NationStates Jolt Archive

*snip*

Hear hear!

Wonderful post.

a conundrum for you all:

say that sallys boyfriend pat proposes marriage. sally accepts and she and pat are happily married a year later. a few years down the road, pat starts to come to terms with his conflicting gender (i.e., that of a female. gender is used as opposed to his biological sex, gender is what pat himself feels is the norm for him. or in other words, pat is a woman trapped in a man's body.) now, pat has some money tucked away and decides to have a sexual reassignment operation. (pat's gender, which has always been that of a female, will now match his body.) pat becomes a woman, both in biological sex and in gender.

is pat still married to sally?

what if pat had started out female, had a sex change (our government does legally recognizes the change in biological status, you know) to become male, and THEN proposes marriage to sally. being male and female, the marriage would be legal. right?

have fun with those =D

(now wouldn't it be worth it to have a legal definition of marriage that doesn't include biological sex requirements—i.e. one male + one female.... i mean, think of the savings in time and legal fees alone that avoiding the above conundrums would cause!)

I think...the simplest solution...is just to grant marriage to whoever the hell wants it. :)

Just not to vociferous heterosexual Christians et al, at least not legal recognition of the union. I figure if it is such a Holy, God sanctioned arrangement, conferring any sort of legal weight to it would be an insult to their faith.

also..... term...... to respond to an earlier couple of posts. I got these form a national sorce. Just for you; this is mainly a response to post #651.
Where did HIV come from?

The most recent presentation on the origin of HIV was presented at the 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunitistic Infections (Chicago, January 1999). At that conference, research was presented that suggested that HIV had "crossed over" into the human population from a particular species of chimpanzee, probably through blood contact that occurred during hunting and field dressing of the animals. The CDC states that the findings presented at this conference provide the strongest evidence to date that HIV-1 originated in non-human primates. The research findings were featured in the February 4,1999 issue of the journal, Nature.

We know that the virus has existed in the United States, Haiti and Africa since at least 1977-1978. In 1979, rare types of pneumonia, cancer and other illnesses were being reported by doctors in Los Angeles and New York. The common thread was that these conditions were not usually found in persons with healthy immune systems.

In 1982 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially named the condition AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). In 1984 the virus responsible for weakening the immune system was identified as HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus).

(Source: Centers for Disease Control - CDC)


just to put another two cents in, if you wish to blames homosexuals for AIDS, you might as well blame African Americans. I am not being racist, but why just say "gays brought it over." why not go full out and say "blacks started the whole mess." Right now it is highest in Heterosexual African American Women, second is Homosexual men.
just so you also dont accuse me of warping your intentions I will put your comment up here.

Terminalia
"Who bought aids to the west, homosexuals, therefore no matter who has
currently got the highest percent of contamination, it is still a gay disease."


And they dont know if Homosexual men brought it to america, nor does it matter. Its a disease that started in Heterosexual couples in Africa. Who cares if it is high amoung homosexuals in america. Its a world epidemic. So no, its not a "gay" disease. Its a African American Straight disease.

*puts rainbow stripped gay Rights jacket on*
Equal rights and love for all.
*looks at Terminalia's flame jacket*
does that make you a flamer?

That, by the way, folks, if it's not obvious, means that the United States already *has* an institution of nondiscriminatory 'civil unions.'

That doesn't mean that any church or minister has to perform or approve of any marriage they don't want to. They never did.

It's just that people in *homosexual* marriages deserve equal access to this civil, legal institution, and the courts have recognized this, much to the chagrin of the bigoted, who have taken the tack of claiming that it's *taking something away* from religious marriage that it never really had.

It's not the job of the *state* to 'sanctify' marriage, or the definition of marriage. It's basically, contract law. You can go to Vegas and drop fifteen bucks for a quickie heterosexual marriage, and the clergy can't say boo.

People also aren't on a crusade to make that illegal.

Even if it doesn't exactly respect a lot of people's 'definition' of marriage.

We've already *got* an equal, nonjudgemental form of civil unions.

It's called civil marriage.

Just cause some religious people are trying to deny others equal protection under the law because of their beliefs, doesn't mean it was ever any different.

If you want to avoid confusion, then maybe make everyone getting married religiously go to a secular Justice of the Peace. You could do that, but it's extra bureaucracy and not very romantic.

That's why churches and clergy of many religions are extended the *courtesy* of performing the civil and religious ceremonies at the same time. It doesn't mean that the 'definition' of civil marriage ever belonged to the churches.

Have I said that enough?

Take a bow, Kinsella Islands. Excellent post.

*Applause*.

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.

I've wondered that same thing myself.

I don't like the general idea of marriage. :sniper:

In the Kingdom of Mayhem, all forms of marriage are against the law. If you want to live with someone and sleep together or whatever, that's fine. :fluffle:

But we don't allow any contractual agreements that say you have to stay together for the rest of your lives. And whatever belongs to you, belongs to you. There is no such thing as community property, or allamony. :gundge:


- Professor Mayhem

Sorry, but in my experience the only people who think that the Civil War was fought over state's rights are those that think "the South will rise again." At least that's the way it is here in Mississippi.

And I'm a Republican. Which is why I stand for states rights--even though it seems to not be the party's major platform these days.

Two issues here...

You are confusing two events... that occured close together... the attempted cessation of certain states, and the actual 'start' of military activity (i.e. the commencement of the civil war).

The first event: Secession - the original charter for the Union of states was a voluntary organisation. Without quibbling over details - certain states objected to certain other states policies. Some of these states chose to secede, as was their right under the union agreement.

The second event: The initiation of hostilities (the Start of the Civil War). After the 'Secession', Union troops were instructed to leave Confederate territory. The Union overrode this order, and refused to give up certain military installations. If there was a 'stupid' move made, it was the Confederacy attacking Fort Sumter (spell?) to expell the Union troops - since they certainly were not ready for a full-scale war... but, I guess they never thought that Union forces would actually invade seceded states.
The attack on Fort Sumter, or the 'retaliatory' strikes must be the definition of the advent of the Civil War.

The second issue I wanted to raise... calling it a 'civil war' is actually a misnomer. The states that left the Union (the seceding states) were no longer part of the Union, but were, instead sovereign states, under the banner of a Confederacy - and, as I stated before, the Union was formed on a voluntary basis, so secession is legitimate.

By that token, the 'civil war' was actually an invasion, by one 'nation', of another 'nation'.

Not necessarily, alot of children have been molested by Adults they trusted,

and given their consent at the time not knowing any better, this comes back

to really haunt them later in life, also guilt from experiencing pleasure from

the act, the majority of kids are molested this way, the rape scenario,

although numerous, is actually a minority of the way victims are molested.

Also two thirds of childmolesters were found to be homosexual/bisexual,

which is a big reason why I am against gays raising children.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7289214

Are you going to answer this or ignore it and carry on blathering? It really doesn't help your case to pretend I'm not here.

Also, you're beginning to sound like a stuck record. "Gays are like paedophiles, gays are like paedophiles, sanctity of marriage, gays are like paedophiles.."

Let me tell you from first-hand experience, gays are not like paedophiles, though paedophiles may be gay (or straight for that matter). However the last paedophile I knew was a very Christian organist and choirmaster. It has in fact been shown that there is a high degree of correlation between sexually repressive societal constructs (like certain sections of Christianity) and the likelihood of a person to enjoy "playing with" children.

Perhaps we should ban churches?

you shred nothing...marriage is a religious institution...
i never claimed my religion had a monoploly on anything
face it good or bad ..and contrary to the views of special interest groups the country is majority rule..put it to a vote and see what the majority thinks
you can have emotional ties without marriage also...and i am so sorry you cant force religious doctrine to change for your personal desires.. and yes marriage has cultural value..name a culture that doesnt see marriage as a man and a woman..

Marriage isn't a religious institution.

Marriage CAN be religious, but it doesn't have to be... and the basis of modern 'western' thought (that it is not just religious, but christian) ignores millenia of history to the contrary.

You are deluded if you think you live in a country that is 'majority' ruled. If that were the case, any leader would automatically be removed once his approval rating fell below 50%, and the number of ACTUAL votes cast would select the leadership of the nation.

Marriage DOES have a cultural value. But I don't see marriage as a man and a woman... I see it as a coming together of people with an intention to become one unit. I don't care how many people, or what gender... all I ask is that they be a) human, b) awake, c) old enough to consent and d) consenting.

I am against gay marriages because I believe marriage is something beyond a civil contract. It entails the formation of a family and formalising certain vows of committment. I know we live in a secular culture and I agree with the fact the issue should be decided via referendum.

I find the proposal of downgrading marriage to "civil union" ridiculous. A civil union does not contemplate all the legal implications of marriage.

You don't see ANY irony, here?

By your own admission, there is an entire sub-set of your community that are being deprived of certain 'privileges'.

They aren't asking that you be 'freed' from those privileges, merely that they also have access to those same benefits, if they make the same commitments.... and, at the moment, they are being unfairly withheld from those commitments, and the benefits.

Also - unfortunately - you are in something of a minority with your desire for a referendum to decide the issues: The fundamentalists don't want a referendum, they just want the law to forbid it (GWB isn't suggesting referendum, he is suggesting rewriting the Constitution). Homosexuals don't want a referendum because they think the nation is still sufficiently homophobic to vote 'against' them, just because of religious conviction and personal 'tastes' about sexuality.

I personally believe that Gay Marriage is an abomination before God, as well as all Gay activities. That is how I have been raised, and that is what I bleieve.

Despite the fact that the bible never actually decries homosexuality... well, not if you give it any more than a skim-read?

Did you know that the Hebrew word meant 'unclean', but that 'abomination' means 'something that brings bad luck'?

So - you think gay marriage should be forbidden because they are unlucky...?

Children are unable to consent. Whether or not they say yes is not the issue.



Entirely wrong. The only studies that state this are those that ignore the fact that pedophiles are attracted to different genders in children than they are in adults. There are actually different psychological terms (apart from homosexual and heterosexual) that describe a pedophile's gender preference.

Normal adult homosexual behavior is no more related to pedophilia than normal adult heterosexual behavior. So I guess we have to stop letting the heterosexuals raise kids.

I guess the blanket assertion of 'facts' that are proved to be erroneous does PROVE one thing...

Terminalia is not above straight-out fabrications to prove a point.

The only defense against gay marriages that I have heard use religion, noteably, the chrsitian religion. I find if highly offensive that someone else's religion is going to dictate the laws of my country, that I have to live by.

The only defense against gay marriages that I have heard use religion, noteably, the chrsitian religion. I find if highly offensive that someone else's religion is going to dictate the laws of my country, that I have to live by.

Exactly.

Excellent point. *Applause*

Take a bow, Merridew.

I have this little theory on life. It's really very interesting. It's called live and let live. My being gay does nothing to stop you from living nor does it deprive you of equal rights to do and believe as you want (provided of course, as my liberarian comrades would say it hurts no one--I don't extend that all the way out to no one but yourself, but I'm considering it).

So you are entitled to believe as you like. Believe I'm an abomination and I'm going to hell. Frankly Scarlet, I dont give a damn.

However, please don't try to force that off on me in the laws of a secular government. I don't keep you from exercising your religion and beliefs. Just don't try to keep me from doing the same for mine.
Yeah, but Christians don't want you to go to Hell Pracus! Christians want to show you the way they believe is right and persuade you to believe it too. Live and let live maybe, but what if the bit you're living now is a blip in the existence of your soul and the main bit's still to come!!

I've missed about 10 pages of this thread. Ergo.. one will shut one's gob.

a conundrum for you all:

say that sallys boyfriend pat proposes marriage. sally accepts and she and pat are happily married a year later. a few years down the road, pat starts to come to terms with his conflicting gender (i.e., that of a female. gender is used as opposed to his biological sex, gender is what pat himself feels is the norm for him. or in other words, pat is a woman trapped in a man's body.) now, pat has some money tucked away and decides to have a sexual reassignment operation. (pat's gender, which has always been that of a female, will now match his body.) pat becomes a woman, both in biological sex and in gender.

is pat still married to sally?
If Pat wasn't happy with his sexuality what was he doing getting married? Or is this other sexuality blooming out of nowhere? Christian views on these are simple. I won't bore you.

what if pat had started out female, had a sex change (our government does legally recognizes the change in biological status, you know) to become male, and THEN proposes marriage to sally. being male and female, the marriage would be legal. right?

have fun with those =D

(now wouldn't it be worth it to have a legal definition of marriage that doesn't include biological sex requirements—i.e. one male + one female.... i mean, think of the savings in time and legal fees alone that avoiding the above conundrums would cause!)
You want a Christian Pov on the sex-change thing too? Or are you just trying to be clever? The thing is that the Christian PoV IS simple. The reason that governments have problems defining these laws is that they left the simple Christian law behind because they thought they could do better.

Also, you're beginning to sound like a stuck record. "Gays are like paedophiles, gays are like paedophiles, sanctity of marriage, gays are like paedophiles.."

Let me tell you from first-hand experience, gays are not like paedophiles, though paedophiles may be gay (or straight for that matter). However the last paedophile I knew was a very Christian organist and choirmaster. It has in fact been shown that there is a high degree of correlation between sexually repressive societal constructs (like certain sections of Christianity) and the likelihood of a person to enjoy "playing with" children.

Perhaps we should ban churches?
Part of me's just glad you were only pretending on your first couple of posts (this thread? or another like it)

So your Christian organist. He was tempted. He wasn't strong enough on his own to resist it. He probably didn't ask for help (guess). So he's human. Given he committed a transgression which inherently hurts other people but the act is still as bad and no worse than any other. Mankind has taken it upon itself to define justice and wrongdoing.

I'd like to know your def. of sexually repressive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, not being religious, you see, but I understood that one of the main points of Christianity was forgiveness, and, furthermore, do you not call Jesus our 'Saviour', implying that he has 'saved' us. From sin, I believe.
Therefore, according to your religion as I understand it, everyone, no matter what they've done (not that I believe homosexuality is wrong, what consenting adults do in their own time is their own business) will be forgiven and go up to heaven, made pure and perfect.
If only it were true...

Correct me if I'm wrong, not being religious, you see, but I understood that one of the main points of Christianity was forgiveness, and, furthermore, do you not call Jesus our 'Saviour', implying that he has 'saved' us. From sin, I believe.
Therefore, according to your religion as I understand it, everyone, no matter what they've done (not that I believe homosexuality is wrong, what consenting adults do in their own time is their own business) will be forgiven and go up to heaven, made pure and perfect.
If only it were true...
You info here is limited.

a) Christians believe that if they truly repent they will be forgiven
b) To truly repent of a sin you must believe that it is wrong
c) You have to take a very real and conscious decision to become a Christian. It is a lifestyle that is often misrepresented.

So your argument got some holes. Do you understand why? Ask questions, get the answers. It's a good system. God's.. naturally :D

If Pat wasn't happy with his sexuality what was he doing getting married? Or is this other sexuality blooming out of nowhere? Christian views on these are simple. I won't bore you.


Pat married Sally because Pat loves Sally. This is true whether or not Pat is Pat-man or Pat-woman.

In effect, Pat loved a woman when Pat was a 'man' (albeit by confused gender), and Pat still loves a woman when Pat is a 'woman' (returned to her true gender).

If you think about it... Pat was always a lesbian... she was just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

The irony is that the church APPROVES of her love while she wears the man-shell, but once she becomes the reflection of her truer self, the church is happy to condemn.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Children are unable to consent. Whether or not they say yes is not the issue.

Bullshit, children can consent, why- and I really want you to answer this

Dem, are they unable to consent.

This doesnt mean they should be held responsible, they are being taken

advantage of, the consent comes from trust, fear or/and a mixture of both.

Pat married Sally because Pat loves Sally. This is true whether or not Pat is Pat-man or Pat-woman.

In effect, Pat loved a woman when Pat was a 'man' (albeit by confused gender), and Pat still loves a woman when Pat is a 'woman' (returned to her true gender).

If you think about it... Pat was always a lesbian... she was just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

The irony is that the church APPROVES of her love while she wears the man-shell, but once she becomes the reflection of her truer self, the church is happy to condemn.
No because in the eyes of most churches, born a man remain a man. Right or wrong.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=GazingEyes]
suggested that HIV had "crossed over" into the human population from a particular species of chimpanzee, probably through blood contact that occurred during hunting and field dressing of the animals.

lol more like sexual contact with the animals.


just to put another two cents in, if you wish to blames homosexuals for AIDS, you might as well blame African Americans. I am not being racist, but why just say "gays brought it over." why not go full out and say "blacks started the whole mess." Right now it is highest in Heterosexual African American Women, second is Homosexual men.

African Americans?

Prove it was African Americans that had contact with these chimpanzees

then, how do you know it wasnt white Americans?


And they dont know if Homosexual men brought it to america, nor does it matter. Its a disease that started in Heterosexual couples in Africa. Who cares if it is high amoung homosexuals in america. Its a world epidemic. So no, its not a "gay" disease. Its a African American Straight disease.

Is it?

Then why did it start with the gay white population of America then, not the

African American population.

Is it?

Then why did it start with the gay white population of America then, not the

African American population.

Jungle Fever! :D

Jungle Fever! :D

lol

[QUOTE=Moonshine]
Let me tell you from first-hand experience, gays are not like paedophiles, though paedophiles may be gay (or straight for that matter). However the last paedophile I knew was a very Christian organist and choirmaster.

He was probably gay as well.


It has in fact been shown that there is a high degree of correlation between sexually repressive societal constructs (like certain sections of Christianity) and the likelihood of a person to enjoy "playing with" children.


I agree with you here, it is not normal for a man to live without a woman.



Perhaps we should ban churches?

No we should just ban gay people from being part of the Church.

You info here is limited.

a) Christians believe that if they truly repent they will be forgiven
b) To truly repent of a sin you must believe that it is wrong
c) You have to take a very real and conscious decision to become a Christian. It is a lifestyle that is often misrepresented.

So you're wrong in your argument. Do you understand why?

a), and b) are truistic, and don't undermine the argument - the possibility of redemption after death is accepted almost universally by protestants and by a pretty large swathe of catholics too.

As for c) - wrong. Very wrong. Or rather, symptomatic of an extremely orthodox strain of christianity that has very little scriptural basis. Several of the prophets (as well as various bits of the gospels which I can't be bothered to dig out right now) accepted as obvious that the 'Good Pagans' would be saved. Aquinas and Augustine both spend quite a lot of time fleshing this out, which is why Aristotle, Plato etc are in Heaven now - despite having clearly never made any repentance of their sins (Aristotle was a noted homosexual) or consciously becoming a christian.

So YOU are wrong in your argument. Sorry.

To drag this back to the point, it means that a practising homosexual and atheist that NEVER repented in life could still go to heaven.

Even if there was a scriptural basis for homophobia. Which there isn't.

In short, don't you dare pervert my religion to justify your morally repugnant prejudices.

lol more like sexual contact with the animals.

interesting that your mind would immediately take that course.


African Americans?
Prove it was African Americans that had contact with these chimpanzees
then, how do you know it wasnt white Americans?

you misunderstood. he wasn't saying African Americans STARTED the virus, but was pointing out that the AIDS virus is being transmitted most virulently among African American women right now. if you are going to claim that homosexuals are responsible for AIDS, then you will be overlooking the fact that HIV transmition rates are plummetting in the gay community and exploding in the straight community.


Is it?
Then why did it start with the gay white population of America then, not the
African American population.
in America, the virus started in the promiscuous male population. it had nothing to do with being gay, and everything to do with having hundreds of partners; female partners included in that early pattern were at even greater risk for transmition, in fact. homosexuality is not and has never been the danger...promiscuity is.

[QUOTE]

Sorry, but not recognising homosexual unions as right doesnt make me a

bigot, just wondering do you ever draw a line on when somone isnt a bigot, if

their against something that offends them?

I would guess in ten years time when paedophiles are asking for rights to

have sex with children, you will be calling me a bigot for being against that as

well?

Major difference--THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT MANY TIMES! Pedophiles HURT people. Homosexuals DO NOT.


[QUOTE]
You would have to draw the line somewhere, of whos rights are more

important, the difference is, I have drawn the line ten years earlier than you

have, because I dont agree with gay unions being recognised as legal by the

Church or state, or agree to gays raising children, this does not make me a

bigot.


Bigot--someone who makes decisions against somebody based on factors that are beyond the victims control, regardless of scientific fact (that's the Pracus' definition). And guess what. You fit it.

[QUOTE]
If you had asked me this a hundred years ago say, and I disagreed as I do

now, I would not be considered a bigot, however now with the moral collapse

of western civilisation I am now subjected to being called a bigot for still

holding the same view, therefore this is a subjective view of whats bigoted

and whats not, bought about by nothing but PC pressure.


Thank god times have changed and you cn be recognized for what you are. A bigot.

[QUOTE]
What do gays stand to gain by this?


Oh I don't know, equal rights as human beings?

[QUOTE]
What does society gain by this?

Nothing.

Therefore it isnt necessary.


The knowledge that is has done what is right.


[QUOTE]
I dont think so, I would say there would be more chance of kids growing up

to be homosexual than less.

Children copy the closest adults in their lives the most, and whatever they

find acceptable or not, they will too.


There might be a greater chance that children will experiment--something that most children do in their early teenage years anyways.

However, there have been scientific studies (of course, we've established that you don't know crap about science and that you ignore any studies that don't have the results you want) that show that kids raised by gay parents are no more or less likely to be gay than the general population. By your theory, everyone raised by heterosexual parents should be straight! :


[QUOTE]
Well I still think gay men bought it over, unless your suggesting some

heteromen went to San Francisco in 1978 with the deliberate intention of

spreading Aids?

