The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[The Iceman]

Wow! You take a single statistic for AIDS and turn it into that statement. Tell me, is 15% of South Africa gay? AIDS doesn't discriminate, unlike you.

Lung cancer is bad and cigarettes are to blame. That is the disease and the cause in the same sentence.

AIDS is bad and gays are not to blame, because gays do not cause AIDS. You must harbour some very serious prejudices to make that connection.

More accurately unsafe sex is the main means of transmitting AIDS, but it doesn't cause AIDS. Condoms prevent AIDS transmission, but guess which organisation bans them? By your logic The Catholic Church is as much to blame as gays are (and far more to blame in my eyes), except gays and everyone else, are merely doing what comes naturally to them. The Church has no such excuse.

Back to the UFC, you listed various risk of 'sodomy', not merely AIDS. Some of them weren't a patch on the dangers of UFC.

Cigarettes are not the only cause of Lung cancer. Gay sex is not the only transmitter of Aids - both are to blame heavily for the occurrences of the disease. My own feelings have nothing to do with the discussion - please play the ball, not the man.

The Catholic Church bans the use of condoms in traditional marriage. Amoung exclusive marriages of men and women who are having sex for pro-creation. The Catholic Church is not banning the use of condoms for sodomy amoung gay men. Nice switch there but we're not falling for it....

Comparing the UFC to sodomy then you should compare it to all other sports where the risk of injury is equally real. But thats a sport not a disorder. UFC fighters are tested for any ailments or diseases and are not allowed to compete if any exist. They don't go out amd mix their bodily fluids with 7000 other fighters in their life time...

Do you ever have sex just to get the ride or are you looking to impregnate her every time?

I probably have more sex than most husbands in their late 30s. But we don't use protection and we are open to life if it happens or not. 4 kids in 8 years and we'll take more if we're given them.

[muppet]

Iceman, it is obvious you start with the dogma and try to make the facts fit.

You still misrepresent the consensus on homosexuality being a psychological disorder. There is no evidence that it is a disorder and there never was. In the absence of any evidence the claims that it is a disorder is simply evidence of prejudice, probably based on religious dogma. But you don't buy this because there are 'no new facts' as you put it. You ignore the fact that there were no facts to support it as a disorder in the first place.

Your scientific/biological list of reasons for your being against sodomy, consists mainly risks that are taken by those who engage in heterosexual sex. Are you against heterosexual sex for those same health risks?

Regarding UFC, it is pretty brutal, but I personally have no problem with it as the participants consent to it and are fully aware of the risks. Much the same as homosexuality.

As for AIDS, the stats in Africa don't suit your argument you will ignore them? And of course you will ignore the fact that more religious dogma is a huge part of the problem there, again because it doesn't suit your argument. AIDS is an STD, it doesn't discriminate how it gets transmitted. And btw more people die in car accidents and more again die of gunshots than are diagnosed with AIDS/HIV in the US due to 'sodomy'. Are you against automobiles and guns as well?

As for your proclamation the these men are not Catholics, you are entering Fearon territory here. Will you do as he does and claim to be full of empathy and humility, while demanding the excommunication of others YOU don't deem worthy?

[The Iceman]

Iceman, it is obvious you start with the dogma and try to make the facts fit.

You still misrepresent the consensus on homosexuality being a psychological disorder. There is no evidence that it is a disorder and there never was. In the absence of any evidence the claims that it is a disorder is simply evidence of prejudice, probably based on religious dogma. But you don't buy this because there are 'no new facts' as you put it. You ignore the fact that there were no facts to support it as a disorder in the first place.

Your scientific/biological list of reasons for your being against sodomy, consists mainly risks that are taken by those who engage in heterosexual sex. Are you against heterosexual sex for those same health risks?

Regarding UFC, it is pretty brutal, but I personally have no problem with it as the participants consent to it and are fully aware of the risks. Much the same as homosexuality.

