Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2015, 04:54 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2015 05:02 PM by earmuffs.)
Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Leviticus 20:13, the ol' anti-gay verse that everyone knows and loves.

For those that don't know it it reads:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Now, theists interpret this as gayness being a bad thing and go to all sorts of lengths to hammer home that God hates fags and shit.
Now, I'm not too familiar with scripture because I would rather gouge out my eye balls with a spoon than read the bible, but it is somewhat frustrating that theists cherry pick some verses but completely ignore the others. Atheists know this too well.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Back to Levitidicks 20:13.
Now, theists really enjoy interpreting things to suit them and so I shall do the same.
If you read the verse above it doesn't actually say gay sex is bad. It says if "a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" the key point being bolded. Now I'm no expert but I was subjected to sex ed at school so I'm familiar with the theory of heterosexual sex and it usually involves penis entering vagina (yes children, they really do do that. Heteros are so disgusting). Now, I'm not sure if you people are familiar or not with the male anatomy so I will give you a quick overview. Men do not have vagina's. THUS how can a man have sex with a man like he does with a female if men do not have vagina's?? They can't, it's impossible. If you're having sex with a man that has a vagina I'm sorry to tell you this but that's a women, not a man.

Conclusion? Levitidicks 20:13 is totally irreverent and in no way says anything about gayness or even gay butt sex.

Check and mate theists. Drinking Beverage

Muffs: 1
Theists: 0

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like earmuffs's post
24-01-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 04:54 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Leviticus 20:13, the ol' anti-gay verse that everyone knows and loves.

For those that don't know it it reads:

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Now, theists interrupt this as gayness being a bad thing and go to all sorts of lengths to hammer home that God hates fags and shit.
Now, I'm not too familiar with scripture because I would rather gouge out my eye balls with a spoon than read the bible, but it is somewhat frustrating that theists cherry pick some verses but completely ignore the others. Atheists know this too well.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Back to Levitidicks 20:13.
Now, theists really enjoy interrupting things to suit them and so I shall do the same.
If you read the verse above it doesn't actually say gay sex is bad. It says if "a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman" the key point being bolded. Now I'm no expert but I was subjected to sex ed at school so I'm familiar with the theory of heterosexual sex and it usually involves penis entering vagina (yes children, they really do do that. Heteros are so disgusting). Now, I'm not sure if you people are familiar or not with the male anatomy so I will give you a quick overview. Men do not have vagina's. THUS how can a man have sex with a man like he does with a female if men do not have vagina's?? They can't, it's impossible. If you're having sex with a man that has a vagina I'm sorry to tell you this but that's a women, not a man.

Conclusion? Levitidicks 20:13 is totally irreverent and in no way says anything about gayness or even gay butt sex.

Check and mate theists. Drinking Beverage

Muffs: 1
Theists: 0

"interrupt"




Drinking Beverage

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
What word?

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 04:58 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  What word?

"Now, theists interrupt this..."
"theists really enjoy interrupting things..."

Drinking Beverage

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 05:03 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
Yea well depending on ones outlook their interpretations can be rather interrupting of our sanity.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
24-01-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
I've argued with enough fundies to tell you what they'd say ---

"Leviticus does not apply to modern Christians - as it's a covenant between God and the Levites"......

Yeah -- so why don't they toss the damned thing out????

Cuz like you said -- they like to cherry pick their dogma at will.........

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:04 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I've argued with enough fundies to tell you what they'd say ---

"Leviticus does not apply to modern Christians - as it's a covenant between God and the Levites"......

Yeah -- so why don't they toss the damned thing out????

Cuz like you said -- they like to cherry pick their dogma at will.........

Considering the fact that men have never had vaginas, as far as I'm aware, it's a pretty timeless argument.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
24-01-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:03 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Yea well depending on ones outlook their interpretations can be rather interrupting of our sanity.

Touché, madam.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 05:04 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I've argued with enough fundies to tell you what they'd say ---

"Leviticus does not apply to modern Christians - as it's a covenant between God and the Levites"......

Yeah -- so why don't they toss the damned thing out????

Cuz like you said -- they like to cherry pick their dogma at will.........

Considering the fact that men have never had vaginas, as far as I'm aware, it's a pretty timeless argument.

Or perhaps they DO women like that..... That is a possibility ya know.....

heh

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: Following their example. Leviticus 20:13 as interpreted by Muffs. Because why not?
(24-01-2015 05:10 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(24-01-2015 05:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Considering the fact that men have never had vaginas, as far as I'm aware, it's a pretty timeless argument.

Or perhaps they DO women like that..... That is a possibility ya know.....

heh

But than the verse would say that if a man has butt sex with a female and than later has butt sex with a male, he should be killed and shit.

So if a man starts with male on male butt sex action and doesn't dip into the pool of straightness than he's all good.


And considering it doesn't specify and just says "as one does with a women" it can be implied that it is referring to straight baby making boom boom and not I don't wanna get pregnant boom boom.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: