NationStates Jolt Archive

But the point is that, all feelings aside about homosexuality, anyone who disagrees with special rights for homosexuals is labeled homophobic or a nazi.

I've never seen anyone who disagrees with special rights termed any such thing. Then again, I've never seen any arguments for special rights - only equal protection under the law.

I am suggesting that homophobia is more often than not used in a context which exploits the fear meaning, as opposed to the strong dislike meaning.

Only by those who want to be able to say "I'm not a homophobe, I'm not afraid of gays!" When thos of us who think homosexuals should be given equal rights use the term, we are referring to those with an extreme (and generally irrational) dislike for all homosexuals.

Only by those who want to be able to say "I'm not a homophobe, I'm not afraid of gays!" When thos of us who think homosexuals should be given equal rights use the term, we are referring to those with an extreme (and generally irrational) dislike for all homosexuals.

I beg to differ. Of course, I speak purely from personal experience, which will vary from person to person. I haven't done an official study to find which is the more prominent use of the word. All I can draw on is past instances in which I have heard homophobia/homophobic used.

It also depends on which circles you travel in, and what people you associate with. So I suppose it's to be expected that different people will have different viewpoints on the word's use.

Only from someone who is very weak-willed.

such as a child.

Most of these people aren't so concerned about themselves as they are their children.

But the point is that, all feelings aside about homosexuality, anyone who disagrees with special rights for homosexuals is labeled homophobic or a nazi.

Umm...has anyone argued for special rights for homosexuals yet?

I don't think anyone has, at least.

Most of us are arguing for equal rights, is that the same as special?

for myself being a lesbian tell me what you guys are talking about then i can see if i can make you think somethin else

such as a child.

Most of these people aren't so concerned about themselves as they are their children.

Ok, so you are afraid that your children will be so weak-willed that they won't be able to see many different viewpoints and come to the right conclusion. It's a valid viewpoint, I suppose, if you are worried about your ability to raise a child. Personally, I don't think telling a child "Some people think homosexuality is ok, but I do not" equates to "homosexuality is ok." At some point, your child is going to have to learn that not everybody agrees with mommy and daddy and *gasp* your child might actually decide to disagree as well.

Ok, so you are afraid that your children will be so weak-willed that they won't be able to see many different viewpoints and come to the right conclusion.

All children are for the most part weak willed (far more so than they will be as adults), there's a reason why laws are far more restrictive upon children than they are adults.

I'm not afraid for my children, but I understand why a lot of these people are, for many they're really no different to pedophiles(I believe studies show about 50% of these have no attraction of any nature to adults whatsoever), which is acceptable in some cultures, just not ours, so just because it's "how they are" doesn't cut it. Most people would say humans are naturally "evil" too, but it's not a particularly acceptable lifestyle.

Would you want your government condoning or teaching the acceptance something that you consider "evil", especially when it comes to a ceremony that has been controlled by your religion in society since the 6th century?

Most of them have learned to at least accept them in society, but marriage makes them feel like the bulldozer is coming straight for one of their most sacred of rituals.

I don't know if anyone has brought this up before and if they have I'm sorry but here goes

I don't think homophobia is an apropriate term; its condecending and those who posses it are rarely motivated by a "fear" of homosexuality

it's a political term used to try and demonise the opposition further.

Although I can sort of understand the rationale in doing that, since the opposition isn't exactly the most respectful in return :p

You do realize that many of the top Nazis- possibly including Hitler himself- were homosexuals, right?


Another fool falls to the propaganda trap. Hitler a gay. Hard to believe yet even harder to prove. Like calling Hitler jewish but this has been disproven numerous times. As for Hitler being a homosexual that's just outrageously stupid. Naturally homosexuals want to turn the biggest gay bashers into gays themselves to make the world look like hypocrites. Top Nazis were gay right? Like who? Himmler, Goering, Guderian, or maybe Goebbels? Oh wait, I forgot you are retarded and don't know anything about history. Hitler was doing the right thing by eliminating the homosexual populace. No one cares about gays enough to save their lives and they don't contribute anything to society save for crappy television shows and god awful fashion. Homosexuality should be punishable by death.

Hitler was doing the right thing by eliminating the homosexual populace. No one cares about gays enough to save their lives and they don't contribute anything to society save for crappy television shows and god awful fashion. Homosexuality should be punishable by death.

AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH!!!! LMFAOROFLOMG!!!!!!!! :D

To Neue SchweizeLand
Actually. Hitler's father was Jewish, making Hitler half-Jew.
If you would have been more open to education, you would have aslo known that most Nazi's were Sadists, not plain homosexuals.
So, my fellow uneducated poster, I suggest you read.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.


Christians do not hate homosexuals, it is just not natural to be one - God did not make us for that purpose (i.e we do not like the act of homosexuality, but we do not hate the person who does it).

And any way sodomy is unhealthy, and spreads disease, ruins your body etc!!!

Funny thing you say that. The Bible has been evolving around Paul's ideologies of Christianity, not Jesus himself. Also, you can read the whole bible. Nowhere does it say that 'homosexuality is wrong'.
As for the story of Adam and Eve, it has it's great deceptions.

The seven dealdy sins mention Incest as wrong. I can believe you agree to this.
Yet Eve had two sons. What happened afterwards I cannot comprehend for Chrisitianty considers this a sin.
This goes on to religion. A very complex subject.

To Neue SchweizeLand
Actually. Hitler's father was Jewish, making Hitler half-Jew.
If you would have been more open to education, you would have aslo known that most Nazi's were Sadists, not plain homosexuals.
So, my fellow uneducated poster, I suggest you read.

acutally I'm pretty sure his mother was half Jewish

but I've been wrong before

I've heard of that too. But I wasn't sure. In any case, Hitler was part of Jewish descent.

Another fool falls to the propaganda trap. Hitler a gay. Hard to believe yet even harder to prove. Like calling Hitler jewish but this has been disproven numerous times. As for Hitler being a homosexual that's just outrageously stupid. Naturally homosexuals want to turn the biggest gay bashers into gays themselves to make the world look like hypocrites. Top Nazis were gay right? Like who? Himmler, Goering, Guderian, or maybe Goebbels? Oh wait, I forgot you are retarded and don't know anything about history. Hitler was doing the right thing by eliminating the homosexual populace. No one cares about gays enough to save their lives and they don't contribute anything to society save for crappy television shows and god awful fashion. Homosexuality should be punishable by death.

finally a voice of truth in a forum filled with liberal scum :)

The only acceptable objection to the morality of homosexuality is a religious one. If your beliefs condemn it, that's fine. You have, however, no right to condemn anyone else or try to suppress them from it. Any non-religious objection is nothing short of bigotry. :-P

Funny thing you say that. The Bible has been evolving around Paul's ideologies of Christianity, not Jesus himself. Also, you can read the whole bible. Nowhere does it say that 'homosexuality is wrong'.
As for the story of Adam and Eve, it has it's great deceptions.

The seven dealdy sins mention Incest as wrong. I can believe you agree to this.
Yet Eve had two sons. What happened afterwards I cannot comprehend for Chrisitianty considers this a sin.
This goes on to religion. A very complex subject.

Where to begin. How about Cain and Abel. They were, as you said, the sons of Eve and Adam. Then Abel killed Cain, and Cain went out into the world, where he was worried that the others would hurt him. Where did the others come from? good question. I can't answer it, but I can garuntee that it has nothing to do with incest. Next, homosexuality in the Bible. (note that I am merely quoting) "Man shall not lie with man as if with a woman, it is an abomination unto the lord." Leviticus 18:22 Pretty harsh. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. You will, however, note that the bible also tells us to keep kosher, and none of the Christians crusading against gay marriage do that that I know of. I make it a practice not to make other people keep my religion.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Look! The homophobe made a funny! :p

Christians do not hate homosexuals, it is just not natural to be one - God did not make us for that purpose (i.e we do not like the act of homosexuality, but we do not hate the person who does it).

Screw your god, mine says that homosexuality is just as natural as listening to country music! :D

Oh, and if you do not like the act of homsexuality...I recommend you leave it to those who do like it then. :)

And any way sodomy is unhealthy, and spreads disease, ruins your body etc!!!

what, sucking dick, eating pussy, buttramming? Straight people do that too, you know (or maybe you don't, heh.) And just so you know, straight missionary Christian sex spreads a hell of a lot of disease too.

Another fool falls to the propaganda trap. Hitler a gay. Hard to believe yet even harder to prove. Like calling Hitler jewish but this has been disproven numerous times. As for Hitler being a homosexual that's just outrageously stupid. Naturally homosexuals want to turn the biggest gay bashers into gays themselves to make the world look like hypocrites. Top Nazis were gay right? Like who? Himmler, Goering, Guderian, or maybe Goebbels? Oh wait, I forgot you are retarded and don't know anything about history. Hitler was doing the right thing by eliminating the homosexual populace. No one cares about gays enough to save their lives and they don't contribute anything to society save for crappy television shows and god awful fashion. Homosexuality should be punishable by death.

You should shoot yourself. Id pay you to do it. Im serious.

Anyways, anyone who seriously thinks their religious basis isnt called into question, seek out Hirota's posts on the various contradictions and examples of homosexuality in the bible.

Another fool falls to the propaganda trap. Hitler a gay. Hard to believe yet even harder to prove. Like calling Hitler jewish but this has been disproven numerous times. As for Hitler being a homosexual that's just outrageously stupid. Naturally homosexuals want to turn the biggest gay bashers into gays themselves to make the world look like hypocrites. Top Nazis were gay right? Like who? Himmler, Goering, Guderian, or maybe Goebbels? Oh wait, I forgot you are retarded and don't know anything about history. Hitler was doing the right thing by eliminating the homosexual populace. No one cares about gays enough to save their lives and they don't contribute anything to society save for crappy television shows and god awful fashion. Homosexuality should be punishable by death.


I was raised very straight family. I am also very straight, however I believe that straight, bisexual, or gay are all sexual preferences. This is something the government can’t regulate. I mean if the guy or girl next door likes to get it on with Rover, hey, it’s their choice. And if you don’t think that gays or lesbians contribute to society or our (straight)
way of life, you obviously do not have as much education or read as much as they do.
As for the right to marry, that’s a tough one. What’s next? Joe Blow next door starts screaming for equal rights and wants to marry Rover.

I was raised very straight family. I am also very straight, however I believe that straight, bisexual, or gay are all sexual preferences. This is something the government can’t regulate.

Are we talking regulating your private actions or are we talking regulation of a government licensing procedure? There's no point even arguing with someone who thinks they should "all be rounded up and killed".

P.S. Hitler was in no way jewish, his "hidden" family secret from his mother's side was a history of mental disease (ie that he might go insane...like he did), not any jewish heritage.

The seven dealdy sins mention Incest as wrong. I can believe you agree to this.
Yet Eve had two sons. What happened afterwards I cannot comprehend for Chrisitianty considers this a sin.
This goes on to religion. A very complex subject.
The Seven Deadly sins are not canonical; furthermore, incest isn't one of them.

You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi.

I'm sick of seeing repbulicans post shit like this. Clearly homophobic, they're not asking you to get into bed with them. Just tolerate them.

Have you ever seen the photos of Aushwitz, or Buchenwald. The shrivled, half dead, living corpses? Many of those people were homosexuals perescuted by the Nazis.

And you Catholics/Baptists/Oh gives a rats ass, are no better.

Do us all a favor and take that sheet off your bed and put it over your head, so then everyone can see what a flithy, miserable, creature you are.
First I dont need to read the rest of this thread to respond to the original insult.

SO because I am a Baptist I am a filthy,miserable creature?
That is what you said.
You did not say "you who are bgoted against homosexuals" you just named some Christians.
In your feeble mind you believe this to be deserving of some respect?
Insulting millions because you had bad experience with some?
Denegrating millions.
Reducing millions to less then human based soley on your opinion.
Considering people to be filthy animals because their ideas and their faith differ from yours?
Sir, have you seen photos of Aushwitz "More than 1.5 million people were killed at Auschwitz and the nearby Birkenau, most of the Jews, but also including Catholics, Gypsies, Soviets, and others. "
Have you seen the photos of Buchenwald" Originally erected for political prisoners, Buchenwald grew to include gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and Jews. By the time of its liberation the concentration camp was one of the largest on German soil, with about 130 satellite camps and extension units. Not to be confused with a death camp, Buchenwald served as a labor camp and a deportation site. The primary goal was to exploit those useful prisoners for the German State. However, when overcrowding developed in the 1940’s, mass murders did occur at the German concentration camp. "
Homosexuals were not the only prisoners of the Nazis you uninformed fact twisting slug.
http://www.pacwashmetrodiv.org/projects/nazipers/
"This documentary film will fill a void in the historical record of World War II. Now, fifty-eight years after the end of the war, much of the world is still unaware that 6 million Poles killed by the Nazis (and Soviets) included nearly 3 million Polish Catholics. "

You sir, deserve to be hated. Not for homogenious reason, no.
You personally deserve to be hated and spat upon, you who would uphold the NAzi ideal of untermenshen by calling Christians NAzis because they dont agree with you.
By calling Christians "Filthy Animals" because they dont agree with you.
You foster, I dare say you perpetuate the very spirit of the Nazi mentality by making those who are your enemies less then human, there by reducing your need to veiw them as human, there by reducing your need to treat them as human.
I see you for the man you are, a sick mentally diseased fool.
People like you are what make the atrocities commited by the Nazis possible.

I really don't think Alansyists advocates mass murder of Christians.

Whereas that notion regarding homosexuals has surfaced in this thread.

How can you blame gays for getting angry at people who oppress them?

...

Are we still arguing homosexuality?

I really don't think Alansyists advocates mass murder of Christians.

Whereas that notion regarding homosexuals has surfaced in this thread.

How can you blame gays for getting angry at people who oppress them?

...

Are we still arguing homosexuality?
First, he is not gays.
I make the distiction. A courtesy he did not pay Christians.
Second, I quoted him.
He plainly ignores the millions of Christians who died next to the thousands of Homosexuals.
Why does he do this?
Because it suits his arguement, he twists facts to make it appear as if the millions who suffered and died were the ones who persecuted Homosexuals.
He does exactly what the nazis did, de-humanizes Christians so that it becomes easier to treat them less then humans.
DO you see how easily you went with it?
Second was one of his Homosexual grandparents at Dachau?
Aushwitz perhaps?
No!!
Maybe a Christian uncle, mybe a Jewish Grandmother.
Truthfully I doubt he has any real connection to those places or he would not USE the deaths of millions to support an arguement for robbing people of their right to have their own opinion.
HE would not use the torture and death millions to duplicate the thinking that itself lead to millions of deaths.
I have no problem with Homosexuals as a group.
I have a problem with this particular man who pretends to a victim when he is actually using the true victims to victimize another group-just because he disagrees with them.

Where to begin. How about Cain and Abel. They were, as you said, the sons of Eve and Adam. Then Abel killed Cain, and Cain went out into the world, where he was worried that the others would hurt him. Where did the others come from? good question. I can't answer it, but I can garuntee that it has nothing to do with incest.

Then what? Adoption? Cloning?

Next, homosexuality in the Bible. (note that I am merely quoting) "Man shall not lie with man as if with a woman, it is an abomination unto the lord." Leviticus 18:22 Pretty harsh. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

Well, aside from the fact it has been translated differently in different bibles, that speaks out against, at most, sex between 2 men (and not 2 women, imagine that). It says nothing about love between 2 men or them getting married.

First I dont need to read the rest of this thread to respond to the original insult.

SO because I am a Baptist I am a filthy,miserable creature?
That is what you said.
You did not say "you who are bgoted against homosexuals" you just named some Christians.
In your feeble mind you believe this to be deserving of some respect?
Insulting millions because you had bad experience with some?
Denegrating millions.