Who cares who brought it to America? It's not a visitation from god. It's a disease like many, many others that affects heterosexuals and homosexuals. In fact, if STDs *ARE* a punishment from god, then hetersexual women are obviously in BIG trouble. Syphillis, gonorhrea, trichanosis, herpes, genital warts, they're all more likely to affect women than men. And they're all more likely to affect straight people than gays.

So in conclusion Term, you are entitled to your opinion. No one is denying you that right. But when you base that opinion solely on the inner workings of your mind peppered by religious dogma and you refuse to actually give any credence whatsoever to other arguements and to even consider scientific studies to the contrary, then you lose the right to have intelligent people debate anything with you. You become what, in my area of the world, we call a stupid redneck. This isn't meant as a flame. It's just a description. Enjoy your life. I know that I will enjoy mine when its free from any type of discussion or debate with brickwalls such as you. :headbang:

I'm an idiot. Why do I keep doing this to myself?

Not necessarily, alot of children have been molested by Adults they trusted,

and given their consent at the time not knowing any better, this comes back

to really haunt them later in life, also guilt from experiencing pleasure from

the act, the majority of kids are molested this way, the rape scenario,

although numerous, is actually a minority of the way victims are molested.


Dude, kids CAN'T give consent. PERIOD. Even if they're screaming "YES DO ME" its not consent. They are too young to know the consequences of their actions and therefore are not informed. So they CAN'T give consent.



Also two thirds of childmolesters were found to be homosexual/bisexual,

which is a big reason why I am against gays raising children.

I'd be interested where you found this stastic. Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Your butt? Because its simply not true. The VAST majority of child molesters are straight white men over forty who are in some way familiar with the child (teacher, step parent, uncle). Do research before making stupid statements. Wait, I forgot, you'll just think its flawed since its not what you want to hear.

****EDIT**** Tell me, what ever happened to the seperate of Church and State! Well, I know in Canada that at least they try to seperate it, and I do learn about American history in school, however I'm not entirely convinced of being taught that the States tried to ever do this. I would like to know if the American goverment has had a policy about this before or not.

We had a very firm policy about this early on. This nation was secular, was not based on Christian ideals or principles (or those of any religion), in which the government was of the people, by the people, and for the people.

However, it did not take very long for Christians to claim that it was their exclusive prevue and to start trying to force their ideals off on others (much like some radical Muslims like the Taliban have done). Probably the worst flop was in the 1950s when the government was trying to counter atheistic communism. Instead of touting our freedom of religion, they tried to change our nation to be BASED on religion. <Sighs> I can't wait to finish school. I really think I might move to Canada.

[QUOTE]

Bullshit, children can consent, why- and I really want you to answer this

Dem, are they unable to consent.

This doesnt mean they should be held responsible, they are being taken

advantage of, the consent comes from trust, fear or/and a mixture of both.

Sounds to me like you are wishing they could consent. Have a little desire there term?


Children cannot consent (and I'm pretty sure I've said this, but you probably haven't read it yet and I want it to be made known) because they are NOT able to make informed decisions on the consequences of their actions. This is why six year old's mothers take them to the doctor to get medical care. A six year old isn't going ot get the shot that will save his life. He doesnt' know enough to do so. Therefore, Children cannot give consent.

And you point out that the "yes" they give is made out of fear. . . .guess what, that's not legally valid consent either. That's coercion. You make an arguement against yourself.

You have got to be the biggest twit I've ever had the displeasure of debating with.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

lol more like sexual contact with the animals.



No, like blood exchanges between humans and animals. It often happens with hunting. Its like blood transfusions that give hemophiliacs (like Ryan White) the disease.



[QUOTE][QUOTE]
African Americans?

Prove it was African Americans that had contact with these chimpanzees

then, how do you know it wasnt white Americans?


The point he was trying to make was that the disease rose in Africa and its probably that it first jumped into an AFRICAN. Their closest relations are African Americans (in this country). You blame all homosexuals for the disease, so if the first case was African, by your logic, we should blame veryone of African descent.

And was it an African first? Probably. There are known blood samples that have been tested from the 1940s--IN AFRICA. Known to come from AFRICANS that were infected with the disease.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]
Is it?

Then why did it start with the gay white population of America then, not the

African American population.

No one knows who it started with. Only you seem to care. And why are you so eogtistical to think that only what happens in America is important when its a GLOBAL disease.

[QUOTE]

No we should just ban gay people from being part of the Church.

Now I guess I'm screwy, but I think it was Jesus who ate with the sinners. And who said "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

Have you ever sinned Terminalia? Becuase if you have, maybe we can do something to save your immortal soul . . . .

Merridew: game, set, and thread!

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.

believe it or not, there are. some says its because society isn't ready for it yet. some disagree with marriage on general principles, such as its wrong for everyone, or at least for them. some are closeted and despise gay marriage out of fear that their own true sexuality will come to light.

If Pat wasn't happy with his sexuality what was he doing getting married? Or is this other sexuality blooming out of nowhere? Christian views on these are simple. I won't bore you.

really? Christian views on these are simple??? you know, 'cause i seem to have forgotten about the sections on transgendered people being wrong, somewhere in between Genesis and Revelations. please do bore me. if you're going to preach intolerance and base it off the scriptures, implying that all true Christians believe this one way, at least do us "fake" Christians the favor of referencing your assertions to specific passages.

here's a paraphrase for you: "Lord, which of these Commandments is the most important?" And Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, Love the Lord your God above all else; and Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

please tell me where in the Bible Christ says to legislate your morality on those you disagree with, thus further alienating them from Christ's Love.

Correct me if I'm wrong, not being religious, you see, but I understood that one of the main points of Christianity was forgiveness, and, furthermore, do you not call Jesus our 'Saviour', implying that he has 'saved' us. From sin, I believe. Therefore, according to your religion as I understand it, everyone, no matter what they've done (not that I believe homosexuality is wrong, what consenting adults do in their own time is their own business) will be forgiven and go up to heaven, made pure and perfect.
If only it were true...

very good, actually... you got most of it but you missed one thing, the keystone to the whole argument.

Christianity also teaches that the Love and Forgiveness earned for us by our Saviour are an invitation to all the world. much like a wedding invitation, unless you accept it, it does you no particular good. it is not a license to wrong without regard for consequence. nor does Forgiveness exist so that Christians can hold their noses up high and count themselves as righteous among filth.

rather, it is up to us (because of our God-given free will) to accept the invitation (not to our own credit, for without God there would be no invitation) and live as New Men and Women, with Love as our primary focus, not the pleasing of Self. i honestly believe (and hope and pray) that anyone with a concept of a Good and Loving Maker to whom we owe our Love will transcend death and live in God's presence eternally.

heaven is not pearls and fluffy clouds. hell is not fire and brimstone. (though there are plenty of word-pictures we've created through time, the Bible does not lay out these realms in a very clear-cut manner.) heaven is the presence of our Maker, and hell is its reverse: absolute solitude.... complete darkness... a lonliness so cold and deep and terrifying that i would much prefer the flames and sulphur of the traditional view.

i highly doubt that a Merciful, Loving Creator would go out of Her/His way to inflict that upon His/Her children.

it always amazes me how otherwise inteligent people can come out with such bigoted , immoral and stupid ideas as soon as they come across a culture that does not conform to their narrow world view.... Christianity should never be used as an excuse for intolerance and Bigotry.
By the way I am not a Christian... I feel that all Organised religion is dangerous at best as it tends to make people believe what they are told without question....

btw, if anyone is interested, Tyrrian Avalon is heading up a relatively new region, called Harrington Steading. Anyone is welcome, but especially fans of David Weber. click here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/00872/page=display_region) to see what its all about.

really? Christian views on these are simple??? you know, 'cause i seem to have forgotten about the sections on transgendered people being wrong, somewhere in between Genesis and Revelations. please do bore me. if you're going to preach intolerance and base it off the scriptures, implying that all true Christians believe this one way, at least do us "fake" Christians the favor of referencing your assertions to specific passages.

Short answer: who made your body? God did. Who knows what's best for you? God does. Where does that leave room for altering your body in that drastic fashion?

Plastic surgery (before you start) mostly carried out due to vanity, placing a higher regard on your looks than on God. Accident victims: (carefully) they too may feel it necessary to repair their faces and bodies. Maybe that IS taking care of your body. I don't know

I wonder if any gay people are against gay marriage? Just curious.

I know I'm not.

Short answer: who made your body? God did. Who knows what's best for you? God does. Where does that leave room for altering your body in that drastic fashion?

Plastic surgery (before you start) mostly carried out due to vanity, placing a higher regard on your looks than on God. Accident victims: (carefully) they too may feel it necessary to repair their faces and bodies. Maybe that IS taking care of your body. I don't know
you could also argue that god gave us the ability to evolve into creatures capable of adapting and altering our bodies as we see fit. I personally do not beleive that whatever created the Universe would be anthropomorphic ( look,think and act like a powerful human ) this is just arrogance on the part of humanity.... plus saying that God made our bodies is way too simplistic a view and religion by its very nature is a BELIEF not hard fact to be used as a way of pushing our views and personal values on other people

Short answer: who made your body? God did. Who knows what's best for you? God does.

Um I prefer to think genetics did ... random combining of an x and a y chromosome
Simply because that actually happened (but oh wait here comes the “he set things up so you could be a boy” speech)

If god knows best why doesn’t he say anything, how do you know god doesn’t want you to change your gender? Maybe it is a test to see if u know yourself and can do what’s best for you

You know god helps those who help themselves

Seriously how can you even pretend to know what he wants.

a), and b) are truistic, and don't undermine the argument - the possibility of redemption after death is accepted almost universally by protestants and by a pretty large swathe of catholics too.

What does truistic mean again? True? Or something I believe is true? Either way, thanks. So you're a Christian and you didn't believe a) and b)? Erm.. okay then.. I don't know who your universal band of Protestants are but... they ain't mine; or British; or New Zealanders; or African; or Chinese (carry on?).

I think you mean Roman Catholics when you say catholics; catholic just means worldwide, as in the Catholic church. Catholic church != Roman Catholic church.

c) - wrong. Very wrong. Or rather, symptomatic of an extremely orthodox strain of christianity that has very little scriptural basis. Several of the prophets (as well as various bits of the gospels which I can't be bothered to dig out right now) accepted as obvious that the 'Good Pagans' would be saved. Aquinas and Augustine both spend quite a lot of time fleshing this out, which is why Aristotle, Plato etc are in Heaven now - despite having clearly never made any repentance of their sins (Aristotle was a noted homosexual) or consciously becoming a christian.
I believe you're looking for Islam, under I. This is an islamic belief, in that after the punishment we deserve for our sins everyone just goes to Heaven (one level or another).

If we were all forgiven naturally why did Jesus have to die for the sins of the world? Wouldn't we just have to plug along naturally, do what we liked then hey presto, hit by bus and heaven. Nice, think I'll just go out and score me some coke and a couple of hookers.

OR.. you can read the Bible. 'Teacher, what must I do to be saved?' Jesus outlines a very harsh selection process, if you like, for the rich young ruler. And I don't think 'Honey, I Shrunk the Camel' was a great box-office success. Granted, this was before Jesus died. However does this verse not mean anything to you?

"God so loved the world that he gave his only son to die, that all who believe in him can inherit eternal life"

If you don't believe that there's something wrong with your faith.

Scriptural bases for the avoidance of homosexual acts are few and far between but they are there. Homophobia means hate (lit. fear but translated to hate). There is no room in Christianity to hate anyone.

Even if there was a scriptural basis for homophobia. Which there isn't.

In short, don't you dare pervert my religion to justify your morally repugnant prejudices.
Are you are trying to mislead people on purpose? I understand God has an answer for that. I think you may be confusing your ideas with the judgement of the uneducated. I think that if someone has never heard the word of God then they cannot be sent to Hell (my understanding). So Aristotle, Plato, etc. although not in Heaven yet (not till the end of the age remember) might get in. The most learned scholars of their time might be able to plead ignorance!

I'll have you know I'm only prejudiced against the French :D

Marriage is a union created by God,and God is aginst homo sexuals so logicaly they should not be allowed to marry trough the church, but they should perhaps be granted some marital union through the state because not every one is christian.

Short answer: who made your body? God did. Who knows what's best for you? God does.

My imaginary friend of adulthood says we should learn to butt out of other's business and seek education, not indoctrination. I like my imaginary friend so much better than yours. He seems mean and well... eerily human. :p

Why can't they just call it marriage instead of all this other stuff like civil unions, it's all the same, it gets treated as a marriage.

Well, the reason is because the two terms are not synonomous, although people -- especially the Presidential candidates -- have fallaciously been interchanging them. This only further clouds the issue and confuses people.

Marriage is a religious institution, and has pretty much always been in one way or another. Traditionally, when you marry, it involves some sort of blessing of the Church, if not the ceremony being held there and whatnot. Many people these days do not subscribe to a form of Christianity, and while they're free to elope or marry in a civil ceremony that excludes religion, a man and woman who have been legally married in any way are still viewed as a holy union by churches/religion.

Civil unions in and of themselves have no religious component, and are only recognized legally. The Church has no part in the ceremony and is not forced to recognize such unions.

Therefore, some gay people are against gay marriage, but support civil unions. This is the position Kerry-Edwards are taking, although they make my brain hurt when they interchange the two terms, because they are not the same thing. I personally support both, but I'm realistic enough to realize many religious institutions will refuse to budge on the position of accepting the marriage of two people of the same sex. It's more realistic to push for gay civil unions.



Is it?

Then why did it start with the gay white population of America then, not the African American population.

No one knows who it started with. Only you seem to care. And why are you so eogtistical to think that only what happens in America is important when its a GLOBAL disease.

AIDS began as a 'gay disease' because a gay flight attendant became infected and, without knowing it, infected other people around the country on his stop-overs. When AIDS first presented itself in the US, it was unlike any other epidemic, in that instead of beginning in one spot and slowly spreading outward, it happened all over the country at once.

It could have just as easily started with straight people. The difference is when the impact of AIDS hit the gay community, we rallied to protect and educate our people. It might interest you to know that AIDS is now a predominantly heterosexual disease -- due to less push to protect and educate -- and is much, MUCH worse elsewhere in the world.

Christian folks are welcome to their beliefs, but I find many of them do not follow Jesus' teachings, instead choosing to pick and choose passages from the Bible, as well as personally interpreting said passages to support their ideology of hate (and ignoring others that might cause them to question their beliefs). Frankly, I don't believe Jesus would be too happy about people persecuting, hating, and judging any section of society. After all, didn't he teach loving your neighbor, learning tolerance and absence of judgement (last I checked, God is the only one who can judge)?


-- Alena :D


[Edited for typos]

My imaginary friend of adulthood says we should learn to butt out of other's business and seek education, not indoctrination. I like my imaginary friend so much better than yours. He seems mean and well... eerily human. :p
I've had education which was completely wrong and indoctrination which was entirely true. Which would you rather have? Say hi to your imaginary friend for me.

My 1250 page friend here says I should try to point out the mistakes in other people's ways of life. In a nice way. I'm probably missing the nice part for which I apologise.

you could also argue that god gave us the ability to evolve into creatures capable of adapting and altering our bodies as we see fit. I personally do not beleive that whatever created the Universe would be anthropomorphic ( look,think and act like a powerful human ) this is just arrogance on the part of humanity.... plus saying that God made our bodies is way too simplistic a view and religion by its very nature is a BELIEF not hard fact to be used as a way of pushing our views and personal values on other people
Yes it is on belief, sorry, it was in answer to a Christian's question. Anthropomorphic? So the 'humans were made in God's image' bit... again a Christian belief.

I like simplicity. Simplicity works. You'll notice that when man attempts to make things more complicated it goes wrong. Gross generalisation but mostly true. Still belief; true, and if anyone uses their belief as an excuse to push their views on anyone they should be ashamed. I've done it several times on here and I am not happy with myself. Now I try to reserve any direct view pushing to other Christians who may not understand properly.

Um I prefer to think genetics did ... random combining of an x and a y chromosome. Simply because that actually happened (but oh wait here comes the “he set things up so you could be a boy” speech)
But.. he set things up so you could be a boy..
No, genetics is the study of genes. Yeah that all happens (well, random choice between x and y). Good system huh. He probably could have done it different ways. Then we'd have something different. It's just what I believe, that God literally did conceive the system and implement it.

If god knows best why doesn’t he say anything, how do you know god doesn’t want you to change your gender? Maybe it is a test to see if u know yourself and can do what’s best for you
See the bit down below about doing things for God's glory. But yes, everyone's tested. Some people in minor ways, others in major ones.

You know god helps those who help themselves
One of the most misquoted references ever! Those who help themselves to be able to live better, more God-centred lives.

Seriously how can you even pretend to know what he wants.
Read big red book and ask him. Actually my Bible's multicoloured. Kiddy version!

Pat married Sally because Pat loves Sally. This is true whether or not Pat is Pat-man or Pat-woman.

In effect, Pat loved a woman when Pat was a 'man' (albeit by confused gender), and Pat still loves a woman when Pat is a 'woman' (returned to her true gender).

If you think about it... Pat was always a lesbian... she was just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

The irony is that the church APPROVES of her love while she wears the man-shell, but once she becomes the reflection of her truer self, the church is happy to condemn.
It's a nicely made point.. you knew I was going to say 'but' right? But.. why would Pat want to change the body God has given him (Christian belief again, sorry)? Either God wanted him/her to do it or Satan wanted him to. God would want him to change so he could better serve God. Satan would want the opposite. Suppose the only way to tell would be to let it happen and see the results, God-worshipping wise. The God-worship scale, measured in tambourines :cool:

Ok, tambourines, now we've gone off-topic

I've had education which was completely wrong and indoctrination which was entirely true. Which would you rather have? Say hi to your imaginary friend for me.

I'd rather have an education which is true over any indoctrination, true or not. Were we not given free will and according to Christian beliefs, who seeks to take away mankind's free will? Say hihi to your imaginary friend. :D


My 1250 page friend here says I should try to point out the mistakes in other people's ways of life. In a nice way. I'm probably missing the nice part for which I apologise.

Your 1250 page friend also says a number of other things more frequently and clearly than contextual historical accounts of other culture's sexual practices and Bronze Age tribal purity laws of the Jews. Some of it is 'literally' garbage. As for your religious compadres, some of them seem to think such obscure biblical elements take greater weight than the 10 Commandments, namely the one about bearing false witness.

I'd rather have an education which is true over any indoctrination, true or not. Were we not given free will and according to Christian beliefs, who seeks to take away mankind's free will? Say hihi to your imaginary friend. :D
My imaginery friend said something rude. I imaginarily slapped him. Ditto on the indoctrin. Some stuff I've heard has been taught in that way. But all the important stuff is "don't you see.. this bit, this bit, that bit.. conspire to make this happen" etc.

Your 1250 page friend also says a number of other things more frequently and clearly than contextual historical accounts of other culture's sexual practices and Bronze Age tribal purity laws of the Jews. Some of it is 'literally' garbage. As for your religious compadres, some of them seem to think such obscure biblical elements take greater weight than the 10 Commandments, namely the one about bearing false witness.
Garbage? Like the recommendations on human waste? I'm so funny...
That's why you call them religious. They've started regarding the laws in a higher light than the God who gave the laws. That was Jesus' bitch with the pharisees.

Bearing false witness? Is that like, carrying a politician?

No because in the eyes of most churches, born a man remain a man. Right or wrong.

I appreciate that that is the church postition on the issue, but Pat wasn't born a man, merely born in a man's body.

In fact, we don't even know that for sure, since Pat MAY have been born equipped to play for both teams, and her parents may have elected for surgery that made Pat a man... when, as it transpires, a woman would have been a better match.

In a world in which a human CAN be born of mixed gender, I think it is the height of church arrogance to assume that they KNOW what gender any given individual is supposed to have... and an even more serious issue of pride to think that they CAN dictate what orientation a relationship SHOULD be.

I'm an idiot. Why do I keep doing this to myself?



I think he just does it for the attention.

Perhaps if we all ignore him for long enough, he will one day present a fact to support an argument, or stop releasing his pent-up frustrations oall over the forum.

...or stop releasing his pent-up frustrations all over the forum.
Dude, that just sounds nasty!!

Gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is a religious ceremony. That's why you do it in a church, in front of a pastor who is holding the Bible. If the church says you shouldn't let gay's marry, then you shouldn't let gay's marry.

Now before some atheist gets all uppity about seperation of church and state, I've got a solution. We could create another type of marriage, a non-religious one. You can get all the tax cuts, name changes, even wear the rings like a normal religious marriage. But you don't do it in a church, you do it in a city hall in front of a judge. That way the church isn't mad because they aren't really married in the eyes of God, and the gays are happy because... well, I don't know why they want to get married in the first place, but now they can.

Gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is a religious ceremony. That's why you do it in a church, in front of a pastor who is holding the Bible. If the church says you shouldn't let gay's marry, then you shouldn't let gay's marry.

Now before some atheist gets all uppity about seperation of church and state, I've got a solution. We could create another type of marriage, a non-religious one. You can get all the tax cuts, name changes, even wear the rings like a normal religious marriage. But you don't do it in a church, you do it in a city hall in front of a judge. That way the church isn't mad because they aren't really married in the eyes of God, and the gays are happy because... well, I don't know why they want to get married in the first place, but now they can.

That's called a civil union. People can already get them in lieu of marriage.

The problem is that the rights that you get from a civil union aren't the same as the ones you get from marriage. Not to mention even homosexual civil unions aren't allowed in most states.

What does truistic mean again? True? Or something I believe is true? Either way, thanks. So you're a Christian and you didn't believe a) and b)? Erm.. okay then.. I don't know who your universal band of Protestants are but... they ain't mine; or British; or New Zealanders; or African; or Chinese (carry on?).

