Homosexsuals...

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.

And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?

Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.

And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.

The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.

I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.

And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.

And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?

Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.

And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.

The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.

I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.

And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.

We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay. As for your bibical belief...

The only reason why that's in there is because nomadic tribes. A single "homosexsual" indiviual in a small nomadic tribe would be determental to the tribes exsistance. If you weren't having babies the tribe would quickly die off. Not because it's somehow "immoral".

Whats wrong with "homosexsual sex" anyway? It's just "sex". I am not going to have "homosexsual" sex because it digusts me. Just like soom foods digust me, does that mean the people that eat them are somehow immoral? No.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It depends what kind of porn now, doesn't it? If it's kiddie porn, you and I would both call him a pedophile now, wouldn't we... Reports of my argument's death are greatly overblown...

If you have the choice between two roughly equivalent options, all else being equal, do you choose the one that makes life harder for you?

In my extensive experience dealing with people, yes, a great many people do choose the one that makes life harder for them and then invariably like to fantasize to themselves that it's not their fault. That they were forced somehow, i.e. that they were born that way. It's classic typical victim mentality. I see it all the time.

If the gay movement really wants acceptance and equality (which I wholeheartedly support given the right conditions), they should switch from their victim BS and promote the fact that their sexuality is their choice and theirs alone and they have every right to make their choice. Why is it so wrong that it be a choice? Why must it absolutely not be a choice to you? Can the answer be anything else but homophobia? Would you deny them the right to make that choice if you knew it to be choice? From my observation, that seems obvious enough.

edit:

What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.

They want to be and it involves consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. Is that not enough? What business is it of yours really?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tabb
I doesn't still make sense to me. There has to be some kind of explanation of why guys want to do guys and girls want to do girls. How does this idea get into their heads.

Because when you were a little boy, your parents told you that you should like little girls. That is all.

Why would it not be a choice? Being homosexual requires action, and actions require choices.

Personally, I would prefer that the gay movement embrace the choice argument. The genetic argument basically tells people that we have no freedom whatsoever in our lives, which is BS.

As for this "why would anyone choose to be gay?" argument, that's about as homophobic as anything that could be possibly imagined.

In the world today, is it easier to be gay, or straight? Have you ever been fired for being straight? Beaten up? Denied the opportunity to marry your lover? The argument follows from homophobia, but it isn't itself 'homophibic'.

As for the choice argument, besides being incorrect according to the best available evidence, it is inconsistent: If you are attracted to girls, but do not have sex until you are married, would you say that you don't become heterosexual until your wedding night? Pure bullshit.

Let's not have this discussion derail into semantics. Whether you call yourself homosexual or heterosexual, you are still giving yourself this title. Which is why I prefer to say that you are a homosexual if you both have and embrace your homosexual desires.

I know many people who struggle with desires for many things, but they see value in not capitulating to their desires all the time and aiming for something more. Homosexuality is one of these desires. Some people see it as important to not engage in homosexual acts, other see it as harmless and even desirable to engage in homosexual acts. That is the real debate, not the definition of homosexuality or whether it is a choice or not.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.

And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?

Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.

And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.

The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.

I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.

And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.

I didn't claim homosexuality was genetically determined. In fact, you would know, if you read my whole post that I specifically corrected several people who said that it was genetically determined. It does however appear to be genetically influenced. Kind of like height - your tendency towards tallness or shortness is genetic, but nutrition, activity, and other circumstances of childhood temper that predisposition and lead to your actual adult height.


Unfortunately, for the rest of this, you are mixing modes of argument. The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do. Objectively, it is nothing more than a book, whatever it means to some. I'll defer to everything I've ever said in the many AO threads on this - there is nothing objectively, morally wrong with promiscuous sex, but it is certainly a risky behavious, and not something I recommend to anyone.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.

And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?

Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.

And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.

The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.

I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.

And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.

We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.

I believe the morality and the choice are related.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

edit:

What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.

They want to be and it involves consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. Is that not enough? What business is it of yours really?

Don't get the wrong idea. It's not my buissness what goes on in a homosexsual's bed room. I fully support the idea of gay marriage. I am just curious as to why this happens.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do.

QFT

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

If the gay movement really wants acceptance and equality (which I wholeheartedly support given the right conditions), they should switch from their victim BS and promote the fact that their sexuality is their choice and theirs alone and they have every right to make their choice. Why is it so wrong that it be a choice? Why must it absolutely not be a choice to you? Can the answer be anything else but homophobia? Would you deny them the right to make that choice if you knew it to be choice? From my observation, that seems obvious enough.

The gay movement doesn't want to be considered 'victims' because they are homosexual. They want acceptance of who they are, at which point there will be no need for them to ever play a victim role again.

If homosexuality were a choice, then I wouldn't stand in the way of anyone who wanted to be homosexual. It is not a choice, all arguments and semantics aside, there is simply no evidence that homosexual feelings are a choice. And the feelings/actions argument is BS - legalize gay marriage, and some gays will remain celibate until they marry their gay lover. And then what would be the difference between gay and straight?