Thank you for making this thread about you, who are most obviously more persecuted as a straight christian than any homosexual could possibly be.
Alansyists is a fairly abrasive personality, and he could have stated his case in better, less general terms, but you overreacted to the nth degree, in one of the most long winded shows of self-righteous indignation I have ever seen. Get over it.
Like Crabcake Baba Ganoush said, hatred only begets hatred. You can be pissed at homophobes, or at Alansyists, without condemning them to the seventh circle of hell as the most evil creatures in existence. We all know they aren't, even though sometimes it may feel like it.

First, he is not gays.
I make the distiction. A courtesy he did not pay Christians.
Second, I quoted him.
He plainly ignores the millions of Christians who died next to the thousands of Homosexuals.
Why does he do this?
Because it suits his arguement, he twists facts to make it appear as if the millions who suffered and died were the ones who persecuted Homosexuals.
He does exactly what the nazis did, de-humanizes Christians so that it becomes easier to treat them less then humans.
DO you see how easily you went with it?
Second was one of his Homosexual grandparents at Dachau?
Aushwitz perhaps?
No!!
Maybe a Christian uncle, mybe a Jewish Grandmother.
Truthfully I doubt he has any real connection to those places or he would not USE the deaths of millions to support an arguement for robbing people of their right to have their own opinion.
HE would not use the torture and death millions to duplicate the thinking that itself lead to millions of deaths.
I have no problem with Homosexuals as a group.
I have a problem with this particular man who pretends to a victim when he is actually using the true victims to victimize another group-just because he disagrees with them.

Nazism, Germany, and the Holocaust should not have been brought up in this thread. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand and just unnecessarily enrages the debate.

I didnt bring Nazism into the Debate.
The opening post did.
I could care less about the imagined slight some spoiled American Homosexual feels because the boy s on his highscool football team beat him up, or the local church goers dont like him.
I certainly unimpressed.
Deltaepsilon, about me?
Oh so the idiot who started this thread compares his suffering to the people in Auschwitz and I made this THREAD about me.
You are God Damned right I went off, if I generalized Homosexuals I would be villian.
However he diminishes the deathes of millions be attempting to link his imagined slight to their suffering and also uses it to demonize one fifth of the world populace based on their religious beliefs (a Nazi like act in and of itself) and I am wrong.
Wake the fuck up.
For the record why do I have to be straight or Christian?
Any self respecting Jew would lose his mind at reading the dribble that birthed this thread.

First, he is not gays.
I make the distiction. A courtesy he did not pay Christians.
Second, I quoted him.
He plainly ignores the millions of Christians who died next to the thousands of Homosexuals.
Why does he do this?
Because it suits his arguement, he twists facts to make it appear as if the millions who suffered and died were the ones who persecuted Homosexuals.
He does exactly what the nazis did, de-humanizes Christians so that it becomes easier to treat them less then humans.
DO you see how easily you went with it?
Second was one of his Homosexual grandparents at Dachau?
Aushwitz perhaps?
No!!
Maybe a Christian uncle, mybe a Jewish Grandmother.
Truthfully I doubt he has any real connection to those places or he would not USE the deaths of millions to support an arguement for robbing people of their right to have their own opinion.
HE would not use the torture and death millions to duplicate the thinking that itself lead to millions of deaths.
I have no problem with Homosexuals as a group.
I have a problem with this particular man who pretends to a victim when he is actually using the true victims to victimize another group-just because he disagrees with them.

You forget that it's very likely that those homosexuals murdered by the nazis were christians too.

You forget that it's very likely that those homosexuals murdered by the nazis were christians too.
I didnt forget that at all. The thread starter forgot that when he called
"Catholics/BAptists/ wahtever you are all filthy animals."
A real man of tolerance. here let me be specific:
You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi.

I'm sick of seeing repbulicans post shit like this. Clearly homophobic, they're not asking you to get into bed with them. Just tolerate them.

Have you ever seen the photos of Aushwitz, or Buchenwald. The shrivled, half dead, living corpses? Many of those people were homosexuals perescuted by the Nazis.

And you Catholics/Baptists/Oh gives a rats ass, are no better.

Do us all a favor and take that sheet off your bed and put it over your head, so then everyone can see what a flithy, miserable, creature you are.

Personally, on the entire topic i have a single view: Homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so, but not nearly as bad a sin as intolerance. If Dante had been around today, he'd probably have a place for intolerants in the Inferno. People who rail against homosexuality aren't really any better than rascists who rail against other races, or that now-sued bastard who wouldn't give my cousin a job because he'd had cancer once.
And honestly, does gay marriage matter? If you didn't let normal people get married, they'd still live together.

I didnt forget that at all. The thread starter forgot that when he called
"Catholics/BAptists/ wahtever you are all filthy animals."

Although I think intolerance towards gays is stupid, I have to agree with you that the starter of this thread doesn't seem very intelligent.

I didnt forget that at all. The thread starter forgot that when he called
"Catholics/BAptists/ wahtever you are all filthy animals."
A real man of tolerance. here let me be specific:

Do we tolerate intolerance? The Catholic Church in particular is funding most of the state amendments to ban gay marriage. Catholics in particular are some of the most vehement opponents of homosexuality. "Filthy animals"? Gays have been called the same. Doesn't make it nice, or helpful to intelligent discussion, but you need to understand where they're coming from.

Precisely, I was fully prepared to agree with some arguement against the irrational fear or hatred of Homosexuals when I saw the thread title.
Personally I believe it is a sin.
I also Believe Jesus hung out with sinners, he didnt hate them, he loved them.
I click on the thread expecting to see some story of intolerance andwhat to I see, not an appeal for logic.
Just more ignorant hate.
While others may have come and turnedthe threadto honest debate I could not in good concience not post my retort to the original insult.
It was simply wrong.

Do we tolerate intolerance? The Catholic Church in particular is funding most of the state amendments to ban gay marriage. Catholics in particular are some of the most vehement opponents of homosexuality. "Filthy animals"? Gays have been called the same. Doesn't make it nice, or helpful to intelligent discussion, but you need to understand where they're coming from.


Ug. And I was trying so hard to avoid this thread...

To be fair, the Catholic church is only against gay marriage. Catholics shouldn't be against homosexuality in general. Most Catholics just use their faith as an excuse to put others down. What else is new? I just wanted to state that good Catholics have nothing against homosexual individuals. And some Catholics even disagree with the Church's stance against gay marriage.

Do we tolerate intolerance? The Catholic Church in particular is funding most of the state amendments to ban gay marriage. Catholics in particular are some of the most vehement opponents of homosexuality. "Filthy animals"? Gays have been called the same. Doesn't make it nice, or helpful to intelligent discussion, but you need to understand where they're coming from.
Really?
So if you got beaten by a group of people in order to recount the ordeal to me you would need to beat me down?
SO if your wife or child was murdered by a group of people you go out and randomly kill someones wife and child based on a arbitrary slection process just because it happened to you?
He isnt even saying it happend to him, he is just throwing insults.
Second, he is not a they.
Trust me when I say he absolutely doesnt represent the homosexual populace as a whole.
Though you keep speaking as if he does.

Ug. And I was trying so hard to avoid this thread...

To be fair, the Catholic church is only against gay marriage. Catholics shouldn't be against homosexuality in general. Most Catholics just use their faith as an excuse to put others down. What else is new? I just wanted to state that good Catholics have nothing against homosexual individuals. And some Catholics even disagree with the Church's stance against gay marriage.

As I was raised Catholic, and put through a private Catholic school from 6th to 8th grade, I can safely say that the Catholic Church considers homosexuality a sin, and is *against* homosexuality in whatever definition you use. True, a lot of Catholics disagree with the Church, and many Catholics have no problem with gay people (after all, nearly all of us have gay friends and/or family, right?).

But the Catholic Church as an institution, as long as it considers homosexuality a sin, is more than just against gay marriage.

For the record why do I have to be straight or Christian?

You identified yourself as a Baptist in the post I quoted. That makes you a christian, does it not?

As to whether you are straight or not, I guess I really have no way of knowing. However, your post seemed to imply it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, instead of making indignant comments that do not deny the supposedly false assumptions I made.

Romans feed Christians to Lions, you dont see me yelling at every Italian I see.

You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi.
.

lol come on, buddy

also by the time you say nazi, you've already destroyed any chance of what you said being anywhere near truth remember???

anyways, homersexuals are alright in my book, but they definitely aren't the most productive people I've met, or the least

just like any other random sample, you have pothead homers, and really smart scientist homers, and ok so alot more theatrical/artsy kinda weird homos.............

but whatever, I had alot of friends that were theatre majors, so big deal, I'd like more men to be gay(and less woman of course), it'd give me more people to go after :)


my ANALysis is that you might be gay yourself, which is ok but don't take the internet hate to heart, just go do some drugs or something

watch your cornhole

You identified yourself as a Baptist in the post I quoted. That makes you a christian, does it not?

As to whether you are straight or not, I guess I really have no way of knowing. However, your post seemed to imply it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, instead of making indignant comments that do not deny the supposedly false assumptions I made.
This is what I mean.
SO then if I am straight, that has some bearing on the arguement?
Logically no it should not.
Since my complaint is in no way about homosexuals, it is about this individual.
but sure I will bite.
I am straight.
Not counting the two guys I had sex with as a teenager.
Clear enough for you?

Really?
So if you got beaten by a group of people in order to recount the ordeal to me you would need to beat me down?
SO if your wife or child was murdered by a group of people you go out and randomly kill someones wife and child based on a arbitrary slection process just because it happened to you?
He isnt even saying it happend to him, he is just throwing insults.
Second, he is not a they.
Trust me when I say he absolutely doesnt represent the homosexual populace as a whole.
Though you keep speaking as if he does.

Again you are exagerating. And you are distorting what he said. He is not calling for random violence. He is throwing insults directed at gaybashers, that's it. I'd say his anger represents a fair majority of the homosexual populace...wouldn't you be angry if you were gay and had to put up with the shit they do?

As I was raised Catholic, and put through a private Catholic school from 6th to 8th grade, I can safely say that the Catholic Church considers homosexuality a sin, and is *against* homosexuality in whatever definition you use. True, a lot of Catholics disagree with the Church, and many Catholics have no problem with gay people (after all, nearly all of us have gay friends and/or family, right?).

But the Catholic Church as an institution, as long as it considers homosexuality a sin, is more than just against gay marriage.

With respect, buddy, I have to disagree. Just two days ago I read up on homosexuality at my Church, Saint Paul's. The Catholic Encyclopedia stated what I summed up above. With greater detail and pychological backing. From my standpoint, the Catholic Church is only against gay marriage because of the social norm. The Church frowns upon homosexuality in excess - gay couples should make an effort to control their lust just like heterosexual couples.

Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe the Church changed its stance on the matter. Maybe there's some inter-Church disagreement, or maybe one of us is flat wrong. I have no wish to discuss that. I just wanted to bring the possiblity to light. Agree to disagree and move on?

You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi.

I'm sick of seeing repbulicans post shit like this. Clearly homophobic, they're not asking you to get into bed with them. Just tolerate them.

Have you ever seen the photos of Aushwitz, or Buchenwald. The shrivled, half dead, living corpses? Many of those people were homosexuals perescuted by the Nazis.

And you Catholics/Baptists/Oh gives a rats ass, are no better.

Do us all a favor and take that sheet off your bed and put it over your head, so then everyone can see what a flithy, miserable, creature you are.
That is not directed at gay bashers.
I did not exagerate, if you say I must be insulted to understand where he is comingfrom about being insulted, then your logic would follow I would need to be beaten if he was beaten andso forth and so on.

With respect, buddy, I have to disagree. Just two days ago I read up on homosexuality at my Church, Saint Paul's. The Catholic Encyclopedia stated what I summed up above. With greater detail and pychological backing. From my standpoint, the Catholic Church is only against gay marriage because of the social norm. The Church frowns upon homosexuality in excess - gay couples should make an effort to control their lust just like heterosexual couples.

Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe the Church changed its stance on the matter. Maybe there's some inter-Church disagreement, or maybe one of us is flat wrong. I have no wish to discuss that. I just wanted to bring the possiblity to light. Agree to disagree and move on?

So the church smiles upon homosexuality in moderation?


:D Riiiiiiiight

Arcadian Mists, I dont know the proper term for it, but it is basically a break with the policy of the Mother Church in Rome.
Several different American sects of Christianity have been ostricizing themselves from thelarger global bady of their respective Churches by not condemning Homosexuality.

With respect, buddy, I have to disagree. Just two days ago I read up on homosexuality at my Church, Saint Paul's. The Catholic Encyclopedia stated what I summed up above. With greater detail and pychological backing. From my standpoint, the Catholic Church is only against gay marriage because of the social norm. The Church frowns upon homosexuality in excess - gay couples should make an effort to control their lust just like heterosexual couples.

Anyway, I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe the Church changed its stance on the matter. Maybe there's some inter-Church disagreement, or maybe one of us is flat wrong. I have no wish to discuss that. I just wanted to bring the possiblity to light. Agree to disagree and move on?

Thanks for the info from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I know what I was taught...but it's not like the Pope himself oversaw my little Catholic school. It's very likely you are correct. There's factions within every church.

But I'm laughing a little bit at homosexuality in excess...like how gay is too gay? :p

Control their lust just like hetero couples? Such as, only sex twice a week, no more? heh.

As for moving on...well, what more is there to say? The disagreement right now seems to be whether or not insults against gaybashers are helpful or not. I'd like to get back to whether homosexuality is actually unnatural, or not, and all that good stuff.

As well, why the government recognizes marriage at all, when it is a religious institution...I say civil unions for EVERYONE...leave marriage to the churches, they can marry whom they choose, but it has no legal standing, only civil unions have legal standing. No second-class status for gays. Religious people are free to keep on in their bigotry. Further separation of church and state. Everyone's happy.

Would you want your government condoning or teaching the acceptance something that you consider "evil", especially when it comes to a ceremony that has been controlled by your religion in society since the 6th century?

Not if the actual construct they were fighting for was a legal construct that happened to have the same name as said religious ceremony.

And of course, even as a Christian, I am intelligent enough to recognize that marriage occurred in pretty much every culture - Christianity never had the monopoly there. Perhaps if you had said "Western society" instead of society?

Most of them have learned to at least accept them in society, but marriage makes them feel like the bulldozer is coming straight for one of their most sacred of rituals.

Only because they are so paranoid that someone might attack their beliefs or try to keep their religion from controlling government that they can't see the simple fact that civil marriage has nothing to do with their sacred ritual other than the fact that their priest/preacher/reverend/rabbi/etc is given the right to grant it.

So the church smiles upon homosexuality in moderation?


:D Riiiiiiiight

It's easy to point and accuse. It's even easier if the accused is as hated and despised as the Church. I hope you can look beyond that and at least consider what I have to say.

The Church realizes homosexuality isn't a choice. From my sources, the Church doesn't want them to marry, and they don't want them to have excessive amounts of sex - because that leads to sin the same as staight sex.

You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi.

I'm sick of seeing repbulicans post shit like this. Clearly homophobic, they're not asking you to get into bed with them. Just tolerate them.

Have you ever seen the photos of Aushwitz, or Buchenwald. The shrivled, half dead, living corpses? Many of those people were homosexuals perescuted by the Nazis.

And you Catholics/Baptists/Oh gives a rats ass, are no better.

Do us all a favor and take that sheet off your bed and put it over your head, so then everyone can see what a flithy, miserable, creature you are.

