Is Rick Santorum right to compare homosexuality to beastiality?

[KillerPollo]

His remarks constantly offend Americans and gives America a bad reputation abroad.

Yes, I agree with him.  And you, as a Catholic, should be offended by homosexuality and any sexual immorality.

same here... Fags are filthier than dogs. Non-Human animals do not practice homosexuality like some members of our species do. so trying to mock mating with something incompatible, whether another man, or a duck is equally wrong.

Santorum is my hero in that aspect. What he thinks about Mexicans however, is a different story.

[KillerPollo]

His remarks constantly offend Americans and gives America a bad reputation abroad.

Yes, I agree with him.  And you, as a Catholic, should be offended by homosexuality and any sexual immorality.

same here... Fags are filthier than dogs.

I do not agree with you.

Ok, so tell me WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE why you do not agree with me!

[KillerPollo]

Non-Human animals do not practice homosexuality like some members of our species do.

Actually, they sometimes do. It happens a lot in rams, actually(as compared to other species, anyways).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=6421

You must be logged in to read this quote.

interesting.. this seems to support my claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder after all, not something that the affected person can control.

[KillerPollo]

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html

that would be AWESOME if imposed in the American continent! especially Canada.

Consensual gay sex in any way, shape or form should be punishable by death. And opebo should be the executioner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[KillerPollo]

Doesn’t the bible teach that approving of someone’s sin is worse than the sin itself?

You're right. If you support and/or promote the sin, you are equally guilty. Anyone who supports gay rights is as guilty as the person who commits f****try. both should be halved by the sword.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

beliefs have no place in politics. Hypocrisy is everywhere.

[KillerPollo]

No. I believe you can fire someone for being a homosexual in most states.

Can't a political campaign fire someone for any and every reason?

I don't know if there's an exception for political campaigns or not, but we live in a very socialist country where you can't fire someone, for example, on the basis of race. Truly disgraceful how bad things have gotten in the "land of the free."

Truly disgraceful how some people see nothing wrong with discrimination

with race I agree! but with homosexuality, it's different.

The bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not be black" but it does say "Thou shalt not sleep with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination"
The same Bible passage (Lev. 18) condemns homosexuality also condemns bestiality & incest.

The popinjay King of Sweden - a moral titmouse in the plumage of a peacock, who lives lavishly with his lazy, horny kids on Sweden's largest social security check - is King of Fags, King of Zoophiles, King of Pedophiles, and King of Incestuous Perverts.


although the king's daughter is a VERY HOT fine-ass bitch

Sweden had a priest arrested for speaking out against fags.

[KillerPollo]

Wow you are so full of hate

It is not hate. It's common sense.  Since when is christianity a hate group? since when is telling the truth hate speech?

[KillerPollo]

Wow you are so full of hate

It is not hate. It's common sense.  Since when is christianity a hate group? since when is telling the truth hate speech?

Christianity is not a hate group, I am a Christian.  But taking a few versuses out of something that was never meant to be taken word for word liiterally IS HATE.  You are COMPLETLEY FULL OF HATE.  Its so sad you don't see it

People who claim to be christian, yet support gay rights are lukewarm cowards. Modern day Pharisees. People who have gone a whoring after strange gods. Self-righteous hypocrites. They spend more time harrassing people who are preaching the Gospel than anything else, just like the Pharisees did to Jesus. They are second in evil only to the modern day Saduccees (i.e., bleeding heart liberals).

All in all, if you're claiming to be a Christian, but you deny what the Bible says about God and His hatred of all workers of iniquity, then you're dealing with the scripture in a whorish manner.

[KillerPollo]

Do you believe I should be killed 'by the sword', Mexican States Rights? I'm a practicing homosexual so go on. Do you believe I have no right to live anymore? I mean, god the taxes I pay to the government must be tainted money and a gay doctor friend of mine...eww those 4 lives he saved must not be worth living anymore becasue he..t...t..touched them!

you just don't get it do ya? do you think I'm really that extreme?

no wait... Maybe I am, but not as much as to slash them with a sword.
I am just saying that what you are practicing is wrong and still have time to change (IF you are really a homo, that is).

[KillerPollo]

If not then I'm afraid irony does not come across well in the written word.

alright I apologize for my preaching against fags.

I'll try to be a little less explicit and rude next time.

