I’ll say it again HairyPorthole….you’re not very bright and I always enjoy watching you get cornered by your own stupidity.
 November 24, 2015 at 5:34pm
The only spin on display here has been yours HairyPorthole.
First you tried “acceptable by omission” claiming that “other forms of acceptable marriage” are ratified by christians. When I asked you to present a list of these other forms of acceptable marriage for christians in antiquity you said you couldn’t find any because the internet didn’t exist then.
So having abandoned that angle…you then tried to assert the sexual mores of pagan Rome as normative to Jews and Christians of the time. Following that thread…you then asserted that homosexual marriage must be acceptable to christians because of their proximity to pagan Roman lifestyles. I hasten to add…even in the depths of depravity in ancient Rome the Roman people did not ratify homosexual marriage. But…nonetheless..now you’re spinning “pagan Rome’s sexual mores asJewish and Christian acceptance of them” despite the fact that thousands of Jews and Christans were executed by the Romans for NOT accepting their beliefs and customs. But in HairyPorhole’s spin-a-thon here….we throw historical facts out the door in servitude to his stinky little homosexual delusions.
 November 24, 2015 at 5:20pm
So let’s sum up how clear HairyPorthole has been here…
He believes that other forms of marriage have been acceptable for christians based on his idea of “acceptable by omission” . When asked to present these “other forms of acceptable marriage” christians in antiquity he cannot present them because the internet didn’t exist during that time in antiquity. or something like that.
Moving on….HairyPorthole now believes the sexual mores of pagan Rome were normal practice for Jews and Chrisitans (I guess that’s why Rome killed so many of them?) of the time and therefore..homosexual marriage must be acceptable to christians after his having abandoned locating these “other forms of acceptable marriage” he was once so confident about.
This is what HairyPorthole believes is being clear about something.
Hot! I tell yah...Hot! Hot!....where is James Brown when you need him.
“it’s getting hot in herre- so take off all your burqas”
- “i am getting too hot. i will take my burqa off”
 November 24, 2015 at 5:06pm
As I said earlier HairyPorthole…you’re not very bright and I always enjoy seeing you get cornered by your own stupidity and lies.
Sucks to be you right now.
 November 24, 2015 at 5:02pm
Oh I see HairyPorthole….so all of a sudden you’re not including homosexual marriage in your “other acceptable forms of marriage” for christians when you can’t find any.
So now that you can’t run with “other forms of acceptable marriage” you’re asserting pagan Rome and it’s sexual mores as normative to Christians and Jews of the time are you?
You’re an idiot….
November 24, 2015 at 4:40pm
All you made clear HairyPorthole is the depths you’re willing to mine to lie for your slimy purposes.
You just offered “acceptable by omission” for homosexual marriage So I’m giving you an opportunity to prove it.
I’m asking you to list these “other acceptable forms of marriage” of yours that christians of the time accepted.
Start listing them champ…..
And if you can’t find them…then why not?
 November 24, 2015 at 4:33pm
Are you saying that in all the christian world of that time since Jesus’ resurrection- that no homosexuals chose to get married and weren’t accepted by the church champ? Well gosh…why is that so?
I mean…according to your stupid assertion…Jesus only offered “one acceptable form of marriage” so your kind should have been getting married left right and center among christians of the time right? You just asserted “acceptability by omission” didn’t you?
So where are these other “acceptable forms of marriage” among christians of the time little troll?
Start listing them for me now….
November 24, 2015 at 4:29pm
All I’m asking for is one other of your laughable “Forms of acceptable marriage” for christians of the time and you can’t give me any HairyPorthole.
You see how oafish your “acceptable by exclusion” lie is now?
Fine sport..I’m taking you on your mealy-mouthed word….”one form of acceptable marrage”..go ahead…list the others they accepted.
What’s that? You’re unable to now? Gosh why not little fella?
November 24, 2015 at 4:22pm
HairyPorhtole list any other acceptable forms of marriage for Jesus and Christians of the time you creep.
What other forms of “acceptable marriage” did they ratify?
List them for me now….
 November 24, 2015 at 4:15pm
And I can confidently “claim his stance” HairyPorthole. You seem to get a little squishy when you’re pressed though.