According to the Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Edition Collegiate Dictionary:
Tolerance: Definition 2:a: sympathy or indulgence for belifes or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something: toleration


It would seem to me that Star Shadow first states a fact: that the Christian Church, or at least the majority of the denominations, has declared that acts of homosexuality are a sin, this is true, current Christian doctrine does say this. He also says that while he won't encourage anyone to be gay, he also will not attempt to stop anyone from being gay, that fits the bill for tolerance (see definition above). Because he tolerates rather than activly helps homosexuals, you call him a Nazi, somehow implying that he wants to put all homosexuals in concentration camps. I too tolerate gays, I would not encourage anyone to be gay, but I will not discourage anyone either (I feel I have to get that out before you put words in my mouth). In conclusion, you sir, are an intollerant hate monger.

You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi.

I'm sick of seeing repbulicans post shit like this. Clearly homophobic, they're not asking you to get into bed with them. Just tolerate them.

Have you ever seen the photos of Aushwitz, or Buchenwald. The shrivled, half dead, living corpses? Many of those people were homosexuals perescuted by the Nazis.

And you Catholics/Baptists/Oh gives a rats ass, are no better.

Do us all a favor and take that sheet off your bed and put it over your head, so then everyone can see what a flithy, miserable, creature you are.


Lovely play on emotion asswipe. Comparing homosexuals to holocaust victims doesn't work. 1. Because the amount of so called "persecuted homosexuals" was exagerrated. 2. The Nazi parties were riddled with homosexuality.

As well, why the government recognizes marriage at all, when it is a religious institution...I say civil unions for EVERYONE...leave marriage to the churches, they can marry whom they choose, but it has no legal standing, only civil unions have legal standing. No second-class status for gays. Religious people are free to keep on in their bigotry. Further separation of church and state. Everyone's happy.

Heh. I agree with you there. The failure to grant civil unions to gay couples really seems like a failure of the seperation of church and state. Well, I guess I'm part of the conversation now. Me and my big mouth... :rolleyes:

As for moving on...well, what more is there to say? The disagreement right now seems to be whether or not insults against gaybashers are helpful or not. I'd like to get back to whether homosexuality is actually unnatural, or not, and all that good stuff.

As well, why the government recognizes marriage at all, when it is a religious institution...I say civil unions for EVERYONE...leave marriage to the churches, they can marry whom they choose, but it has no legal standing, only civil unions have legal standing. No second-class status for gays. Religious people are free to keep on in their bigotry. Further separation of church and state. Everyone's happy.
DONE!!
Homosexual acts are natural.
I agree about the Marriage issue.
Marriages in Churchs(they can reserve the right to refuse service to whom ever they like) The RIGHTS, forthe people, all the people, no matter waht body parts they like.

I don't know if anyone has brought this up before and if they have I'm sorry but here goes

I don't think homophobia is an apropriate term; its condecending and those who posses it are rarely motivated by a "fear" of homosexuality

It has been brought up, and it was already pointed out that "-phobic" can be used to refer to either fear (as you are so worried about) or extreme dislike. Thus, the term homophobic is perfectly reasonable when applied to people with an extreme (and usually completely irrational) dislike of homosexuals.

Good night.

Can we get off the petty insults that started this thread, and move on to the real issue?

And for godsake, please no one bring up the holocaust again (I don't care if Alansyists started it, let's just move on already.)

As for the right to marry, that’s a tough one. What’s next? Joe Blow next door starts screaming for equal rights and wants to marry Rover.

Two words: INFORMED CONSENT

Don't ruin an otherwise decent enough post with a completely idiotic statement like that one.

I have a phobia of handicapped people.
I sweat, I get emotional and uncomfortable around them.
Around mentally handicapped people Istart to cry uncontrollably(I am a 230lb man).
My wife will warn me to when we approach one.
I think I feel some guilt about their condition, and myself being blessed to be whole, and my chldren being blessed as well.
Their presence makes me uncomforable with myself(which is ridiculous).
I think calling it a phobia is wrong in the sense that people with real phobias get associated with hate mongers.
Bigot is a much better term.

I have a phobia of handicapped people.
I sweat, I get emotional and uncomfortable around them.
Around mentally handicapped people Istart to cry uncontrollably(I am a 230lb man).
My wife will warn me to when we approach one.
I think I feel some guilt about their condition, and myself being blessed to be whole, and my chldren being blessed as well.
Their presence makes me uncomforable with myself(which is ridiculous).
I think calling it a phobia is wrong in the sense that people with real phobias get associated with hate mongers.
Bigot is a much better term.

A good point you bring up. "Homophobe" has come to mean hatred/dislike, as well as fear. But there is no clear word like "racist" to accurately describe hatred/dislike for gays, so "homophobe" (which literally means "fear of").

Anyways, as for the reason civil unions are deemed unacceptable at the moment is because marriage itself is sanctioned by the government. Until that is rectified, gays will feel like second-class citizens. And no priest/rabbi/pastor/whatever will ever be forced to perform a marriage they do not want to. That would be government intruding on religion, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. They can refuse to marry an interracial couple, and while I would be enraged and disgusted, I would still not wish for the government to get involved. Freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate however you like. HOWEVER, when such religions get tax breaks...that's another issue.

The solution to this whole mess is to completely separate the church from the state, COMPLETELY.

Then the most people will be happy, except for that minority of Americans who for some reason are even against civil unions for gays.

One word: INFORMED CONSENT

Lol, that's like Kerry's "I have 5 words for America : This is your wake up call"

It's part of the overall strategery to lead to more nucular families for sure!

Do we tolerate intolerance? The Catholic Church in particular is funding most of the state amendments to ban gay marriage. Catholics in particular are some of the most vehement opponents of homosexuality. "Filthy animals"? Gays have been called the same. Doesn't make it nice, or helpful to intelligent discussion, but you need to understand where they're coming from.

Well thank you, it's nice to know that this is where homosexuals are coming from, they think I'm a filthy animal because of my religion. I would cast doubt on whether this is the true position of homosexuals. More to the point, who has called gays filthy animals, anyone in the mainstream, I think not. You might see that label among white supremacists, but not anyone normal. By making this statement about the other side, the author reduces himself to the level of a hate monger.

Note:If you are intollerant of intollerance, then you can't tollerate yourself, and that's a rather serious problem.

Note#2:The Church wants to stop anyone from changing the definition of marrraige (marraige being one of the sacraments of God that the chruch finds as holy), it does not want to ban homosexuality. That's tolerance, I'll allow you to think and act in whatever way you please, just show me the respect of not coopting my religious practices and, more importantly, forcing me by law to acknowledge the validity the change. Indeed, many in the Protestant churches would support civil unions, with the same paperwork, extra taxes, and other bells and whistles, just not the word "marraige", because that's already taken.

Well thank you, it's nice to know that this is where homosexuals are coming from, they think I'm a filthy animal because of my religion. I would cast doubt on whether this is the true position of homosexuals. More to the point, who has called gays filthy animals, anyone in the mainstream, I think not. You might see that label among white supremacists, but not anyone normal. By making this statement about the other side, the author reduces himself to the level of a hate monger.

You are not being called a filthy animal because of your religion, don't flatter yourself. ;)

Rather the starter of this thread is attacking how you practice it (i.e. calling gays sinful hedonists, etc.). Bout the white supremacist comment, you should listen to black former presidential candidate Alan Keyes comments on homosexuality (very ironic considering that his daughter just outed herself on her blog a month ago). Listen to Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell...are they not mainstream?

Note:If you are intollerant of intollerance, then you can't tollerate yourself, and that's a rather serious problem.

Nice play on words. You'd be singing a different tune if it was you being discriminated against.

Note#2:The Church wants to stop anyone from changing the definition of marrraige (marraige being one of the sacraments of God that the chruch finds as holy), it does not want to ban homosexuality. That's tolerance, I'll allow you to think and act in whatever way you please, just show me the respect of not coopting my religious practices and, more importantly, forcing me by law to acknowledge the validity the change. Indeed, many in the Protestant churches would support civil unions, with the same paperwork, extra taxes, and other bells and whistles, just not the word "marraige", because that's already taken.

You have a point here. As I've mentioned earlier, once the government releases it's hold on the word "marriage" then your proposal would find acceptance across a wide majority of the country, gay and straight.

A good point you bring up. "Homophobe" has come to mean hatred/dislike, as well as fear. But there is no clear word like "racist" to accurately describe hatred/dislike for gays, so "homophobe" (which literally means "fear of").

Anyways, as for the reason civil unions are deemed unacceptable at the moment is because marriage itself is sanctioned by the government. Until that is rectified, gays will feel like second-class citizens. And no priest/rabbi/pastor/whatever will ever be forced to perform a marriage they do not want to. That would be government intruding on religion, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. They can refuse to marry an interracial couple, and while I would be enraged and disgusted, I would still not wish for the government to get involved. Freedom of religion means freedom to discriminate however you like. HOWEVER, when such religions get tax breaks...that's another issue.

The solution to this whole mess is to completely separate the church from the state, COMPLETELY.

Then the most people will be happy, except for that minority of Americans who for some reason are even against civil unions for gays.

Gay's might feel like second class citizens, but they do indeed have the right to get married...just not to someone of the same gender. Straight people are likewise restricted, being unable to join with someone of the same gender and call it marraige. So denying homosexuals the right to marry whatever they want is in no way discriminatory, because no one else can either. Indeed saying that this is unfair is like saying that traffic laws are unfair to those who have a propensity to drive dangerously (for those of you who would intentionally misunderstand me, no I'm not equating homosexuality with bad driving, I'm making a point about justice).

It's easy to point and accuse. It's even easier if the accused is as hated and despised as the Church. I hope you can look beyond that and at least consider what I have to say.

The Church realizes homosexuality isn't a choice. From my sources, the Church doesn't want them to marry, and they don't want them to have excessive amounts of sex - because that leads to sin the same as staight sex.

Well, I live in a country where the official religion is protestant/lutherian and most people aren't very religious. Also, over here we don't have seperation of church and state, which has resulted in the protestant church being very vulnerable to criticism (it being state funded, although you can choose to pay tax to a university instead of the church). So, the church doesn't have any say and would never dare to make such outrageous statements as the catholic church has in other countries.

However, if we are talking about the catholic church, it's an entirely different matter... I don't know who your sources are, but I remember the pope complaining that homosexuality was being depicted in an uncritical manner in the media. If we look at that one statement, we see that the big holy guy of the catholic church seems to believe that homosexuality should be criticised, meaning that he thinks its wrong and that people should be taught that it's wrong.
Let's not forget the popes statement where he said women seeking power weaken the family and promote homosexuality... He seems to think it's a choice.
Also, let me quote Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the popes spokesman, when he was asked why homosexuals can't become priests:
People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained.
That was the ONLY explanation he gave...
Then we have the Vatican official saying that gays cannot be priests because: "First and foremost among them is the possible simultaneous manifestation of other serious problems such as substance abuse, sexual addiction and depression"

No, the catholic church is not tolerant towards gays, and they seem to believe it's a choice.

Gay's might feel like second class citizens, but they do indeed have the right to get married...just not to someone of the same gender. Straight people are likewise restricted, being unable to join with someone of the same gender and call it marraige. So denying homosexuals the right to marry whatever they want is in no way discriminatory, because no one else can either. Indeed saying that this is unfair is like saying that traffic laws are unfair to those who have a propensity to drive dangerously (for those of you who would intentionally misunderstand me, no I'm not equating homosexuality with bad driving, I'm making a point about justice).

You could apply that EXACT SAME argument to interracial marriage 50 years ago. It makes no logical point.

People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained.
That was the ONLY explanation he gave...

Would you rather he give his unedited opinion and have his not so intelligent followers think it's a mandate to put his opinion into action?

I'd be thankful that a religious leader of a group known for their undaunting fervour chose to keep his opinion to himself.

Would you rather he give his unedited opinion and have his not so intelligent followers think it's a mandate to put his opinion into action?

I'd be thankful that a religious leader of a group known for their undaunting fervour chose to keep his opinion to himself.

So, excluding a huge group of people from a profession and giving the explanation "just because" is acceptable to you?

Well, I live in a country where the official religion is protestant/lutherian and most people aren't very religious. Also, over here we don't have seperation of church and state, which has resulted in the protestant church being very vulnerable to criticism (it being state funded, although you can choose to pay tax to a university instead of the church). So, the church doesn't have any say and would never dare to make such outrageous statements as the catholic church has in other countries.

However, if we are talking about the catholic church, it's an entirely different matter... I don't know who your sources are, but I remember the pope complaining that homosexuality was being depicted in an uncritical manner in the media. If we look at that one statement, we see that the big holy guy of the catholic church seems to believe that homosexuality should be criticised, meaning that he thinks its wrong and that people should be taught that it's wrong.
Let's not forget the popes statement where he said women seeking power weaken the family and promote homosexuality... He seems to think it's a choice.
Also, let me quote Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the popes spokesman, when he was asked why homosexuals can't become priests:
People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained.
That was the ONLY explanation he gave...

No, the catholic church is not tolerant towards gays, and they seem to believe it's a choice.

As I stated before, my sources are Catholic in nature and fairly up to date (sorry, I don't have a year for you right now). The Church is more than just the Pope. He's the leader. If he was perfect and righteous and handed down from God, we wouldn't need collection plates. He'd just win at the track. I'm American, and a good one in my own opinion. But I support Bush very little.

I rant. Sorry. I stated before I have no wish to discuss who's right about this - we're never ever going to come to an agreable conclusion. I just felt the need to defend the Church on the matter. When ever Catholics come up in discussion, they're always the bad guys. Anyway, feel free to reply to this. It's your right. But don't take it personally when I don't respond. I've given my two cents and I'm content to leave it at that. And believe me, I make these same arguements to fellow Catholics. I'm all for tollerance and understanding.

You are not being called a filthy animal because of your religion, don't flatter yourself. ;)

Rather the starter of this thread is attacking how you practice it (i.e. calling gays sinful hedonists, etc.). Bout the white supremacist comment, you should listen to black former presidential candidate Alan Keyes comments on homosexuality (very ironic considering that his daughter just outed herself on her blog a month ago). Listen to Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell...are they not mainstream?



Nice play on words. You'd be singing a different tune if it was you being discriminated against.



You have a point here. As I've mentioned earlier, once the government releases it's hold on the word "marriage" then your proposal would find acceptance across a wide majority of the country, gay and straight.

Indeed I do listen to Mr. Savage, and have seen Ms. Colter appear on numerous talk shows, and I have yet to hear either call homosexuals "filthy animals". If you can provide me a source for your accusation, I will be the first to write them an angry letter.

As for my "play on words", it's the simple truth, a classical logical argument, taking the information given and drawing it out to it's natural conclusion. What needs to be fixed is the original idea, namely that people such as yourself are not fighting intollerance, no, you embrace it as a tool, you're just fighting the intollerance directed at a few.

On a side note, I do agree with you about taking marraige out of the government and making civil unions for all, it certainly makes sense.

As I stated before, my sources are Catholic in nature and fairly up to date (sorry, I don't have a year for you right now). The Church is more than just the Pope. He's the leader. If he was perfect and righteous and handed down from God, we wouldn't need collection plates. He'd just win at the track. I'm American, and a good one in my own opinion. But I support Bush very little.

I rant. Sorry. I stated before I have no wish to discuss who's right about this - we're never ever going to come to an agreable conclusion. I just felt the need to defend the Church on the matter. When ever Catholics come up in discussion, they're always the bad guys. Anyway, feel free to reply to this. It's your right. But don't take it personally when I don't respond. I've given my two cents and I'm content to leave it at that. And believe me, I make these same arguements to fellow Catholics. I'm all for tollerance and understanding.

Thought the pope was infallible? Maybe I am a bit rusty on my dogma, I haven't really followed Catholicism since middle school.