I think you mean Roman Catholics when you say catholics; catholic just means worldwide, as in the Catholic church. Catholic church != Roman Catholic church.

I believe you're looking for Islam, under I. This is an islamic belief, in that after the punishment we deserve for our sins everyone just goes to Heaven (one level or another).

If we were all forgiven naturally why did Jesus have to die for the sins of the world? Wouldn't we just have to plug along naturally, do what we liked then hey presto, hit by bus and heaven. Nice, think I'll just go out and score me some coke and a couple of hookers.

OR.. you can read the Bible. 'Teacher, what must I do to be saved?' Jesus outlines a very harsh selection process, if you like, for the rich young ruler. And I don't think 'Honey, I Shrunk the Camel' was a great box-office success. Granted, this was before Jesus died. However does this verse not mean anything to you?

"God so loved the world that he gave his only son to die, that all who believe in him can inherit eternal life"

If you don't believe that there's something wrong with your faith.

Scriptural bases for the avoidance of homosexual acts are few and far between but they are there. Homophobia means hate (lit. fear but translated to hate). There is no room in Christianity to hate anyone.

Are you are trying to mislead people on purpose? I understand God has an answer for that. I think you may be confusing your ideas with the judgement of the uneducated. I think that if someone has never heard the word of God then they cannot be sent to Hell (my understanding). So Aristotle, Plato, etc. although not in Heaven yet (not till the end of the age remember) might get in. The most learned scholars of their time might be able to plead ignorance!

I'll have you know I'm only prejudiced against the French :D

I don't think you get to decide what makes another person a 'christian', or whether their 'faith' is true.

Those issues are between a person and his/her deity, and you have no moral claim on that territory.

And, I'm afriad you are wrong about scriptural support for the avoidance of homosexual acts. There issome scriptural evidence in the poorly translated English version, but that is based on prejudices of the translators, rather than the words that God is believed to have given to the original scholars.

Also, you're beginning to sound like a stuck record. "Gays are like paedophiles, gays are like paedophiles, sanctity of marriage, gays are like paedophiles.."

Let me tell you from first-hand experience, gays are not like paedophiles, though paedophiles may be gay (or straight for that matter). However the last paedophile I knew was a very Christian organist and choirmaster. It has in fact been shown that there is a high degree of correlation between sexually repressive societal constructs (like certain sections of Christianity) and the likelihood of a person to enjoy "playing with" children.

Perhaps we should ban churches?

Part of me's just glad you were only pretending on your first couple of posts (this thread? or another like it)


My comment about banning churches was slightly facetious, yes - however it was said to give the average religious bigot a taste of their own medicine. They don't like it up 'em, so to speak.

And especially with regards gay rights, I am not pretending.


So your Christian organist. He was tempted. He wasn't strong enough on his own to resist it. He probably didn't ask for help (guess). So he's human. Given he committed a transgression which inherently hurts other people but the act is still as bad and no worse than any other. Mankind has taken it upon itself to define justice and wrongdoing.


Mankind has always taken it upon itself to define justice and wrongdoing. Justice and wrongdoing are man-made concepts. Nature does not care if two galaxies collide and annihalate each other and all life forms within them. Nature does not give a damn if I put a gun to your head and spray your brains across the wall. The ground will not swallow me up for killing anyone. Humans define right and wrong - and then they jot it down in rulebooks and bibles.

And having sex with children is "as bad and no worse" than homosexuality?

Come on. Use your brain. I know you have one.


I'd like to know your def. of sexually repressive.

GAY IS WRONG. WE MUST "CURE" THE GAYS.

Oh, and the whole Original Sin concept.

Making people outcast for their sexual orientation.

Insulting, deriding, laughing at or assaulting people for the same.

Hiding anger and hatred towards said people under the veil of "prayer". Oh yes, these people will "pray" for me alright.

The whole culture of shame that must be layed upon every gay person within reach of the chapel doors.

It is repression, and if these constitutional amendments pass in the US - oppression. A whole culture of repression that goes on every Sunday in churches across the world. Gay is the crime that dares not speak its name amongst sections of the clergy. Only a few years ago - hell, right now amongst some churches, being gay is reason enough to be defrocked. To be stripped of your beloved vocation because of a sexual deviation that hurts nobody?

How many priests do you think are hiding their true selves right now because of this? Can you look your priest in the eyes and know for certain he is telling the truth because of this?

People here want evidence of something that undermines society. They should look no further than their own views on "undesirable" minorities. Didn't someone mention something about removing the plank from your own eye?

There is no scientific evidence to show that someone becomes gay.


and there no scientific evidence that we all came from god, but we still believe right?

Your point is moot.

And don't give me the Bible stuff. I'm buddhist and that point will be moot as well.

Like I to tell people who think being gay is a choice. Why would I "want" to be in society minority with everything going against us to make the "choice" of being gay?

I don't think you get to decide what makes another person a 'christian', or whether their 'faith' is true.

Those issues are between a person and his/her deity, and you have no moral claim on that territory.
True, but when someone calling themselves a Christian says that he/she doesn't believe that Jesus died for us, I question them. It's called concern. Happy?

And, I'm afraid you are wrong about scriptural support for the avoidance of homosexual acts. There is some scriptural evidence in the poorly translated English version, but that is based on prejudices of the translators, rather than the words that God is believed to have given to the original scholars.
Inuit. Snow. I'm really getting fed up of translation arguments. If there is an all-powerful God and he gives us his word for us to use to worship him he WILL NOT let it be sufficiently twisted that it become unintelligible. Do you copy that?

Bullshit, children can consent, why- and I really want you to answer this
Dem, are they unable to consent.
This doesnt mean they should be held responsible, they are being taken
advantage of, the consent comes from trust, fear or/and a mixture of both.

Look Term, you just answered your own question! Children are incapable of giving informed consent because they are not emotionally and physically developed enough to fully understand their actions.

And your second part, is exactly why we say that children cannot give true consent. Congratulations.

lol more like sexual contact with the animals.

Yes, because sex is the only way that AIDS can be spread. Oh, wait, it isn't

African Americans?
Prove it was African Americans that had contact with these chimpanzees
then, how do you know it wasnt white Americans?

It wasn't African Americans - it was Africans. And from the predominantly *heterosexual* African society, it spread around the world.

Is it?
Then why did it start with the gay white population of America then, not the
African American population.

There is no proof that it "started" with the gay white population of America. It started in Africa, from there it spread to America through several channels. The only reason that we heard so much about the homosexual community is that, at the time, many gay men were promiscuous and, as I pointed out in an earlier post, were not aware that they *should* wear condoms. Thus, once it got into the community, it spread rather quickly in that community. It did not, however, start there. And homosexuals were most likely not the first cases in the US, they were simply the first recognized and diagnosed once the epidemic had begun.

Short answer: who made your body? God did. Who knows what's best for you? God does. Where does that leave room for altering your body in that drastic fashion?

And when someone is born and their gender is impossible to tell? Does God force the doctor's hand to make the right decision? Why would God give the doctor the right to alter the body and not the child once they grow up?

I've had education which was completely wrong and indoctrination which was entirely true. Which would you rather have? Say hi to your imaginary friend for me.

You would never know if indoctrination is true, since you would never think about it for yourself.

So, while you may have had "indoctrination which was entirely true," you would have no way of knowing that it was actually true without questioning it first, at which point it would cease to be indoctrination.

Gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is a religious ceremony. That's why you do it in a church, in front of a pastor who is holding the Bible. If the church says you shouldn't let gay's marry, then you shouldn't let gay's marry.

Now before some atheist gets all uppity about seperation of church and state, I've got a solution. We could create another type of marriage, a non-religious one. You can get all the tax cuts, name changes, even wear the rings like a normal religious marriage. But you don't do it in a church, you do it in a city hall in front of a judge. That way the church isn't mad because they aren't really married in the eyes of God, and the gays are happy because... well, I don't know why they want to get married in the first place, but now they can.

Ummmm, guess what? That already exists. It's called civil marriage. You go to a judge or a justice of the peace and, well, it happens.

Now that being said, I would support changing the name of that insitution to civil unions and letting only people who a church will bless their union be "married". Of course since there ARE churches who will do that, the point is moot.

Gay marriage should be illegal because marriage is a religious ceremony. That's why you do it in a church, in front of a pastor who is holding the Bible. If the church says you shouldn't let gay's marry, then you shouldn't let gay's marry.

Marriage is not simply a religious ceremony. *Some* people have a religious ceremony and others do not. No one is asking any church to marry homosexuals.

Now before some atheist gets all uppity about seperation of church and state, I've got a solution. We could create another type of marriage, a non-religious one. You can get all the tax cuts, name changes, even wear the rings like a normal religious marriage. But you don't do it in a church, you do it in a city hall in front of a judge. That way the church isn't mad because they aren't really married in the eyes of God, and the gays are happy because... well, I don't know why they want to get married in the first place, but now they can.

Guess what! We already have that type of marriage! It's called civil marriage and most of the religiously married people get it IN ADDITION TO religious marriage. Some of them just go before the justice of the peace and cut out the church altogether.

And guess what else!? This is the only type of marriage we are arguing about!

My comment about banning churches was slightly facetious, yes - however it was said to give the average religious bigot a taste of their own medicine. They don't like it up 'em, so to speak.

And especially with regards gay rights, I am not pretending.
I meant the ones where you were pretending to be a dense redneck. No offence.

Mankind has always taken it upon itself to define justice and wrongdoing. Justice and wrongdoing are man-made concepts. Nature does not care if two galaxies collide and annihalate each other and all life forms within them. Nature does not give a damn if I put a gun to your head and spray your brains across the wall. The ground will not swallow me up for killing anyone. Humans define right and wrong - and then they jot it down in rulebooks and bibles.
Christians believe God gave them the concepts of justice and wrongdoing. Nature is non-cogniscent. Of course it doesn't care.

And having sex with children is "as bad and no worse" than homosexuality?

Come on. Use your brain. I know you have one.
Just giving you cold hard belief.
God. Hates. Sin. Christians believe that in God's eyes God, you sin, you're stained, unclean. Once. Millions of times. Murder someone. Insult someone. The same. God gave man justice. Punishment is solely for the victim's sake. Retribution. That is justice. On a personal level Christians are expected to forgive anyone for anything. That's hard.

GAY IS WRONG. WE MUST "CURE" THE GAYS.

Oh, and the whole Original Sin concept.

Making people outcast for their sexual orientation.

Insulting, deriding, laughing at or assaulting people for the same.

Hiding anger and hatred towards said people under the veil of "prayer". Oh yes, these people will "pray" for me alright.

The whole culture of shame that must be layed upon every gay person within reach of the chapel doors.
Do you think God likes seeing his creations belittled, insulted and hurt by some of his others? It hurts him. And the fact that it's done in his name positively pisses him off. Remember the crusades? Conflict in Northern Ireland. All done in his name, and about as much to do with Christianity as Hinduism. Original Sin is Christian belief. You knocking it?

It doesn't include homosexuality. Homosexual urge. Heterosexual urge (extra-marital). Only difference is that God promotes marital heterosexual sex. Christian Belief: sex is a gift from God to be used responsibly in said heterosexual union. Knocking it?

Some people with homosexual urges do have them removed. That is cold hard fact this time. Some are Christians. Some are not.

It is repression, and if these constitutional amendments pass in the US - oppression. A whole culture of repression that goes on every Sunday in churches across the world. Gay is the crime that dares not speak its name amongst sections of the clergy. Only a few years ago - hell, right now amongst some churches, being gay is reason enough to be defrocked. To be stripped of your beloved vocation because of a sexual deviation that hurts nobody?

How many priests do you think are hiding their true selves right now because of this? Can you look your priest in the eyes and know for certain he is telling the truth because of this?

People here want evidence of something that undermines society. They should look no further than their own views on "undesirable" minorities. Didn't someone mention something about removing the plank from your own eye?
I've never heard someone talk about this with so much passion. Christians are persecuted all over the world too you know. Some in obvious ways, some not. The only difference is that Christians know they will be persecuted and can have help from God if they ask for it. They know their reward will be in heaven.

Sometimes people who persecute homosexuals are suffering from their own guilt. Including governments. The passage from corinthians I keep bandying around these forums; it lists homosexual offenders as one group of sinners. The rest of the list would be enough to cover almost the entire US senate and probably the UK parliament too.

There are no words that anyone can give you that express enough regret at the actions of the evil people who torment other humans like that.

At the end God will punish those who use his name to promote hate and fear. That I believe.

I'd be interested where you found this stastic. Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Your butt?Probably Paul Cameron.
Because its simply not true.It really depends on definitions. Many child molesters prey on both sexes. But AFAIK, child molesters aren't necessarily attracted to children, and their choice of victims has little to do with which sexes of adults they are attracted to (If they are attracted to adults at all). AFAIK no one has shown that out gays are any more likely to be child molesters than the population in general. But what studies don't show, creative use of definitions can imply.

Short answer: who made your body? God did. Who knows what's best for you? God does. Where does that leave room for altering your body in that drastic fashion?If that's so God makes quite a number of mistakes when it comes to body making. My eyes for instance won't focus beyond about 20 cm. Should we simply live with all congenital defects, rather that fixing some of them with surgery?

I don't know who your universal band of Protestants are but... they ain't mine; or British; or New Zealanders; or African; or Chinese (carry on?).
I agree. I am atheist now, but I was raised Christian, and have gone to several different denominational churches. All of them taught me that after you die it is too late to repent.

There is also a story in the Bible about a guy who died and went to hell. He begged for redemption, realizing the error of his ways, but God said it was too late for him. So instead, the man begged God to send a messenger to his son, to teach his son about christianity so his son would be saved.

Again, I don't believe this, but those are the things I was taught when I did, so I don't know where the universal acceptance of redemption after death came from. That's a new concept to me.

I believe you're looking for Islam, under I. This is an islamic belief, in that after the punishment we deserve for our sins everyone just goes to Heaven (one level or another).

[edited for space]
No, there is Christian background for the belief that certain atheists, etc, were 'saved' without repenting. I havn't heard too much of it, but I've read about this belief in The Divine Comedy of Dante. It's a special circle of hell (I forgot which number) set aside for the learned people who did good things for the world, like Plato, etc. They weren't allowed into heaven, but they didn't suffer and burn, either. They just were.

Dante was italian, so I believe this may have come from the Catholic belief.

I looked up the AIDS thing:

For many years scientists theorized as to the origins of HIV and how it appeared in the human population, most believing that HIV originated in other primates. Then in 1999, an international team of researchers reported that they had discovered the origins of HIV-1, the predominant strain of HIV in the developed world. A subspecies of chimpanzees native to west equatorial Africa had been identified as the original source of the virus. The researchers believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population when hunters became exposed to infected blood.

Found it here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq3.htm

There was another link on the page from the NIAID, or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases:

...they speculate that humans might still be at risk for cross-species transmission because the bushmeat trade – the hunting and killing of chimpanzees and other endangered animals for human consumption – is still common practice...

The link is here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/hivorigin.htm

I found my information on ASK.com, using the question "Where did HIV / AIDS come from?"

God. Hates. Sin. Christians believe that in God's eyes God, you sin, you're stained, unclean. Once. Millions of times. Murder someone. Insult someone. The same.So no sin is worse than another? Murdering someone is no worse than insulting someone? That's messed up. Really. And it doesn't sound like any form of Christianity I'm familiar with.

God gave man justice. Punishment is solely for the victim's sake. Retribution. That is justice.What if the victim doesn't want retribution?

Some people with homosexual urges do have them removed. That is cold hard fact this time. Some are Christians. Some are not.No. I wouldn't be comfortable saying it never happens, but "ex-gays" pretty uniformly still have same-sex attractions, and most counter-examples aren't (that is, someone lied about them).

I've never heard someone talk about this with so much passion. Christians are persecuted all over the world too you know. Some in obvious ways, some not.Yup. That's wrong too.

The only difference is that Christians know they will be persecuted and can have help from God if they ask for it. They know their reward will be in heaven.There is another difference. Gays are persecuted "over here". Christians generally aren't.

At the end God will punish those who use his name to promote hate and fear. That I believe.I'm not big on punishment. I'm more interested in them seeing the error of their ways and stopping. I won't lose sleep in sins go unpunished.

I agree. I am atheist now, but I was raised Christian, and have gone to several different denominational churches. All of them taught me that after you die it is too late to repent.

There is also a story in the Bible about a guy who died and went to hell. He begged for redemption, realizing the error of his ways, but God said it was too late for him. So instead, the man begged God to send a messenger to his son, to teach his son about christianity so his son would be saved.

Again, I don't believe this, but those are the things I was taught when I did, so I don't know where the universal acceptance of redemption after death came from. That's a new concept to me.


No, there is Christian background for the belief that certain atheists, etc, were 'saved' without repenting. I havn't heard too much of it, but I've read about this belief in The Divine Comedy of Dante. It's a special circle of hell (I forgot which number) set aside for the learned people who did good things for the world, like Plato, etc. They weren't allowed into heaven, but they didn't suffer and burn, either. They just were.

Dante was italian, so I believe this may have come from the Catholic belief.

Purgatory. It's a Catholic belief. At least I think that is what you are referring to--I don't pretend to understand the belief well enought o describe it, having been raised a Methodist and now being somewhere between an atheist and a Christian Universalist.

Also, while Dante DOES shape our modern conception of heaven and hell, there is a hardly a Bilical basis for it.

It seems like this arguement is coming down to who is the most persecuted. Gays? Christians? Lefties?

The cold hard truth is that it seems to be the base-nature of mankind to persecute anyone not like you. Instead of being loving and tolerant of our differences, we are more concerned with either making everyone like us or destroying anything different. This has mellowed greatly over the years, and has instead become more of name-calling and trying to discredit the other guy. I understand that sometimes you have to do that to make decisions.

Still, it saddens me that after so many years, mankind hasn't come further.

Maybe we're getting there though. Things HAVE gotten better. And hopefully they will continue to do so. I doubt I will live to see it, or even my grandkids (those that I'm going to adopt) will, but one day it will happen. That is what I am going to put my hope in. And that is going to be how I try to live my life--though I know that I've already come up short of it in so many ways.

So come on folks, why can't we all just get along?

<snip>
It doesn't include homosexuality. Homosexual urge. Heterosexual urge (extra-marital). Only difference is that God promotes marital heterosexual sex. Christian Belief: sex is a gift from God to be used responsibly in said heterosexual union. Knocking it?

My view is that you can believe what you want. I might consider you odd, I might even consider you distasteful determined by how much animosity towards me your beliefs engender, but I won't go hunting you with a gun.

My problem is that beliefs like yours are being used to oppress a whole demographic group of people. Those in power who have the ability to do so, are using their powers to force their religious beliefs into law and upon the rest of the populace; and they are religious beliefs, no matter who tries to tell you otherwise. Whether you think we should be allowed the same legal recognition as you in our partnerships or not is irrelevant. No sensible non-heterosexual person is campaigning to force any church to do anything. However plenty of misguided, malicious, brainless and/or downright evil fools are campaigning to keep a persecuted minority in a second-class position in society. These people should know better. That is a whole lot more fact than any amount of "ex gays" that are either still gay and hiding it, in a state of brainwashed denial, or were never really gay to begin with.

Allowing same-sex marriages has nothing to do with religion, yours or otherwise. It has everything to do with legally granted rights that are currently only available to heterosexual couples. It does not infringe on your freedoms. It does not infringe on your rights. It does not force your religion to do anything. It does not cost you a single half penny. It does not endanger the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage. It may offend some, but I've already pointed out that you do not have the right to not be offended.

So like me, or dislike me. I'm not trying to make your life any worse. Whatever you think of my habits, frankly doesn't matter. If you don't like same sex marriages - I'm not forcing you to get one!

Take the church out of the argument. Take what your god says out of the argument. Take any kind of faith-based dogma and doctrine out of the argument. Take what Bush or the Pope says out of the argument - and you will find that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for denying the gay community the right for their partnerships to be legally recognised and binding, as is a heterosexual partnership.

And if you don't want to perform the bells-and-smells ceremony for a couple in your church, then that is your right. Nobody except the foolish ever suggested otherwise.

And if you don't want to perform the bells-and-smells ceremony for a couple in your church, then that is your right. Nobody except the foolish ever suggested otherwise.


::::: points out that the only people who ever proposed that churches might have to perform gay weddings were. . . .well. . . .heterosexuals who are trying to ban them. ::::: No homosexual on this forum has suggested any such thing, in fact we've all come out against that.

Purgatory. It's a Catholic belief. At least I think that is what you are referring to--I don't pretend to understand the belief well enought o describe it, having been raised a Methodist and now being somewhere between an atheist and a Christian Universalist.

Also, while Dante DOES shape our modern conception of heaven and hell, there is a hardly a Bilical basis for it.
No, not purgatory. I never got to that part of the book. It was one of the seven circles of hell. But a less painful circle, I think. Maybe similar to purgatory. Yes, purgatory is a catholic belief.

I know Dante isn't the bible, but it would make sense to say that he got these ideas at least somewhat from the teachings of the church, which would lead some to believe that there was some sort of teaching that those people got special treatment.

Also, there are several parts of the Christian religion that have to biblical basis, especially in the Cathloic religion. (Cause for the Protestant Movement, etc...) It's still a part of the religion.

::::: points out that the only people who ever proposed that churches might have to perform gay weddings were. . . .well. . . .heterosexuals who are trying to ban them. ::::: No homosexual on this forum has suggested any such thing, in fact we've all come out against that.

My theroy is that christians activly WANT to be persecuted. No, seriously, they do. Martyr complex. This is just another show of it. Only, now they're actually MAKING SHIT UP in order to wallow about it.

