.

I believe I have made the points about nature with regards to behaviour and conduct. And how humans are not subject to or validated by what obtains in the animal kingdom. So that is an erroneous claim. Whoever makes it.

debosky: is - many of those that glibly bandy about advice/opinion are not really knowledgeable about the subject they want to discuss with authority.

Without knowledge perhaps, but not without authority. Scriptural authority. Having read and researched, I can discuss knowledgeably to a degree. If I hadn't and couldn't, I would rest assured in the truth of scripture. Especially on something as glaring as sodomy. Most of the chatter around the legitimacy of homosexual secs is fabricated. Supposed scriptural backing is deceitful butchery at best. It's propaganda.

debosky: The appeal to nature for evidence is not sufficient evidence for either position, but some ignorantly believe the absence of homosexuality in 'nature'/animals confirms the view that homosexuality is wrong - clearly this belief is not true.

There is full corroboration in nature for the "normal sex" position;

1. The obvious functional design and complimentarity of male and female
2. It is fruitful


There is non for the "gay sex position";

1. It occurs in the animal kingdom - Errr so what?
2. It is unproductive - survival of the fittest? Propagation of genes??
3. It is inherent - secsual inclinations are triggered by a number of factors, not necessarily congenital.
4. It is inherent - not a chance. Design plainly denies this. We are all born functionally "Heterosexual" (deformities aside)
5. It is genetic - no genetic link proven. Even this would not make it normal. It remains an abberation.
6. It is pathological - clear evidence of functional misapplication. It results in physical and psychiatric disease.
7. Evolution - none of it - It would be bred out. Indeed, it couldn't even have been bred in.
8. Evolution - no sir, the rectum would have "evolved" the layered muscularity and robustness of the female pudenda.
9. Evolution - still no. Along with the the correct immune response to male sp@rm.

Nature is pretty unequivocal here. You sir appear to be "straddling". Without further detail, I can make no judgement as to that particular practice.

God bless
TV

Kay 17: I think we don't have sufficient understanding on sexuality

Cannard. And sad one at that. Attempting to overlay sexuality on identity? Utterly bogus. Sex is a practice; something we do. It in no way designates our beings or identities, which are glaringly apparent from our inherent design and functionality. Men and women come together to create a recombinant whole for the God glorifying purpose of creation. Whatever practice, fetish or deviancy one holds to, that remains an incontrovertible fact.

How odd is that statement. Its on record that a man attempted sex with "the pavement. Yes 0! The sidewalk. Did you simply imbibe and regurgitate or have you actually thought this through?

Kay 17: what we have is based on gender roles from multiple cultures, hence a confusion.

I'm trying really hard to take your postulations seriously or give any credence to anything you've said. All cultures have done throughout the ages is promulgate the two "gender roles" that were God given. Or "come naturally if you prefer. The odd defect or aberration aside.

Kay 17: It is settled at law, that a sexual identity is inherent to a person and consequentially a human right.

Men can, and do make laws as they see fit. That changes nothing. Please refer to my opening statement in this post. And again, pederasts, those given to zoophillia and any other secsual perversion can make a claim to be inherently predisposed to their deviancy.

True human rights should in truth be based on a few immutable/natural truths. Unfortunately they can be legislated for (or against)if the ideological/political lobby is powerful enough. Hence the erroneous gay rights" notion.

Human law is not necessarily immutable. Sodomy as a crime has only recently been repealed. It's an immutable natural law that homosexuals can't reproduce. Why have they sought to contravene that via adoption? Which l actually believe is a bigger abomination than SSM.

Kay 17: However bible scholars/followers are called upon here to deal with interpretation and its rules.

Au contraire. We are led by the Spirit into all truth. Besides, a literal reading of the Bible is glaringly clear on the illicitness of all sex outside the marital - male/female - union and the fact that homosexual sex is an abomination.

Those trying to interpret otherwise are simply ignorant, incompetent or insidious. There is no gainsaying.

debosky: Settled at law - on the basis of what evidence? Many Christians (e.g. TVO1) don't accept your idea that sexual identity is inherent to a person. Furthermore, no such law is 'settled' in Nigeria for example.

The interpretation of bible scholars is based on the premise that homosexuality is neither inherent nor a human right. The view is that this is a perversion - a departure from 'nature'.

I trust my response speaks to the above also.

debosky: What are you on about? For you to glibly claim there is no evidence of homosexuality in the animal world shows you are highly ignorant about what you are talking about.

I have not tried to educate God, just to point out YOUR ignorance.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

Go and educate yourself and stop ranting. Don't make daft claims that there is no evidence of homosexuality in animals just to defend your position. God does not need your pathetic lies for his Word to remain true.

And what is your point here?

As I've previously stated, nature is not necessarily the determinant of behaviour, and certainly not of morality or conduct.
Matricide and infanticide are common in animals, does this validate it in humans? In normal conditions, are animals given to homosexuality? As opposed to frenzy/abnormal behaviour caused by abnormal conditions.

One further point, 1'000 species is not 1% of the total known species. This hardly qualifies as "universal". Please beware of the idealogical position of your sources.

An appeal to nature is contrary to the "argument for". Homosexuals cannot reproduce, would have been bred out. The rectum is not constructed to accommodate penile penetration or receive sp@rm - which is an immunosuppressant - one of the reasons for the host of pathologies associated with an@l secs. The area is easily - and in the medium to long term irreparably damaged. Is middle-aged men wearing butt-plugs and pampers natural?

God bless
TV

Evening All,

I’ve been following the thread and whilst I’ve been coalescing thoughts and even prepping to post, I’ve not been opportuned to contribute further.

I’d like to respond to a couple of questions posed about my thoughts on the “causality”.