Anyways, the Church would stop coming across as the bad guy if they weren't so obnoxious when it came to sexuality. ;)

Originally Posted by Tumaniia
"No, the catholic church is not tolerant towards gays, and they seem to believe it's a choice"

No, the Catholic Church believes that sodomy is a choice, just as many have predispositions toward alchoholism, and therefore refrain from drinking.

The funny thing is, is that there's supposed to be a separation between church and state... yet marriage is an intrinisic intertwining of these two concepts. That's where all the trouble is starting.

I just personally find it amusing that most of the right-wing Christian folk are all "we must protect the sanctity of marriage!" It's ok that people can get married and divorced within days, almost half of all marriages break up, it's considered socially a-ok to marry on the basis of a woman getting pregnant... and yet basic civil rights are being denied to gay couples.

If you're wondering: I'm a lesbian. The institution of marriage makes me want to vomit--not just because it's based in religion, but because it has been made such a mockery of, it's not worthy of protection anymore. The only real reason I would want to get married is for all of the legal rights that come with it.

I'm sure there's more that I wanted to say, bt it's 3:45AM. So yeah.

The funny thing is, is that there's supposed to be a separation between church and state... yet marriage is an intrinisic intertwining of these two concepts. That's where all the trouble is starting.

I just personally find it amusing that most of the right-wing Christian folk are all "we must protect the sanctity of marriage!" It's ok that people can get married and divorced within days, almost half of all marriages break up, it's considered socially a-ok to marry on the basis of a woman getting pregnant... and yet basic civil rights are being denied to gay couples.

If you're wondering: I'm a lesbian. The institution of marriage makes me want to vomit--not just because it's based in religion, but because it has been made such a mockery of, it's not worthy of protection anymore. The only real reason I would want to get married is for all of the legal rights that come with it.

I'm sure there's more that I wanted to say, bt it's 3:45AM. So yeah.

Christian doctrine calls us to fight to reduce the mockerys you just described. You would claim that just because something is abused, it's not worthy of protection, I find that to be a self defeating argument coming from a homosexual.

Thought the pope was infallible? Maybe I am a bit rusty on my dogma, I haven't really followed Catholicism since middle school.

Anyways, the Church would stop coming across as the bad guy if they weren't so obnoxious when it came to sexuality. ;)

Ok ok I posted one more. I'm a filthy liar. Shut up.

The Pope isn't infallible. The Holy Catholic Church is infallible, but that's a misnomer. When they say infallible, they mean that they are correct about the core beliefs of Christianity. This was apparently decreed by Christ himself, I appolize for the lack of references. However it formed, the Church is only infallible in matters of great theological importance. Gay marriage is not one of those things. If a Protestant sect said that the Trinity was actually four people (father, son, holy spirit, earthly domain) or something like that, the Church has the power to say 'hell no!' It's sort of a Catholic declaration of theological authority, and it rarely comes into play. Only the most fundamental Catholic would call Pope Innocent VI "infallible".

Pope Innocent VI is possibly the most responsible person for the inquisition, btw.

Ok. Now I'm done, dammit.

Divorce? it's like the 8th deadly sin, what world are you living on where christian churches are ok with divorces?

Indeed I do listen to Mr. Savage, and have seen Ms. Colter appear on numerous talk shows, and I have yet to hear either call homosexuals "filthy animals". If you can provide me a source for your accusation, I will be the first to write them an angry letter.

Michael Savage took a gay caller, and asked him "So you're one of those Sodomites?" The caller said, "Yes I am." Savage replied with "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."

He was subsequently fired from MSNBC.

I was unable to dig up anything particularly salacious from Ms. Coulter, but like most conservatives she has condemned it as deviant and unnatural. Nothing worth quoting though.

I don't know why the church should have a problem with the state saying gay marriage is okay - they can just say "well dont get married in our church" or whatever.

And the first person being quoted in the first post so cannot spell. I have no respect for people who can't spell. Or at least for people who spell a lot worse than me :P

As I stated before, my sources are Catholic in nature and fairly up to date (sorry, I don't have a year for you right now). The Church is more than just the Pope. He's the leader. If he was perfect and righteous and handed down from God, we wouldn't need collection plates. He'd just win at the track. I'm American, and a good one in my own opinion. But I support Bush very little.

I rant. Sorry. I stated before I have no wish to discuss who's right about this - we're never ever going to come to an agreable conclusion. I just felt the need to defend the Church on the matter. When ever Catholics come up in discussion, they're always the bad guys. Anyway, feel free to reply to this. It's your right. But don't take it personally when I don't respond. I've given my two cents and I'm content to leave it at that. And believe me, I make these same arguements to fellow Catholics. I'm all for tollerance and understanding.

I realize that the church is more than just the popel, but he is the main guy, the "holy" one...etc. And what he says get's implemented.
The Vatican controls the church and makes the policies...Therefore, I still think I'm perfectly right to quote them.

Michael Savage took a gay caller, and asked him "So you're one of those Sodomites?" The caller said, "Yes I am." Savage replied with "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."

He was subsequently fired from MSNBC.

I was unable to dig up anything particularly salacious from Ms. Coulter, but like most conservatives she has condemned it as deviant and unnatural. Nothing worth quoting though.

In firing him, MSNBC displayed that such statements cannot be allowed in the mainstream, so you have answered your own question, Mr. Savage, by making those statements, removed himself from mainstream discorse on that matter for quite some time.

Originally Posted by Tumaniia
"No, the catholic church is not tolerant towards gays, and they seem to believe it's a choice"

No, the Catholic Church believes that sodomy is a choice, just as many have predispositions toward alchoholism, and therefore refrain from drinking.

Then how come alcoholics can be priests and gays can't?

Christian doctrine calls us to fight to reduce the mockerys you just described. You would claim that just because something is abused, it's not worthy of protection, I find that to be a self defeating argument coming from a homosexual.

I must agree in principle. Just because something is being degraded by one aspect, does not mean we should just degrade it from another side.

HOWEVER, this presupposes that letting gay people marry somehow degrades marriage, a claim I completely disagree with. Only religiously, does it somehow degrade marriage.

So take the religious connotation out of the government-sanctioned unions, and most of us will be happy.

But there are still those who believe even basic civil unions somehow encourages homosexuality, as if straight people will convert in droves to gayness just cause they can now get married/civil union whatever you call it. News flash: you can shake your finger at gayness all you want, they will still fall in love, have sex, seek the legal benefits afforded to straight couples, etc. I cannot understand how ANYONE can be against civil unions for gays.

In firing him, MSNBC displayed that such statements cannot be allowed in the mainstream, so you have answered your own question, Mr. Savage, by making those statements, removed himself from mainstream discorse on that matter for quite some time.

Quite true. My father is a hard-core Republican, but even he dislikes Savage.

lol, I love how someone classifies all christians as "homophobes"

I classify homosexuals as 1 thing and 1 thing only, Sinners. It just so happens that I, you, and the entire human population falls into the same class. I never had problems with them until the whole marriage issue came up. In my experience discussing this argument, marriage originated in 2 forms. 1 was religious, 1 was ownership. Since 99% of the world no longer marries their daughters out to kings etc in exchange for an increase in wealth and properties, the ownership form is pretty outdated. That leaves the religious form. Amazingly a majority of marriages are done in the religious form, and yet neither party is religious. So marriage has gotten twisted and the definition fogged. If you left marriage for religion, and gave civil unions to the rest of the population, I see no real reason to prevent homosexuals from doing so. Yes I am against what they do, but I'm also against pre-marital sex and it's not like I can legislate that :P

I don't believe calling christians names is going to help the situation. Those people who already call homosexuals names will simply increase their attacks, and those, like me, who don't do that kind of stuff will have lesser opinions of them.

Edit: I cannot understand how ANYONE can be against civil unions for gays.

Well this depends on whether they were against it to begin with or grew against it. I have to personally keep my anger in check when it comes to this issue, becuase I don't really care about civil unions that aren't religious in nature being afforded to homosexuals. However when they start talking about being treated less then others, and they have no rights etc, then they flaunt it all with parades, special days and gatherings, it really begins to make me want to not give them anything. I mean, when was the last time you heard of a "Proud to be straight" parade?

A lie in Bowling for Columbine. Charlton Heston led the actor's section of the Million Man March.


Mr. Heston may have been apart of the Million Man March....but not only has he had a long standing reputation for being a racist...he (if my memory serves me correctly) made some stellar racist remarks in his interview with Mr Moore.

Don't get me wrong, I am not the hugest fan of Mr. Moore, but I honestly can't see any argument that would disprove Mr. Heston being a racist. The man has a proud history of sticking his foot in his mouth.

HOWEVER, this presupposes that letting gay people marry somehow degrades marriage, a claim I completely disagree with. Only religiously, does it somehow degrade marriage.

Which is why Christians oppose it, which was what I was trying to explain. Oh well, I'm glad to have met someone who can talk about this issue civily, it's been a pleasure. But now to sleep...

Which is why Christians oppose it, which was what I was trying to explain. Oh well, I'm glad to have met someone who can talk about this issue civily, it's been a pleasure. But now to sleep...

The pleasure is mine. I've debated some particularly obnoxious fellows, it's a relief to not have to get "gayness is icky" every 10 posts. I'm off to bed too. Good night all. :)

Mr. Heston may have been apart of the Million Man March....but not only has he had a long standing reputation for being a racist...he (if my memory serves me correctly) made some stellar racist remarks in his interview with Mr Moore.

Don't get me wrong, I am not the hugest fan of Mr. Moore, but I honestly can't see any argument that would disprove Mr. Heston being a racist. The man has a proud history of sticking his foot in his mouth.

Sorry, one last post and I'm through.

I don't want to get off topic, but I don't want to let this go either, so I'll just post this link:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Make sure to read past the intro, it details most of the *cough*intentional*cough* errors, including some suprising facts about Mr. Heston.

Do I hear any more homophobes say "respect me if you want my respect"?

Grow up. You can't tell people that they are sinful and selfish and disgusting, and then tell them they must respect your rhetoric.

When was the last time a gang of homosexuals tied a straight man to a fence and beat him to death?

When was the last time you saw people sticking their sexuality in your face with a "Straight Pride Parade" in the middle of town? If that happened, they would all be called homophobes. It's just like the Black Miss America pageant being accepted. If there was a White Miss America pageant, it would be racist. All the "minority groups" love to show how different they are from everyone else and love to have their own things when it benefits them. But, if your not gay, black, mexican, red-haired, etc., don't even think about boasting about yourself or your situation.

Look, I don't have a problem with gays or lesbians. I'm just tired of everybody trying to shove their agenda in my face all the time (and by "agenda," I mean agenda!). What they do at home is their own business. Now, the whole medical benefits deal is a different story. I'm not quite sure where I stand on that yet. However, I think it's horrible that a sick individual can't have his/her partner visit them in the hospital because they aren't married. Those types of things are real problems and need to be addressed.

As for all those who are talking about the evil Republicans...wise up. I know a good number of Democrats who are against homosexuality, so it's not just a Republican thing. In fact, I know several R's who support gay rights. But maybe you need to think that way. It's probably easier to lump all those who don't support the gay lifestyle into a group so you can focus your anger and hate at one target. Of course, maybe it's that kind of anger/hate that keeps the other side from even trying to accept your position. Maybe if you tried to just accept those who don't agree with you (doesn't mean you have to agree with them or stop being gay), they might not feel like they were being confronted by someone trying to pick a fight and then would be more accepting of your lifestyle. Of course that comes from a non-gay perspective so I can't fully understand what you deal with each day (your view may be much different -- probably full of man ass!!! -- just kidding ;) ).

When was the last time you saw people sticking their sexuality in your face with a "Straight Pride Parade" in the middle of town? If that happened, they would all be called homophobes. It's just like the Black Miss America pageant being accepted. If there was a White Miss America pageant, it would be racist. All the "minority groups" love to show how different they are from everyone else and love to have their own things when it benefits them. But, if your not gay, black, mexican, red-haired, etc., don't even think about boasting about yourself or your situation.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. When I lived in Hawaii, I attended a school that only accepted students of part-native Hawaiian ethnicity. It has tax-exempt status as well, due to it's category of a charitable trust. I was an outspoken opponent of the admission policy. We got sued numerous times by non-Hawaiians who wanted admission. I agreed, we should let everyone in. But I knew I should keep those views to myself, since the majority of the students were vaguely angry at white people in general, and felt that "we" (as in Hawaiians) deserved special treatment to make up for historical transgressions. Now, if this school had only accepted white students, it would be sued out of existence immediately ;). There you have it, I'm against affirmative action. I extremely dislike the separatist movement in Hawaii. I have nothing but disdain for the Hawaiian flag wavers and chanters who demand their land and culture at the expense of the majority. I would be first in line defending them (I say "them" because I do not identify with any of my races like others do) from discrimination and racism, but the excessive separatist movements like radical feminism and black militancy are going too far. I've kind of rambled here, but I want to make my opinion clear, I'm not just compromising between the two sides, I believe in one thing: equality. Neither side better than the other.

Look, I don't have a problem with gays or lesbians. I'm just tired of everybody trying to shove their agenda in my face all the time (and by "agenda," I mean agenda!). What they do at home is their own business. Now, the whole medical benefits deal is a different story. I'm not quite sure where I stand on that yet. However, I think it's horrible that a sick individual can't have his/her partner visit them in the hospital because they aren't married. Those types of things are real problems and need to be addressed.

What agenda? Forcing everyone, including the major religions, to love gayness? Or just equal rights and acceptance?

As for all those who are talking about the evil Republicans...wise up. I know a good number of Democrats who are against homosexuality, so it's not just a Republican thing. In fact, I know several R's who support gay rights. But maybe you need to think that way. It's probably easier to lump all those who don't support the gay lifestyle into a group so you can focus your anger and hate at one target. Of course, maybe it's that kind of anger/hate that keeps the other side from even trying to accept your position. Maybe if you tried to just accept those who don't agree with you (doesn't mean you have to agree with them or stop being gay), they might not feel like they were being confronted by someone trying to pick a fight and then would be more accepting of your lifestyle. Of course that comes from a non-gay perspective so I can't fully understand what you deal with each day (your view may be much different -- probably full of man ass!!! -- just kidding ;) ).

The Democrats against homosexuality are socially conservative. The Republicans for gay marriage are socially liberal. Simple. As for you wagging your finger against their anger...I will say this again: You would think differently if it was you being discriminated against.

When was the last time you saw people sticking their sexuality in your face with a "Straight Pride Parade" in the middle of town? If that happened, they would all be called homophobes.

Yesterday, I saw dozens of straight couples walking on the street, holding hands on public. It was, like, an entire march of them.

And then there's the churches, and the mosques. But at least the mosques are quiet, the churches have this annoying habbit of ringing their infernal bells and thrusting their Christianity into my face even in my bed.


Anyway, as far as I can tell, certainly here in Holland, gay parades have long since evolved into a bunch of people dancing on boats and an excuse for everyone to get drunk.

And then there's the churches, and the mosques. But at least the mosques are quiet, the churches have this annoying habbit of ringing their infernal bells and thrusting their Christianity into my face even in my bed.

Just be glad we don't have religious police like some nations... :rolleyes:

I really laugh at you, Alanysists. You're a 13-year old, with no real insight into the world. You cannot vote yet. You are not affected by issues of taxes, or social security. From all that I can tell, you are a child who bashes Conservatives because your parents do. Because your mom works as a Nurse, and because your father lost his job.

