what did a sapien do wrong to be called a homo ?
354352
Took the wrong turn to society...
509010
The Bible doesn't say she was a whore. That's more of a folk tradition.
681305
I would be a homo sapien because i'm best at being one... lol
40883
then don't be a homo!
300019
It is highly unlikely an unmarried adult male would have been respected, followed or referred to as "rabbi" in ancient Judea.\n\nThe Jesus story created by the Roman Empire was intended as an insult to Jews.
80753
It's not the woman's fault, the man was always gay and knew it, he just wasn't ready to come out the closet or ready to admit to everyone that he was into men. Nothing wrong with realizing who your are, but in these type of situations someone always gets hurt.
977681
Wow, I think there's some misunderstanding here....First of all, I'm straight, and I'm Catholic (practicing), and no, I do not hate homosexuals (oh and BTW I agree with that guy who answered before: homo is short for homosexual; although it can be used in a derogatory (sp?) fashion, I don't think that's the case in the asker's post).  In fact, I love homosexuals, just as I love heterosexuals, because they are children of God.  That doesn't mean I don't think they're misguided.  Does that mean I'm prejudiced?  No.  It means I think they're wrong.  As for the demon comment, I'm pretty sure the asker meant it in the way you'd say "battling your inner demons;" I don't think he meant literal demons.  I agree with the asker on some things, although I wish he'd phrased other things better.  I think it's undeniable that homosexuality has a much greater focus on outward/physical aspects than normal heterosexuality (when I say normal, I mean I'm discounting things like prostitution, etc., even if they are technically heterosexual.).  I think that many homosexual people (note the use of the word: MANY, not ALL) take an overly defensive attitude toward certain ethical viewpoints, most notably Christianity.  Of course, some people have experienced hatred or at least strong dislike for their sexual practices, but I think that's actually the minority of cases.  It only makes sense that the relatively few instances of discrimination are emphasized by the proponents of homosexuality.  That's natural for anybody to do about something they believe.  But it doesn't mean that all gays are hateful toward Christians or all Christians are hateful toward gays.  As for the rest of the asker's post about the musical instruments and "churchy homos," well to be quite honest, I kind of lost him at that point.  It's not exactly...easy to follow.\n\nOne of the most annoying things I hear nearly every day (yes, I do personally know some gay people, btw) is how it's so wrong for people to "force their morals on other people."  I heard this especially during the days leading up to a Nov. 6 (I live in Wisconsin, where a state constitutional amendment was passed defining marriage as btwn one man and one woman, and that no similar status would be granted to any other group.).  Now, that doesn't mean there aren't ways around this--people can technically get "civil unions," and what isn't accorded the same status as marriage can be quite easily fixed by other means (for example, simply naming the homosexual partner as the beneficiary of your will; it just takes a little more work.  Anyways, it bothered me to hear that because whenever you vote, you're "forcing your morals on other people."  You vote based on your beliefs regarding ethics and morals (most people do anyway), and by voting, you're partaking in a process which will constitute the law for a certain area; hence you are helping to force a certain moral code on certain people.\n\nAnyways, I hope that's not too rambling...In short, yes I bet some gays could say that a Christian (or non-Christian, for that matter) has demonstrated hatred or unkindness toward them based on their sexual lifestyle.  That isn't a Christian act, which is unfortunate--so many Christians are Christian in name only.  Does that mean I think gays ought never to be criticized?  No.  Do I think that their depiction of and view regarding sex is false?  Yes.  There, simple.  No hateful words, no claims of "judging," nothing but simple statements of moral belief and hope that we can cause a change in society's depiction of sex, to make it less about personal pleasure and more about self-giving love, which it ultimately is.\n\nLater all, try not to get too riled about these posts--you've gotta know that some people post just for the heck of ticking other pe
1106753
they evolved to become homo
895663
He'd say that they don't know their Bible well enough.\n\nThe passages in Leviticus (18:22 & 20:13), understood IN CONTEXT, are not an admonishment against loving sexual relationships between people of the same sex but instead against sex as a form of domination and control. Besides, these passages are part of the Holiness Code which is not binding to modern day Christians (or anyone else for that matter).\n\nThe story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis chapters 18 & 19) was a warning against rape, inhospitality and xenophobia. The reason for Sodom's destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned.\n\n1 Corinthians 6:9 was a mistranslation of the word malakee. It's used elsewhere in the Bible to mean someone who lacks discipline or one who is morally weak, and never is it used in reference to sexuality or gender.\n\n1 Timothy 1:10? Also a mistranslation. 1 Timothy was an admonishment against male prostitution, not committed, loving same sex relationships.\n\nThe words physin and paraphysin in Romans 1:26-27 have also been mistranslated. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that particular person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.
84399
the funny thing is, the original text of the OLD testament didn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin either. the part that's commonly translated to say "a man should not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman, that is detestable" was originally mistranslated on PURPOSE when some homophobic church leaders got together to write the king james version...the original hebrew text translates to "a man should not lie with another man in a woman's bed, that is unclean". so basically there's no restriction on who can have sex with whom, just where they are allowed to do it.
957187
There's some really bad scholarship claiming the Christian rite of brother- or sister-making, adelphopoiesis, was gay marriage, but it's utterly laughable.\n\nJuvenal mocked a homosexual "marriage" in Roman times:\n\n"I have a ceremony to attend," quoth one, "at dawn to-morrow, in the Quirinal valley." "What is the occasion?" "No need to ask: a friend is taking to himself a husband; quite a small affair." Yes, and if we only live long enough, we shall see these things done openly: people will wish to see them reported among the news of the day. Meanwhile these would-be brides have one great trouble: they can bear no children wherewith to keep the affection of their husbands; well has nature done in granting to their desires no power over their bodies. They die unfertile; naught avails them the medicine-chest of the bloated Lyde, or to hold out their hands to the blows of the swift-footed Luperci!"\n-Juvenal, Moralists without Morals
716331
All people sin...  why can a person go to church after taking the lords name in vain... which is worse being gay or taking the lords name in vain... yet we let those who take the lords name in vain still call themselves christain.
718386
Sorry, I'm not a homo
569422
I have just been researching the churh and the book.I think if you go to http://thebaldchemist.blogspot.com  you will find the answer.\nKeep questioning.\nAboriginals were not considered to be human by the early missionaries. Probably still dont.
222091
Yes but that is our opinion.  Don't call them homo, that is disrespectful.
1142814
Jesus actually ran his own escort service out of Nazareth and his twelve disciples were actually his posse of prostitutes that were rented out to King Herod's bi-sexual henchmen.\n\nJesus was gay, but celibate. True story.
39989
As the gay-hating (for lack of a better word) in Christianity and most modern organized religion stemmed from base hatred of gay supporting cultures (as in Rome, where homosexuality in men was considered more 'manly'), such things were probably used to discourage people in an ancestor-based society. \n\nIt has been proved wrong, however. I know many gays with children. They adopt or have children by other means.