Currently science has not determined that there is a genetic link to homosexual behaviour. No peer-reviewed, critically acclaimed studies have been able to prove this link. Although there have been a few discredited studies making that claim.

However, I will not dismiss a possible genetic/biological cause – even if only in part – for the following reasons;

1. It not having been shown doesn’t mean it does not exist

2. “For honesty’ sake” – as a Christian, I make that very same claim about God. A lack of scientific evidence for His existence, is not sufficient to deny it.

3. I make a claim to personally having encountered God, making the need for scientific affirmation a moot point. Likewise even as the discussion progresses, someone has contributed, saying her inclination in this regard has been with her since as far back as she can remember.

As a Christian, I see sodomy – not the deceitful/reformed word Homosexuality or the re-invention “gay” – as a practice – and an unnatural one. Not an immutable identity (like blackness say), or an innate orientation (like left-handedness). I use those H & G terms in discussions merely to be polite and to give leave to contemporary speech. I am not deceived by those terms.

Regardless of the current cultural view promulgated as ideology by the LGBT lobby, it is not simply and wholly a “natural orientation that people have no power over”. That is no more than a ploy to reduce resistance to it and piggy back of the civil rights movement.

Historically it was closely linked to – so as to be almost indistinguishable from– pederasty (paedophillia). Indeed the LGBT special interest group (SIG), is at a loss and decidedly silent on the homosexual scandals - specifically the child secs abuse - rocking the catholic church. It’s not because the priests are unable to marry (in a traditional sense), it’s normal sodomitic practice. It’s a well known fact that a large number – if not an outright majority – of catholic priests (in the West at least) are homosexually inclined. They could just as easily engaged with each other or rent boys outside the church. Perhaps at some point we’ll move on to discuss the wider spiritual implications of sodomy and all forms of scripturally illicit secs.

Homosexuality was previously on record as a psychiatric disorder, being finally removed in the 70’s due to Lobbying (as have medical terms around the pathologies such as “Gay Bowel Syndrome”).

There is no doubt that early stage trauma (for example secsual abuse), or disruption to the natural order of a childs development can trigger this inclination. That is well researched and documented fact.

Even recently we hear of people deciding to change orientation. One of the women from the SecsInTheCity program recently changed orientation after 15 years in a marriage (not sure if common law or legal) with children. The bombardment by the LBGT lobby has worked in culturally shifting this from being percieved as an unnatural act to a natural feeling, from secs to love. Society will ultimately suffer the consequences if it - no pun intended – swallows this lie.

Even if causality is a spectrum? From natural (even in part) to a simple choice (which we have seen). It doesn’t change my position. Man is a fallen creature. Christians see all dysfunction as a result of this fall – and sin in the world - regardless of origins.

And note this key point; nature is not necessarily a determinant of behaviour (scotching meaningless cliches like “why are all black people violent” etc.). Otherwise these same arguments can be applied to almost all harmful behaviours, secsual or otherwise. A sociopaths charter.

Youngsters go through a vulnerable and impressionable period through their formative years. It’s not very difficult to condition them to believe and accept that homosexuality is natural and normal. How much more with the promulgation of Gay ideology (and hip, high profile gay icons), through the media and now via state sponsorship. It’s essential that children are raised as much as possible in the right setting – traditional marriage – with the right nurture.

And whatever its causes it’s sin. And as sin abounds, grace abounds much. And what of demonic influence? Especially early? Whatever the cause, Christ can set you free.


God bless
TV



Note: homosexuality is not found universally in all cultures/societies, mitigating against a genetic link. In those that it is, it is typically considered an abomination. Where it is considered neutral or encouraged, it typically proliferates. It is always more common and accepted in urban as opposed to rural areas. And always more amongst the wealthy, educated, liberal elite, hence it’s seemingly overwhelming – although unrepresentative – support.

Kay 17: 3. Yes, however what the Bible says depends on its interpretations. We are presented with thousands interpretations and contexts. And in this case, we have 2 sides on slavery and homosexuality.

Utter nonsense. The Biblical narrative is blessedly clear. If you believe the Bible initiated, supports or champions slavery, please elucidate using your own interpretation. In fact, submit any interpretation supporting that claim you please. A number of posters here will be more than happy to show you that the problem lies not with the Bibles clarity, but with the muddy thinking -or deceitful purpose - of those pushing that sorry notion.

Kay 17: 4. Still a problem of interpretation, you seem to have your unique own too. Slavery was well regulated, lots of biblical verses dedicated to it. Yet Jesus never condemned it directly, given that slavery was as horrible in his times as the Trans Altantic Slave Trade.

As requested, kindly submit this interpretation. There'll be little headway if we merely exchange assertions
Slavery was extant prior to the Bible. It still practiced today - both physical and economic.
I've responded to this; the great commandment and the effect of trusting God to work His will in you.
Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save. Both the slave and the free. The issue was - and is - slavery to sin. Afflicting all.

Kay 17: @TV01
5. It was not my piece. Its a perspective within Christianity itself. And he draws inspiration from the Wilberforce spirit.

The Lord knows those who are His. Anyone can claim to be a Christian and anything can be advanced as a Christian position.

Kay 17: 6. Fairness and equality in how they are treated. Probably being treated more as humans rather than sub-humans, who shouldn't be spoken to, employed, do busineSs with, touch, or participate in a public square.

People with homosexual inclinations should not be persecuted or denied their freedoms. Homosexual behavour is both aberrant and abhorrent and should not be normalised or endorsed as equivalent or an alternative to the heterosexual union.

How are homosexuals treated as sub-human, discriminated against or denied freedom to participate in the public square?

Hate to be an@l, but what's your point exactly?

God bless
TV