Well, please get it into your head: One day, you'll need to form your own opinions. You have no right to stand up and tell people 10 or 20 years your senior what they should be doing. I'm 16, and I've already realized that everything is not black and white. I disagree with some of the things our current government has done. I disagree with many of the opposition's views. Still, I don't presume that the world is so easy to divide into the 'Correct' Left Wing, and the "Neo Nazi Biblethumping Homophobic" Right. It is far more complicated than that, and classifying everybody as one of two models only shows that you are the bigot here.

ffs people. first of all starting off the thread by saying homo sexuals are the most effiecient workers is complete balls being gay doesnt make you a workaholic, or a party animal, or a hair dresser it means you like to sleep with men.


Nobody said that being gay makes you an efficient worker. The original post said "You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety?"

I don't know if that is true. Maybe it could be shown by statistical analysis that if you average out the education of homosexuals and heterosexuals, homosexuals are on average better educated. Maybe it could also be shown statistically that if you average out the productivity of all homosexuals and heterosexuals, a homosexual is on average more productive.


full stop the end thats the only difference

In the dictionary that's the only difference, but the dictionary isn't the whole of human experience. Being gay doesn't mean you like musicals or wear moisturiser. But on average, a gay man is more likely to like musicals and wear moisturiser than a straight man. It is possible to predict the likelihood of certain things in a person by all sorts of groupings, and sexuality is one such. Black men in the US are more likely to go to jail than white men. That doesn't mean that being black means you will go to jail.


i'm bi-sexual and yeah it annoys me the amount of people that hate gays. but it also annoys me the amount of people who think all homphobic people are evil. gays have a right 2 sleep with men homophobics have a right 2 hate us for it just stay away from each other no problem at all.
ps starting threads like this doesnt make you a gay rights activist get a life

Why bring rights into it? If you have sex with someone of your own sex, so what. If you hate and despise people for their sexuality, that's not nice. If your hatred becomes action detrimental to that person, that's illegal.

Then how come alcoholics can be priests and gays can't?

both alcoholics and gays can be priests. A drunken priest would cause scandal just like one who had sex with a guy in public would cause a scandal.

But sex in private, like drinking in private, is private. Who would know? If it became public it would be equally bad if the priest were straight. Priests are supposed to be celibate.

i think it's safe to say that there's nothing in the constitution about "a large population of homophobic macho dickheads being neccesary to the maintenance of heteronormativity, patriarchy, and numerous other oppressions, the right of the people to be hateful fuckers, who yell things at me from car windows and keep raping and/or assaulting and/or mugging and/or harassing me and my friends, shall not be infringed."

that being the case, rights are still something you have because you take them and use them. homophobes have certainly taken the above set of rights, so it's only appropriate that we take some of our own.
life, freedom, safety, happiness, and self-defense come to mind.

i think it's safe to say that there's nothing in the constitution about "a large population of homophobic macho dickheads being neccesary to the maintenance of heteronormativity, patriarchy, and numerous other oppressions, the right of the people to be hateful fuckers, who yell things at me from car windows and keep raping and/or assaulting and/or mugging and/or harassing me and my friends, shall not be infringed."

that being the case, rights are still something you have because you take them and use them. homophobes have certainly taken the above set of rights, so it's only appropriate that we take some of our own.
life, freedom, safety, happiness, and self-defense come to mind.

Good point of view … I am a big freedom of speech person (freedoms in general)

They do have a right

Though to be fair most are more moderate then portrayed here … most moderates are even afraid to speak up (for one reason or another … usually because they are afraid to get branded along with those blathering haters)

Also there are faults on the other side (including wanting the restrictions of the “homophobes” rights so they don’t have to deal with it)

Like was stated before it is their right until it interferes with yours … then they should be slammed … and slammed hard.

Do I hear any more homophobes say "respect me if you want my respect"?

Grow up. You can't tell people that they are sinful and selfish and disgusting, and then tell them they must respect your rhetoric.

When was the last time a gang of homosexuals tied a straight man to a fence and beat him to death?

When was the last time the media paid attention to homosexuals harming the straight? I recall an incident a few years back where two gay men kidnapped a little boy, rapped him violently then killed him. And how many news paper articles were written in total in this country about that? approx. 50. When Matthew Shepard was killed, there were over 300. I'm not saying that one situation was worse then the other, just that the media has an extremely liberal bias, and you can't really argue it with facts like that.

I'm not playing one side or another, just bringing up a valid point.

Jeffrey Dahmer's sexuality? :p

yeah I'm sure people will say it was the oppressive society that meant he couldn't take responsibility for himself, hoho

Comparing hate crimes against gays is like comparing israel to the muslims, one is 7 million strong, the other 350 million, and yet they like to compare them 1 to 1. I suppose one day people might figure out that Israel doesn't deserve to be considered a western democracy (maybe they need to sink another american warship and try to blame it on the arabs? haha) and probably deserves much the same treatment from the west as the arabs get for their ridiculous bull****, but I don't bet on it being too soon :p

ie if there's 100x as many of us, no **** there's going to be 100x as many bad eggs.

I am so sick of people saying Gay is anti-christian.

Please point me to a section in the Bible that agrees with this mentality.
Oh yeah, and it has to say that sleeping with the same sex is bad...
All I see in the Bible is two men sleeping together is bad. So what about Lesbians, is that o.k.?

So are Lesbians o.k. with Christianity? Does Jesus permit carpet-munching? Maybe he liked to watch and that's why it's ok then?

In addition, nowhere in the bible does it say it is bad to molest a boy. So should we free all the Catholic Priests who are doing so? In addition, since Bush is being led by God, should we just appoint these same priests to his cabinet or perhaps to succeed him?

In addition, I'm sure you will point me to Leviticus to justify being anti-gay. So...I have a few other questions about Leviticus, and other sections of the bible, will the Christains please assist and answer these questions that are plaguing my mind:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?

Please Christians...I beg your help. I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Please.....christians are so hypocritical. At least Satanics are firm in their beliefs.

I am so sick of people saying Gay is anti-christian.

Please point me to a section in the Bible that agrees with this mentality.
Oh yeah, and it has to say that sleeping with the same sex is bad...
All I see in the Bible is two men sleeping together is bad. So what about Lesbians, is that o.k.?

So are Lesbians o.k. with Christianity? Does Jesus permit carpet-munching? Maybe he liked to watch and that's why it's ok then?

In addition, nowhere in the bible does it say it is bad to molest a boy. So should we free all the Catholic Priests who are doing so? In addition, since Bush is being led by God, should we just appoint these same priests to his cabinet or perhaps to succeed him?

In addition, I'm sure you will point me to Leviticus to justify being anti-gay. So...I have a few other questions about Leviticus, and other sections of the bible, will the Christains please assist and answer these questions that are plaguing my mind:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?

Please Christians...I beg your help. I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Please.....christians are so hypocritical. At least Satanics are firm in their beliefs.

Lol great … you should post this in some atheist threads :-P

Please point me to a section in the Bible that agrees with this mentality.
Oh yeah, and it has to say that sleeping with the same sex is bad...
All I see in the Bible is two men sleeping together is bad. So what about Lesbians, is that o.k.?
Man is neuter. It is correct to say, "Each has his own way," not "Each has their own way." Unless specifically stated, man means anyone.

So are Lesbians o.k. with Christianity? Does Jesus permit carpet-munching? Maybe he liked to watch and that's why it's ok then?
No they are not.

In addition, nowhere in the bible does it say it is bad to molest a boy. So should we free all the Catholic Priests who are doing so? In addition, since Bush is being led by God, should we just appoint these same priests to his cabinet or perhaps to succeed him?
You're not allowed to engage in sexual acts unless you're married. Since the priests don't marry the boy, they're commiting adultery. Your Bush/priest argument makes no sense at all, so I'll move on.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
No, you should sacrifice in the field three days from town, as the ritual indicates.

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Read verse 8, in order to sell her, the guy has to be marrying her. Ever heard of a dowry?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is,how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
You don't tell. It's their responsibility to tell, not yours to ask.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
You can only own slaves if the heathens sell them to you, or if you capture them in war. In either case, the other party must contribute.

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
No, because you are not in a position of moral or legal authority over him. Take it to the courts.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
They're equally bad. However, since I engage in neither, I don't worry about it.

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Since the temple of Jerusalem no longer exists, you'd first have to build a time machine before you could approach anything.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
Where does it say they should die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Or you could just get a synthetic ball....

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?
You're not in a position of moral or legal authority above them, so you would be wise to not sin and cast unsanctified judgement.

Please.....christians are so hypocritical. At least Satanics are firm in their beliefs.
Who's hypocritical?

being a homaphobe has nothing to do with religion in my opinion.. that's just an excuse to enforce one's biast views.

i hate homophobs.. being a REAL homophobe (not saying things simply like "that's gay") around where i live and study means you will be branded a complete bastard.. lol

Listen, everyone, I'm going to introduce a concept. It's not really a new one, so try and stay with me here.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Which, broken down, means:

Government does not interfere with or try to control religion.

Religion does not interfere with or try to control government.

And that's it. So can you see yet why it's wrong to try and get a constitutional amendment against homosexual marriage due to your beliefs? And before anyone mentions anything, yes, I believe forcing churches into marrying gays is wrong too.

But, ignoring all that, there's another reason why it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Now, this thread started off with someone saying something along the lines of 'gay people are the most productive, contributing people to society.'

Now, I can't really go with that. I'm sure there are straight people who contribute just as much and are well educated, despite their heterosexuality. ^_^ But the fact remains is that right now, gays are second-class citizens, and after slavery was abolished, and African-Americans and women got the right to finally vote, we were told there were no more second-class citizens.

But wait. I don't understand. So you mean, a gay person can join the military, get injured fighting for this country, come back and get a job, pay taxes to the government, and not get any of the benefits of another government-sanctioned thing, marriage?

I'll give you a scenario. Bobby and John, or Jane and Linda, have lived together for nearly ten years now. Let's say one of the significant others falls ill with some dastardly disease, and they don't have insurance. But the healthy one does. Now, if they were a straight couple, all they'd have to do is get married, get their new husband/wife's name on their insurance, and WHAM!, everything turns out fine. Not so with gay couples. And that's wrong.

P.S. And please, not all Christians are hypocrites. I know at least three Christians who are in the GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance)

extending spousal rights to insurance isn't compulsory...

Now, if they were a straight couple, all they'd have to do is get married, get their new husband/wife's name on their insurance, and WHAM!, everything turns out fine. Not so with gay couples. And that's wrong.

Marrying for insurance coverage after the fact seems an awfully unethical way of dealing with the insurance company (insurance companies suck, but 2 wrongs dont make a right, neither does 3, heh).
Are you sure the companies don't have provisos to stop people just "marrying" for the sake of the policy? (Seems unusual that an insurance company wouldnt be one-up on a scam of that nature)

But, ignoring all that, there's another reason why it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Now, this thread started off with someone saying something along the lines of 'gay people are the most productive, contributing people to society.'

I've never heard of a proposal to ban it? They been fining or arresting people for having ceremonies? I've just heard the government regulates the conditions of the licensing?

So you mean, a gay person can join the military

Only if they don't tell ;)

The Bible is pretty straightforward to me. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Period. How can you get around that? What is hypicritical is people ignoring this and the Catholic Church allowing gay marriages and priests. It is conrtadictory to scripture. But who says religon has to make sense right? People cannot have it both ways. Perhaps that is why people leave religion behind. Perhaps they don't want an intolerant God?

Who's hypocritical?

Having a smart arse does not make you an orthodox Jew. If you do not follow all of the rules in Leviticus but you quote Leviticus' rules as evidence that homosexuality is bad, you are a hypocrite. So if you cut the sides of your hair and haven't sacrificed a bull lately, either don't mention Leviticus or be a hypocrite.

When was the last time the media paid attention to homosexuals harming the straight? I recall an incident a few years back where two gay men kidnapped a little boy, rapped him violently then killed him. And how many news paper articles were written in total in this country about that? approx. 50. When Matthew Shepard was killed, there were over 300. I'm not saying that one situation was worse then the other, just that the media has an extremely liberal bias, and you can't really argue it with facts like that.

I'm not playing one side or another, just bringing up a valid point.

As I don't live in the US, I'm not submerged in your media on a daily basis. However, I am absolutely astonished if the coverage of homosexual paedophiles is any less in volume than it is here in the UK. Do your media really pay no attention to child abductions and child murders?

Man is neuter. It is correct to say, "Each has his own way," not "Each has their own way." Unless specifically stated, man means anyone.
Only in the translation, buddy.



You're not allowed to engage in sexual acts unless you're married. Since the priests don't marry the boy, they're commiting adultery. Your Bush/priest argument makes no sense at all, so I'll move on.

Touching a penis is not a sexual act. Please show me in the Bible where a sexual act is described. And yes, Bush/priest does make sense. I have heard countless interviews, personally and publicly, of people stating they are for Bush because he is being led by God/follows God/employs God's will. So do those priests supposedly.


No, you should sacrifice in the field three days from town, as the ritual indicates.

Really? Three days how? By plane? By foot? Because in three days time, I could circle the globe twice. Should I take my bull with me? What does a plane ticket cost for a bull? If it's by foot, don't you think a three-day foot journey would lead me into another town? I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some neighboring bastard burn their bull in my yard!


Read verse 8, in order to sell her, the guy has to be marrying her. Ever heard of a dowry?

A dowry is money given by the FATHER to the soon-to-be SON-IN-LAW. If the father was selling her, he'd be GETTING money, not giving.


You don't tell. It's their responsibility to tell, not yours to ask.

Damn women....they should all wear a red shirt saying "My pussy is bleeding today, fuck off"


You can only own slaves if the heathens sell them to you, or if you capture them in war. In either case, the other party must contribute.

So slavery IS okay? Fuckin' A' man. So I can own the Iraqi's in Abu Ghraib? If not me, who can?


No, because you are not in a position of moral or legal authority over him. Take it to the courts.
And who is? Were they appointed by God? Were they appointed by the bible? What if I am a judge or a policeman? How do you know I have no legal authority?


They're equally bad. However, since I engage in neither, I don't worry about it.
Eating shellfish a sin! Fuck! And oysters taste so good too! Now I shall commit suicide.


Since the temple of Jerusalem no longer exists, you'd first have to build a time machine before you could approach anything.

It says alter of God, which could mean any alter designated. So I don't have to build shit. Plus, are you telling me that all Christians in that time had perfect 20/20 vision? And if not, were they put to death?

Where does it say they should die?
The bible.


Or you could just get a synthetic ball....

The NFL has strict requirements over what to be used.


You're not in a position of moral or legal authority above them, so you would be wise to not sin and cast unsanctified judgement.
I mentioned before, how do you know? I could be a judge, a policeman, or a priest. Who appoints me?


Who's hypocritical?
You

Ironically, we're more worried about gay people than pedophiles. And most men love lesbians.

Yay, America.

Oh, um, forgive me for being rude, but calling people homophobes right off the bat tends to really make people get defensive...

As I don't live in the US, I'm not submerged in your media on a daily basis. However, I am absolutely astonished if the coverage of homosexual paedophiles is any less in volume than it is here in the UK. Do your media really pay no attention to child abductions and child murders?

The US media is so chronically left wing propogandaish that it's laughable.

It was only the emergence of the Aussie (turned everything that lets him own their media) Rupert Murdoch who ermm "reformed" your british media that even presented a right wing platform in the US media.

The US media is so chronically left wing propogandaish that it's laughable.

It was only the emergence of the Aussie (turned everything that lets him own their media) Rupert Murdoch who ermm "reformed" your british media that even presented a right wing platform in the US media.

Ummmmmm. No. No, no, no, no. Fox is so far from left wing, if political scales were a globe, they'd have shot past left wing three times over. The media seems to be a lapdog for whomever happens to be in power these days. How on earth is putting right wing platforms in the media 'reforming it'? What on earth happened to unbiased coverage?

they scare me. so just keep them away from me and im ok i dont care how just keep them away, shoot them, give them a contry of there own i dont care just keep them out of my sight

Rupert Murdoch didn't reform the UK media. He increased the number and rabidness of right wing platforms. Now they outnumber left wing and relatively unbiased platforms even more than they did before.