As for AIDS, the stats in Africa don't suit your argument you will ignore them? And of course you will ignore the fact that more religious dogma is a huge part of the problem there, again because it doesn't suit your argument. AIDS is an STD, it doesn't discriminate how it gets transmitted. And btw more people die in car accidents and more again die of gunshots than are diagnosed with AIDS/HIV in the US due to 'sodomy'. Are you against automobiles and guns as well?

As for your proclamation the these men are not Catholics, you are entering Fearon territory here. Will you do as he does and claim to be full of empathy and humility, while demanding the excommunication of others YOU don't deem worthy?

Muppet I've engaged with you from a religious perspective and you refused to give it any merit. My opinion counts for nothing if I back it up with religion is the position you more or less gave to me.
So I gave you some physical effects of sodomy and they don't match up with the marital act as the female body is made to receive male fluid, the male rectum is not. It's for taking a shit out of. Putting something foreign in there causes mutations and cancers. But the scientific answers are not good enough for you either.

the UFC is one promotion that showcases MMA. fighters who partake in the sport are not defined by their passion for combat. I think its a foolish comparison to draw with sodomy, or cars or anything else you'd like to deflect the subject with.

I'm not venturing into Fearon land or Iceman land or any land other than Catholic land. I am not passing judgement on anyone - I'm giving you the truth of the Church. If someone sins, any sin, they are not in communion with the Catholic church until they receive forgiveness for that sin and make penance. Sin you regret and try to never do again, even though you may fall time and time again is different to choosing sodomy, with no regrets and making it the definition of who you are. These are not my rules - these are the rules of the Church. If you went to Catholic school at all you were taught this just as much as I was. If you say I am Catholic and there's a "but" then you're not Catholic. You are just culturally catholic, of catholic heritage, much like the Jews who never go to temple but once or twice a year...

every message is made up of content and delivery. Tony falls down in his delivery a do I but the content of the message remains the same....

Sodomy is wrong. I wont be forced to agree with it, accept it as good and normal or standard,

[J70]

I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.

I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.

Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.

Sorry Iceman

You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?

Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not.  It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?

From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.

So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?

what does it matter J70 if you aren't Catholic?

Well, given that sodomy as a sin and non-procreative sexual activity appears to be one of your personal arguments against homosexuality, I think its germane to the discussion.

Part of debate and discussion is looking at inconsistencies and logical flaws.

So are blowjobs and handjobs ok?

[The Iceman]

I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.

I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.

Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.

Sorry Iceman

You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?

Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not.  It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?

From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.

So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?

what does it matter J70 if you aren't Catholic?

Well, given that sodomy as a sin and non-procreative sexual activity appears to be one of your personal arguments against homosexuality, I think its germane to the discussion.

Part of debate and discussion is looking at inconsistencies and logical flaws.

So are blowjobs and handjobs ok?

ask your priest
and I didnt say non-procreative sex was wrong  I said the church teaches that sex should be open to life. contraception is not open to life and unless you have some intelligent swimmers up the ass or anywhere else isn't either.

[omaghjoe]

Damm I thought I killed this thread with stupidity ... no such luck

I'll try boredom instead......

Iceman you usually come across as well thought and fair poster however what you said about gay people spreading AIDs is untrue and discraceful. Also your path at following the doctrines of the Catholic church will no doubt leave you bewildered and confused and it actually comes off as very puritanical and unlike how most Catholics apply them to their lives. Even the current pope commented on their conflicting nature. The word of Christ in the Gospels is the main message in the Catholic church.

Anyway for the craic I looked up the guidance on the contraception and sex etc and I was surprised to find that the withdrawal method ( know as coitus interruptus ) is considered sinful. Cant get my head around why that's not allowed but the rhythm method is ok? Also J70 you will be pleased to know that you get blow jobs as long as it ends in intercourse, defo shouldn't finish with one, deliberately at least! But your wife will be even more pleased to know that she can get the compliment returned any time b4 or after sex...not sure how long b4 or after tho. Also I should stress that all of this is some theologians interpretation of the papal guidance, you could probably interpret it your own way as well if you wanted.