[KillerPollo]

Santorum neglects the obvious fact that heterosexuality is precisely as similar to beastiality as is homosexuality.

why wouldn't it be?

[KillerPollo]

Although I was mentioned in another thread as one of the most tolerant posters, one thing I cannot tolerate is the promulgation of bigotry.

There's no need for that here.

I don't know what your deal is, KillerChicken, but you make me sick.  Whether you're for real or it's feigned hatred or to cause some controversy, no one wants to read it.

Does anyone else think this character is out of line here?

um no!!! you intolerate the "intolerants"
and i AM against homosexuals, but not that extreme as to say "Fags should die blahblahbalh!!!" if you don't know, don't talk! GROW UP! like many forummers have here!

[KillerPollo]

I think I figured out what the Q stands for.

yeah! and look @ his age!

[KillerPollo]

um no!!! you intolerate the "intolerants"
and i AM against homosexuals, but not that extreme as to say "Fags should die blahblahbalh!!!" if you don't know, don't talk! GROW UP! like many forummers have here!

Did you not just say:

Anyone who supports gay rights is as guilty as the person who commits f****try. both should be halved by the sword.

um... i was being sarcastic about the sword thing, OK?
I am not that extreme, and what i say is not trolling, like opebo or NixonNow

[KillerPollo]

um no!!! you intolerate the "intolerants"
and i AM against homosexuals, but not that extreme as to say "Fags should die blahblahbalh!!!" if you don't know, don't talk! GROW UP! like many forummers have here!

Did you not just say:

Anyone who supports gay rights is as guilty as the person who commits f****try. both should be halved by the sword.

um... i was being sarcastic about the sword thing, OK?
I am not that extreme, and what i say is not trolling, like opebo or NixonNow

All right, but you could stop saying things like that.

You say you hate homosexuals, and then you advocate killing them.  So the hatred is real, but wanting them to die is sarcasm?

I never said i promoted their killing. Also that was sarcasm. However, i DO dislike them (including those who support gay rights), but not kill them or do them any harm (Thou shalt not kill).

and Since when is hate something illegal? Have you heard of free speech here? what's the point of being in a free country if you cannot enjoy its freedoms?

[KillerPollo]

I said i apologized for my intense hatred. i didnt know most of you people didnt crack down on gays as my community does in another forum i'm in

[KillerPollo]

i didnt know most of you people didnt crack down on gays as my community does in another forum i'm in

And what forum would that be?  Free Republic?

how did you know?

this will quench the hate among us... Let there be peace now!

[KillerPollo]

Where as you as a Mexican male could come to the US, take welfare check and impregnate white women.  There are no limits to hate. There is no safety zone.

Sorry! white girls are not my specialty...even girls of my own race arent. I prefer Japanese chicks over pretty much the rest.

btw

Does this look like I'm a stereotypical Latino? tell me!

[KillerPollo]

Good luck with finding Japanese chicks in the Sonoran Desert MexicanStatesRights.

ok, so I dont live anywhere near the sonoran desert.

[KillerPollo]

--one out of four girls are molested - Paedophiles are being allowed to do this

--2 million americans are behind bars - because they are not educated right, or taught morals

--STDs are common throughout the population - Unsafe sex (gay more frequent than straight) with strangers is very cmmon

--teaching kids to remain virgin until marriage is mocked by the media - The media KNOWS that there are desperate teenage virgins out there who want to feel something early

--media is pushing the approval of homosexuality - That's a main problem today! That is why a lot of posters here think it's OK to be gay, and believe they should be a protected class, like blacks.
They are also taught to believe that just because gayism involves consent, then it is OK. In other countries, the media is condemning people who speak out against homosexuality, or comparing it to other abnormal sexual orientations (ie zoophilia, paedophilia, incest, etc.)

--a president can't call mass murderers "evil" without causing a media frenzy - Media are the biggest liars. What happened to the "honest and truthful" press your American founding fathers proposed?

--etc, etc, etc - bla bla bla bla...

Basically, most Americans have used their freedom to indulge their greed and sexual immorality.  