And even without living in the US, I know that US news media aren't left wing.

Touching a penis is not a sexual act.

I reckon at least quite a lot of the time, it is.

How on earth is putting right wing platforms in the media 'reforming it'?

His reforms were the union busting.

And even without living in the US, I know that US news media aren't left wing.

Dan Rather

Dan Rather

Bill Oreilly

that even presented a right wing platform in the US media.

Many right wingers not on Murdoch's payroll? ;)

I reckon at least quite a lot of the time, it is.

If the purpose of touching the penis is to cause the guy pleasure, then it is a sexual act. (Or at least that's my view - correct me if I'm wrong)

Most of you are so f*cking stupid! I'm sorry, but the sort of 'I don't mind gays, just I wouldn't let them stand behind me' response here is appauling. I also hear a lot of 'well gays deserve rights because they are some of the best people in our society' argument. This is equally predicated on bigotry. People do not have to earn their human rights... we all deserve them irrespective of our capabilities. And it is also wrong to lump groups together as having certain traits. Just as it is wrong to say that blacks are generally stupid, so is it equally ridiculous to say that gays are generally anything, clever or thick. Basically what I am saying is that 1) people should not be judged on their intellectual or cultural status, or their productivity or anything else but their morality, and 2) groups of people do not share traits... intelligence, culture, productivity, morality etc. cannot be connected to sexuality, race, gender or any other means of segregation. How about that we just accept that gays are like everybody else, subject to the same likelihood of failure or success (apart from where society prevents it) and that they are neither good nor bad. They just, like everyone else, are. And as for the stupid Christian argument. The way I see it there is one argument concealing two reasons. The argument is that it is unnatural. The first reason is that it is 'disgusting', or 'vile'. However, just because it grosses you out, doesn't make it wrong. Otherwise open-body surgery, being sick and blowing your nose would be immoral. Just because you have the subjective opinion that something is unpleasant, you cannot extrapolate that it is therefore immoral. The second strain of thought is Aristotelian (introduced into Christianity by Thomas Aquinas). That is that the function of genitalia is reproduction, therefore gays are being unnatural by using it wrongly. All I have to say to that is that by such logic, masturbation is worse than rape because it precludes any chance of pregnancy, that love-making for pleasure is wrong, that contraceptives are wrong etc. If you believe all these things then I can't even be bothered to deal with you because you're so clearly f-cked up.

The Church realizes homosexuality isn't a choice. From my sources, the Church doesn't want them to marry, and they don't want them to have excessive amounts of sex - because that leads to sin the same as staight sex.

The Catholic Church does say that homosexuality is not a choice.

However, you are incorrect in saying that they "don't want them to have excessive amounts of sex." The Catholic Church doesn't want homosexuals having any sex at all. According to the Church, homosexuals are called to a life of abstinence, much like a priest.

In other words, "God made you gay so now you don't get to have a long-term, romantic, loving relationship with another human being. Have fun being celibate!"

Gay's might feel like second class citizens, but they do indeed have the right to get married...just not to someone of the same gender. Straight people are likewise restricted, being unable to join with someone of the same gender and call it marraige. So denying homosexuals the right to marry whatever they want is in no way discriminatory, because no one else can either. Indeed saying that this is unfair is like saying that traffic laws are unfair to those who have a propensity to drive dangerously (for those of you who would intentionally misunderstand me, no I'm not equating homosexuality with bad driving, I'm making a point about justice).

No, it is more like saying that those with Nissans have to drive 10 miles under the speed limit, but people with Acuras are allowed to drive 10 miles over.

The Catholic Church does say that homosexuality is not a choice.

However, you are incorrect in saying that they "don't want them to have excessive amounts of sex." The Catholic Church doesn't want homosexuals having any sex at all. According to the Church, homosexuals are called to a life of abstinence, much like a priest.

In other words, "God made you gay so now you don't get to have a long-term, romantic, loving relationship with another human being. Have fun being celibate!"

Are they still allowed to jerk off? ;)

The catholic church bans us all from wasting our seed :p

Celibacy is a hands-on job. If they expect gays to remain celibate, they should at least have the sense to allow them the privelage of masturbation.

If you donate all your sperm to a sperm bank, it's not really wasting it, is it? So would wanking be permissable if there was a chance some infertile couple might use it?

poorly quoted Family Guy line:

Stewie: "It's so hard trying to keep people from having sex...now I know what it must feel like to be the Catholic Church! Ka-Ching!" :p

Celibacy isn't all that hard if you have the right persona for it, I've had periods where I've gone celibate for extended periods much to the dismay of girlfriends, and really I don't see why I couldn't do it indefinitely if I felt I had a reason for it.

To BOTH SIDES of the issue, I say:

Luke 6:37

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

(Also, I would like to note that I don't like the word "homophobe." The suffix, "phobe" coming from the word "phobia," implies that I am scared of homosexuals. That's not the case. I simply disagree, and find their actions disgusting. I'm hardly afraid of them. But, alas, this is off-topic.)

Celibacy isn't all that hard if you have the right persona for it, I've had periods where I've gone celibate for extended periods much to the dismay of girlfriends, and really I don't see why I couldn't do it indefinitely if I felt I had a reason for it.

Then you are a stronger man than I. :p

(Also, I would like to note that I don't like the word "homophobe." The suffix, "phobe" coming from the word "phobia," implies that I am scared of homosexuals. That's not the case. I simply disagree, and find their actions disgusting. I'm hardly afraid of them. But, alas, this is off-topic.)

We've gone over the semantics of the word "homophobe" earlier in this thread. Basically, while "homophobe" literally means "fear of gays", it has come to mean "fear and/or dislike/disgust/hatred of gays". This is because we do not have a word as accurate as "racist" to describe those who hate or dislike homosexuals. Gayist? Homoist? Doesn't work. We use the word we have, homophobe, and understand it to mean hatred/disgust.

"We've gone over the semantics of the word "homophobe" earlier in this thread. Basically, while "homophobe" literally means "fear of gays", it has come to mean "fear and/or dislike/disgust/hatred of gays". This is because we do not have a word as accurate as "racist" to describe those who hate or dislike homosexuals. Gayist? Homoist? Doesn't work. We use the word we have, homophobe, and understand it to mean hatred/disgust."

I apologize for bringing it up again.

I made it through three pages of insults and slanders and stereotypes and labels being thrown at eachother before I decided to make a post.

Read verse 8, in order to sell her, the guy has to be marrying her. Ever heard of a dowry?

Wrong. The guy can *choose* to marry her, or can keep her a slave forever. If he chooses to marry her, he cannot treat her differently from any of his other wives just because she is a slave. But he can choose not to marry her and just keep her a slave - it just means he can't have sex with her.

You can only own slaves if the heathens sell them to you, or if you capture them in war. In either case, the other party must contribute.

Wrong again. You can buy them from anyone, as long as they are not Hebrew. If you do buy a Hebrew slave, you have to let him go after seven years. However, you can hold his wife and kids hostage so that he will feel compelled to pledge himself to serve you as a slave forever.

Who's hypocritical?

People who try to justify slavery and genocide just so that they can pretend they are taking the whole Bible at face value and condemn homosexuals.

Are they still allowed to jerk off? ;)

According to the Catholic Church? Of course not! Nobody can jack off according to them - it is wasted seed and lustful thoughts.

Celibacy isn't all that hard if you have the right persona for it, I've had periods where I've gone celibate for extended periods much to the dismay of girlfriends, and really I don't see why I couldn't do it indefinitely if I felt I had a reason for it.

Yes, but what if you didn't feel you had a reason for it and someone else was trying to force it down your throat?

Besides, asking all homosexuals to be celibate, but not requiring the same thing of all sterile* heterosexuals is like saying "If you like chocolate, you must abstain from eating it, but if you like sugar candy - eat all you want!"

*Just to avoid the "They do it to make babies!!!!" argument.

When was the last time the media paid attention to homosexuals harming the straight? I recall an incident a few years back where two gay men kidnapped a little boy, rapped him violently then killed him. And how many news paper articles were written in total in this country about that? approx. 50. When Matthew Shepard was killed, there were over 300. I'm not saying that one situation was worse then the other, just that the media has an extremely liberal bias, and you can't really argue it with facts like that.

I'm not playing one side or another, just bringing up a valid point.

Right. And did those 'gays' kidnap etc the boy because he was a little boy (ie. because they hate little boys and think they deserve suffering), or because they were sick fucks?

Yes, but what if you didn't feel you had a reason for it and someone else was trying to force it down your throat?

Besides, asking all homosexuals to be celibate, but not requiring the same thing of all sterile* heterosexuals is like saying "If you like chocolate, you must abstain from eating it, but if you like sugar candy - eat all you want!"

*Just to avoid the "They do it to make babies!!!!" argument.

If I would label myself any type of Christian, I'd be Eastern Orthodox, I don't exactly hold the rationale of the rebellious latins in the highest regard :p They seem to think you can have your pie and eat it too provided you do it through them *shrug*

I was just commenting that if you have the right persona, celibacy isn't that hard, and I figure, if I believed in catholic dogma, it would probably be a "reason".

Knowing how a religion based on exclusivity functions, it would make perfect sense.

Sorry if I just missed it because I didn't want to slog through a 26-page flame war, but has anyone bothered to question Alansyists' original assertion that "gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety"? Has any supporting evidence for either point been raised?

Sorry if I just missed it because I didn't want to slog through a 26-page flame war, but has anyone bothered to question Alansyists' original assertion that "gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety"? Has any supporting evidence for either point been raised?

If you wanted to stereotype, you could point out that openly gay persons are more likely to be well-educated and generally make more money, leaving them with lots of disposable income.

However, since this includes only openly gay people, and since it is really a stereotype, I think most people have ignored it.

Bill Oreilly

Don't forget Rush Limbaugh! :D

You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety?
But what does that have to do with their gayness?

So this is what an anti-hate thread reads like?

Seriously. Whole lot of hate going on. Don't make me do my Yoda impression

I said it in the other thread and Im gonna say it in this one. You're not gonna change my mind about disliking gays. I said what I said over there, so go read it if you want.

Now to all those who dislike Americans, say shit about us, call us stupid... shut the fuck up. I don't know what the rest of the world's problem is with the US. Is it Iraq? You know as well as I do that Saddam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of his own people? Estimates put it at 300,000, so you can't blame us for getting him out of there can you? If we didn't, Saddam would continue to torture and rape and kill hundreds of people every day. Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

EDIT: BTW I only read the first page of this thread and I saw some anti-American posts and I had to say something

I am a christian. Have been all of my life. I may have lapsed at times, but the faith has always been there. God commanded us to love our fellow man (Ie, Love thy neighbour as thyself). This is not to say that we have to agree with what our neighbour does, but that we love them unconditionally, despite our misgivings with their lifestyle choices. Too often, religion is used as a weapon. Religion is not to be used to say that someone else is wrong, right, or indifferent. In the end, God will judge people as he sees fit.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I said it in the other thread and Im gonna say it in this one. You're not gonna change my mind about disliking gays. I said what I said over there, so go read it if you want.

Now to all those who dislike Americans, say shit about us, call us stupid... shut the fuck up. I don't know what the rest of the world's problem is with the US. Is it Iraq? You know as well as I do that Saddam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of his own people? Estimates put it at 300,000, so you can't blame us for getting him out of there can you? If we didn't, Saddam would continue to torture and rape and kill hundreds of people every day. Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

EDIT: BTW I only read the first page of this thread and I saw some anti-American posts and I had to say something

I hate gays!!

But all the people who hate people like me need to shut up about hating!!

Have I summed up your argument?

I'm a Christian, but I have nothing against homosexuality. Christ preached tolerance as well you know.

Romans 1:26

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:26

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Christ didn't say that - Paul did.

I am not a homophobe but i do go to an all boy school and we talked sensibly about and decided we wouldnt beat the crap into gays but it is a regular insult we use on each other, homo phobe literally means scared of gays but i am not scared i just dont want them hangin bout in the same room as me, they have distorted how we evolved to be and are generally stunting our evolution and population, although its alright for women because they are stereotyped as being emotional so are more accepted as being open.

I am not a homophobe but i do go to an all boy school and we talked sensibly about and decided we wouldnt beat the crap into gays but it is a regular insult we use on each other, homo phobe literally means scared of gays but i am not scared i just dont want them hangin bout in the same room as me, they have distorted how we evolved to be and are generally stunting our evolution and population, although its alright for women because they are stereotyped as being emotional so are more accepted as being open.
wow, that is obviously one crappy school you go to. would you mind telling us all what it is called, so we can avoid sending our own kids to a school that cannot teach basic writing skills, the theory of evolution, and simple logic?

I am not a homophobe but i do go to an all boy school and we talked sensibly about and decided we wouldnt beat the crap into gays but it is a regular insult we use on each other, homo phobe literally means scared of gays but i am not scared i just dont want them hangin bout in the same room as me, they have distorted how we evolved to be and are generally stunting our evolution and population, although its alright for women because they are stereotyped as being emotional so are more accepted as being open.

hehe. Thank you for not deciding to beat the crap out of gays. :rolleyes:

And before you start talking about stunting population...have a look around. And then shut up.

both alcoholics and gays can be priests. A drunken priest would cause scandal just like one who had sex with a guy in public would cause a scandal.

But sex in private, like drinking in private, is private. Who would know? If it became public it would be equally bad if the priest were straight. Priests are supposed to be celibate.

Gays would have to hide the fact that they are homosexuals if they wished to become priests, whereas an alcoholic would not.

You see, you can be an alcoholic and not drink (rehab...etc), but you cannot be gay and be a priest, even if you abstain.

Gays would have to hide the fact that they are homosexuals if they wished to become priests, whereas an alcoholic would not.

You see, you can be an alcoholic and not drink (rehab...etc), but you cannot be gay and be a priest, even if you abstain.
um, that was his point. how is such a rule fair? a gay priest could refrain from every having homosexual contact, just as an alcoholic priest could refrain from ever drinking, yet the alcoholic priest is okay and not the gay priest. that's hypocritical.

um, that was his point. how is such a rule fair? a gay priest could refrain from every having homosexual contact, just as an alcoholic priest could refrain from ever drinking, yet the alcoholic priest is okay and not the gay priest. that's hypocritical.

Um, that was my point...

Perhaps it was poorly worded.

Um, that was my point...

Perhaps it was poorly worded.
okay, we're just muddled then. no worries :).

You're saying we should tolerate Nazis in this country? Have you seen the pictures of the Holocaust? Have you?

Obvisouly death, and human sufferage means nothing to you.


sorry to be all nitpicky, but sufferage means voting rights. i think you meant suffering

I said it in the other thread and Im gonna say it in this one. You're not gonna change my mind about disliking gays. I said what I said over there, so go read it if you want.

Now to all those who dislike Americans, say shit about us, call us stupid... shut the fuck up. I don't know what the rest of the world's problem is with the US. Is it Iraq? You know as well as I do that Saddam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of his own people? Estimates put it at 300,000, so you can't blame us for getting him out of there can you? If we didn't, Saddam would continue to torture and rape and kill hundreds of people every day. Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

EDIT: BTW I only read the first page of this thread and I saw some anti-American posts and I had to say something


How is that any different than what the Americans are doing. 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the last TWO years. The people were almost better off with Saddam.

ou would claim that just because something is abused, it's not worthy of protection, I find that to be a self defeating argument coming from a homosexual.