And I'm dead serious about the martyr complex. Most christians I've met go out of their way to put themselves in the position to be criticized and persecuted. Then when it happens, they talk about how horrible people treat their religion.

No, not purgatory. I never got to that part of the book. It was one of the seven circles of hell. But a less painful circle, I think. Maybe similar to purgatory. Yes, purgatory is a catholic belief.

I know Dante isn't the bible, but it would make sense to say that he got these ideas at least somewhat from the teachings of the church, which would lead some to believe that there was some sort of teaching that those people got special treatment.

Also, there are several parts of the Christian religion that have to biblical basis, especially in the Cathloic religion. (Cause for the Protestant Movement, etc...) It's still a part of the religion.

The first circle was Limbo. But that wasn't Catholic, that was pretty much all Dante.

I've read Infernus and flipped a bit through Purgatorio. Never even seen a copy of Paradiso.

Original Sin is Christian belief. You knocking it?

Original sin is an Augustinian belief based largely on a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for man is the name for Adam. Thus, when people were translating Scripture, they had to kind of guess whether the word meant all of humankind, or just Adam. The Augustinian view of original sin was based on a translation in which "humankind" was used, although it was probably meant to be "Adam."

The Abelardian view of atonement is much better and much more compatible with an all-loving God. You should look into it.

It doesn't include homosexuality. Homosexual urge. Heterosexual urge (extra-marital). Only difference is that God promotes marital heterosexual sex. Christian Belief: sex is a gift from God to be used responsibly in said heterosexual union. Knocking it?

I love the way you assume that you speak for all Christians. Newsflash: you do not. For many, the Christian belief is that God intended sex to be the utimate expression of love between two people committed to spend the rest of their lives together. This can occur in homosexual or heterosexual relationships.

Some people with homosexual urges do have them removed. That is cold hard fact this time. Some are Christians. Some are not.

Wrong. Some people with homosexual attraction do not act upon it. They do not "have it removed."

Sometimes people who persecute homosexuals are suffering from their own guilt.

s/sometimes/all the time

I know Dante isn't the bible, but it would make sense to say that he got these ideas at least somewhat from the teachings of the church, which would lead some to believe that there was some sort of teaching that those people got special treatment.

It probably had nothing to do with the Church. Dante's Inferno was essentially a political commentary. The people he liked were placed in heaven or purgatory, while the people he didn't were placed in varying circles of hell. The only reason he wasn't killed for it is that he placed his patriarchs (extremely powerful families) in good places and so they protected him.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Sounds to me like you are wishing they could consent. Have a little desire there term?

No, but I bet you do.

I voted ues because I beleive in equality and I dont subscribe to the Christian Hate Machine. I am SICK of hearing them call Homosexuals 'unnatural'.

This is typical behaviour for a tribal creature. We have devided ourselves among 'liberals' and 'conservatives' to be VERY broad. We compete to win a war of popularity.

Well I'm damn sure that I am as biased as the next person, 'cause damnit, just like you think Homosexuals are unnatural and wrong. I think conservative christians are biased, disgusting, and hypocritical deniers of the truth.

Just to clarify (as if you couldn't tell) I am very athiest.

No, but I bet you do.

More baseless claims Term. Do logic, reason, or rationality exist in your world at all?

More baseless claims Term. Do logic, reason, or rationality exist in your world at all?

Now, now I had said basically the same thing to him first. Granted, I had not expressed a previous predilection that the VAST majority of heterosexuals are pedophiles and the opposite cannot be said of Term. However, it is still very possible he was responding in kind to my previous jab.

More baseless claims Term. Do logic, reason, or rationality exist in your world at all?


Dem, when you choose sides, you really choose sides, you had no problem

with Pracus saying the same thing first, so you have no right

to state the above.

I've had education which was completely wrong and indoctrination which was entirely true. Which would you rather have? Say hi to your imaginary friend for me.

Or, rather, you have indocrination which you believe to be entirely true...much like followers of hundreds or other faiths believe theirs to be true. You have about a 1/500 chance of your faith being the one...and this is why A) I subscribe to none, making my own way and being an agnostic pending further proof (at this point, science has ponied up much, much more), and B) I think that no one should ever have such certainty in these matters, and as such should never try to tell others, or pressure them on, how to live.

EDIT: This was one of those rare, late night posts where my point utterly dissolves by the time I'm finished typing. No, there's no point here, this is pure rambling - address what you will.

Original sin is an Augustinian belief based largely on a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for man is the name for Adam. Thus, when people were translating Scripture, they had to kind of guess whether the word meant all of humankind, or just Adam. The Augustinian view of original sin was based on a translation in which "humankind" was used, although it was probably meant to be "Adam."

The Abelardian view of atonement is much better and much more compatible with an all-loving God. You should look into it.
I'll stick with God's view, but thanks anyway. I know you're a Christian, and I know you have different views. The main thing that I've come to realise is that this entie subject is pretty much unimportant in itself. The importance comes in when people try to use Christianity as an excuse to hate people. That really pisses me off. Thinking about that makes me want to go and break things.

I love the way you assume that you speak for all Christians. Newsflash: you do not. For many, the Christian belief is that God intended sex to be the utimate expression of love between two people committed to spend the rest of their lives together. This can occur in homosexual or heterosexual relationships.
I don't believe it can. Agree to disagree. Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins. We will only be judged by God on what we have been taught. People who actively engage in false teaching will be punished. People who are taught falsely SHOULD pray to God and ask for his understanding.

Wrong. Some people with homosexual attraction do not act upon it. They do not "have it removed."
I'm sorry but this is true. There are a few cases just in England where this has happened. You may not have encountered it. That's all.

I'm not posting any more on this topic directly, because it really is a non-issue. The issue is people that hate other people because of what they feel. I'm going to go break stuff now.

True, but when someone calling themselves a Christian says that he/she doesn't believe that Jesus died for us, I question them. It's called concern. Happy?

Inuit. Snow. I'm really getting fed up of translation arguments. If there is an all-powerful God and he gives us his word for us to use to worship him he WILL NOT let it be sufficiently twisted that it become unintelligible. Do you copy that?

About Christians. You have to decide where YOU draw the line on christianity. Being a christian means many different things: It means the simple fact that a person has been anointed with oils; it means someone who follows the philosophies that the 'christ' taught; it means belief in the trinity, resurrection and the washing away of sins.

To YOU, it is necessary to believe that Jesus was the son of god, and god incarnate, and that he died without sin, to atone for the sins of man. (I assume this is your fundamental core).

To many others, it is important to follow christ as a model of perfection, but not necessary to believe that he WAS god, just 'godlike'.

To still others, all that matters is the papertrail that has been left. Jesus was a wise man, a prophet, even.

You might think that yours is the correct version, but you have no more evidence than they do... the 'god incarnate' thing wasn't in scripture, and wasn't even added to the myth until many years after the fact.

Regarding your inuits and snow reference: it IS important for us to understand the bible, but the fact remains that the English translations are terrible. If god protects his word, he's doing a pretty shoddy job, because people are riding roughshod over what he is supposed to have said.

As far as I can tell, you CANNOT fault the original Hebrew. If there is something in the Hebrew, and something else in the translation, then the translation is WRONG, and there can be no argument....

My reasoning for this... well, my chief reason, is Messiah. Now, I don't believe Jesus DID fulfill the requirements of 'Messiah', but if we assume for a moment that he did.... how do we KNOW that Jesus is Messiah? Because the Hebrew texts said so, and so Jesus' contemporaries could write it in scripture, because they referred back to those older texts.

If you say that the Hebrew can be WRONG, then you also have to allow that the prophecy of Messiah may be wrong, and 'poof'... the argument of Jesus as Messiah evapourates.

There are a few cases just in England where this has happened. You may not have encountered it. That's all.
I'm curious about this, is it like hypnotism or conditioning or something? :confused:

Could you also have your heterosexuality removed?

I'm curious about this, is it like hypnotism or conditioning or something? :confused:

Could you also have your heterosexuality removed?

If he's talking about what I think he's talking about, the methods used are actually, frighteningly enough, very similer to brainwashing.

I've had education which was completely wrong and indoctrination which was entirely true. Which would you rather have? Say hi to your imaginary friend for me.


How do you reckon that your 'indoctrination' was entirely true?

How many times did Goliath die?

How many legs does a grasshopper have? Is a bat bird or mammal? What is the big anachronism in the KJV version of the story of Job? Who killed Saul? How did Judas die? Does god tempt men? How many horses did Solomon have? Who bought the Potter's field? Who had NO children, but had five children? Which king was eight in the same year that he was eight? Did Saul's companions hear 'a voice' at his conversion?

Do I need to continue?



It's a nicely made point.. you knew I was going to say 'but' right? But.. why would Pat want to change the body God has given him (Christian belief again, sorry)? Either God wanted him/her to do it or Satan wanted him to. God would want him to change so he could better serve God. Satan would want the opposite. Suppose the only way to tell would be to let it happen and see the results, God-worshipping wise. The God-worship scale, measured in tambourines :cool:


So - God deliberately makes people hermaphroditic? (Apart from Adam, of course) So, he deliberately gives them a 'mixed' gender... meaning that WHOEVER they fall in love with, their affections will be homosexual?

Like I say, in a world where hermaphrodites exist, humans cannot second-guess what God's 'intentions' are.

Back to Satan again. I really wish you'd read around the subject... but, I know you won't, because it involves looking deeper than the pre-chewed english translation fodder.

I'm curious about this, is it like hypnotism or conditioning or something? :confused:

Could you also have your heterosexuality removed?

I too am not too sure what you are talking about but if it is what it seems (brainwashing people to think they are not gay) than I too think it's brainwashing. Also the person doesn't become completely straight, deep down inside the person would still be gay.

I really hope I understood that topic correctly...I've been away this week rock climbing and I'm very tired.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Look Term, you just answered your own question! Children are incapable of giving informed consent because they are not emotionally and physically developed enough to fully understand their actions.
And your second part, is exactly why we say that children cannot give true consent. Congratulations.

So now its true consent, whatever, the point I was making about this is that

a lot child molesters usually well known to the child prey on this consent by

manipulating the childs fear and trust to their advantage, so as not to cause

a scene, if they just grabbed the kid and started molesting them, then the

kid would be likely to yell out, so this insidious creature gets the childs

permission first, usually out of fear, and creates guilt and self hatred in the

child.

This is in no way intended to put any of the blame for the monsters act on

the poor kid.


Yes, because sex is the only way that AIDS can be spread. Oh, wait, it isn't

So how else did the monkeys transmit it to humans then?


It wasn't African Americans - it was Africans. And from the predominantly *heterosexual* African society, it spread around the world.

I doupt that, do hetrosexual African males travel around the world much, in

order that they would mistakenly spread it?

Unlikely.

A truer picture would be more like gay white men visiting Africa and taking it

around the world with them.

Does anyone believe the disease is possibly man made?




And homosexuals were most likely not the first cases in the US, they were simply the first recognized and diagnosed once the epidemic had begun.

lol do you even think about what you write, first you say they were most

likely not the first cases, then you say they were the first ones recognised

and diagnosed with it.

So who were the first cases in America then, if it wasnt them?? :rolleyes:

God. Hates. Sin. Christians believe that in God's eyes God, you sin, you're stained, unclean. Once. Millions of times. Murder someone. Insult someone. The same.


Not true. There are, for example, two classifications of 'abominations', which are 'unclean' sins. The one class of abominations unto god are punished by death, the other class or ritual abomination, is 'punished' by ritual... be it washing, or abstinence, etc.


Do you think God likes seeing his creations belittled, insulted and hurt by some of his others? It hurts him. And the fact that it's done in his name positively pisses him off. Remember the crusades? Conflict in Northern Ireland. All done in his name, and about as much to do with Christianity as Hinduism.


Unless they are Canaanites. Or 'witches', apparently. Could go on, not worth it, point made.


It doesn't include homosexuality. Homosexual urge. Heterosexual urge (extra-marital). Only difference is that God promotes marital heterosexual sex. Christian Belief: sex is a gift from God to be used responsibly in said heterosexual union. Knocking it?


The bible expressly forbids homosexuality (well, it doesn't if you read what was ACTUALLY written, but we'll leave that for the moment), right?

Why FORBID something if nobody 'wants' to do it? The implication in the scripture is, therefore that EVERYONE wants to have homosexual sex (which tells us a lot about the early nomads, perhaps?) and that you have to CHOOSE not to.

Secondly, sex isn't a gift, in the bible, even in marriage - otherwise it would not cause 'uncleanness'.

[QUOTE]

So now its true consent, whatever, the point I was making about this is that

a lot child molesters usually well known to the child prey on this consent by

manipulating the childs fear and trust to their advantage, so as not to cause

a scene, if they just grabbed the kid and started molesting them, then the

kid would be likely to yell out, so this insidious creature gets the childs

permission first, usually out of fear, and creates guilt and self hatred in the

child.

This is in no way intended to put any of the blame for the monsters act on

the poor kid.



What does child molestation have to do with gay marriages. Try to keep to the subject unless your suggesting that all gays are child molesterers.


So how else did the monkeys transmit it to humans then?


I may be wrong, but AIDs can be transmitted other ways, such as blood going into another persons veins.



lol do you even think about what you write, first you say they were most

likely not the first cases, then you say they were the first ones recognised

and diagnosed with it.

So who were the first cases in America then, if it wasnt them?? :rolleyes:

The first cases of homosexuality probably occured way back when humans were un-civilised, possibly, most likely, even before humans were actually human.

[QUOTE=Pracus]Now I guess I'm screwy, but I think it was Jesus who ate with the sinners. And who said "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

Jesus also said to love the sinner but not the sin, do you understand the

difference Pracus?


I have no problem with a homosexual coming into a church, I would have a

huge problem but if he came in with his/her partner and they touched each

other.


As for stonethrowing, didnt you just call me a child molesterer before?

On what proof?

Have you ever sinned Terminalia? Becuase if you have, maybe we can do something to save your immortal soul . . . .

Yes, but I repent, you dont.

And thanks for acknowleging my immortal soul. :)

Have you ever wondered if you have one, being a homosexual I don't think

you have.

I feel sorry for you. :(

[QUOTE]


Yes, but I repent, you dont.

And thanks for acknowleging my immortal soul. :)

Have you ever wondered if you have one, being a homosexual I don't think

you have.

I feel sorry for you. :(

Why are gays always seen as souless? And as sinners? All they do is try to be themselves and you insult them. And if they are religous this can be seen as more than an insult.

[QUOTE=Krikaroo]What does child molestation have to do with gay marriages. Try to keep to the subject unless your suggesting that all gays are child molesterers.

No, Im suggesting alot of child molesters are gay, not a lot of gays are child

molesters.

I may be wrong, but AIDs can be transmitted other ways, such as blood going into another persons veins.

This is more about how it originated in Africa, from monkeys, and I dont think

they were giving human/ ape blood transfusions.


The first cases of homosexuality probably occured way back when humans were un-civilised, possibly, most likely, even before humans were actually human.

I know, doesnt mean its right but.

Have you ever wondered if you have one, being a homosexual I don't think

you have.

I feel sorry for you. :(

I thought God was supposed to forgive homosexual sinners and that isn't possible if they haven't a soul.

<snip>
I can't answer you anymore Grave_n_idle. You're resolutely of an atheistic belief. This is because Satan has closed your mind (I'd say your heart but I'm not really an Empodoclean!)

I don't say that from a pulpit waving a Bible. I'm not saying that in a street (wireless networks you know) with a microphone surrounded by a bunch of swaying people chanting hallelujah. I'm saying that in a computer lab and in the fashion I might say that you can't find the Eigenvectors of this particular matrix because it is not Symmetrical.

I can promise you that Christians are praying to God to ask him to remove whatever it is that is keeping you and similar people closed. I'm sorry but this is all I can say now. My brain just cries out in pain because of the forces that make you say the things that you say. Ciao for now.

Terminalia, nothing on this earth gives you the right to hate other people, or act as if you do. Got it?

Krikaroo[/B]]Why are gays always seen as souless? And as sinners? All they do is try to be themselves and you insult them. And if they are religous this can be seen as more than an insult.

I cant see God accepting them, because they are slaves to their own

carnality.

How can that be allowed to exist in Heaven alongside people who have led

pious and holy lives.

New Fuglies[/B]]I thought God was supposed to forgive homosexual sinners and that isn't possible if they haven't a soul.

If they leave their homosexual life, and even become not necessarily hetero,

just practice abstinance until they die, they would be forgiven and have a

soul.

Right.

What does truistic mean again? True? Or something I believe is true? Either way, thanks. So you're a Christian and you didn't believe a) and b)? Erm.. okay then.. I don't know who your universal band of Protestants are but... they ain't mine; or British; or New Zealanders; or African; or Chinese (carry on?).

I think you mean Roman Catholics when you say catholics; catholic just means worldwide, as in the Catholic church. Catholic church != Roman Catholic church.

Truistic means its a tautology - you're saying something mindbogglingly obvious in such a way as to make it look like you mean something, if you didn't understand you could of course have looked it up. So, yes, a), and b) ARE true, but they DO NOT exclude the possibility of repemption after death (which is a cornerstone of protestant thought).

As to the whole 'you forgot to say roman before catholic' rubbish, grow up. I think everyone knew quite well I didn't mean people with eclectic tastes, we have this lovely little thing called context...

Now pay attention children.

I believe you're looking for Islam, under I. This is an islamic belief, in that after the punishment we deserve for our sins everyone just goes to Heaven (one level or another).

If we were all forgiven naturally why did Jesus have to die for the sins of the world? Wouldn't we just have to plug along naturally, do what we liked then hey presto, hit by bus and heaven. Nice, think I'll just go out and score me some coke and a couple of hookers.

I never said anything like what you've put in the 1st paragraph - read the original post and then have a go at me. As to the second paragraph, you've got your events in the wrong order:

1. Jesus died
2. Because of that, mankind's sins were redeemed

Now that doesn't mean we get into heaven automatically (although I don't remember the bible passage about not snorting coke). What it means is you CAN be forgiven for anything. If Jesus can say 'forgive them father, they know not what they do', then pretty much everyone has accepted that if the killers of the son of god can be forgiven (if of course they repent). This also applies to murderers, rapists,

hey, maybe even gay people!

OR.. you can read the Bible. 'Teacher, what must I do to be saved?' Jesus outlines a very harsh selection process, if you like, for the rich young ruler. And I don't think 'Honey, I Shrunk the Camel' was a great box-office success. Granted, this was before Jesus died. However does this verse not mean anything to you?

"God so loved the world that he gave his only son to die, that all who believe in him can inherit eternal life"

If you don't believe that there's something wrong with your faith..

I DO believe this. I also believe what makes christianity special is the doctrine of universal forgiveness - non-believers, sinners, the lot.

Scriptural bases for the avoidance of homosexual acts are few and far between but they are there. Homophobia means hate (lit. fear but translated to hate). There is no room in Christianity to hate anyone.

Very true. Now last time I checked, marriage was the sanctification of carnal love before god (amongst other things), which means the only way sex is not fornication is through marriage (I'm getting literalistic here) - you are therefore denying gay people the right to express their love in a manner that is holy and consistent with the love of the lord. I call that an act of hate.

As to the whole scriptural basis for homosexuality being sinful. There are exactly two references. The first is in Leviticus, and it's the one we all know and love:

'Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman'

The fact that about two hundred lines after that there is a line saying you can sell people into slavery as long as they are of a different race has obviously slipped your attention. I live down the corridor from a black man. When I sell him to the slave market (as sanctioned by leviticus), what price should I ask for?

Needless to say, its crap and always has been.

The second reference to homosexuality is in Paul. I can't be bothered writing the whole thing out but basically he says it is a form of idol worship, which is obviosly untrue. Most contemporary sources say this was inserted (along wth lots of other things) at the behest of the Roman Emperor at the Nicean Council. The scripture has been corrupted by politicians, this is one of the worst examples.

There is also a reference is Corinthians, but it is rubbish and I am ignoring it - there is a reason why not even the Pope brought it up to justify his homophobia

Are you are trying to mislead people on purpose? I understand God has an answer for that. I think you may be confusing your ideas with the judgement of the uneducated. I think that if someone has never heard the word of God then they cannot be sent to Hell (my understanding). So Aristotle, Plato, etc. although not in Heaven yet (not till the end of the age remember) might get in. The most learned scholars of their time might be able to plead ignorance!.

Nope. Judgement of the uneducated is separate. You can ALSO be excluded from the commandments if you are a 'good pagan' today (I have a catholic friend who constantly reminds me that this is the only way I will be saved).

I'll have you know I'm only prejudiced against the French :D

Well, I feel that way about rednecks. You have reminded me of my favourite line from GWB though:

"The trouble with the french is that they have no word for entrepreneur"

I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

I'm curious about this, is it like hypnotism or conditioning or something? :confused:

Could you also have your heterosexuality removed?
It's called prayer. To converse your second point that I'm guessing you think you're well funny for making, I said remove homosexual urges not sexuality.

And yes, God can remove these urges and any other urges that are hindering people in their lives. You want proof? Try me. Before my friend pointed me at Nationstates, I was using the net almost entirely for.. less constructive purposes let's say. I had a huge penchant for porn. I asked God to take it from me because I knew it was wasting my time. Hey presto. Ask and you shall receive. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door will be opened. Or in the case of cold callers...

Brainwashing? No, sorry.

I voted ues because I beleive in equality and I dont subscribe to the Christian Hate Machine. I am SICK of hearing them call Homosexuals 'unnatural'.

This is typical behaviour for a tribal creature. We have devided ourselves among 'liberals' and 'conservatives' to be VERY broad. We compete to win a war of popularity.