Also Iceman one of the main things that keeps the Catholic church sane and acceptable to so many different cultures is following and applying the doctrine to a cultures traditions, which can leave it open to interpretation fairly widely. I have noticed that the Catholic church in America seems a wee bit protestant of itself actually! Probably derived from the American puritan tradition which is the base point for ethics and principles in American life. So what I am saying is watch for following the doctrine blindly without applying your own thought and considering your own tradition as well. Quite frankly what I do in my own bedroom I won't be taking specific advise to the extent of the nonsense that I mentioned in the previous paragraph from anyone.

Also where does this carry on of praying for America's rampaging army fit in with Catholic church doctrine? They are very found of praying for them at mass which makes me distinctly uncomfortable and didn't JPII directly oppose the war in Iraq? Where does that leave the soldiers who are Catholic or where does it leave the soldiers in general? One central theme of the church is the sanctity of life and murder is the most grave of all sins so soldiers must be way further down your list of Catholics than gay people.

Not sure how this turned into the church debate again tho, I think J70 and Muppet goaded you into it Iceman and you took the bait despite your best intentions.   

[muppet]

Iceman, it is obvious you start with the dogma and try to make the facts fit.

You still misrepresent the consensus on homosexuality being a psychological disorder. There is no evidence that it is a disorder and there never was. In the absence of any evidence the claims that it is a disorder is simply evidence of prejudice, probably based on religious dogma. But you don't buy this because there are 'no new facts' as you put it. You ignore the fact that there were no facts to support it as a disorder in the first place.

Your scientific/biological list of reasons for your being against sodomy, consists mainly risks that are taken by those who engage in heterosexual sex. Are you against heterosexual sex for those same health risks?

Regarding UFC, it is pretty brutal, but I personally have no problem with it as the participants consent to it and are fully aware of the risks. Much the same as homosexuality.

As for AIDS, the stats in Africa don't suit your argument you will ignore them? And of course you will ignore the fact that more religious dogma is a huge part of the problem there, again because it doesn't suit your argument. AIDS is an STD, it doesn't discriminate how it gets transmitted. And btw more people die in car accidents and more again die of gunshots than are diagnosed with AIDS/HIV in the US due to 'sodomy'. Are you against automobiles and guns as well?

As for your proclamation the these men are not Catholics, you are entering Fearon territory here. Will you do as he does and claim to be full of empathy and humility, while demanding the excommunication of others YOU don't deem worthy?

Muppet I've engaged with you from a religious perspective and you refused to give it any merit. My opinion counts for nothing if I back it up with religion is the position you more or less gave to me.
So I gave you some physical effects of sodomy and they don't match up with the marital act as the female body is made to receive male fluid, the male rectum is not. It's for taking a shit out of. Putting something foreign in there causes mutations and cancers. But the scientific answers are not good enough for you either.

the UFC is one promotion that showcases MMA. fighters who partake in the sport are not defined by their passion for combat. I think its a foolish comparison to draw with sodomy, or cars or anything else you'd like to deflect the subject with.

I'm not venturing into Fearon land or Iceman land or any land other than Catholic land. I am not passing judgement on anyone - I'm giving you the truth of the Church. If someone sins, any sin, they are not in communion with the Catholic church until they receive forgiveness for that sin and make penance. Sin you regret and try to never do again, even though you may fall time and time again is different to choosing sodomy, with no regrets and making it the definition of who you are. These are not my rules - these are the rules of the Church. If you went to Catholic school at all you were taught this just as much as I was. If you say I am Catholic and there's a "but" then you're not Catholic. You are just culturally catholic, of catholic heritage, much like the Jews who never go to temple but once or twice a year...

every message is made up of content and delivery. Tony falls down in his delivery a do I but the content of the message remains the same....

