I have infinitely more respect for those here who engage in rational, intelligent discourse----no matter their position----than those “timid souls” who hurl insults from the cheap seats.
If you interpret clear, modern English that poorly, no wonder you got your ass handed to you in that old thread.
Eat hot death?
Does your mother know you’re on the computer before your homework is done?
You’re a charter member. My seat is twice as expensive as yours.
How about it, Crotalus?
I’ll open a thread and we’ll see how you do.
Are you up for a discussion?
Oh noes! Wouldn’t want to lose the respect of some stranger on a message board! Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us how you’re very, very disappointed in us. Oh, the shame of it all!
Me too stupid to debate,
Woody
So, you don’t oppose giving full rights and protections, including marriage, to homosexuals?
I’ll sponsor your renewal. 
That’s some nice “rational, intelligent discourse” (and so original, too!) you’re throwing around there. Better be careful, or some people are liable to lose respect for you.
My Jesus unicorn makes the whole world smile,
Woody
I have no stake in that issue.
Well, cool. Believe whatever the hell you want, then. If it doesn’t affect me, I don’t care.
(Although, seriously: you did get your ass handed to you in that thread. )
Ha! And here, I’d been thinking I’d overread into your trollish little comments earlier, and so apologized. Looks like my instincts were right, after all. Go, instincts, go!
And, after reading through those threads… No. I won’t be putting up with a discussion involving you. I’d rather pound my head in with a hammer.
But, thank you. After reviewing your participation in those threads, your disdain for me makes me feel all warm and special inside, like I got a gold star on my report card. 
hehe.
And how many posts did you have in those 2 threads?
Lemme guess… None!
And lemme guess your response if I were to offer you the chance to hand my ass back to me back all over again by way of a series of 5 threads (or so) I’ll start that deal with each of the accounts where homosexuality is “alleged” to be found. (I’ll pay special attention to you and your thoughts and make you my primary focus)
[Some variation of] “No”
With you? About whether the bible condemns homosexuality? Probably not. I am satisfied to pursue my struggles with the bible in the small study groups I attend. I am interested in GD discussions of biblical topics, but I am most often content to read and learn in those. It appears to me that the supposed condemnation of homosexuality in the bible is not nearly as clear as Fred Phelps would have us believe, and that mentions of it, even if we credit the best-known interpretations, are rare. One of the principals of interpretation that I’ve learned is to beware of the hapax hazard, and arsenokoietes is certainly a biblical hapax. Another is the idea of reinforcement. If something is mentioned once or twice, it probably is of lesser doctrinal significance than God’s grace.
My involvement here was primarily prompted by your asinine mischaracterization of jsgoddess’s post, followed by a bit of banter.
hehe
You know, “I can’t” would have sufficed.
You’re chewing up perfectly good bandwidth.
“Probably not” Go figure.
And no fair with the non-debate debating. If you have some thoughts, don’t be shy. Put them to the test!
Dude, when did participation in a thread become a qualification for rendering an opinion on it? I didn’t get that email.
It’s like a humiliation round robin. You think you have to play everyone before the rest of us can see how bad you are at this.
Serious question: Do you believe it’s impossible for others to have seen and rejected your arguments from reading those threads? Have your arguments changed since then? (I guess that’s two questions. I edited.)
Obviously he does. He’s challenged at least four people in this thread to ANOTHER fight about the SAME subject because they hadn’t actually participated in the linked thread. As if another thread on the same subject will somehow result in a different outcome…it’s not that his facts were wrong, it’s that his opponents were stronger. So now he’s looking for new opponents, apparently, with which to plow over the same gladiatorial arena in the hopes that these ones will, apparently, give up before they’ve completely scattered his innards across the sandpit like the last ones did.
It’s almost masochistic. Then again, he is Australian…
Oh, my beliefs are put to many tests. I sure enough that any discussion of this topic with you would begin and end no differently than previous ones which involved you, so nicely summed up by Atticus Finch years ago:
Arguing with that doesn’t strike me as a test, it looks like a masochistic act.