Well I'm damn sure that I am as biased as the next person, 'cause damnit, just like you think Homosexuals are unnatural and wrong. I think conservative christians are biased, disgusting, and hypocritical deniers of the truth.

Just to clarify (as if you couldn't tell) I am very athiest.
Couldn't have said it better myself!!!!!
Christianity.. a religion supposedly founded on love and understanding
is in fact the bloodiest religion in all of human history

How are they any more slaves to their carnality than straight people. And anyway, the point isn't about whether they'll get into heaven, it's about the fact that the government and the church aren't separate enough to admit that gay people deserve to be able to be united in law even if you won't let them in your churches.

Your government scares me because it controls mine.

Terminalia, nothing on this earth gives you the right to hate other people, or act as if you do. Got it?

What would you know.


I dont hate homosexuals anyway Schnappslant, or wish to harm them, I just

dont like what they do.

And sorry, whether you like it or not I have that right.

Raliel[/B]]Couldn't have said it better myself!!!!!
Christianity.. a religion supposedly founded on love and understanding
is in fact the bloodiest religion in all of human history

Islam beats it hands down.

Alot of bloody fighting through history involved Christians v Muslims, and still

does, so neither one is to blame as the bloodiest, or guiltiest between them.

If you look through this thread and replace the word 'gay' with 'black', I think you'll start to see how I look at this.
Homosexuals are as human as anyone else and should be entitled to equivalent rights.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]<snip>QUOTE]
I can't answer you anymore Grave_n_idle. You're resolutely of an atheistic belief. This is because Satan has closed your mind (I'd say your heart but I'm not really an Empodoclean!)

I don't say that from a pulpit waving a Bible. I'm not saying that in a street (wireless networks you know) with a microphone surrounded by a bunch of swaying people chanting hallelujah. I'm saying that in a computer lab and in the fashion I might say that you can't find the Eigenvectors of this particular matrix because it is not Symmetrical.

I can promise you that Christians are praying to God to ask him to remove whatever it is that is keeping you and similar people closed. I'm sorry but this is all I can say now. My brain just cries out in pain because of the forces that make you say the things that you say. Ciao for now.

Terminalia, nothing on this earth gives you the right to hate other people, or act as if you do. Got it?

There were an entire faction of 'christians' who believed that god was the fallen spirit, dwelling on earth, and that the devil was the spirit that remained in the heavens. They believed that every person who THOUGHT they were worshipping the creator, was ACTUALLY worshipping some renegade faction with an agenda of sin.

How do you prove that they were wrong? The scriptures were written by the very people who a devil would have chosen as his emissaries... and now, thanks to the 'supression' by the church, those 'christians' are now long dead.

That still doesn't mean they were wrong. In fact, all 'christians', if there ARE a god and a devil, COULD be serving the wrong power, and there is no way to know.

Just wanted to throw that in, to start.

I never claimed I WASN'T an atheist. I was a christian, but I am no longer one. The simple fact that I understand more of your scripture than you do shouldn't cause you to clam-up. Perhaps your mind is being opened to some of the inconsistency, and you don't like that?

That doesn't make me a creature of satan, any more than it makes you a creature of god. The book doesn't make sense... and yet millions worship it as though it WERE a god, as though it could make their decisions for them.

And that is, back on topic, what is happening here. Christians are using their 'biblical evidence' to prove how 'wrong' homosexuality is. Despite the fact that that wasn't in the text.

I really am sorry that you can't deal with this.

That's the problem with building such an intricate tower of faith, though... you can't concede that one brick might be faulty, or you face the collapse of your whole tower.

Third post after saying I wouldn't post again...

Truistic means its a tautology - you're saying something mindbogglingly obvious in such a way as to make it look like you mean something, if you didn't understand you could of course have looked it up. So, yes, a), and b) ARE true, but they DO NOT exclude the possibility of repemption after death (which is a cornerstone of protestant thought).

Tautology means that something is always true. Don't argue. I'm a maths/comp sci graduate.

As to the whole 'you forgot to say roman before catholic' rubbish, grow up. I think everyone knew quite well I didn't mean people with eclectic tastes, we have this lovely little thing called context...
Yeah I was just having a go.

Now pay attention children.

I never said anything like what you've put in the 1st paragraph - read the original post and then have a go at me. As to the second paragraph, you've got your events in the wrong order:

1. Jesus died
2. Because of that, mankind's sins were redeemed
I know you didn't say that. Don't call me a child again. I recognised the fact that that is the order of events. I used it as an illustration.

Now that doesn't mean we get into heaven automatically (although I don't remember the bible passage about not snorting coke). What it means is you CAN be forgiven for anything. If Jesus can say 'forgive them father, they know not what they do', then pretty much everyone has accepted that if the killers of the son of god can be forgiven (if of course they repent). This also applies to murderers, rapists

I DO believe this. I also believe what makes christianity special is the doctrine of universal forgiveness - non-believers, sinners, the lot.
Yes. We can be forgiven for anything. I never said that was not the case. I said only those who BELIEVE and repent will be forgiven. I'm afraid you can't argue with that. With any intelligence I mean.

Now last time I checked, marriage was the sanctification of carnal love before god (amongst other things), which means the only way sex is not fornication is through marriage (I'm getting literalistic here) - you are therefore denying gay people the right to express their love in a manner that is holy and consistent with the love of the lord. I call that an act of hate.

As to the whole scriptural basis for homosexuality being sinful. There are exactly two references. The first is in Leviticus, and it's the one we all know and love:

'Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman'

The fact that about two hundred lines after that there is a line saying you can sell people into slavery as long as they are of a different race has obviously slipped your attention. I live down the corridor from a black man. When I sell him to the slave market (as sanctioned by leviticus), what price should I ask for?

The second reference to homosexuality is in Paul. I can't be bothered writing the whole thing out but basically he says it is a form of idol worship, which is obviosly untrue. Most contemporary sources say this was inserted (along wth lots of other things) at the behest of the Roman Emperor at the Nicean Council. The scripture has been corrupted by politicians, this is one of the worst examples.The second reference to homosexuality is in Paul. I can't be bothered writing the whole thing out but basically he says it is a form of idol worship, which is obviosly untrue. Most contemporary sources say this was inserted (along wth lots of other things) at the behest of the Roman Emperor at the Nicean Council. The scripture has been corrupted by politicians, this is one of the worst examples.
Your lack of reading ability disturbs me. Lev = Jewish law. However. Genesis = the way. Paul = Apostle, teaching Gods word. Met God on the road to Damascus. And.. you're saying you know better than Paul. And God.

I don't have time for the rest. If I was being entirely selfish, I would say fine and let you have your incorrect beliefs. There is no grey area in Christianity. There is only right and wrong. Because God says so. The Bible is God's word. To let it be twisted by humans sufficiently to make the truth unintelligible would make God less than Omnipotent. He's not. Pull yourself out of your world where you can do and believe what you want and realise that there is a God who is trying to reach you.

[QUOTE=Sock-Potato]How are they any more slaves to their carnality than straight people.


Trust me they are, I live in a gay area, and sex is a huge part of their lives,

alot more so than hetrosexuals.

They practically worship sex.



the fact that the government and the church aren't separate enough to admit that gay people deserve to be able to be united in law even if you won't let them in your churches.

The only way the Church and State would be truly seperate, would be if all

religous people left politics, people who believed in no God would then pass

laws banning religon, which would mean no Church.

I dont think this would be a quick proceedure, more a slow irradication.


Your government scares me because it controls mine.

lol what government do you have?

I'm Australian, we dont control anyone.

Islam beats it hands down.

Alot of bloody fighting through history involved Christians v Muslims, and still

does, so neither one is to blame as the bloodiest, or guiltiest between them.
sorry but that simply is not true... although Islam is historically a very warlike religion
christianity is 1000 time worse... I am referring to the systematic slaughter of "heretics" and witches across europe that lasted for several centuries
as well a the several Crusades and othe Holy wars which were started and sanctioned by the Church

Even being an atheist, I would like to encourage Terminalia to continue to fight both lies and ignorance of actual religious concepts. Those who assign so much currency to 'thinking for themselves' likely do no such thing. Their childishness and shrill barkings indicate a refusal to make difficult and critical analyses about complex social subjects that noone has an innate understanding of, especially religion, sexuality, and the concept of marriage. In many of my religious friends I see a willingness to learn, and understand. After all, that seems to be what drives them to accept their religion. Most of them have reasoned objections to gay marriage, rooted in serious concern for the wellbeing of humanity, not some nebulous inherent religious hatred and bigotry. Bravo to you, terminalia, and keep it up, friend.

________________________________________________________________

Sozan, a Chinese Zen master, was asked by a student: "What is the most valuable thing in the world?"

The master replied: "The head of a dead cat."

"Why is the head of a dead cat the most valuable thing in the world?" inquired the student.

Sozan replied: "Because no one can name its price."

sorry but that simply is not true... although Islam is historically a very warlike religion
christianity is 1000 time worse... I am referring to the systematic slaughter of "heretics" and witches across europe that lasted for several centuries
as well a the several Crusades and othe Holy wars which were started and sanctioned by the Church

And, of course, Islam is about 600 years YOUNGER than Christianity, and about 1500 years younger than written judeo-christian history.

:sniper: Well, hmmm, I think gay marriages are SICK! and SINFUL. Maybe we shouldn't kill them though cause thats sort of hypocritical. :fluffle: who wants to see this between two guys on a public bus?

It's called prayer. To converse your second point that I'm guessing you think you're well funny for making, I said remove homosexual urges not sexuality. And yes, God can remove these urges. You want proof? Try me. Before my friend pointed me at Nationstates, I was using the net almost entirely for.. less constructive purposes let's say. I had a huge penchant for porn. I asked God to take it from me because I knew it was wasting my time. Hey presto. Ask and you shall receive

Brainwashing? No, sorry.
Ah. Does prayer work on atheist homosexuals?

And I do not think I'm being funny, I think I'm pointing out a clear point in a sarcastic manner. You say homosexual urges can be removed (through prayer), then it follows that heterosexual urges can be removed. I could pray myself into homosexuality then? Or just non-sexuality? Anyways, bout the porn, people find strength in all sorts of things. Prayer, meditation, taking up sewing, rock-climbing, group therapy, etc. Whatever works for you.

Brainwashing in that "Clockwork Orange" way may work too.

I'll just put your continued belief that I'm going to reply to your rantings down to lack of certainty. But I will pray for you

Do you realise how insulting that is?

Honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over you refusing to answer my posts.

I'll also assume you haven't read them.

And that only hurts you, my friend.


Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."

Yes.. Christianity moved out of the dark ages, and hopefully Islam will too. To blame the churches of today for the actions of figureheads who were much more political than religious in the dark ages in europe is foolish. And to somehow pretend it negates all the good they do is rude, and bigoted.

________________________________________________________________
Sozan, a Chinese Zen master, was asked by a student: "What is the most valuable thing in the world?"

The master replied: "The head of a dead cat."

"Why is the head of a dead cat the most valuable thing in the world?" inquired the student.

Sozan replied: "Because no one can name its price."

:sniper: Well, hmmm, I think gay marriages are SICK! and SINFUL. Maybe we shouldn't kill them though cause thats sort of hypocritical. :fluffle: who wants to see this between two guys on a public bus?

Hypocrit.

You notice it is always gay guys getting the flak?

That's because the average straight guy LIKES to see girls :fluffle: while at the same time maintaining the fantasy that girls can't REALLY prefer other girls, so the guy will be able to 'straighten' them out.

But, of course... the average guy confronted with guys :fluffle: has to confront all sorts of issues about WHY it offends them to see it... about what feelings it makes THEM feel.

Tautology means that something is always true. Don't argue. I'm a maths/comp sci graduate.



Tautology: a) needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word.
b) an instance of tautology.

Don't argue with me, I know the language, and I have a dictionary.

[QUOTE=Friend Computer]If you look through this thread and replace the word 'gay' with 'black', I think you'll start to see how I look at this.

This is not the same issue.


Homosexuals are as human as anyone else and should be entitled to equivalent rights.

I think they are a different kind of human altogether in some ways from

heterosexuals.

As to equivalent rights, why do they need them as regards marriage, or the

right to raise kids, they have never needed them before, this has only come

about soley from the moral collapse of western culture over the last thirty

years, and is close to being the pinnacle of it.

It is not some culmination from thousands of years of gays openly expressing

their desire, to have the right to marry each other, and rear kids.

Yes.. Christianity moved out of the dark ages...


Matter of opinion.


"Why is the head of a dead cat the most valuable thing in the world?" inquired the student.

Sozan replied: "Because no one can name its price."

2 guineas and ha'penny. That's the price for a cat's head down our way.

Guess those old chinese philosophers weren't as clever as they thought...

[QUOTE=Raliel]sorry but that simply is not true... although Islam is historically a very warlike religion
christianity is 1000 time worse...


I seriously doupt that, do you know that Islam put millions of people to death

across the middle east and North Africa before the first millenium just for not

converting to Allah.

And they are still doing it today.


I am referring to the systematic slaughter of "heretics" and witches across europe that lasted for several centuries

The Spanish inquistion, a dark time I admit, but the muslims were still alot

worse.


as well a the several Crusades and othe Holy wars which were started and
sanctioned by the Church

To counter Islam, do you realise the Muslims came so close to conqureing

Europe in The 15th C, the Christians finally defeated them at Belgrade, if they

hadnt, history would have changed incredibly.

quick note on Biblical accuracy... It is book written by humans and edited by humans over the past 2000 years if you do not believe me read one from the C5th and then read one from C17th there are A LOT of changes
one interesting one thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
has variously over the centuries said poisoner, and at one point even Jew
there is also an interesting book called the Apocrypha which contains a whole chunk of bible text that the church decided was not supposed to be in the Bible. If it truly is the word of God how come it is so freely edited?

as to the whole homosexuality being unnatural... Many large mammals practice hohmosexuality for a variety of reasons, in some chimps it is a form of group bonding, in wales and dolphins same sex couple seem to be completely normal and acceptable ( noted only in schooling species... the sexual habits of some of the great whales is very mysterious indeed )
also same sex couples in lions and even elewphants have been noted and appear to be accepted quite happily by other memmbers of their groups
And finally the issue of Islam being younger than christianity and therefore just as bloody but had less time to do so is a nonsense.... Most of Christiandoms attrocites have taken place during the time when Islam was already well established.

But, of course... the average guy confronted with guys :fluffle: has to confront all sorts of issues about WHY it offends them to see it... about what feelings it makes THEM feel.

Two guys swapping saliva... I wish there was a throwing up emoticon.

[QUOTE]


I seriously doupt that, do you know that Islam put millions of people to death

across the middle east and North Africa before the first millenium just for not

converting to Allah.

And they are still doing it today.




The Spanish inquistion, a dark time I admit, but the muslims were still alot

worse.




To counter Islam, do you realise the Muslims came so close to conqureing

Europe in The 15th C, the Christians finally defeated them at Belgrade, if they

hadnt, history would have changed incredibly.
Christianity put millions to death over 5 centuries for their belifs not just during the spanish inquisition
the Crusades were launched to caim the holy lands for the Church and were about wiping out the local population and stealing large parts of the middle east and took place well before the C15th when the muslims did indeed attack europe, they had kind of had enough of us doing it to them! stictly speaking though, that war was not a religious war it was about empire building

[QUOTE=Gadzookistan]Even being an atheist, I would like to encourage Terminalia to continue to fight both lies and ignorance of actual religious concepts. Those who assign so much currency to 'thinking for themselves' likely do no such thing. Their childishness and shrill barkings indicate a refusal to make difficult and critical analyses about complex social subjects that noone has an innate understanding of, especially religion, sexuality, and the concept of marriage. In many of my religious friends I see a willingness to learn, and understand. After all, that seems to be what drives them to accept their religion. Most of them have reasoned objections to gay marriage, rooted in serious concern for the wellbeing of humanity, not some nebulous inherent religious hatred and bigotry. Bravo to you, terminalia, and keep it up, friend.


Thanks, its so refreshing to hear some kind words. ;)

We are a strict and rather religious nation that adheres to conformity. We allow "Live-in" arrangements, but we are not ready to adopt the idea of gay marriages... Sorry. :cool:

[QUOTE=Raliel]Christianity put millions to death over 5 centuries for their belifs not just during the spanish inquisition

Yes,they did, however I dont believe there was anything Christian about it.


the Crusades were launched to caim the holy lands for the Church and were about wiping out the local population and stealing large parts of the middle east and took place well before the C15th when the muslims did indeed attack europe, they had kind of had enough of us doing it to them! stictly speaking though, that war was not a religious war it was about empire building

True, but these two religons/races were always going to butt heads sooner

or later.

Ummm, RP'ing in General is... ghey! :D

the point is that the attrocities in Europe and the Crusades were endorsed and encouraged by the Chistian leaders of the time the Church itself said that this was gods work. If you dissagreed you were tortured and killed
this is what christianity has meant to most of the world for most of its history

What would you know.


I dont hate homosexuals anyway Schnappslant, or wish to harm them, I just

dont like what they do.

And sorry, whether you like it or not I have that right.
Please, you really don't. You believe in God yes? You believe that he created every living and inanimate thing on this earth yes? I don't know anything. Fair enough not liking sin but one of God's creations never has the right to hate another one. Do you understand what I mean?

Do you realise how insulting that is?

Honestly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over you refusing to answer my posts.

I'll also assume you haven't read them.

And that only hurts you, my friend.


Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
Interesting that you use that verse. It applies directly to you. I have read every one of the posts on here. This does not mean that I can remember each one verbatim. This means that I see the thread as a stream of ideas, twisting and turning as new ones are added. Many are utterly wrong (some yours I'm afraid), many look right but a Christian would tell you they're not (according to Christianity, at least). Some are right.

I'm very sorry for that 'rantings' post. I will get rid of it. However you are the one that is insulting an all-powerful God. I know you don't believe that and there is no way I can prove it to you in a way that you will accept. I don't profess to be wise. I know that I'm an idiot. However the reasoned arguments that appear here under my name aren't from me. If I say that they're from God you will laugh. I can't change that.

I guess that you are American. Sorry if I'm wrong. America and the UK are now two of the areas most needing prayer. If you want a true faith based on pure simple belief and joy from the freedom that the belief gives, go to China or Read Brother Yun's book.

This argument we're having is like that of two houses built into the ground who constantly try to destroy each other (Atheism vs God). Both are seemingly indestructible. Both can be explained in ways that some people accept. The only difference is that when the end comes the earth will wash away. Everyone will see that one of the houses is actually being held in place by the very power of God. The other will fall.

Now I'm done. No witty sign-off sorry.

Christianity put millions to death over 5 centuries for their belifs not just during the spanish inquisition
the Crusades were launched to caim the holy lands for the Church and were about wiping out the local population and stealing large parts of the middle east and took place well before the C15th when the muslims did indeed attack europe, they had kind of had enough of us doing it to them! stictly speaking though, that war was not a religious war it was about empire building

If you look at the early years of Islam as a religion, Islamic cities only allowed two factions of non-moslems into their boundaries... the Jews and the Christians... because the Moslems believed that those two groups followed the same basic faith as they did, albeit a more primative form.

This system basically continued until christian aggression caused a re-evaluation of the situation.

Interesting that you use that verse. It applies directly to you. I have read every one of the posts on here. This does not mean that I can remember each one verbatim. This means that I see the thread as a stream of ideas, twisting and turning as new ones are added. Many are utterly wrong (some yours I'm afraid), many look right but a Christian would tell you they're not (according to Christianity, at least). Some are right.

I'm very sorry for that 'rantings' post. I will get rid of it. However you are the one that is insulting an all-powerful God. I know you don't believe that and there is no way I can prove it to you in a way that you will accept. I don't profess to be wise. I know that I'm an idiot. However the reasoned arguments that appear here under my name aren't from me. If I say that they're from God you will laugh. I can't change that.

I guess that you are American. Sorry if I'm wrong. America and the UK are now two of the areas most needing prayer. If you want a true faith based on pure simple belief and joy from the freedom that the belief gives, go to China or Read Brother Yun's book.

This argument we're having is like that of two houses built into the ground who constantly try to destroy each other (Atheism vs God). Both are seemingly indestructible. Both can be explained in ways that some people accept. The only difference is that when the end comes the earth will wash away. Everyone will see that one of the houses is actually being held in place by the very power of God. The other will fall.

Now I'm done. No witty sign-off sorry.

I don't think the verse applies to me, because I never claimed to have all the answers... I KNOW that I am lacking knowledge, and I am searching for it, and in that search I have found certain things. Does that make me wise? Only if I use my knowledge correctly... but I never CLAIMED to be wise, did I?

I can see that there are fundamental flaws in the concept of christianity as taught. That was the start of my divergence.

I can see that there are further flaws on examination... so my divergence continued.

I searched for answers, and didn't find them where I expected to, I just found more inaccuracy, more error and contradiction, and more straight-out lies. I do honestly feel sorry for you if you cannot see any of that... I am not meaning to be insulting here, and I wouldn't dare to stoop to the level of 'praying for your guidance'.

I contend that you have yet to understand god's message. I personally believe that you have been so confined by the teachings of a church, that you have lost site of god. Not just you, but most members of organised religions. I don't pretend to speak for god, though. I know that all my arguments are mine, that all my decisions are mine. I believe the same is true for you.

And you are wrong about your two houses. I am not trying to destroy your house. My argument started over interpretation of the bible - with which I am VERY well acquainted. You takes this as an attack on your faith.

I'm sorry, but if your faith cannot stand up to close investigation, that is not my fault...

Since you said you don't read my posts anyway, I might as well add.. I didn't insult god, did I? Questioning his existence is not the same thing at all.