Sodomy is wrong. I wont be forced to agree with it, accept it as good and normal or standard,

You are correct, I refuse to give the religious persecution of homosexuals any credence or merit whatsoever.

Saying an arse is for shit is NOT a scientific argument. That is as scientific as saying ears are for hearing, not holding up glasses.

I am not against UFC/MMA. But you need to recognise that it is violence for pleasure. It is no worse than 'sodomy' in that regard.

And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.

[The Iceman]

Damm I thought I killed this thread with stupidity ... no such luck

I'll try boredom instead......

Iceman you usually come across as well thought and fair poster however what you said about gay people spreading AIDs is untrue and discraceful. Also your path at following the doctrines of the Catholic church will no doubt leave you bewildered and confused and it actually comes off as very puritanical and unlike how most Catholics apply them to their lives. Even the current pope commented on their conflicting nature. The word of Christ in the Gospels is the main message in the Catholic church.

The good old irish shit sandwhich.... Something good, something shit, something good...

I'd ask you OmaghJoe to look at this objective link from the Center for Disease control in America. The country which I brought up in my comments: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
It is quite clear that the majority of new cases of aids is amoung gay men who have sex with other men. Tell me how my comments are untrue and better yet disgraceful??
Our Catholic faith is a puzzle. It requires constant work everyday to see Christ in people and reflect Him back. The word of Christ is the main message, but it's interpretation is not up to you or me. We are supposed to live out those words under the guidance of the Church/Holy Spirit. Just because thats not how you do it or most catholics do it doesn't mean the Church carries any less weight on the matter. Maybe it is puritan but I'll point you to a scripture reference that troubles me from Revelations 3:16 where Jesus says: Because you are neither hot nor cold I will vomit you from my mouth. (Spit is the word used but the translation is more like vomit).  The Pope has spoken at length about this verse and the danger of lukewarm catholics.

Anyway for the craic I looked up the guidance on the contraception and sex etc and I was surprised to find that the withdrawal method ( know as coitus interruptus ) is considered sinful. Cant get my head around why that's not allowed but the rhythm method is ok? Also J70 you will be pleased to know that you get blow jobs as long as it ends in intercourse, defo shouldn't finish with one, deliberately at least! But your wife will be even more pleased to know that she can get the compliment returned any time b4 or after sex...not sure how long b4 or after tho. Also I should stress that all of this is some theologians interpretation of the papal guidance, you could probably interpret it your own way as well if you wanted.

If you think about it the pulling out method is not open to life. There is no ejaculation inside your wife.  The rhythm method is open to life. We have used it since we got married (Natural Family Planning) and we have 4 kids so far. And yes J70s needs can be met as long as they lead to unprotected intercourse and ejaculation in the marital act.

Also Iceman one of the main things that keeps the Catholic church sane and acceptable to so many different cultures is following and applying the doctrine to a cultures traditions, which can leave it open to interpretation fairly widely. I have noticed that the Catholic church in America seems a wee bit protestant of itself actually! Probably derived from the American puritan tradition which is the base point for ethics and principles in American life. So what I am saying is watch for following the doctrine blindly without applying your own thought and considering your own tradition as well. Quite frankly what I do in my own bedroom I won't be taking specific advise to the extent of the nonsense that I mentioned in the previous paragraph from anyone.

I don't follow it blindly. It's an ongoing struggle to come to the truth. I have a good Wife and strong brothers to keep me accountable. Thanks for the concern

Also where does this carry on of praying for America's rampaging army fit in with Catholic church doctrine? They are very found of praying for them at mass which makes me distinctly uncomfortable and didn't JPII directly oppose the war in Iraq? Where does that leave the soldiers who are Catholic or where does it leave the soldiers in general? One central theme of the church is the sanctity of life and murder is the most grave of all sins so soldiers must be way further down your list of Catholics than gay people.