See, I think that people should just accept everyone else. You shouldn't have to participate in whatever lifestyle it is, but for the love of all that is good, there is NO reason to hate anyone else except on the basis of some sort of personal conflict.

I'm not someone who goes around saying "yay for the gay! you should be one too!" Rather, I think that it's nobody's business who I love and/or sleep with. I don't care about what straight people do... hell, I don't even care about what other gays do. I'm concerned about myself and the ones that I love (love meaning care about... not like, some sort of polygamous free-for-all... not that it's not ok, but... you know what I mean).

Celibacy isn't all that hard if you have the right persona for it, I've had periods where I've gone celibate for extended periods much to the dismay of girlfriends, and really I don't see why I couldn't do it indefinitely if I felt I had a reason for it.


I don't know what to say.

Maybe I could do it for a day.

Abstainance is the word, if I may.

But if I had a lady on my bed.

I know what I'd do.

Oh wait now I know what I was going to say.

I think "celabic" means GAY!

or you got one UGLY girlfriend.

Wow, you're both clever andOkay. By this logic, due to the fact that there are African-Americans, Caucasians and people of most probably every ethnic descent possibe who have ever killed anyone (and I'm sure many of them have done it out of hate), all thes people should be outlawed, leaving only non-human animals on the planet. Wait a minute! They've killed people too! Noooooo!

False analogy. There have been homophobes who kill gays simply because they are gay. That should not be allowed at any level.

I don't know what to say.

Maybe I could do it for a day.

Abstainance is the word, if I may.

But if I had a lady on my bed.

I know what I'd do.

Oh wait now I know what I was going to say.

I think "celabic" means GAY!

or you got one UGLY girlfriend.

LMFAO!!! :D

btw, have we dispensed with the "stop hating homophobes!" argument yet?

False analogy. There have been homophobes who kill gays simply because they are gay. That should not be allowed at any level.
It isnt, the crime is called MURDER.
Or is there some value that we should place on a homosexuals life that they deserve special protection?

Claiming that it is unnatural to be gay is a OK reason to not like them. It reduces the population growth. But isn't it also unnatural that not so long ago 1 in 5 children didn't live to aged 5 and now it is something like 1 in 1000. SO really it is technically a GOOD thing that we have some gay people

Absolutely. A man touching another man is nearly identical to murder, rape, theft, and killing a baby.
Right. Biblically, they are all sins. So are lying, cheating, lusting, and numerous other activities. He isn't singling homosexuals out. So either learn the basics, or stop posting until you do.

Claiming that it is unnatural to be gay is a OK reason to not like them. It reduces the population growth. But isn't it also unnatural that not so long ago 1 in 5 children didn't live to aged 5 and now it is something like 1 in 1000. SO really it is technically a GOOD thing that we have some gay people
Ummm. Not to be rude, but where in the hell did any of that support that statement? Just wondering, because I couldn't see a connection.

I am a christian. Have been all of my life. I may have lapsed at times, but the faith has always been there. God commanded us to love our fellow man (Ie, Love thy neighbour as thyself). This is not to say that we have to agree with what our neighbour does, but that we love them unconditionally, despite our misgivings with their lifestyle choices. Too often, religion is used as a weapon. Religion is not to be used to say that someone else is wrong, right, or indifferent. In the end, God will judge people as he sees fit.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
God, I hate these new age christians who read 2 verses out of the entire New Testament and somehow took it to mean that they have to tolerate sin amongst themselves. Listen to me now, OK? Homosexuality is specifically referred to in the New Testament as being a sin.
Roman 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Now, Paul specifically states that homosexuality is a sin. He directly references men being "consumed with passion for one another" as being a sin. You, as a christian, must follow the Bible, or you are not a christian. If the guiding text of our faith directly condemns homosexuality, then who are you to accept it as being ok? It is a sin, and in this homosexuals are no different from any other sinner. I, and you, and everyone else is a sinner. However, to refuse to acknowledge your sin can only lead to hell.

Now, I am quite tired of preaching, as generally the christians on this forum tend to ignore a Bible verse they never heard before, and the atheists tend to make fun of the preacher. However, I simply cannot stand back and watch a christian make false statements concerning the word of God. Where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is uniformly declared a sin.

It isnt, the crime is called MURDER.
Or is there some value that we should place on a homosexuals life that they deserve special protection?

Yeah, I think the worth of a human life is value enough. Stop portraying gays as trying to be better than straights.

God, I hate these new age christians who read 2 verses out of the entire New Testament and somehow took it to mean that they have to tolerate sin amongst themselves. Listen to me now, OK? Homosexuality is specifically referred to in the New Testament as being a sin.
Roman 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Now, Paul specifically states that homosexuality is a sin. He directly references men being "consumed with passion for one another" as being a sin. You, as a christian, must follow the Bible, or you are not a christian. If the guiding text of our faith directly condemns homosexuality, then who are you to accept it as being ok? It is a sin, and in this homosexuals are no different from any other sinner. I, and you, and everyone else is a sinner. However, to refuse to acknowledge your sin can only lead to hell.

Now, I am quite tired of preaching, as generally the christians on this forum tend to ignore a Bible verse they never heard before, and the atheists tend to make fun of the preacher. However, I simply cannot stand back and watch a christian make false statements concerning the word of God. Where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is uniformly declared a sin.

Sorry, but Jesus is more important the Paul.

If it was a card game, the Jesus card would whoop the Paul card. Even if he did have an ability giving him +3+3 and first strike.


So what Jesus says is more important.

You do understand that Jesus' "toleration" was to not kill them, or otherwise?

Turn the other cheek was an insult that basically amounted to "Screw you" (it was a physical display similar to us sticking one finger up).

The point was that going around killing or beating people up for infractions was ridiculous, that they had a responsibility to try and help them without being forceful or violent, and to show compassion and understanding if they took the help. (If they didn't, well just ignore them, they'll get what they deserve).

It was NOT, let me repeat NOT to just sit back and go "hey these people are doing something wrong, but it's none of my business"). Of course this creates the argument of "just what is wrong" and "how to deal with such infractions", but it most certainly was not a policy of complacency.

Of course finding "understanding" in many christian faiths that would allow non hostile assistance is another thing.

Sorry, but Jesus is more important the Paul.

If it was a card game, the Jesus card would whoop the Paul card. Even if he did have an ability giving him +3+3 and first strike.


So what Jesus says is more important.
Amazing! You managed to post something entirely nonsensical and completely without merit. Now, please show me where Jesus said that homosexuality was not a sin. Do it, or shh. Because obviously you've been brainwashed too (Damn good album by the New Radicals).

Amazing! You managed to post something entirely nonsensical and completely without merit. Now, please show me where Jesus said that homosexuality was not a sin. Do it, or shh. Because obviously you've been brainwashed too (Damn good album by the New Radicals).

Well the arabs who reintroduced much of our history in the 12th/13th century in the works of the great greek poets and writers, took "You should not lie with a man as you would a woman" to by logical deduction concludes that one would have to be inclined to "lie with a woman" in the first place, else it would have simply said "a man shall not lie with a man".

Which would make logical sense seeing Paul was well versed in Plato/Aristotlean writing (as were pretty much any learned contempary of the time) and that giving into temptation of the flesh at the detriment of the spirit was a truely grave sin of the spirit.

Amazing! You managed to post something entirely nonsensical and completely without merit. Now, please show me where Jesus said that homosexuality was not a sin. Do it, or shh. Because obviously you've been brainwashed too (Damn good album by the New Radicals).

Actually, uh, that was my point.

Jesus DIDN'T say it. Paul did. Jesus said not to judge anyone.

And Jesus > Paul.

Read, for example, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The 12-Year Reich by Richard Grunberger, and Sex and Society in Nazi Germany by Hans Bleuel.

I was going to respond to your first post with a comment that your garbage sounded like that spouted by the ironicly entitled Abiding Truth Ministries (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/8706/#ABOUT) and then you go and prove it for me.

Their work is that of revisionist historians trying to attach the word Nazi to anything they don't like (to be fair, all sides (http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/) seem to do this). They even go so far as to claim that Naziism is a form of Liberalism. Wether it's Hitler's Cross, the Pink Swastika, or the Bible no book published by a religious institution can be taken seriously as proof of anything in an academic sense.

Actually, uh, that was my point.

Jesus DIDN'T say it. Paul did. Jesus said not to judge anyone.

And Jesus > Paul.

That's an illogical assessment.

Logic

If I'm God and I'm sending my son to "fix things up"

Then I already know what Paul will write before he writes as a matter of my universal being.

And so when I insert my son into the temporal universe.

His fate though unknown to all but me is still known to me.

And hence If i was trying to achieve different goals I would have altered "something".

As a matter of being universal, one would have the ability to create a fully functioning "butterfly" effect.

That's an illogical assessment.

Logic

If I'm God and I'm sending my son to "fix things up"

Then I already know what Paul will write before he writes as a matter of my universal being.

And so when I insert my son into the temporal universe.

His fate though unknown to all but me is still known to me.

And hence If i was trying to achieve different goals I would have altered "something".

As a matter of being universal, one would have the ability to create a fully functioning "butterfly" effect.

Ah, but you assume two things.

1) Paul was writing what God wanted him to write

2) Religion itself isn't just bug nuts to begin with xD

I am a christian. Have been all of my life. I may have lapsed at times, but the faith has always been there. God commanded us to love our fellow man (Ie, Love thy neighbour as thyself). This is not to say that we have to agree with what our neighbour does, but that we love them unconditionally, despite our misgivings with their lifestyle choices. Too often, religion is used as a weapon. Religion is not to be used to say that someone else is wrong, right, or indifferent. In the end, GOD WILL JUDGE PEOPLE AS HE SEES FIT.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


Thank you very much. That is the perfect response.

1) Paul was writing what God wanted him to write

2) Religion itself isn't just bug nuts to begin with xD

But to claim either of those things false is effectively claiming God doesn't exist, so the argument is lost before it starts ;)

But to claim either of those things false is effectively claiming God doesn't exist, so the argument is lost before it starts ;)
You could very easily claim Paul was lieing and still not be claiming God does not exist.

You could very easily claim Paul was lieing and still not be claiming God does not exist.

You're completely missing the point.

If God is universal, even though he has no control of our choices, he knows the outcome of them, hence he would have known what Paul was going to write as he set his "butterfly effect" into motion.

To say otherwise is to assume a lack of omnipresence and hence omniscience/potence at which stage you're talking about a different God to what they are, so henceforth you're now comparing apples and oranges, except you're naming your apple "orange".

The Democrats against homosexuality are socially conservative. The Republicans for gay marriage are socially liberal. Simple. As for you wagging your finger against their anger...I will say this again: You would think differently if it was you being discriminated against.


I admit that my opinion comes from a non-gay perspective and that I might feel differently if I was the one who felt discriminated against. In fact (and I'm not saying this is on the same level), the fact that I was short/skinny was always held against me when it came to sports. Being better than the "big" guys wasn't enough, I had to be much better. And that wasn't even enough sometimes...and did that ever piss me off!! Now, screaming and making a scene wasn't going to help my situation, I just had to go about my business and prove I was better. Unfortunately, that approach doesn't fly when it comes to gay rights. Are you supposed to just shut up and prove your a better citizen? A better person? Obviously that's ridiculous. So I totally understand the things that are done to bring awareness to the situation. However, some of those things (like the parades) often hurt the cause because people feel the cause is being forced upon them.

I had an uncle (who is unfortunately no longer with us) who was gay. He was a great guy, and it irritates me that people would like to say that he was somehow a horrible person because of his sexual preference. I understand that people may not agree with homosexual acts (whether it's because of religious beliefs or just because it's something they haven't yet become comfortable with - sometimes they just need time, especially the older crowd). But to say that homosexuals are evil just for, well, being, is absurd. Comdemn the act, not the person. Someone may disagree things I do, but I think anyone who knows me understands that I'm a good person - at least I try to be.

I don't want to make this all sound like I'm Joe Liberal, because I'm actually more conservative. But I do try to understand where others are coming from and see their point of view. And while I can't say I'm totally at ease with homosexual acts (probably because, to me, it just doesn't seem natural), I refuse to call gays/lesbians horrible people just because of their preference. Actually, I'll sometimes joke that I'm really a lesbian trapped in a man's body!! OK, not the most original joke, but I still get a chuckle out of it. I'm probably more of a conservative with a few socially liberal beliefs (as I would support gay unions). OK, that's enough from me...

Regarding the parades, blacks and women had parades in their civil rights movement days. Why when gays have them, it is suddenly "pushing an agenda" or "ramming it down our throats"?

Regarding the parades, blacks and women had parades in their civil rights movement days. Why when gays have them, it is suddenly "pushing an agenda" or "ramming it down our throats"?

When blacks and women had parades it was 'ramming down out throats too'. Those poor white (hetero) males were *forced* to accept that blacks and women excisted and wanted to be treated as equals.
Those poor white (hetero) males, we should start some form of trust fund or something.

Christ didn't say that - Paul did.
It's in the Bible, so it's divinely inspired. Christ didn't write a word of the Bible directly, so by your logic none of it's any good.

notice how a thread on homosexuality stray to stuff like god? gays and straights, athiests and religious people... if there is one thing that people hate more than physical difference it is people who look just like them doing stuff they dont like.

i dont even know why i am writing this. people will fight. it is a constant. sometimes it annoys me that some fuzzy haired german can spend years looking for mathematical constants but someone cant spend five minutes and realize that mankind has alot more (and alot more relevant) constants. people will fight. straights will hate gays for unreasonable reasons until there is someone else to hate and gays will whinge about oppression until it stops.

and when it does, we will whinge about other minorities just as much as the straights do.

sad human constants.

perhaps if we all just stopped trying to "ram it down their throats" people would forget about the whole thing.

I love how anyone who doesn't support gay right X automatically hates all gays unreasonably. It really makes straights want to look at the other side objectively.

I love how anyone who doesn't support gay right X automatically hates all gays unreasonably. It really makes straights want to look at the other side objectively.

hate may be too strong a word, but I'd say people who are against equal rights for gays at least have a dislike for homosexuality.

Dislike of homosexuality and hatred of homosexuals are entirely different things. I can dislike eating clams, it doesn't mean I hate you if you do it.

Look, speaking as a bisexual and a peer counselor to gay youths, I know outspoken homophobes can say horrible, hurtful things. The extent to which some people can be so completely oblivious to the feelings and humanity in a fellow human being is often staggering. Anyone who is gay, bi or even just gay-friendly is likely to encounter some sort a close-minded bigotry at one point or another.

However, the answer is not to answer that blind hatred with more blind hatred. That's hypocritical and it makes us no better then they. Getting all outraged and throwing out words like 'idiots' and 'Nazis' only succeeds in making closed minds closed even tighter, and it gives us all a bad name.

Frankly I'm not inclined to listen to someone who is screaming in my face, no matter how much I agree with what they might be saying. You can't force people to like or accept you, and an aggressive attack is counter-productive in the long run.

The best way to make people accept who you are is to conduct yourself in a dignified and respectful manner. Act like a person who is mature, rational and reasonable and any person with even a shred of civility won't be able to help but respect you, regardless of whether or not they agree with your lifestyle.

I know it sounds cliche and trite, but there is a lot of truth to the adage about treating others the way you'd want to be treated. If you feel strongly about the cause of gay rights, make yourself a prominent example of the good, honest people among the gay/gay-friendly populace.

Of course there will always be the die-hard fanatics, the fundamentalist zealots who think that proper baptism and pre-marital abstinence are more important then human decency, but honestly, who cares what they think? If someone is that close-minded towards the world at large, why do you want their approval anyway?