Oh, and I'm not American, either.

[QUOTE]

So now its true consent, whatever, the point I was making about this is that

a lot child molesters usually well known to the child prey on this consent by

manipulating the childs fear and trust to their advantage, so as not to cause

a scene, if they just grabbed the kid and started molesting them, then the

kid would be likely to yell out, so this insidious creature gets the childs

permission first, usually out of fear, and creates guilt and self hatred in the

child.



You seem to have forgotten what you were talking about. You were saying that if homosexuality were legal, then pedophilia would have to be. The arguement here is that homosexuals can give true, real, informed consent. They understand the consequences of their actions. Children CANNOT. Whether or not they fight or scream is not the point. They are still taken advantage of.


[QUOTE]
So how else did the monkeys transmit it to humans then?

As has already been said, most likely by the eating of raw or undercooked monkey meat OR by blood mixing during hunting. The eating of monkey brains is fairly common in parts of Africa (its a local delicacy). Further, I don't know if you've ever been hunting--but it aint' pretty. The animal bleeds everywhere. The hunters can often get injured. <poof> Blood mixes and there you go.


[QUOTE]
I doupt that, do hetrosexual African males travel around the world much, in

order that they would mistakenly spread it?

Unlikely.


Kind of egotistical and supremacist of you. Africans can travel around the world quite a bit. It was an African who nearly destroyed the modern world when he brought Ebola out of Kinshasha. By some miracle no one else was infected.

[QUOTE]
Does anyone believe the disease is possibly man made?


Now here I'm going to be synical. You've been using this diseases as God's punishment against gays and now you're going to propose its man made? Can we say inconsistent?


[QUOTE]
lol do you even think about what you write, first you say they were most

likely not the first cases, then you say they were the first ones recognised

and diagnosed with it.


There is a difference between being the first case and being the first recognized/diagnosed case. HIV was unknown at the time. It's not like someone stumbled off of the street one day and they just said, "Oh look! He has a new disease, it's AIDS!" There was a sudden surge in several rare types of pneumonia and virally transmitted sarcomas that were known only to occur in cases of immunosuppression (there are several viruses, a variety of drugs, and some inborn errors that cause this). It was several years before they decided to classify what they were seeing as HIV/AIDS.

Thus, no one really knows who the first case was.

Why I'm giving you a history lesson I'll never know. It doesn't matter who had the first case of AIDS, just like it doesn't matter who had the first case of syphillis, or of the flu, or the first head cold.

[QUOTE]
So who were the first cases in America then, if it wasnt them?? :rolleyes:

Why is it so important to you to cast blame? Why not worry about things you can change? Like poverty.

I may be wrong, but AIDs can be transmitted other ways, such as blood going into another persons veins.


Just for the record, AIDS cannot be transmitted. It is a syndrome, not a pathogen. HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, can be transmitted in the following ways: 1. Sexual intercourse where the receptive party is at greater risk. 2. Sharing of contaminated needles amongst IV drug users or in medical clinic--a common practice in the third world. 3. Via blood transfusions or the mixing of blood (such as sometimes occurs in accidents or hunting).



The first cases of homosexuality probably occured way back when humans were un-civilised, possibly, most likely, even before humans were actually human.[/QUOTE]

They certainly date back to pre-Biblical times. Read up on Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

[QUOTE]

Jesus also said to love the sinner but not the sin, do you understand the

difference Pracus?



You've just proven that you have not read the Bible. Ever. Jesus NEVER said that. Gandhi, however, did. This also proves that you do not read what anyone else says because I"ve said that before on this thread.


[QUOTE]
As for stonethrowing, didnt you just call me a child molesterer before?

On what proof?


I was actually being flippant. However, if I had been calling you one, it would've been just as baselass as your accusations that homosexuals are more likely to be one and that they cannot raise children.



[QUOTE]
Have you ever wondered if you have one, being a homosexual I don't think

you have.

I feel sorry for you. :(

I don't. I was raised a Christian. At the age of sixteen, I became a fundamentalist. For two years I hated myself and my very existance beause of what I thought I had chosen to be. For two years I prayed every night that God would help me. I cried and I hoped and I tried. It didn't work. I finally came to the conclusion that God really didn't care if I was gay.

As for what I believe now? I can't quite give up my hopes taht there is a kind and loving God. But do I believe all the Christian dogma? Nope. There are gospels not included in the Bible while total trite is. The Bible directly contradicts itself (no I will not point them out as that's already been done on this very thread) and people pick and choose within it too much. I do my best to help people, to be kind to others, and to make the world a better place. I am hospitable, I am loyal, I am true, I am loving, I am forgiving. I do my best to be non-judgemental. I trust that the God I believe in will accept that as the best that I can do. I also trust that he will undestand my doubts and will help me by and by.

I do not however believe he would create one group of people just to hate them. That's not a good parents, that's a bastard.

I cant see God accepting them, because they are slaves to their own

carnality.

How can that be allowed to exist in Heaven alongside people who have led

pious and holy lives.

So now you have to have led a pious and holy life to get to heaven? I guess its gonna be kinda empty. See you in hell Term.

If they leave their homosexual life, and even become not necessarily hetero,

just practice abstinance until they die, they would be forgiven and have a

soul.

So if we don't practice abstinence, we don't have souls? I guess that means no going to hell after I die. Yay me!

It's called prayer. To converse your second point that I'm guessing you think you're well funny for making, I said remove homosexual urges not sexuality. And yes, God can remove these urges. You want proof? Try me. Before my friend pointed me at Nationstates, I was using the net almost entirely for.. less constructive purposes let's say. I had a huge penchant for porn. I asked God to take it from me because I knew it was wasting my time. Hey presto. Ask and you shall receive

Brainwashing? No, sorry.


Actually there are psychiatrists/psychologists who "claim" they can change people. It is rather like brainwashing and is not condoned by the APA or American Psychiatric Association.

And can God change sexuality? Maybe. He must not want to though. Been down that road and it nearly drove me to suicide and depression. Fortunantely I realized that I was okay the way I was.

What would you know.


I dont hate homosexuals anyway Schnappslant, or wish to harm them, I just

dont like what they do.

And sorry, whether you like it or not I have that right.

You are the most selfish person. You defend your own rights vigorously, but call others selfish when they do the same. And spreading mistruths and lies about homosexuals as you have done here (spread of HIV, child-molestation, etc.) is pretty tantamount to hate.

Islam beats it hands down.

Alot of bloody fighting through history involved Christians v Muslims, and still

does, so neither one is to blame as the bloodiest, or guiltiest between them.

Typical. The crusades? Those were caused by Christians trying to force Muslims out of the Holy Lands. Lands that BOTH religions laid claim to. Now I'm sure you'll say the Chrisitans had the rightful claim because they were, well, Christians and you are an intolerant bigot, but the fact remains that the CHRISTIANS started the wars. There was even a children's crusade because they thought there was no way God would let all those kids die.

Further, the Holocaust? Arguably one of the worst events ever to occur in the human existance. That was Christians. Hell, every church in Germany supported what was going on except for one that had the nerve to say no, something like The Confessing Church (can't remember the name now, but that's ancilliary).

Christianity may not be the bloodiest in history, but it is certainly up there. And its intentions have almost never been pure. And if you are to go with what Jesus said, you shouldn't fight anyways. When you are slapped on one cheek, turn the other.

Raliel do u know what your talking about . the muslim conquering was was worse than the spanish inquisition? what are you talking about? The spanish inquisition was so much worse. you couldnt even go out of your house if you were another religion. They killed any one who wasnt christian. Weather you were a jew, muslim etc. It was like the holucost. The fact is yes muslims did conquer other lands, but they did not force religion on others. Read some quotes by great christain's in the middle ages living in muslim lands. They said they were treated better there than in Europe.

[QUOTE]


Trust me they are, I live in a gay area, and sex is a huge part of their lives,

alot more so than hetrosexuals.

They practically worship sex.



Maybe the gays you know. But not all, no where near all. You most likely don't know the ones who aren't because you don't see them. You're above statement would be like my saying "All heterosexual teenagers are sex fiends because the cheerleaders in my high school all got pregnant." Sure, maybe five did get pregnant, but there were three hundred girls who didn't.


[QUOTE]

The only way the Church and State would be truly seperate, would be if all

religous people left politics, people who believed in no God would then pass

laws banning religon, which would mean no Church.


No. Wrong. Incorrect. STupid. The way to separate church and state is easy. Religious people start coming up with reasons for laws they want to propose OTHER than their religious texts and dogmas. No one wants to ban religion (well, maybe a few ;) ) Stop putting on the martyr robe. It's starting to wear a little thin.

:sniper: Well, hmmm, I think gay marriages are SICK! and SINFUL. Maybe we shouldn't kill them though cause thats sort of hypocritical. :fluffle: who wants to see this between two guys on a public bus?

I wouldn't mind seeing it ;)

Yes.. Christianity moved out of the dark ages, and hopefully Islam will too. To blame the churches of today for the actions of figureheads who were much more political than religious in the dark ages in europe is foolish. And to somehow pretend it negates all the good they do is rude, and bigoted.


But the most vocal people in today's time who are fighting against homosexuality ARE still political figurehead types. Paul Robertson and Jerry Falwell for example. They don't help anyone and instead spought language of fear and hatred. I wont' deny churches do much good--but so do many secular organizations.

And to negate the value of equal rights for all is even more rude and bigoted.

Two guys swapping saliva... I wish there was a throwing up emoticon.

And at the end of the day that is where your arguements come from. Your disgust. You have no logical basis for your arguements except that you do not find it appealing. ::rolls his eyes::

the point is that the attrocities in Europe and the Crusades were endorsed and encouraged by the Chistian leaders of the time the Church itself said that this was gods work. If you dissagreed you were tortured and killed
this is what christianity has meant to most of the world for most of its history

Let's not forget what Christian men and militaries did to the Native Americans. Convert or die!

Raliel do u know what your talking about . the muslim conquering was was worse than the spanish inquisition? what are you talking about? The spanish inquisition was so much worse. you couldnt even go out of your house if you were another religion. They killed any one who wasnt christian. Weather you were a jew, muslim etc. It was like the holucost. The fact is yes muslims did conquer other lands, but they did not force religion on others. Read some quotes by great christain's in the middle ages living in muslim lands. They said they were treated better there than in Europe.
umm you seem to have misread my threads as I was arguing that Christianity is by far the most bloody religion known to man... you may have picked up on something I had quoted from someone else then countred their argument. I am fully aware that the muslim countries during the times of the crusades were far more civilised than the so called Christian countries... better medicine a respect for other beliefs, science and understanding of the universe actively encouraged etc.

So how else did the monkeys transmit it to humans then?

As has been pointed out NUMEROUS times to you, it was most likely transmitted by blood contact. Bushmeant is still popular in many places in Africa, which means that apes are killed and dressed just like any other animal and then eaten.

I doupt that, do hetrosexual African males travel around the world much, in order that they would mistakenly spread it? Unlikely.

It started in Africa, so it had to spread somehow. And the Africans males (or females) would not have to travel - it would simply take other people traveling to Africa and then coming back.

A truer picture would be more like gay white men visiting Africa and taking it around the world with them.

Only because you want so badly for it to only be a gay disease, despite the clear fact that it is not.

lol do you even think about what you write, first you say they were most likely not the first cases, then you say they were the first ones recognised and diagnosed with it.

Do you even think about what you read? The first cases were not necessarily, and in fact almost certainly were not, the first diagnosed cases. Do you realize how many people die without a known cause of death? You also do realize that people do not die of AIDS, but of opportunistic diseases that get through because of the lowered immune system? It was first noticed as an epidemic in this country in the homosexual community, but the idea that they were the first and only cases is just absurd. If you knew anything about medicine, you would know that *many* Americans had most likely died of AIDS before people started watching San Fransisco bathhouses.

So who were the first cases in America then, if it wasnt them?? :rolleyes:

It is impossible to know. We can look back at all the undiagnosed deaths in this country and make guesses, but there was no way of diagnosing the disease back then, so we will never know for sure.

Dem, when you choose sides, you really choose sides, you had no problem with Pracus saying the same thing first, so you have no right
to state the above.

When Pracus said it, it was quite obviously sarcasm.

You have previously falsely stated that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked, thus demonstrating that your comment was meant to be taken seriously.

It's called prayer. To converse your second point that I'm guessing you think you're well funny for making, I said remove homosexual urges not sexuality. And yes, God can remove these urges. You want proof? Try me. Before my friend pointed me at Nationstates, I was using the net almost entirely for.. less constructive purposes let's say. I had a huge penchant for porn. I asked God to take it from me because I knew it was wasting my time. Hey presto. Ask and you shall receive

So God made it that you don't want to go seek out porn. Good.

Did God make it so that if you see a naked woman (I am assuming you are male), you won't be at least a little bit turned on? Because if all God did was take away your porn obsession, God certainly didn't change your sexuality.

And as for your earlier comment that I can't seem to find right now - the Abelardian view of atonement has just as much (if not more) Biblical backing as the Augustinian view that you so boldly profess. On top of that, it meets the idea of an all-loving God and follows Christ's teachings. Why do you think that you have a monopoly on GOd's will?

This is more about how it originated in Africa, from monkeys, and I dont think they were giving human/ ape blood transfusions.

If I cut you, would you bleed? If you would, you must realize that blood transfusions are not the only (or most likely) way to come in contact with blood.

Trust me they are, I live in a gay area, and sex is a huge part of their lives, alot more so than hetrosexuals. They practically worship sex.

Term: "I know a few homosexuals that live in my area. They act this way, which means that every single homosexual in the entire world acts that way too."

Term: "I know some women who gossip a lot, so all women must gossip a lot."

Term: "There are a few homosexuals who are pedophiles, so most pedophiles are homosexual."

And this is from the guy who claims to not like stereotyping?

The only way the Church and State would be truly seperate, would be if all religous people left politics, people who believed in no God would then pass laws banning religon, which would mean no Church.

Wrong. Religious people can stay in politics, they just don't have any business passing laws with no other reason than religion.

And if laws were passed banning religion, then that would be putting state over church, not separating the two. Don't be so melodramatic.

Term: "I know a few homosexuals that live in my area. They act this way, which means that every single homosexual in the entire world acts that way too."

Term: "I know some women who gossip a lot, so all women must gossip a lot."

Term: "There are a few homosexuals who are pedophiles, so most pedophiles are homosexual."

And this is from the guy who claims to not like stereotyping?

Don't be silly. When Termy says things like that, it's the Truth(tm).

Don't argue. I'm a maths/comp sci graduate.


That doesn't have anything to do with your vocabulary. Not that I'm saying that you're wrong, but Comp Sci degree != English degree.

Now if I was to say that I earn money as a computer technician and therefore your views on gays are wrong, would that not sound daft?

However, if I were to say that my aptitude for abstract reasoning is quite literally off the scale, and that therefore your philosophy against gay people is not only wrong but dangerous for reasons beyond your comprehension, would I be right?

http://www.cgnw30832.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/psychometrictest.jpg

If aptitude and mental ability is your measure of rightness, then suck this up.

Personally, I don't usually go for proving people wrong with sheets of paper - but if someone's using their degree to win an argument, then I'll use this.

Two guys swapping saliva... I wish there was a throwing up emoticon.
Two people period 'swapping saliva' is disgusting. Not that there's anything wrong with the act, but I am seriously against PDA. I am just as easily disturbed by seeing two straight people kissing as seeing two gay people. GET A ROOM ASSHOLES. That's my feeling on the subject.

Oh yeah, and on the AIDS thing, I posted some info from the CDC, or Center for Disease Control. They said it most likely jumped species while hunting. I don't feel like posting it again, but AIDS didn't come from some guy raping a monkey.

Also, the first person to bring it into America, as far as we know, was a gay flight attendant, who left the disease at different stops he'd made. Sounds like a promiscuous fellow, eh? Anyway, it entered via the gay community by chance. If the man had been straight, then it would have entered via the straight community. That was all just chance, and then myth created by fear.

How can AIDS be passed? Sex, yes. But also from blood, and sometimes from mother's breast milk. Also, of course, it can pass from mother to fetus, though there are ways to prevent this.

I already posted my sources for the first two points. I learned how AIDS is passed from my Sex ED class last semester. I'll find you a source anyway if you want it.

Also, the first person to bring it into America, as far as we know, was a gay flight attendant, who left the disease at different stops he'd made. Sounds like a promiscuous fellow, eh? Anyway, it entered via the gay community by chance. If the man had been straight, then it would have entered via the straight community. That was all just chance, and then myth created by fear.

Actually, the particular flight attendent you are talking about *may* have been the first person to bring it into America, but this is unlikely. He was simply the first to spread it much. And he was bisexual, not homosexual and spread it to many. The reason it was delineated as a "gay disease" was because of the promiscuous lifestyle of some homosexuals at the time, and the fact that they were not aware that condoms should be used.

Actually, the particular flight attendent you are talking about *may* have been the first person to bring it into America, but this is unlikely. He was simply the first to spread it much. And he was bisexual, not homosexual and spread it to many. The reason it was delineated as a "gay disease" was because of the promiscuous lifestyle of some homosexuals at the time, and the fact that they were not aware that condoms should be used.
You're right, my bad. It MAY have been the first case. We really don't know for sure.

And it's believed that the disease was in America "since at least the mid- to late 1970s." I know people were promiscuous in the 60's, what with hippies an' free love an' stuff, so may haps people were still that way in the 70s? And I don't think condoms were really a big deal until HIV / AIDS, when it became life threatening to do without.

(Also, I keep saying AIDS, but as someone mentioned earlier, the virus is HIV, AIDS is the development or symptom or whatever. My bad.)

[QUOTE]

And thanks for acknowleging my immortal soul. :)

Have you ever wondered if you have one, being a homosexual I don't think

you have.

I feel sorry for you. :(


More christian hate...
"OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!! You = Different! You Sick bastard. You arent even good enough for a soul."

Why is it that christians love to hate?

More christian hate...
"OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!! You = Different! You Sick bastard. You arent even good enough for a soul."

Why is it that christians love to hate?

Lets not be stereotypical here. Already people in this forum have created stereostypes for gays, lesbiens and now christians. None of us here are representing a whole community.

Keep stereotypes out of this forum, even if you are using it as an argument for gay marriages.

Two people period 'swapping saliva' is disgusting. Not that there's anything wrong with the act, but I am seriously against PDA. I am just as easily disturbed by seeing two straight people kissing as seeing two gay people. GET A ROOM ASSHOLES. That's my feeling on the subject.

Oh yeah, and on the AIDS thing, I posted some info from the CDC, or Center for Disease Control. They said it most likely jumped species while hunting. I don't feel like posting it again, but AIDS didn't come from some guy raping a monkey.

Also, the first person to bring it into America, as far as we know, was a gay flight attendant, who left the disease at different stops he'd made. Sounds like a promiscuous fellow, eh? Anyway, it entered via the gay community by chance. If the man had been straight, then it would have entered via the straight community. That was all just chance, and then myth created by fear.

How can AIDS be passed? Sex, yes. But also from blood, and sometimes from mother's breast milk. Also, of course, it can pass from mother to fetus, though there are ways to prevent this.

I already posted my sources for the first two points. I learned how AIDS is passed from my Sex ED class last semester. I'll find you a source anyway if you want it.

But you notice that Terminalia reinforced my point?

I indicated that homosexuality in women is tolerated because the average guy is titillated by it, and doesn't consider it a 'threat' since they often believe they can 'convert' a lesbian.

Where as homosexuality in men exposes a whole wealth of emotions that the average guy cannot or will not deal with, and that is why the talk of restricting homosexuals from being allowed to marry... it makes straight men uncomfortable. (Note: It doesn't make me uncomfortable, and there are many straight men that are comfortable with it... but, unfortunately, the average guy doesn't seem to be that comfortable with their own sexuality).

Terminalia immediately obliged in proving my point.

But you notice that Terminalia reinforced my point?

I indicated that homosexuality in women is tolerated because the average guy is titillated by it, and doesn't consider it a 'threat' since they often believe they can 'convert' a lesbian.

Where as homosexuality in men exposes a whole wealth of emotions that the average guy cannot or will not deal with, and that is why the talk of restricting homosexuals from being allowed to marry... it makes straight men uncomfortable. (Note: It doesn't make me uncomfortable, and there are many straight men that are comfortable with it... but, unfortunately, the average guy doesn't seem to be that comfortable with their own sexuality).

Terminalia immediately obliged in proving my point.
Completely true. You hear the word "homosexual" you instantly think of two effeminate men kissing, and OH MY GOD that is so wrong and disturbing.

But yeah, girl on girl action, oh yeah... :rolleyes:

That is a whole lot more fact than any amount of "ex gays" that are either still gay and hiding it, in a state of brainwashed denial, or were never really gay to begin with.As I understand repairative therapy and ex-gays, perhaps the majority aren't hiding it or brainwashed. (Many are bisexual). Rather they've having a go at "the" heterosexual "lifestyle". Which tends not to work too well for them. ("the heterosexual lifestyle" tends to have pretty stereotyped gender roles for these groups.)

No, Im suggesting alot of child molesters are gay, not a lot of gays are child molesters.It really depends on how you define "gay". People saying this play around with definitions, or just make things up. A lot of child molesters molest children of the same sex. That does not mean that someone you know to be gay is more likely to molest children than someone that you know to be straight.

Trust me they are, I live in a gay area, and sex is a huge part of their lives, alot more so than hetrosexuals.
They practically worship sex.No, I'm not going to trust you. I don't trust your perceptions, and in any event the gays who live in a gay area are not going to be representative.

My theroy is that christians activly WANT to be persecuted. No, seriously, they do. Martyr complex. This is just another show of it. Only, now they're actually MAKING SHIT UP in order to wallow about it.