It amazes me that most straight people have never for a moment considered 'being gay' and yet so many assume that it must be a choice they made at some point.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do.

QFT

?????

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rhin0

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz
It's a genetic defect. Very simple.

genetic difference, yes.

DEFECT.

There are at least two genetic defects in this thread now. :roll:

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.

And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?

Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.

And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.

The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.

I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.

And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.

We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.

I believe the morality and the choice are related.

You're stil missing the point. The thread was started about why people were gay. Not the morality of being gay or whether they choose to act on it on or not. Its acknowledged by many christians that its ok to be gay. Its the act of ingulging in gay sex that is quesioned as being immoral. But we are not even getting that far in this discussion. this is a discussion of why they have gay feelings to begin with.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Don't get the wrong idea. It's not my buissness what goes on in a homosexsual's bed room. I fully support the idea of gay marriage. I am just curious as to why this happens.

They want to and it harms no one else. That is sufficient for me.

I don't understand the horror or the mystery that people (including many homosexuals) surround homosexuality with. There isn't any. Your mother told you that it'd make you go blind but you still did it anyway, right? Same thing.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I didn't claim homosexuality was genetically determined. In fact, you would know, if you read my whole post that I specifically corrected several people who said that it was genetically determined. It does however appear to be genetically influenced. Kind of like height - your tendency towards tallness or shortness is genetic, but nutrition, activity, and other circumstances of childhood temper that predisposition and lead to your actual adult height.

I don't doubt that homosexuality is genetically influenced, in fact I would definately agree with that.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Unfortunately, for the rest of this, you are mixing modes of argument.

And?

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do. Objectively, it is nothing more than a book, whatever it means to some. I'll defer to everything I've ever said in the many AO threads on this - there is nothing objectively, morally wrong with promiscuous sex, but it is certainly a risky behavious, and not something I recommend to anyone.

What would you claim is immoral if not that which is damaging? I think you are confused on what exactly morality is, because you are basing what you call your "morality" on something, whether your experiences, the books you read, or what have you.

You are right, the Bible is a fine way to organize your life. In fact, it's a great way, and since I want to be a great guy I try to share the things I've found with the people I care about. I'm sorry that upsets you, but I never hesitate to give you reasons for my beliefs.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do.

QFT

?????

I think that despite our disagreement over the roots and other aspects of homosexuality, that Vic is actually a very fair and reasonable person.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
There are at least two genetic defects in this thread now. :roll:

Says the pot...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
There are at least two genetic defects in this thread now. :roll:

Says the pot...

Make that four. Didn't see the need to mention Rip since it's pretty much a given he is.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
What would you claim is immoral if not that which is damaging? I think you are confused on what exactly morality is, because you are basing what you call your "morality" on something, whether your experiences, the books you read, or what have you.

You are right, the Bible is a fine way to organize your life. In fact, it's a great way, and since I want to be a great guy I try to share the things I've found with the people I care about. I'm sorry that upsets you, but I never hesitate to give you reasons for my beliefs.

What is objectively harmful about promiscuous sex, that isn't harmful about vacationing in the carribean (Hepatitis in the water), mountain climbing and bungee jumping (chance of death, chance of killing partners if you make an error with safety equipment), and do you consider those activities immoral?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.

And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?

Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.

And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.

The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.

I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.

And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.

We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.

I believe the morality and the choice are related.

You're stil missing the point. The thread was started about why people were gay. Not the morality of being gay or whether they choose to act on it on or not. Its acknowledged by many christians that its ok to be gay. Its the act of ingulging in gay sex that is quesioned as being immoral. But we are not even getting that far in this discussion. this is a discussion of why they have gay feelings to begin with.

Come on man, you are putting words in people mouths with definitions that are ambiguous. Most Christians will not say "It is OK to be gay" because there is a lot of confusion on what you mean when you say someone is gay. Certainly, most of the people I talk to assume that if you call yourself gay you are engaging in, or have no problem with, homosexual sex. And Christians definately would not agree with that, tss4.

And besides, the OP purposefully and very firmly stated that homosexuality is not a choice and that he was convinced of this. I feel he is mistaken, so I posted to present my views on the subject, because I would say it is a choice. And once you talk about choice it isn't long before it becomes a moral issue. There, so now you have the thought progression.

 

[conjur]

Who cares what Christians think? Why is the world's morals supposed to be based upon what the Christians think? Are Christians holding a monopoly on morality?

HA!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is really confusing me, if being "gay" isn't a defect or a disease... Than what is it exactly? Why are some people "gay" and others not? I know being gay is NOT a choice, I know a couple gay people they did not choose this.

I've been told it's like being "alcholic" some people are just more suspectible to becoming a alcholic than others....

Hopefully someone can help me out here..

Well according to those that Rule the Country (Republicans) and the Religious that control the Republicans (Christians) that Gays are deviants that they very much would like to either kill or exile from the Country.