Sometimes you can learn more about a person by whom their enemies are rather then their friends. I'm proud to say I will not be receiving a Christmas card from Pat Robertson this year, and any grievance I might have with the things he says is alleviated by the knowledge that intelligent people of all ages, races and sexualities will recognize him for the dangerous psychotic he is. All that leaves me to do is to try to portray a positive example of my own demographic.

I know it's hard, but we have to try to be the better person(s), or else we're no better then they.

You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi.

I'm sick of seeing repbulicans post shit like this. Clearly homophobic, they're not asking you to get into bed with them. Just tolerate them.

Have you ever seen the photos of Aushwitz, or Buchenwald. The shrivled, half dead, living corpses? Many of those people were homosexuals perescuted by the Nazis.

And you Catholics/Baptists/Oh gives a rats ass, are no better.

Do us all a favor and take that sheet off your bed and put it over your head, so then everyone can see what a flithy, miserable, creature you are.

First off, I'm sick of seeing people post shit like this. For or against Homosexuals, flaming and sterotyping is all the same. You're just as pathetic as the next one. Calling anyone who doesn't tolerate Homosexuals a "christian Nazi" (funny how you capitlaize Nazi, but not Christian...), puts you on the same level as the people you're flaming. Also, believing that only Christians and/or Republicans post anti-Homosexual propaganda is completely false. I know many Democrats who are anti-Homosexual, as well as non-Christians. Also, your quote about German death camps is completely irrelevant. A lot of people have died in the past in horrible ways...what does that have to do with your argument? Also, how does putting a sheet over your head indicate being filthy? Man, you are just as pathetic as anyone you are trying to insult. Try and calm down for a moment so that you can get a real point across as oppose to coming off as an arogant asshole. Try actually getting away from your computer and making a difference. There are many rallies that need people to attend in order to prevent anti-Homosexual laws from being passed. I've attended them and helped out, they are productive, not bullshit like your post. Yes, we are all humans, we are all deserving of persuing our own lifstyle as long as it doesn't get in the way of others doing the same. We should learn to tolerate people who are different from us. I do not agree with people who hold doctrines which state otherwise, and often their doctrine conflicts with itself anyway. Honestly, though, your post is nothing but a flameware and should be erased. Learn to be creative and productive. Stop existing only to cause more problems.

I'm not going into the flamebait nature of the opening post again, but I will say that the so-called Democrats against homosexuality are socially conservative. Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore are good examples. Then you have the socially liberal Republicans like Arnold Swarzenegger and John McCain.

That's how I'd break it down, mostly. Liberals support equal rights for gays, whereas conservatives would prefer otherwise.

And I agree with what Mellsylvania said. But I don't begrudge gays the anger they feel. A couple times in my life, I have been the victim of racism...and let me tell you, I was surprised by how angry I got, so quickly. I can easily imagine gays feeling the same rage. So while I understand that expressing the rage is not helpful, I'm not gonna take the soapbox and tell them to shut up.

Regarding the parades, blacks and women had parades in their civil rights movement days. Why when gays have them, it is suddenly "pushing an agenda" or "ramming it down our throats"?

I wasn't here during those days or else I probably would have said those things about their parades too. I would also be against a parade which tried to boast "straight pride," as it would be ramming it down people's throats. Here's the thing: when a group tries to claim it is not different from anyone else, they shouldn't turn around and have some big thing that tries to glorify how they are actually different.

That being said, I think there are legit differences between separating gays/straights, poor/rich, religious/atheists, etc., and black/white. The first examples are choices, beliefs, etc. and I think it's a legit way to differentiate. But, the black/white thing is totally out of control. I have lived my whole life hearing that there is no difference between blacks, whites, Latinos, etc., and I honestly believe that. It's simply a pigment. It is what it is and there's no difference between black/white. So when I see something like the Black College Coaches Association, I fly off the handle. Think if there was a White C.C.A. Or a White Miss America Pageant. Or a United White Guy College Fund. The time has come for true equality and we need the race-based things to start fading into history. Of course, if there are legitimate things that make people different (as I said, beliefs/choices/etc.), groups aren't a problem. Someone who stands for gay rights is different from an anti-gay activist. Rich is different from poor. Those things make people different, color doesn't. OK, I'm starting to get totally off topic here so...

Anyway, I guess I just don't think things should exist (like gay pride parades) when you probably wouldn't want to see the flip-side. If I supported those, I would have to support anti-gay parades too. Not the message, but the existence of them. Sure, I think both parades have the "right" to exist, but I would prefer that neither did. Make sense?

Passively waiting for equality doesn't always work.

Often you need to get in the face of the majority, through protests, organized boycotts, etc.

Do you really think segregation would have been defeated if not for the massive demonstrations?

You need to push the agenda until equality is achieved, then you can back off afterwards.

I agree with you there, all the endless factioning like Black Beauty Pageants and so on is foolish and backwards. They achieved equality. Time to be equal! Reverting to this bizarre segregation is harmful.

Now you can go into statistics about the high number of blacks in jails and so on, but that's more due to monetary considerations. Being black does not put you at a disadvantage. Being poor, however, does!

I'm against affirmative action, btw. It may have been needed at a time when blacks were not equal (i.e. schools routinely turned away blacks and no one cared). But now that they're equal, they shouldn't get special treatment.

I think we agree on this basic idea.

I think we agree on this basic idea.

I think you're right. Also, let me thank you for not being a "you better think this way or else" kind of person. Obviously there are those types on all sides of any argument and those are the people who delay any type of solution.

As for the demonstrations to achieve equality... Is it better to have public events praising how different you are, or would it be more beneficial to show how you're really the same as everyone else? For me, I think I would be more inclined to side with those who say, "hey, I'm just like you except I like members of my own sex." But they enjoy sports, outdoors, politics, art, whatever. I think when people find there's a common ground, it gives them a start. From there they can learn to embrace the differences, which really are what make people interesting. If not for the differences, people would be REALLY BORING!! But I think that common ground needs to be found in order for the differences to be more readily accepted. But I could be wrong...

"You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi."

blah blah blah...
Suddenly being gay means you are more productive and educated than everyone else?

This is just the same as when goths say that goths are the most "creative/sensitive/artistic" groups of people.

Or when Christians or any religious person thinks that they are somehow inherently better than any other, not because of their actions but because somehow they have some special quality.

The law of averages applies to all.

Homosexuals aren't all fashion trendy, although some may be, maybe even a lot of them are. But to say that homosexuals are the most fasionable people would be false. And darn near impossible to prove.

How about the whole christian= no sex misinformation. What about those Lutheran families that have 20 children? You think they only had sex twenty times? No they are banging eachother every chance they get!

The examples go on feel free to list your own.

Rpublicans, Democrats, Name any group and you can find the idea that they are "THE MOST <fill in the blank>" and 9 times out of ten it's total crap.
Seriously get over yourselves.

Homosexuals aren't all fashion trendy, although some may be, maybe even a lot of them are. But to say that homosexuals are the most fasionable people would be false. And darn near impossible to prove.

Funny you mention that because the place I work used to have a gay security guard. He was short, out of shape (ok, fat), didn't seem very clean or neat, was pretty odd, and had no sense of fashion - absolutely none. He went against every stereotype of a gay man.


How about the whole christian= no sex misinformation. What about those Lutheran families that have 20 children? You think they only had sex twenty times? No they are banging eachother every chance they get!


Those who think religious groups don't want people to have sex are either ignorant or simply misinformed. Most religious groups feel sex is for married couples and that pro-creation is the goal of sex. They don't feel is something that should be done by 15-year-olds or even unmarried couples who aren't ready for the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. I'm not saying that view is right or wrong, just stating that they is usually the view.

I too am an extreme nationalist, however being English, I am also an extremist royalist. We do see eye to eye on many things, but right wing is perfection.

Stating one point, class systems are natural. Equality is unnatural. Hence due to rather blind sighted arguing, left wing politics are unnatural.

-Phil.

OK, left wing politics are unnatural. Because class systems and monarchy are natural.

Presumably because competition, hierarchy, greed, murder, blah, blah, blah are natural. By the way, are clothes unnatural?

In fact, people are nature. Whatever people do is natural. As natural as it is to you to want security for yourself and your kin (however defined), it is natural for me to want security for everyone. Maybe my definition of kin is just wider than yours.

As an extreme english nationalist, how extreme are you? Are english people whose parents are french part of your english nation? How about english people whose parents are pakistani? Or english people whose great great etc to the power of 10 ancestors were norman, roman, celtic, saxon, briton, whatever?

Nationalism makes no sense because whereever you draw the line, it is an entirely arbitrary line.

I don't see what "blind sighted arguing" has to do with it.

"You realize that gays are the most productive, educated group of people in our soicety? Of course not, your a christian Nazi."

blah blah blah...
Suddenly being gay means you are more productive and educated than everyone else?



No, that isn't what it means. It doesn't mean that sticking your penis in a man's bum makes you educated.

I don't know if it is true. But if it is true, it means that on average, a homosexual is better educated than a heterosexual. This could be shown to be true or false by statistical analysis.

Right. Biblically, they are all sins. So are lying, cheating, lusting, and numerous other activities. He isn't singling homosexuals out. So either learn the basics, or stop posting until you do.

Learn to think outside the babble (sorry, bible), or people will stop taking you seriously.

It isnt, the crime is called MURDER.
Or is there some value that we should place on a homosexuals life that they deserve special protection?

The difference is that killing homosexuals just for being gay is killing them for who they are, not something they do, which is a big difference, and much worse than say, murdering someone who stole your life savings.

I'm not in love with gays,but I don't hate them. So I don't care what sexuality you are as long as you don't touch me sexually. Some Christians are idiots who contradict themselves entirely. The bible says to love everyone. Why can't they follow that?

I'm not in love with gays,but I don't hate them. So I don't care what sexuality you are as long as you don't touch me sexually. Some Christians are idiots who contradict themselves entirely. The bible says to love everyone. Why can't they follow that?


Though ineloquently stated it is a good question … how much better the world would be if ALL people SPECIALY religious people had more tolerance for others.

It's in the Bible, so it's divinely inspired. Christ didn't write a word of the Bible directly, so by your logic none of it's any good.

Wrong. By my logic, you have to actually use logic. Something that is divinely inspired was not directly written by the divine. Therefore, each author will put their own spin on things and are likely to have written things they believed to have been divinely inspired, but that actually came straight from their own heads. Paul had several views that I, through prayer, meditation, and even - dare I say - logic, have found to be false. One was his view of women as inferior. Another was his belief that the sole purpose of marriage is because people can't stop being lustful and it isn't a sin if you are married. And a third is his view of homosexuality. Of course, if you read the passage, it may very well have been the act of "burning with lust" that he was condemning, not being homosexual.

"quote"Passively waiting for equality doesn't always work.

Often you need to get in the face of the majority, through protests, organized boycotts, etc.

Do you really think segregation would have been defeated if not for the massive demonstrations?

You need to push the agenda until equality is achieved, then you can back off afterwards.

I agree with you there, all the endless factioning like Black Beauty Pageants and so on is foolish and backwards. They achieved equality. Time to be equal! Reverting to this bizarre segregation is harmful.

Now you can go into statistics about the high number of blacks in jails and so on, but that's more due to monetary considerations. Being black does not put you at a disadvantage. Being poor, however, does!

I'm against affirmative action, btw. It may have been needed at a time when blacks were not equal (i.e. schools routinely turned away blacks and no one cared). But now that they're equal, they shouldn't get special treatment.

I think we agree on this basic idea. "end qoute"

hey i havent posted in a while, but i just had to say, tho i agree with many of yer posts, seemingly more intellegent than others,,,, this one i have to disagree with, in one term, that even tho the blacks fought for their freedom, the kkk still exists, there is still predjudice and hate... in the end it only loosened the tight, sterotypical grip this nation has on freedoms..... SURE this is a fairly free nation(talking about the usa) but we still have people who will protest blacks just as equal.....

well basically, as stupid as this sounds, i go by one main belief, whether it be religious,philisophical, or just an average quote... "there must be balance to everything, unbalance leads to chaos" ya i made that up.... but i strongly go by it..... if someone is gonna hate, others will still love, if someone protests, there wil lalways be a protest against that one, leading to debates even like this one! oh, and yes, the most important one... black is black and white is white, no matter what michael jackson thinks! black will never be white, but hey that sounds racist so ill be quiet,,, this is gay/homophobe bashing i forgot sorry lol..... ok well i still repect everyone elses opinions, as i well know most of mine will never sound quite that educated, or in turn, as uneducated...... i envy you all hehe.... k keep the thread going!




but PLEASE< IN ALL CAPS I DEMAND ONE THING OF THIS THREAD< STOP TALKING ABOUT NAZIS! homos or not, (tho im not a jew or homosexual) i find it utterlyrediculous to keep comming back to that same arguement.... the nazis had their time, now lets live in ours and go back to the original gay/antigay bashing plz!*pass the popcorn!* :mp5:

The difference is that killing homosexuals just for being gay is killing them for who they are, not something they do, which is a big difference, and much worse than say, murdering someone who stole your life savings.
Fine they get to have special laws to protect them, and special unions instead of marriage.
Murder, is murder.
Whether you like the reasons are not important.
Hate Crime legislation is bigoted special treatment.
Violence is by its very nature hateful.
If you steal my life savings I hate you, for who you are-because what you do, is what makes you who you are.
If someone hates homosexuals they hate them for what they do--which is what makes them homosexuals.
Hate Crime Laws afford different groups special protection, which is wrong.
Plain and simple.

Fine they get to have special laws to protect them, and special unions instead of marriage.


Actually, I don't think the point of hate crime laws is to "make special laws to protect them." In truth, I think they are to inform the idiots out there who think that being black/gay/hispanic/female/Muslim/Jew/Christian/etc are lesser people that they are not, and that harming them *is* going to get you punished.

Actually, equality is natural, but it relies on the concept of

"Equality is for equals" where one understands it is an application of circumstance.

Hate Crime legislation is bigoted special treatment.
I don't think it is necessarily.
If someone hates homosexuals they hate them for what they do--which is what makes them homosexuals.
Actually, they might well hate them for what they are rather than what they do. It is possible to be a celibate homosexual just as it is possible to be a celibate heterosexual.

Hate Crime Laws afford different groups special protection, which is wrong.
Plain and simple.
I'm not familiar with the exact text of the Hate Crime laws you are talking about, but I would be very surprised if you are right. Don't they forbid harassment etc based on sexuality rather than based on homosexuality? That means that if a bunch of gays beat up a straight guy for being straight, they could be charged with a hate crime so it isn't special treatment for gays.

The reason hate crimes are treated more seriously than the same actions carried out without the "hate" reasoning is that
a) the impact on the individual victim is greater because they know they have been singled out for who they are, and could be singled out again
b) the impact on society is greater because the crime spreads deeper fear and hatred

First, he is not gays.
I make the distiction. A courtesy he did not pay Christians.
Second, I quoted him.
He plainly ignores the millions of Christians who died next to the thousands of Homosexuals.
Why does he do this?
Because it suits his arguement, he twists facts to make it appear as if the millions who suffered and died were the ones who persecuted Homosexuals.
He does exactly what the nazis did, de-humanizes Christians so that it becomes easier to treat them less then humans.
DO you see how easily you went with it?
Second was one of his Homosexual grandparents at Dachau?
Aushwitz perhaps?
No!!
Maybe a Christian uncle, mybe a Jewish Grandmother.
Truthfully I doubt he has any real connection to those places or he would not USE the deaths of millions to support an arguement for robbing people of their right to have their own opinion.
HE would not use the torture and death millions to duplicate the thinking that itself lead to millions of deaths.
I have no problem with Homosexuals as a group.
I have a problem with this particular man who pretends to a victim when he is actually using the true victims to victimize another group-just because he disagrees with them.

Millions of christians? What the hell are you talking about?