And I'm dead serious about the martyr complex. Most christians I've met go out of their way to put themselves in the position to be criticized and persecuted. Then when it happens, they talk about how horrible people treat their religion.

I always wondered about those passages in the Bible and in hymns when I was in Sunday school (I was one of those problem children there who asked too many questions). I'd hear about standing strong in the wake of all this persecution, and I'd just look around thinking, "What persecution?!"

Of course, much of that dates back to the time of the Bible's origin.

As far as seeking martyrdom, that's nothing new. Read some of the writings of the Christian saints of the past. In particular, check out St. Ignatius (as I recall, I could be mistaken)...he wrote a few letters on his way to a city hostile to Christianity, and you could tell that he was really getting off on the idea that he would be martyred there. He describes a number of things, such as being eaten by a lion, in very, very meticulous, painstaking detail.

In modern times, my guess is that the Christians who are always complaining of persecution for frivolous reasons are the ones who are either A) looking for attention, or B) know in the back of their minds that their faith is lacking, and in "persecution," they feel more like true Christians.

That probably sounds pretty offensive to some, but if you know that's not you, then you shouldn't be bothered by it.

Original sin is an Augustinian belief based largely on a mistranslation. The Hebrew word for man is the name for Adam. Thus, when people were translating Scripture, they had to kind of guess whether the word meant all of humankind, or just Adam. The Augustinian view of original sin was based on a translation in which "humankind" was used, although it was probably meant to be "Adam."

The Abelardian view of atonement is much better and much more compatible with an all-loving God. You should look into it.

I'm intrigued...I got a minor in Religious Studies focusing on Christianity, and I've never heard of this. Of course, the problems of mistranslation are nothing new, but I've never come upon this one. Got any sources on it?

There were an entire faction of 'christians' who believed that god was the fallen spirit, dwelling on earth, and that the devil was the spirit that remained in the heavens. They believed that every person who THOUGHT they were worshipping the creator, was ACTUALLY worshipping some renegade faction with an agenda of sin.

How do you prove that they were wrong? The scriptures were written by the very people who a devil would have chosen as his emissaries... and now, thanks to the 'supression' by the church, those 'christians' are now long dead.

That still doesn't mean they were wrong. In fact, all 'christians', if there ARE a god and a devil, COULD be serving the wrong power, and there is no way to know.

Just wanted to throw that in, to start.

I've considered that interesting twist...the Devil is crafty, after all. How do we know that he didn't already take over heaven and just get a bunch of people to write, "The Devil rebelled, and God threw him out. So, worship the guy in the clouds. That guy being God. Yup, it's God." If I were to take over a kingdom in which no one had ever seen the King or his agents, that's how I'd do it.

You happen to remember the name of the sect?

It's called prayer. To converse your second point that I'm guessing you think you're well funny for making, I said remove homosexual urges not sexuality. And yes, God can remove these urges. You want proof? Try me. Before my friend pointed me at Nationstates, I was using the net almost entirely for.. less constructive purposes let's say. I had a huge penchant for porn. I asked God to take it from me because I knew it was wasting my time. Hey presto. Ask and you shall receive

Brainwashing? No, sorry.

You're right, it's not brainwashing, because it often involves a homosexual who wants to be "cured." Brainwashing is forcefully done to an otherwise unwilling party. What you're talking about is repression - the mind denying a thought, memory, or urge. Essentially, the person wishes he weren't homosexual and tells himself over and over again that he repents and is no longer gay until he convinces himself of it. Of course, this isn't healthy, since it's based largely in fear and self-loathing; nor is it a cure - merely a mental version of stuffing someone into a closet and saying they've left. You'll not find a credible study that demonstrates genuine, non-religious homosexuals being cured, and modern psychology rejects the theory.

I voted that gay marriage should be allowed, because i believe that if any two consenting adults love eachother and want to get married, they should have the opportunity. It is not a threat to any of us heteros if they do, it's not like we will all suddenly be forced to marry those of the same sex. It's really none of our business who someone else loves.

Schnappslant Please, you really don't.

Yes, I do.

Who do you think you are to tell me, whether I shouldnt like something or not.


You believe in God yes? You believe that he created every living and inanimate thing on this earth yes? I don't know anything. Fair enough not liking sin but one of God's creations never has the right to hate another one. Do you understand what I mean?

OMG!

I just told you, I dislike homosexuality, strongly.

I dont hate gay people themselves, because their gay, I have met gay

people I couldnt stand because they themselves were quite odius, and I've

met gay people who I found quite interesting, and believe it or not, I have a

few friends at the moment who are gay!

Do you?

Yes, they know I dont like homosexuality, and no, they dont hate me for it

either, it just isnt discussed much, theres alot more to talk about in life,

than just what you get up to in your bedroom at night.

So now you have to have led a pious and holy life to get to heaven? I guess its gonna be kinda empty. See you in hell Term.

Well I didnt mean holy as a Saint, just respecting Gods laws, following his

commandments as best you can, and showing God respect for being God.

No, I will not see you in Hell.

But I will see you go there.

Ciao, enjoy the pitchforks.

Well I didnt mean holy as a Saint, just respecting Gods laws, following his

commandments as best you can, and showing God respect for being God.

No, I will not see you in Hell.

But I will see you go there.

Ciao, enjoy the pitchforks.

He's a gonna go to hell-uh....yeahus!:D

So if we don't practice abstinence, we don't have souls? I guess that means no going to hell after I die. Yay me!

OK you got me there, allow me to revise then and say, Satan has your soul

at the moment already, so therefore you dont.

If you ask God back into your life, you will loose that empty feeling your

trying to fill inside you, with the worlds toys.

Pracus:- Further, the Holocaust? Arguably one of the worst events ever to occur in the human existance. That was Christians.

That was actually- 'drumroll for the bleeding obvious statement about to
follow'- the Nazis.

And no, they werent Christians.


And if you are to go with what Jesus said, you shouldn't fight anyways. When you are slapped on one cheek, turn the other.


Exactly, meaning that sometimes you should, just not all the time.

Myself, I like an eye for an eye much better.

Exactly, meaning that sometimes you should, just not all the time.

Myself, I like an eye for an eye much better.

Then your just as bad as homosexuals, because eye for an eye is a sin under New Testament law.

Also, the first person to bring it into America, as far as we know, was a gay flight attendant, who left the disease at different stops he'd made. Sounds like a promiscuous fellow, eh? Anyway, it entered via the gay community by chance. If the man had been straight, then it would have entered via the straight community. That was all just chance, and then myth created by fear.


Yes, but if the flight attendant had been heterosexual, he probably wouldnt

have picked up this disease from the monkeys in the first place.

Then your just as bad as homosexuals, because eye for an eye is a sin under New Testament law.

No its not.

Ban gay marriage? Dipshits.

As said earlier, the concept of marriage was used before Christianity.(sp?)

Not everyone is Christian.

There is a nice division between church and state.

If God hates it so much, then why doesnt he just wipe out gays himself?

At least they're getting married BEFORE they fool around.

Gay marriages never bothered you before Bush brought it up, why should it now?

Dempublicents[/B]] The reason it was delineated as a "gay disease" was because of the promiscuous lifestyle of some homosexuals at the time, and the fact that they were not aware that condoms should be used.

Some lol. Try alot, a huge amount.

Nothings changed either, more condoms are worn, that is about the only big

difference.

No its not.

For someone who's so convicted of his religion, you know little about it.

Jesus was big on non-violence. Turn the other cheek and all that.


[quote]Some lol. Try alot, a huge amount.

Nothings changed either, more condoms are worn, that is about the only big

difference./quote]

And this is proven because...?

Wait, don't tell me. EIther it's because a) you've seen some homosexuals doing, therefore they ALL must do it. Or b) they do it while they arn't married.

So homosexuals should not get married, because they're sexually active before their married. So...homosexuals can get married if they never, ever have sex ever?

Pracus[/B]]And at the end of the day that is where your arguements come from. Your disgust. You have no logical basis for your arguements except that you do not find it appealing. ::rolls his eyes::

No, thats just my natural reaction I'm talking about, to seeing two men

together in this way.

Can't be wrong then.

Yes, but if the flight attendant had been heterosexual, he probably wouldnt

have picked up this disease from the monkeys in the first place.

You're saying HIV jumped to humans because of gay men FUCKING MONKEYS?

Lets try and keep this out of american politics because we are not all from america.

Possibly the Bush and Massachusetts comment was American politics, but the debate on legalising gay marriage is a worldwide one where people are still unhappy one way or another about the laws regarding this.

Well I voted that gay marriage is fine, I see no reason that same-sex couples can't marry. I believe one of the arguments against it is that it's not good in the eyes of God - since when has America been a theocracy? State policy should not be determined by religious views that something will "defile the sanctity of marriage" - oh please, there is no sanctity in marriage anymore anyway, it's not like divorce isn't legal. So where's the harm?

[QUOTE=Goed]For someone who's so convicted of his religion, you know little about it.

Convinced.


Jesus was big on non-violence. Turn the other cheek and all that.

Yes, but thats Jesus, I'm only human.

I'll do my best of course, but you can only be pushed so far.



And this is proven because...?

Wait, don't tell me. EIther it's because a) you've seen some homosexuals doing, therefore they ALL must do it. Or b) they do it while they arn't married.

Before the Aids virus began, homosexuals indulged in alot of unprotected sex

with numerous partners.


So homosexuals should not get married, because they're sexually active before their married. So...homosexuals can get married if they never, ever have sex ever?

No, I dont believe marriage should even be considered as an option for gay

people, regardless of whether sex is still being practiced or not.

You're saying HIV jumped to humans because of gay men FUCKING MONKEYS?

Yes.

Yes.
I have nothing to say to this. :)

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]
If you knew anything about medicine, you would know that *many* Americans had most likely died of AIDS before people started watching San Fransisco bathhouses.

Do you have any links for that?

Being against gay marriages is like being against interracial marriages or inter-religious marriages or any "kind" of marriage. Marriage is a natural right. You don't need a priest or a judge or officious documents to be with someone in a mutual life-long relationship of genuine love and personal betterment. I really believe that marriage is one of the best ways to find and express and grow in love. And since it is every human being's born right to give, receive and live a life of love, who are we to classify love into "gay" or "interracial", etc? Isn't it enough that this love is shared between two willing, capable and understanding human beings?

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]When Pracus said it, it was quite obviously sarcasm.

Course it was.

Completely true. You hear the word "homosexual" you instantly think of two effeminate men kissing, and OH MY GOD that is so wrong and disturbing.

But yeah, girl on girl action, oh yeah... :rolleyes:

I dont know, Ive seen a few bull dykes go for it some times, talk about ugly.

No, I'm not going to trust you. I don't trust your perceptions, and in any event the gays who live in a gay area are not going to be representative.

lol they represent gays more than anything.

Gay marriages never bothered you before Bush brought it up, why should it now?

It did actually.

Government should have no say in our personal lifes.
A government ban would be doing so, while at the same time promoting bigotry against a sect of people in our country. to put such a thing in our constitution would be shameful to everything this country is founded on.
If a religious institution/church does not want to marry a gay couple then they are clearly within their rights to deny such a thing. they are a private organisation and can do as they wish.
people say it destroys the basis of marriage and what it stand for, but last time I checked it was a social bond and not a religious one. if you can go to a courthouse and get a marriage licence, it is no longer religious in nature. not to mention that more than half of straight marriages end in devorice. marriage has no sanctatey anymore, so why pretend it does as an excuse to oppress people. plus, marriage was around before christianity , judism, or islam.
its simply a promise and a bond between two people and the government has no right to say they are for or against it.

[QUOTE]




Before the Aids virus began, homosexuals indulged in alot of unprotected sex

with numerous partners.



And the same goes to straight people, gay's weren't the only one’s involved in having unprotected sex. Straight people did it just as much as gay people, maybe even more. As I said before, stop seeing gays in stereotypical ways.

but, unfortunately, the average guy doesn't seem to be that comfortable with their own sexuality).


Typical PC arguement that is based only on heterosexuals disliking gay stuff.

Hetro: I dont hate gays, I just dislike what they do.

PC idiot: You homophobe!

This means you are uncomfortable with your own sexuality, have secret

desires to be gay, but fear expressing them. :rolleyes:

lol they represent gays more than anything.

Not every gay has to represent the whole community.
If I met a straight guy in a truck stop who was overweight, unhealthy and drunk most of the time, would that mean that all straight people are like that?

And the same goes to straight people, gay's weren't the only one’s involved in having unprotected sex. Straight people did it just as much as gay people, maybe even more. As I said before, stop seeing gays in stereotypical ways.


You mean stop seeing them how they are.

Your wrong about straight people doing it more unprotected( pre aids)

especially with the amount of sex partners a gay man has.

You mean stop seeing them how they are.

Your wrong about straight people doing it more unprotected( pre aids)

especially with the amount of sex partners a gay man has.

That’s strange…last time I checked most gay people I knew liked to stick to one partner. Gays don’t have sex with every gay guy they meet. They are not prostitutes you know.

Typical PC arguement that is based only on heterosexuals disliking gay stuff.

Hetro: I dont hate gays, I just dislike what they do.

PC idiot: You homophobe!

This means you are uncomfortable with your own sexuality, have secret

desires to be gay, but fear expressing them. :rolleyes:
no, i think you misunderstand. simply saying, "i don't find homosexual activities appealing, i think it's actually kind of gross" is just fine and dandy. i think that anal sex is gross as all hell, and i'm a bisexual. thinking that certain practices are unappealing is not homophobia, since gay people often feel the same way about heterosexual practices and aren't "heterophobic."

however, saying that somebody doesn't have the right to do those things because you think they are icky is homophobic. devaluing a person simply because they make different choices in their sex life is homophobic. believing that a person should not be granted equal legal rights based on the sexual conduct they engage in with consenting adults is homophobic. as long as they aren't trying to sleep with YOU, it doesn't matter what they are doing in their private life (provided all parties are consenting, of course), and there is no reason for you to attempt to force your personal values upon them.

also, research has PROVEN, multiple times, that straight males who self-identify as strongly disliking homosexuality (i.e. self-identifying as homophobic) are MORE likely to have a physical arrousal reaction to gay porn than are straight males who do not hold homophobic views. this research has been reproduced numerous times, and always with the same results. this does not mean that ALL homophobes are gay at heart, but it does provide evidence that many, if not most, homophobic males have some homosexual feelings that they are not addressing in the most healthy way.

Not every gay has to represent the whole community.
If I met a straight guy in a truck stop who was overweight, unhealthy and drunk most of the time, would that mean that all straight people are like that?

I'm talking about a large area with a large population and you come up with a

truckstop, how about a bit of relevance.

That’s strange…last time I checked most gay people I knew liked to stick to one partner. Gays don’t have sex with every gay guy they meet. They are not prostitutes you know.

How little you know, alot of them do have one partner, they also have alot of

one night stands.

I'm talking about a large area with a large population and you come up with a

truckstop, how about a bit of relevance.

I was creating a stereotype for straight people, just like how you were creating a stereotype for gay people. Believe it or not, not all gay guys, and most of them aren't, are sex-crazed, party animals.
Another stereotype example (you didn't like the straight one) would be teenagers - You pass teens at night spray painting a wall, and you have seen this being done many times before. Therefore all teenagers are up to no good.

You mean stop seeing them how they are.

Your wrong about straight people doing it more unprotected( pre aids)

especially with the amount of sex partners a gay man has.
actually, you are the one who is mistaken. with the exception of a very small (and very localized) population of urban male homosexuals, promiscuity in the homosexual community was virtually nil. this was because of the stigma against homosexuality, and the serious risk in revealing one's sexual orientation to anybody in most areas of the country. heterosexuals were, by far, more promiscuous than homosexuals. still are, as a matter of fact.

How little you know, alot of them do have one partner, they also have alot of

one night stands.
and you know this....how?

How little you know, alot of them do have one partner, they also have alot of

one night stands.

Funnily enough, many single straight guys have one night stands as well. Gay guys don't do any of this stuff more then your average straight guy.

[QUOTE=Pracus]
"So of course I'm for gay marriage.

The thing I don't understand is this . . . why is it that some people think gay people should only have civil unions? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm thankful that you are for us having equal rights as human beings and all, but didn't we deal with that whole separate is NOT equal thing back when segregation was ended? I realize this is American politics and history 101 and apologize to the non-Americans."

-Actually, this is as much (if not more) a Canadian issue right now, since the bill is all but passed up here. Now, since I'm this far I may as well say my opinion, too. First off, I'm straight, so I'm not about to tell someone who's gay what or what not to do. I'm all for civil unions, at least--since i've found that the biggest issue (at least amoung my gay friends) is the spousal rights that come with marriage--like, when a spouse dies, you'd be ensured to recieve the same benefits as would a hetersexual couple. That much is absolutley necessary, I feel.

As far as what we call these unions, this is where I'm still having difficulty giving up my more 'traditional' views. It's stubborn and selfish of me, but for some reason, i'm still not comfortable with gay unions being called 'marriage'--and I can't explain why. It has nothing to do with any adverse feelings towards LGBT people, i'm straight, but i'm not narrow. But, i guess as with any social change, it takes time to get used to the idea.

Cheers.

however, saying that somebody doesn't have the right to do those things because you think they are icky is homophobic. devaluing a person simply because they make different choices in their sex life is homophobic. believing that a person should not be granted equal legal rights based on the sexual conduct they engage in with consenting adults is homophobic.
as long as they aren't trying to sleep with YOU, it doesn't matter what they are doing in their private life (provided all parties are consenting, of course), and there is no reason for you to attempt to force your personal values upon them.
also, research has PROVEN, multiple times, that straight males who self-identify as strongly disliking homosexuality (i.e. self-identifying as homophobic) are MORE likely to have a physical arrousal reaction to gay porn than are straight males who do not hold homophobic views. this research has been reproduced numerous times, and always with the same results. this does not mean that ALL homophobes are gay at heart, but it does provide evidence that many, if not most, homophobic males have some homosexual feelings that they are not addressing in the most healthy way.

I'll answer this PC rubbish in the morning, night all.

and you know this....how?

Terminalia possibly was spying on them... As you might notice I've lowered myself to Terminalia's level by acusing him/her of something without any hard evidence.

actually, you are the one who is mistaken. with the exception of a very small (and very localized) population of urban male homosexuals, promiscuity in the homosexual community was virtually nil. this was because of the stigma against homosexuality, and the serious risk in revealing one's sexual orientation to anybody in most areas of the country. heterosexuals were, by far, more promiscuous than homosexuals. still are, as a matter of fact.
thank you! i hate it when people jump to the conclusion that we are sexual perverts and have a different partner every day. Most of us are very monogamous, as a matter of fact. And to get something clear, the most promiscuous people are heterosexual women, which include prostitutes and heterosexual women are three times as likely to have HIV and/or AIDS than a lesbian and and twice as likely as opposed to a homosexual male...

No, I'm not going to trust you. I don't trust your perceptions, and in any event the gays who live in a gay area are not going to be representative.lol they represent gays more than anything.So you're saying that gays that have come out and have moved to such a community are representative of gays in general? Methinks you see what you want to see.

thank you! i hate it when people jump to the conclusion that we are sexual perverts and have a different partner every day. Most of us are very monogamous, as a matter of fact. And to get something clear, the most promiscuous people are heterosexual women, which include prostitutes and heterosexual women are three times as likely to have HIV and/or AIDS than a lesbian and and twice as likely as opposed to a homosexual male...

Tell that to Termanalia...He/She won't listen and just keeps going on about how gays are always having one night stands. I mean, sure, some of us might have a one night stand but the same goes for all straight guys as well.

thank you! i hate it when people jump to the conclusion that we are sexual perverts and have a different partner every day. Most of us are very monogamous, as a matter of fact. And to get something clear, the most promiscuous people are heterosexual women, which include prostitutes and heterosexual women are three times as likely to have HIV and/or AIDS than a lesbian and and twice as likely as opposed to a homosexual male...
well, now, let's be more specific. PROSTITUTES are more promiscuous, but heterosexual women are not, as a rule, more promiscuous than heterosexual males or homosexual males. the rough continuum ranks heterosexual males as most promiscuous (on average), followed by homosexual males, heterosexual females, and homosexual females dead last. females are less promiscuous than males in general, but homosexuals of each gender are less promiscuous (on average) than their heterosexual peers.

For the first time (that I can remember) I agree with Terminalia, now is a good time to go to sleep. Good night everyone, I will fight for gay rights tomorrow, but now.fshfghkgv,gbiygggg sorry, my head hit the keyboard....I'm going to bed.

I've considered that interesting twist...the Devil is crafty, after all. How do we know that he didn't already take over heaven and just get a bunch of people to write, "The Devil rebelled, and God threw him out. So, worship the guy in the clouds. That guy being God. Yup, it's God." If I were to take over a kingdom in which no one had ever seen the King or his agents, that's how I'd do it.

You happen to remember the name of the sect?

Now you have put me on the spot... my brain is trying to convince me it was Cathari, but I fear I may be confusing what was said in the persecution of Cathari, with what they actually followed.

Cathari or not, there were several 'Gnostic' factions that believed 'alternative' arrangements of the god/satan conception: Faced with the knowledge that the world is perverse, and that god is pure, they decided it made no sense for the 'pure' to have contaminated itself with the impure... so there must have been another 'creator'. This being they called 'demiurge' - the 'second mover', behind the 'prime mover', who is the true god. They believed that demiurge created the world, and was, therefore, the God of the Old Testament.