I’ll ask you again…what other “acceptable forms of marriage” did Jesus or christians of the time ratify?
Please list them for me.
 November 24, 2015 at 4:13pm
No HairyPorthole..you don’t get to escape your own stupidity. You offered the laughable assertion that marriage between one man and one woman was “one acceptable form of marriage” for Jesus.
OK fine..I’m taking you on your mealy-mouthed word…what other “Acceptable forms of marriage” (it’s difficult ot keep a straight face even typing that ludicrous phrase of yours) did Jesus ratify or are then ratified by christians of the time?
Please offer them now.
 November 24, 2015 at 3:53pm
So once again HairyPorthole you need to answer the question..what other acceptable versions of marriage (don’t think I don’t laugh everytime that insipid sentence of yours pops up) other than that of a man and a woman were ratified by Jesus? Please cite where these were taking place and where Christians of the time accepted them.
I know you’ll keep deflecting…but I enjoy watching you get cornered by your own stupidity.
 November 24, 2015 at 3:48pm
On the contrary HairyPorthole your asinine attempt to imply that by exclusion Jesus is fine with homosexual marriage was very clear in it’s stupidity. It’s made clear by not only ignoring Jesus reiterating the t’orah’s position on marriage but by the the condemnation of homosexuality in verses found in Corinthians, Romans and Timothy of which some I’ve provided here.
As for your “versions” of these passages…the original texts are in Greek. I speak fluent Classical and Modern Greek. I understand not only the Greek language but the nuances of it too. You’re shooting blanks at me right now sport.
Don’t kid yourself champ….you do this routine every time you foul these boards with your detestable presence. I’m not out to change your atrophied mind I’m merely making sure you understand that your’e not fooling anyone. The fact that you only appear on these boards for any homosexual articles is reason enough to view you as a troll…and not a bright one.
 November 24, 2015 at 3:23pm
God didn’t make you homosexual HairyPorthole…human failing made you that.
 November 24, 2015 at 3:18pm
Your stupid little evasions and deflections impress no one HairyPorthole. You addressed nothing earlier as is your usual pattern.
I’ll call your bluff….please tell me any other “acceptable forms of marriage” that Jesus ratified.
As for your “covered head” buffoonery….some Eastern Orthodox denominations still practice it.
You say the book of acts is not clear?
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 :
“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. ” As stated…there was no word for homosexuality in that time in antiquity thush “Sodomite” is used to denote that fallen state of being.
Romans 1:26: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”.
Still not clear creep? By all means provide for me the word used for homosexuality in that time and I’ll retract everything I’ve said
Like I said..I’ll cal your bluff. Please cite any other “acceptable forms of marriage” that Jesus offered .
And no….acceptability by exclustion is not intellectually acceptable.
 November 24, 2015 at 2:47pm
ISIS is contained.
 November 24, 2015 at 2:43pm
how do we know which laws HairyPorthole? By the ones reiterated in the new testament.
Jesus himself says that the only union blessed by God is that between a man and a woman. He reiterates the t.’orah when he states it. The book of acts is explicit about the sin of homosexuality. Seeing that there was no word for homosexuality at that time in antiquity (because you pooves didn’t really matter to anyone but yourselves) the act of laying with the same sex was used to denote the sin of that state of being.
Again..you’ve been told this numerous times, you continue to recite the same stale mistakes and misdirections. Your usual MO at this stage when you’ve been given the texts and cannot find a way to squirm around them is to completely denounce the texts as fabrications and of having no value anyway. I expect nothing different from a creepy prog troll like you that logs in only for homosexual themed articles at the blaze.
 November 24, 2015 at 2:38pm
Rabbinic law does not apply to christians HairyPorthole. You’ve been told this numerous times at the blaze but you keep repeating the same misdirections and falsehoods regardless.
But by all means please direct me to any mainstream christian denomination that keeps kosher and does not allow mixed fibers, eating of pork and shellfish..etc..etc.
 November 24, 2015 at 2:26pm
Because they don’t want to believe they’re hoaxes. They know they are hoaxes but they choose to accept them as being true because it allows all the “feelings and dialogue” to take place. Additionally…black people are a liberal protected class so they’re beyond reproach.