[KillerPollo]

You have no right to claim she is less 'Catholic' based on such sweeping assumptions. In Scotland most Catholics are realists; they have sex out of wedlock, the use contraception some even have abortions, that is their personal choice. Sex and sexual health has nothing to do with religion it is a personal thing and no one has the legitimacy to question another persons 'religiousness' as a result. Some of the biggest moral preachers who spew out all the 'hosannas, holy holies and thou shalt nots' are some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

P.S I'm Catholic too.

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

OH SNAP!

many people who claim to follow religion are just a bunch of charlatans who are doing this for money. christians who commit abortions, are gay, or have sex out of wedlock may be religious, but not faithful.

Who said that, but it tends to be those who make the biggest issue about so called sexual immorality & homosexuals tend to go against the very theme of the bible & Jesus's overall teachings to "love thy neighbor" and "not to judge others"

You are probably thinking of John 3:16, which says no such thing. The word translated "world" in that verse (kosmos) NEVER means every individual of mankind who has ever lived (see, e.g., John 17:9). Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau, and Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all WORKERS of iniquity. Other examples are Proverbs 6:16-19, Psalm 11:5, and Malachi 1:3. Given these verses, how can you say God loves everyone? Can you really say "God loves everyone" when God says "I hated Esau?" Does God love the people in hell?

Or, you are thinking of "God is love." God certainly is love, toward His elect (His children). But He certainly is not love toward the reprobate (children of the devil). That's why His elect go to heaven, and the reprobate go to hell. In Romans 9:13, which says "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated", Jacob is a representative of God's elect, while Esau is a representative of the reprobate. In Romans 1, the word "reprobate" is used to describe homosexuals. They are reprobate. God hates reprobates. Therefore, God hates homosexuals.

Furthermore, God specifically says that He ABHORS people who engage in sodomy (as well as other forms of sexual perversion): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them...And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." Leviticus 20:13,23. Understand?

God's hatred is one of His holy attributes, whereby He reveals Himself as having a fixed and immutable determination to punish the finally impenitent with eternal perdition. God's hatred is not like man's hatred. His hatred is holy, pure, unchanging, while man's hatred is a sinful, fickle emotion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Does that mean to lie to him and tell him what he wants to hear? No. It means to tell him the truth, and warn him to flee from the wrath to come. As we are commanded in Leviticus 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Here, loving your neighbour is defined as rebuking him, and not allowing sin to come upon him. The purest, most exalted form of love is to tell people the truth, especially about weighty matters such as life and death, sin, righteousness, judgment to come, Heaven and Hell.

PS: i did not use the word "fag". I am not trying to be rude, nor offend anyone.

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

Opebo. are you a descendant of a citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah?

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

since when does hating gays = ignorant? LOLOLOLOL
Look at yourself. you advocate that anyone who opposes your whacked out points of view, to be fed to the lions.

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

don't worry. according to yourself, me and opebo bring balance to the forums. right vs. left.

[KillerPollo]

So, was Jesus wrong to preach against sexual immorality?

Obviously!  The man (assuming he even existed) did nothing but go around making the absurd claim of the existence of an objective morality.  In other words he was essentially a madman, but more to the point politically a tyrant and an intolerant.  Imagine presuming to tell someone where to stick their member?  Feed him to the lions!

And I assume that you think that you, in all of your glory and power, are Jesus? You fit that description so nicely that I wasn't quite sure if you were talking about Jesus or yourself.

No, I deny the existence of objective morality, like any rational person, everett.

Also I would never presume to tell a person where he should stick his member, though I might in friendly fashion exhort him to enjoy sticking it wherever he likes.

If you deny the existence of an objective morality, then why do you so freely place value judgements on religion and people who disagree with your views?

You poor simpleton, as I have repeated for your benefit about a thousand times by now - I do not object to their having stupid subjective preferences, what I object to is their claim that there is an objective morality.  In other words, go ahead and hate gays if you're an ignorant hick, but once you claim that they are objectively 'bad', I shall have to advocate feeding you to the lions.

So basically you want everyone who disagrees with you to be fed to the lions. Good job.

No, you are again missing the distinction.  I fear you are incapable of understanding.

And proud of being incapable of understanding your warped lack of logic that quite a few Atlasians are still puzzled over.

It is simple everett - I take great offense that one individual subjectivity would presume to judge another based on the fiction of objective morality.

ok. Killing is part of objective morality. Do you favor killing? oh wait... YOU DO!!! you advocate feeding ppl to the lions. OH YES!!