In Bogomil thought... there was a god with TWO sons, Christ, adn his older brother Satanael. Satanael gets fed up with being second-place, and creates this world, and all that are in it... but god has to help him with the breath of life. So - the god of the bible is satan, and there IS no 'satan' satan in this story. Oh, christ is eventually sent to 'claim' some of those creations, by virtue of the breath of life.

It's an interesting concept. I just wish my brain was being a little more cooperative.

OK you got me there, allow me to revise then and say, Satan has your soul

at the moment already, so therefore you dont.

If you ask God back into your life, you will loose that empty feeling your

trying to fill inside you, with the worlds toys.

My apologies if my responses aren't up to my normal stellar form--I'm battling what I fear is the beginning of a mgraine.

However, there is no void in my life as you seem to suggest. I'm happy. Extremely so. I have two wonderful, loving parents who not only love and support me in all things I choose to do, but who are also two of my best friends. I have an older sister is who is one of the greatest people I know and is willing to share her life with me. I have wonderful friends who love and accept me, a great future of service to my fellow humans, several projects of which I am proud to be a part, and two great TV shows in Charmed and Veronica Mars to round out my activities. I go to movies, I eat good food, I go jogging. My life is just about as full as it could be. I'm sure you'll say I'm just hiding or compensating, and frankly I wouldn't blame you because there is no way for you to get inside of me. But NO, I'm not trying to fill a void because there is none. I'm happy.

That was actually- 'drumroll for the bleeding obvious statement about to
follow'- the Nazis.

And no, they werent Christians.


Ask Hitler, he'd say he was. And ALL the churches in Germany supported it except for one--this includes the Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.





Exactly, meaning that sometimes you should, just not all the time.

Myself, I like an eye for an eye much better.

Funny, I missed the some time clause. And Jesus didn't say an eye for an eye. Further if you read the next line, its "Vengence is MINE so sayeth the Lord." He didn't give the right to revenge to mankind.

Yes, but if the flight attendant had been heterosexual, he probably wouldnt

have picked up this disease from the monkeys in the first place.

See, you don't read what others right. The transmission from monkeys WAS NOT SEXUAL. It was through bush meat or a hunting accident.

Some lol. Try alot, a huge amount.

Nothings changed either, more condoms are worn, that is about the only big

difference.

You see all homosexuals as these sex addicted nymphomaniacs. But that is because you don't see the rest of us. If you and I met in public, you would have no clue I was gay. Most of us are not flamboyant nor are we out to screw every guy we can get our hands on. We are normal, everyday people that you would never be able to pick out of a police lineup.

No, thats just my natural reaction I'm talking about, to seeing two men

together in this way.

Can't be wrong then.

Yes, it can be wrong. My natural reaction to you is to punch you in the mouth. But that would be wrong. So I settle for making you look like the intoleranct, self-important, arrogant fool that you are.

You're saying HIV jumped to humans because of gay men FUCKING MONKEYS?

He's been trying to say that for a while now--despite the fact that people have pointed out far more likely alternatives.

[QUOTE]


Yes, but thats Jesus, I'm only human.

I'll do my best of course, but you can only be pushed so far.


All that religious teaching for so many years only to find out that Jesus wasn't human? Here I thought God became man to live as one of us and to prove that humans could face their temptations. Thanks for clearing that up term.



[QUOTE]
Before the Aids virus began, homosexuals indulged in alot of unprotected sex

with numerous partners.


So? Hetersexuals still have orgies and many of them indulge in unprotected sex with numerous partners. Sex between consenting adults is hardly a reason to ban marriage.


[QUOTE]
No, I dont believe marriage should even be considered as an option for gay

people, regardless of whether sex is still being practiced or not.

Yeah, we've figured that out. What we don't know is what logical reason you have for that. You want to tell me that's what the Bible says? Fine, but you better be willing to say that you follow every guideline in the Bible and that you are willing to take rights away from everyone who breaks a single ojne of those guidelines, including yourself.

[QUOTE]

Do you have any links for that?

He has me as a source for that. We're studying HIV/AIDS right now in Pathology. The first cases in the USA are believed to have been in New York City in the early 1970s with a group of people (male and female) dying of Rous Sarcoma and Pneumocystis javeneki (then carinii) pneumonia. Those are infectious diseases that rare cause infection and nearly never cause death. It wasn't for another eight or so years before they begin to put the strange occurences together in a picture allowed for the concept of HIV to arise. Of course the concept of AIDS was already around because it is a syndrome that can be caused by other infectious agents and medical treatments.

lol they represent gays more than anything.

No, they represent the type of gays that live in an area. To say they represent all of us would be to say that you represent all Christians, or Bush all Americans, or bin Laden all Muslims. It's just not true--especially in groups that are so large.

What the fuck does anyone care about gay people getting married? i mean comeon if makes them happy let them. People say that gay marragies shouldnt be allowed since its not in the bilbe. but it is the governments job to keep seperate from religon. All this crap is stupid and should all be dismissed

You mean stop seeing them how they are.

Your wrong about straight people doing it more unprotected( pre aids)

especially with the amount of sex partners a gay man has.

Oh please! The average frat boy where I went to college had a helluva lot more sex than I did. And you know what scares me about straight people? The number of them having unprotected sex NOW! It's frightening to me that those genes for stupidity are the ones that are goign to be passed on to future generation <sarcasm>

How little you know, alot of them do have one partner, they also have alot of

one night stands.

So you admit that a lot have just one partner. Yet you contiue to stereotype us all as sleeping around. . . . .

Methinks you see what you want to see.

What? You mean term stereotyping everyone based on the one or two examples that some minister taught him about? NEVER! Or maybe you mean that he refuses to believe scientific studies without having read them just because he doesn't want to agree with them? OF COURSE NOT! Or maybe its that he thinks all scientific studies that don't agree with him have been forced upon the world by gay rights activists! CERTAINLY NOT!

Welcome to my life.

i agree that gays should be allowed to be married...but not by the church! they ask for equality, but when they start calling the bible hate literature and making us marry them in our churchs when it totally goes against our beliefs, i think thats when its been taken too far.
im from canada, conservative christian, i dont know if this has been an issue in US yet, but it probably will.

I'll answer this PC rubbish in the morning, night all.

Why is that people who say things like 'PC rubbish' are almost always arrogant bigots?

Actually, at the moment the 'Politically Correct' (did you even know that's what 'PC' is an acronym for?) thing would be to say "Gays marriages ought to be banned!", as that is where mainstream politics is heading at the moment. Which is exactly what you are doing. Who's spouting the 'PC rubbish' now?

i agree that gays should be allowed to be married...but not by the church! they ask for equality, but when they start calling the bible hate literature and making us marry them in our churchs when it totally goes against our beliefs, i think thats when its been taken too far.
im from canada, conservative christian, i dont know if this has been an issue in US yet, but it probably will.

I can't speak for Canada (other than what I've read which makes me think the situation there is fairly similiar than it is to here) but in the states the argument is NOT about forcing churches to marry gays. Churches, Mosques, Temples, etc. already have the right to refuse to marry anyone they want. The issue is whether or not the government will recognize gay marriages--which can be performed by justices-of-the-peace, judges, OR ministers who CHOOSE to perform them. Because of our separation of church and state, no one would ever propose forcing churches to perform or recognize gay marriage.

i agree that gays should be allowed to be married...but not by the church! they ask for equality, but when they start calling the bible hate literature and making us marry them in our churchs when it totally goes against our beliefs, i think thats when its been taken too far.

But nobody wants to force your church to marry homosexuals. Why would anybody want to? If homosexuals want to be married by 'the church', there are plenty of churches, even some Christian churches, who will be more than happy to do it for them.

As for calling the Bible 'hate literature'. Well.. I don't know about that. When certain people who claim to follow the teachings in Bible start calling all homosexuals deviants and abominations, I'd say it's fair game calling their book 'hate literature', as those people are using the book as an excuse for their hate.

This isn't true of all Christians, not by a long shot. But if someone tells me that they hate me and think I should be denied my rights because the Bible tells them so, I'm damn well going to tell them that they're using their Bible as 'hate literature.'

Hell is in fact a realtively recent concept as far as christianity is involved....
and If you look at the concept of fallen angels too carefully ( I know that most of this has been edited out of the Bible ) you come across the simple fact that Angels were created without free will, So the only way Lucifer, Azazel or whatever could have rebelled is by order of God.
similarly... the whole original sin issue... No sense of right or wrong ( only available after eating the fruit of knowledge ) and no reason to not trust any creature in gods creation... Eve eats from the tree, because she was told by the serpent that it was ok to do so. Thus the whole thing Must have been set up by God.... or it is all part of a Fiction created by humanity to explain their origins, while persecuting a particular group to reinforce male dominance.
Interestingly at about the same time as the rise of monotheism in the middle east and the fall of Pagan societies one of the dominant feminine reilgions used a snake a symble of feminine power.

Hell is in fact a realtively recent concept as far as christianity is involved....
and If you look at the concept of fallen angels too carefully ( I know that most of this has been edited out of the Bible ) you come across the simple fact that Angels were created without free will, So the only way Lucifer, Azazel or whatever could have rebelled is by order of God.
similarly... the whole original sin issue... No sense of right or wrong ( only available after eating the fruit of knowledge ) and no reason to not trust any creature in gods creation... Eve eats from the tree, because she was told by the serpent that it was ok to do so. Thus the whole thing Must have been set up by God.... or it is all part of a Fiction created by humanity to explain their origins, while persecuting a particular group to reinforce male dominance.
Interestingly at about the same time as the rise of monotheism in the middle east and the fall of Pagan societies one of the dominant feminine reilgions used a snake a symble of feminine power.

There's also the Caduceus and Asclepius - both regarded as benevolent or harmonious symbols, and both being a type of snake motif. Both have been used as emblems within the medical profession - which must mean that paramedics are evil!

http://www.intecservices.com/sites/dmh/images/symbols/Caduceus.jpg
Caduceus

http://www.alcor.org/Library/images/asclepius.jpg
Asclepius

I believe that a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a straight couple because they humans too and should have the same unalienable rights.

very true.... and both images originate from a pre-christian, and pantheistic society (greek/ roman ) Both of which had no problem at all with homosexuality

There's also the Caduceus and Asclepius - both regarded as benevolent or harmonious symbols, and both being a type of snake motif. Both have been used as emblems within the medical profession - which must mean that paramedics are evil!

http://www.intecservices.com/sites/dmh/images/symbols/Caduceus.jpg
Caduceus

http://www.alcor.org/Library/images/asclepius.jpg
Asclepius

They come from the Greek myth of Aeschlepius. He was a good Greek man who stopped to help some baby snakes on the side of the road when their mother was killed. In return, they licked his ears so clean that he could understand the language of animals--who knew all things about medicine. From there he became the world's greatest doctor because when someone was sick, he could talk to the animals and they would tell him what to do for a cure.

Just an interesting side story to feed this little tangent :)

i agree that gays should be allowed to be married...but not by the church! they ask for equality, but when they start calling the bible hate literature and making us marry them in our churchs when it totally goes against our beliefs, i think thats when its been taken too far.
im from canada, conservative christian, i dont know if this has been an issue in US yet, but it probably will.

Hate literature? Maybe some of us call it that but definatly not all. We don't all hate church and the bible you know.
And you can't stop the church from changing it's ways slightly. Already theres gay reverends and gay church groups. Your church that you go to doesn't need to participate in this but if another church wants to, then let them.

See, you don't read what others right. The transmission from monkeys WAS NOT SEXUAL. It was through bush meat or a hunting accident.

And also, might I add, gays aren't really into beastiality. At least, no more than a straight guy. So just by saying this wouldn't have happened if this guy was straight doesn't work for me. But as Pracus and many others said, it is unlikely this person had sex with a monkey.

And also, might I add, gays aren't really into beastiality. At least, no more than a straight guy. So just by saying this wouldn't have happened if this guy was straight doesn't work for me. But as Pracus and many others said, it is unlikely this person had sex with a monkey.

I finally get the chance to get the jump on Term.

"Gays aren't into beastility?!? I just don't believe that. After all, this one time on the internet, I saw this one link to a site that had men having sex with hippopotamuses. So of course all gays must be into animals! I mean, come on we all know that they're all into sex with eight year olds!"


Sometimes I amaze myself with how catty I can be. And Term, the above was sarcasm--Krik is right, the VAST majority of gay people aren't into animals or children. Its probably the same percent as exists in the heterosexual population.

I finally get the chance to get the jump on Term.

"Gays aren't into beastility?!? I just don't believe that. After all, this one time on the internet, I saw this one link to a site that had men having sex with hippopotamuses. So of course all gays must be into animals! I mean, come on we all know that they're all into sex with eight year olds!"


Sometimes I amaze myself with how catty I can be. And Term, the above was sarcasm--Krik is right, the VAST majority of gay people aren't into animals or children. Its probably the same percent as exists in the heterosexual population.

For some reason everyone sees gays in a ...wait for it, I've used this word many times before...stereotypical way. Many of these people who see gays this way don't even really know gays themselves.
Why doesn't anyone ever listen, gays aren't lisp speaking, sex-crazed, hawian shirt wearing (I hate wearing hawian shirts), fashion designing, child molestering, animal raping, party animals.

For some reason everyone sees gays in a ...wait for it, I've used this word many times before...stereotypical way. Many of these people who see gays this way don't even really know gays themselves.
Why doesn't anyone ever listen, gays aren't lisp speaking, sex-crazed, hawian shirt wearing (I hate wearing hawian shirts), fashion designing, child molestering, animal raping, party animals.

There is an easy answer to that. . . because its easier not too. Challenging stereotypes requires commitment and exposure to things that we've been taught are "bad." It's not easy to admit that you might be wrong about your--or to even admit that they ARE stereotypes. There is some base level of mankind that makes us want to hate. It was probably an evolutionary advantage--"like good, different bad". Unfortunantely now in our globilized society, its often a hindrance more than a help.

Yes, but if the flight attendant had been heterosexual, he probably wouldnt

have picked up this disease from the monkeys in the first place.
-_- I thought we already established that the disease came from africa and was transmitted to humans by hunting. The CDC correlates that. I said that in the same post you quoted. Do you just ignore the things that don't fit your argument? Or are you trying to piss people off?

Typical PC arguement that is based only on heterosexuals disliking gay stuff.

Hetro: I dont hate gays, I just dislike what they do.

PC idiot: You homophobe!

This means you are uncomfortable with your own sexuality, have secret

desires to be gay, but fear expressing them. :rolleyes:

He was talking about how straight men tend to be appaled by gay men, but aroused by gay women. And that does lead one to the belief that many straight men are not comfortable with their own sexuality. Like, they feel threatened by man on man action.

Example: I joke around with my girl friends all the time. But that's all it is, joking. And we laugh and have fun. But I've only known four men who could freely joke in a similar manner with each other. They were comfortable with their own sexuality, and thus, they could joke about it. They aren't so easily offended because they don't feel like they are being threatened or questioned. They don't feel like they need to do something to prove their not gay. Like, say, act incredibly disgusted just because it's too guys.

lol they represent gays more than anythingNot every gay has to represent the whole community.
If I met a straight guy in a truck stop who was overweight, unhealthy and drunk most of the time, would that mean that all straight people are like that?

No, that's not fair. If every gay he's met has been promiscuous, then it's fair that that's the perception he has of gays.

Like, mainstream rap is mostly, well, offensive debauchery and violent lyrics. Thus, I decided I hate rap. You can't blame me for hating something when all I hear is the same thing over and over again. Only later, when I got in a discussion about it, did someone mention that there are less popular rap songs I might enjoy. I never liked what I heard, so I never researched to find the more pleasing stuff.

Same for Term. If he sees many promiscuous gays, he's not gonna go out and try and learn more about them. He's offended. I wouldn't hate him for that. I would hate the gays who are making a bad name for the gay community. (I know that sounds unfair, but everyone is a representative of the groups they belong to, and that's never fair. Life's not fair.)

well, now, let's be more specific. PROSTITUTES are more promiscuous, but heterosexual women are not, as a rule, more promiscuous than heterosexual males or homosexual males. the rough continuum ranks heterosexual males as most promiscuous (on average), followed by homosexual males, heterosexual females, and homosexual females dead last. females are less promiscuous than males in general, but homosexuals of each gender are less promiscuous (on average) than their heterosexual peers.

I appreciate the clarification. As a heterosexual female I was feeling a bit offended by what that other person had said, as it did seem to imply that most straight women are whores.

No, that's not fair. If every gay he's met has been promiscuous, then it's fair that that's the perception he has of gays.

Like, mainstream rap is mostly, well, offensive debauchery and violent lyrics. Thus, I decided I hate rap. You can't blame me for hating something when all I hear is the same thing over and over again. Only later, when I got in a discussion about it, did someone mention that there are less popular rap songs I might enjoy. I never liked what I heard, so I never researched to find the more pleasing stuff.

Same for Term. If he sees many promiscuous gays, he's not gonna go out and try and learn more about them. He's offended. I wouldn't hate him for that. I would hate the gays who are making a bad name for the gay community. (I know that sounds unfair, but everyone is a representative of the groups they belong to, and that's never fair. Life's not fair.)

I would almost agree with you up until the point that term meets gays who aren't like that. People he has had one on one conversations with. And he's had that here. And he still doesn't believe us.

And there is still the little matter of not juding a book by its cover. No generatlizations hold true (which we can argue over the paradox of that statement later) and we should be wise enough not to hold them. If I held that all black people were stupid (Even if I had only met stupid ones) I would still be told that I'm a racist--and it would be true.

That was actually- 'drumroll for the bleeding obvious statement about to
follow'- the Nazis.

And no, they werent Christians.Ask Hitler, he'd say he was. And ALL the churches in Germany supported it except for one--this includes the Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.That's like saying muslims attacked the Trade Towers on 9/11. It's extremism and fanatics. They don't count.

The Crusades were supported by the church, the center of the religion. You can use that.

The Holocaust was not. It was justified by twisting biblical teachings and christian beliefs, while the other christians around the world were horrified. You can't use that.

No, that's not fair. If every gay he's met has been promiscuous, then it's fair that that's the perception he has of gays.

Like, mainstream rap is mostly, well, offensive debauchery and violent lyrics. Thus, I decided I hate rap. You can't blame me for hating something when all I hear is the same thing over and over again. Only later, when I got in a discussion about it, did someone mention that there are less popular rap songs I might enjoy. I never liked what I heard, so I never researched to find the more pleasing stuff.

Same for Term. If he sees many promiscuous gays, he's not gonna go out and try and learn more about them. He's offended. I wouldn't hate him for that. I would hate the gays who are making a bad name for the gay community. (I know that sounds unfair, but everyone is a representative of the groups they belong to, and that's never fair. Life's not fair.)

I understand representing your country in another area, I understand representing a business/school/university, but I don't understand representing the gay community. Straight people are allowed to be how they want to be but for some reason gays have to be representing their community 24/7.
I want to be myself, not someone on good behaviour all day and night, someone without a life just to make some other people I don't even know look good.
Do you hate all christians just because you met terminalia? I know I don't.

I would almost agree with you up until the point that term meets gays who aren't like that. People he has had one on one conversations with. And he's had that here. And he still doesn't believe us.

And there is still the little matter of not juding a book by its cover. No generatlizations hold true (which we can argue over the paradox of that statement later) and we should be wise enough not to hold them. If I held that all black people were stupid (Even if I had only met stupid ones) I would still be told that I'm a racist--and it would be true.
Okay, I agree. From reading Term's posts, it sounds like he's had contact with several gays who have been promiscuous. That would account for his bais. However, you are correct - he has ignored the moralistic views of gays in this forum. I think he's just trying to stir up trouble with that.

And you are also right about judging a book by its cover, but that's why its so unfair. People can't help but make reservations about people based on our experiences, even if those experiences aren't broad. You really can't do much but accept that it's wrong and move on. I think it's a natural human reaction.

However, I disagree with your generalization. It's untrue, which means that generalizations are true. :p

I understand representing your country in another area, I understand representing a business/school/university, but I don't understand representing the gay community. Straight people are allowed to be how they want to be but for some reason gays have to be representing their community 24/7.
I want to be myself, not someone on good behaviour all day and night, someone without a life just to make some other people I don't even know look good.
Do you hate all christians just because you met terminalia? I know I don't.
So just because I'm in a different country, I can't be myself? I have to act the way my country wants other countries to see me? I want to be myself, not someone on good behavior all day and night.

I didn't say straights can be how they want but gays have to be representative. A straight person represents straight people. If a gay person were raised in a gay environment, never meeting a straight person, then a straight person finds them and beats them up, that gay person would be justified in thinking all straight people are violent and hostile. It's unfair, but it's true. It's how humans are.

And no, I don't hate christians because I've met Term. I've met many christians like him, and sometimes I do find myself leaning toward that sterotype that he embodies. Sometimes it's hard to remember they're not all like that, then a Christian friend of mine will speak up and I'll be like, "Oh yeah."

That's like saying muslims attacked the Trade Towers on 9/11. It's extremism and fanatics. They don't count.


But it wasn't just a few people. It was ALL the churches in Germany. I'm not saying all Christians or evil. But you must admist that they can do quite a bit of it when they get together in groups.

Some lol. Try alot, a huge amount.

Nothings changed either, more condoms are worn, that is about the only big

difference.

And, of course, this is certainly an informed opinion, because we all know how familiar Term is with gay sex and all. Or, at least, ruminating on his hatred of it probably more than homosexuals think about liking it. I'd remind you all that this is the same guy who was saying that he has gay friends, but they keep it to themselves around him. Yes, certainly these aren't stereotypes Term's using; we all know that such bigots have their fingers on the pulse of the gay community. Who would know better than someone who doesn't like to talk about it, hear about it, or (he alledges) think about it?

Don't you ever get tired of talking out of your -ss?