There is no provision in the Constitution that they are slowly re-writing at the moment, so they are stuck with discriminating and supressing the Gays until they successfully change the Constitution to rid the U.S. completely of them.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
They may not choose to be attracted to people of the same sex, but they certainly choose to have sex with them.

And besides, since when does what people say about their lifestyle take precedence over scientific facts on the matter?

Apparently since reading the link Rip posted, where that is the 'evidence' offered.

And what is wrong with choosing to have sexual relationships with people you are attracted to? Don't forget - not all homosexuals are promiscuous, and not all heterosexuals are monogamous, so you aren't going to get far with that sort of argument.

The evidence is that science has not said that homosexuality is something genetic. There is no scientific proof for this claim, and many studies show correlations between current homosexuals and the situation of their childhood. I did not read everything from Rip's link.

I never claimed that homosexuality was somehow something worse than other sexual promiscuities, morally speaking. I DO claim that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and so I am claiming there is something wrong with choosing to have sex with someone you are attracted to if you are not willing to have a serious, lasting relationship with that person in marriage. I am basing this belief on the Bible, and what I have seen in my own life and the lives of my close friends. We can debate this point if you want, because it really is the issue at the heart of this debate.

And since you brought up homosexual promiscouity, you should know that monogomous relationships between homosexuals are statistically very rare. I know this is opening another topic, because a lot of debate rages on this issue, but the facts are simple: sexual exclusivity in homosexual relationships, including government sanctioned unions, are not nearly as common as they are in heterosexual relationships.

We're not debating if you beileve that gay sex is immoral. What we are trying to figure out is why people are gay.

I believe the morality and the choice are related.

You're stil missing the point. The thread was started about why people were gay. Not the morality of being gay or whether they choose to act on it on or not. Its acknowledged by many christians that its ok to be gay. Its the act of ingulging in gay sex that is quesioned as being immoral. But we are not even getting that far in this discussion. this is a discussion of why they have gay feelings to begin with.

Come on man, you are putting words in people mouths with definitions that are ambiguous. Most Christians will not say "It is OK to be gay" because there is a lot of confusion on what you mean when you say someone is gay. Certainly, most of the people I talk to assume that if you call yourself gay you are engaging in, or have no problem with, homosexual sex. And Christians definately would not agree with that, tss4.

And besides, the OP purposefully and very firmly stated that homosexuality is not a choice and that he was convinced of this. I feel he is mistaken, so I posted to present my views on the subject, because I would say it is a choice. And once you talk about choice it isn't long before it becomes a moral issue. There, so now you have the thought progression.

I stated that from my personal experinces, from the people that I've talked to and what I've read. The general conclusion is that Homosexuality is NOT choice. You're confusing being homosexsual with the act of homsexsuality. The Christian Church does not condem being homosexsual, it condems that act of it. Even, though the reasons for it are not because of morality. It was just the way things where so many years ago. The act of peforming gay sex is a choice, being attracted to the same sex is not. It may be though "progression" I don't really care if we discuss the morality, but the original subjet was "why are some people gay".

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The bible is a fine way to organize your own life, but a terrible way to tell others what they shoud do.

QFT

?????

I think that despite our disagreement over the roots and other aspects of homosexuality, that Vic is actually a very fair and reasonable person.

What does QFT stand for?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
What would you claim is immoral if not that which is damaging? I think you are confused on what exactly morality is, because you are basing what you call your "morality" on something, whether your experiences, the books you read, or what have you.

You are right, the Bible is a fine way to organize your life. In fact, it's a great way, and since I want to be a great guy I try to share the things I've found with the people I care about. I'm sorry that upsets you, but I never hesitate to give you reasons for my beliefs.

What is objectively harmful about promiscuous sex, that isn't harmful about vacationing in the carribean (Hepatitis in the water), mountain climbing and bungee jumping (chance of death, chance of killing partners if you make an error with safety equipment), and do you consider those activities immoral?

I never said that all actions that cause harm are neccessarily immoral, because certain things cause more harm than others and that is obvious. My point is that you are basing your view of what is and isn't immoral on SOMETHING, which I'm not sure of.

Surely, you don't see the difference between an accident and purposefully engaging in something that harms you not just physically, but emotionally and psycologically? If there were no STDs I would still say that promiscous sex is immoral, because there are other serious consequences (mental, psycological, etc.) that are very obvious.

Now, whether or not you are aware that something is harming you in some way, that is a separate issue. I base my morality on God and the Bible, and I'm very open about that. I will argue that the morality talked about in the Bible is a reasonable morality, with facts that support it. But reason can only uncover what the spirit already knows to be true. I begin by believing that homosexuality is immoral because the Bible tells me it is, and then when I see all the facts that show the negative consequences of homosexual lifestyles, I am not at all surprised.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tabb
What does QFT stand for?

QFT
"Quoted for Truth" applies.