No, Freethinker, I was just joshing about Coulter, though she has an adam's apple as big as the Ritz. She certainly wasn't as "glamorous" as a young person, as you can see if I can attach the yearbook photo.
I was joking, I hope. Beauty is skin deep. She obviously goes to great lengths to appear glamorous and I am sure some think she is, but not I. As with you, my opinion of her looks is completely spoiled by her behavior. Some might say she is just putting on an act to sell her stupid books. I do not see it that way. I think she is a whore for what I call the Koch Kabal, the top 1%. She would not have become as successful as she's been if she didn't pander to that crowd. Another one who makes her living the same way is Laura Ingraham. A few years ago when I saw Ingraham for the first time, I exclaimed, "Foxy Lady!" And then she opened her mouth.
It's a funny take on Romans 1 alright, but I have to commend this person for their interpretation and a very good presentation as well. The irony here is that many gay and lesbian people, along with the rest of the transgendered crowd, insist that they have a right to worship god like anyone else. That really throws me.If it's obvious that your god is starting to hate everything that you do, that's a pretty clear sign that god doesn't exist. You just made him up.
The sexual minorities might have chosen any god or goddess for their own. Since I have studied mythology extensively, I could name several starting with Pan, Priapus, and even, in the Hindu pantheon, Shiva. But no, they go on believing in the deity of their parents' choosing. To me, a gay Christian who actually believes is a fool.
I would add to that James. Anyone who is gay, bisexual, transgender, straight, or finds their niche on other place on a spectrum of human sexuality, who would believe in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, are fools.
Absolutely, and I would add Republican to the list too. I know there are gay Republicans, but I don't get it.
I knew a couple of gay Republicans who were millionaires, making a killing on feeding franchise frankfurters to obese, pre- or already diabetic hispanics, a racial tendency just like sickle cell anemia to blacks. They eventually sold or leased out their four or five local fast food joints to their managers and retired at about 50. I think gay men (and women, possibly) are GOP because it is an economic thing. They are pure capitalists; that is, they go in for the laissez-faire capitalism that infects the Republican Party. They want to be Mitt Romneys without the Mormonism. The couple I knew at least contributed (anonymously: everyone is closeted in my city) to some local gay charities, but that was the extent of their involvement. I broke off with them for various reasons. I always felt uncomfortable in their McMansion. Have no idea what they are doing in retirement. I am 71 and have not retired.
I think about that group sometimes. One sandwich was mis-named and should have been fellatio-fish. They wouldn't have picked that one even in a McMinute.
Ha Ha this video threw me for a while. I thought "why is there a woman in the video when a man is speaking"? Then I noticed that the audio / video were slightly out of sync, and it hit me that it WAS the woman speaking!
She is spot on though in that you have to go back in Romans to get the true context of verses 21-26. I think I'm going to start calling the ones that like to cherry pick the verses to make their point, quiptians. They only present the "good stuff", and leave out anything that could lead to intellectual debate as to the full context of the verse(s).
I can't seem to get the video to work (uploads too slowly).
I had posted about this part of the bible a while back, and am confused. My MIL says that she and her study group, along with the gay parishoner, discussed Romans, but she never summarized the discussion. But she's clearly very much opposed to the lifestyle.
So maybe one of you can explain? God made people gay on account of them already having these desires?? Guess I'll have to consult my SAB tonight.
Kind of irrational isn't it?
OK, I'm back to this one more time. So when did god "give them over?" Since he is all knowing he must have known they were like this ( or would do this) even before they were born. That would mean these people had no choice in the matter at all, and nobody has any precious "free will." Since they had therefore been "given over" from birth, why are we reading about this now form scripture? What point would it make? What threat of punishment could possibly be here with a predetermined event?
Maybe we could look at this differently and say god did not know what they were going to do, so what we are reading is his punishment then. The all powerful and jealous god did not know something, so in anger he punished these people with a gay curse by "giving them over." That's almost as bad as him not being able to find Adam and Eve after they had "sinned" and they hid behind a tree.
We see a small hint here that if humans will have sex with others of their own sex, then they are connected to animals and other creatures in some strange way. Rather than these humans starting to worship a horse, there is indication that they might also be having sex with it or anything else that comes their way.
My step-dad always says that he doesn't believe god would create people as gay or lesbian. It would make no sense and is a contradiction of god's character. Instead, the devil and demons entice people to be gay and lesbian. It's a choice they make.
Think a minute. God, the devil, demons. They all come out of the same bronze age book. Once you stop believing in that book and any creatures from within its pages the entire bizarre and absurd issue is totally solved.