All part of the American propaganda machine I'm afraid. I don't agree with it. Or the reverence of the flag or the troops or anything of that hoorah BS

Not sure how this turned into the church debate again tho, I think J70 and Muppet goaded you into it Iceman and you took the bait despite your best intentions.   

Oh hook line and sinker

[The Iceman]

And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.

you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.

[muppet]

And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.

you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.

This is what you said:

These men are not Catholic. Some may identify themselves culturally as Catholics but they are not in communion with the Catholic Church by the very virtue of their lifestyle.

Whether or not you meant it, it sounds very Paisley-ite in its delivery.

As for whether or not it is a sin, the Church has tied itself up in knots on issues such as this for centuries (as do most churches). Some unknown dude writing stuff in 300BC isn't enough to persecute people for me. If you want to ban me from your club for that, then it is not a club I want to be part of.

[The Iceman]

And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.

you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.

This is what you said:

These men are not Catholic. Some may identify themselves culturally as Catholics but they are not in communion with the Catholic Church by the very virtue of their lifestyle.

Whether or not you meant it, it sounds very Paisley-ite in its delivery.

As for whether or not it is a sin, the Church has tied itself up in knots on issues such as this for centuries (as do most churches). Some unknown dude writing stuff in 300BC isn't enough to persecute people for me. If you want to ban me from your club for that, then it is not a club I want to be part of.

I don't know how they are "persecuted"? It's a word you continue to use but yet I see no evidence of persecution by the Catholic Church.
The teachings on sodomy continued long after Jesus ascended into Heaven. And they are by Saint Paul - not a random dude. The Church is also the pillar and foundation of the truth and guided by the Holy Spirit continues to teach us that Sodomy is wrong.

I don't see following Jesus as a club. You're always welcome muppet regardless of what you've done or who you've bent over for. As long as you're genuinely seeking God,,,,,

[topcuppla]

I don't see following Jesus as a club. You're always welcome muppet regardless of what you've done or who you've bent over for. As long as you're genuinely seeking God,,,,,

[muppet]

And finally, yes you are playing God, just like Fearon does. I believe that any God would be horrified at the persecution of a minority of His children. Remember He created them. Who the hell are you to demand they be punished? You now decree that they, and those of us who support them, should be banished from His Church. No doubt you would have felt the same way in Galileo's time.

you'll find I didn't say any of that. You are demanding that a sin be made acceptable. I have simply relayed the teaching of the church on all sin and all sinners. Myself included. Nobody is banished from anything. It's the beauty of the Catholic Church. There is always an AND. We are all sinners AND there is no end to God's love and mercy. Even for you muppet.

This is what you said:

These men are not Catholic. Some may identify themselves culturally as Catholics but they are not in communion with the Catholic Church by the very virtue of their lifestyle.

Whether or not you meant it, it sounds very Paisley-ite in its delivery.

As for whether or not it is a sin, the Church has tied itself up in knots on issues such as this for centuries (as do most churches). Some unknown dude writing stuff in 300BC isn't enough to persecute people for me. If you want to ban me from your club for that, then it is not a club I want to be part of.

I don't know how they are "persecuted"? It's a word you continue to use but yet I see no evidence of persecution by the Catholic Church.
The teachings on sodomy continued long after Jesus ascended into Heaven. And they are by Saint Paul - not a random dude. The Church is also the pillar and foundation of the truth and guided by the Holy Spirit continues to teach us that Sodomy is wrong.

I don't see following Jesus as a club. You're always welcome muppet regardless of what you've done or who you've bent over for. As long as you're genuinely seeking God,,,,,

Thanks Ian.

But....

On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.

But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.

[The Iceman]

Thanks Ian.

But....

On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.

But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.

It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.

[muppet]

Thanks Ian.

But....

On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.

But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.

It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.

Who said it is a sin? I will ignore the other irrelevent comments as they are not about this topic.

Preaching that homosexual expressions of love is a 'sin' is persecution, no matter how you look at it. You can't have it both ways (presumably that would be a sin too  ).