NationStates Jolt Archive

"We are not enemies. We must not be enemies.."

Hello - i just saw that there was a "homophobes read" type of post but i ahvent the time to read it all the way through (i apolagise for that...but 27 pages)...So...

I am not racist or homophobic - i find that sort of behavior frankly disturbing - but im interested to see is there anyone here who does fit into these catagories who can rationally explain to me their...thoughts on the matter?

I dont expect replies really - but really i would like to be able to understand the point of view. I am not condoning it, and im certain i never will (but hey...pigs might fly!). But, i would like to hear somones thoughts on it. Anyway - i promise i wont start slinging insults and i would ask the same of anyone else who posts here, so if anyone has any...unorthadox views on these matters - please come forward and be heard...

Well, outright calling them homophobes or racists tends to drive them off or get them really cheesed off at you. o_o You might ask for people who dislike gays, or feel that's an improper lifestyle.

was hoping the branding would get them to look and see i was only using such harsh language to get them to talk..a bad strategy in retrospect...should i edit the title do you think?

well the way i see it is if u are gay u will go to hell its in the Bible. But if u are gay just dont come onto me and if u do i will prolly knock u out but i am not sayin that i "hate" fags but i am sayin that i well yeah i HATE them just dont come near me and we will not have any problems...
and on the racist part i am from the south and i am racist. sorry but if u dont like the idea of being racist then dont adopt it i think it is a long and never ending topic no matter where u go but i also think that if u have a mind u are free to say what u wanna say like i said dont bother me and i wont bother you :fluffle: :sniper:

hmm...could you possibly explain a bit..better?

why hate gays and why hate other races, is what i mean...is there a reason? you dont have to explain - but as you started to i guess your okey with continuing?

for example - do you dislike other cultures because of their values or..? and with gays - well..same sort of thing. Im not poking at you i really just have never had it explained to me.

I dont think that being from the south is the only reason to be racist is all.

The bible is an interesting point - i have christian leanings but surely leading a good life should be what is needed, regardless of who you love? "God made everyone the way they are, and god doesnt make mistakes".

Also - its not one of the 10 commandments nor is it a deadly sin - and god did damn babylon because its people were involved in the forbidden sciences of the zodiac and so forth i think. As i say - as someone who has christian leanings i find it interesting, so please dont see this as me impugning your faith - i just want to know what uyou have to say about it, really.

well the way i see it is if u are gay u will go to hell its in the Bible. But if u are gay just dont come onto me and if u do i will prolly knock u out but i am not sayin that i "hate" fags but i am sayin that i well yeah i HATE them just dont come near me and we will not have any problems...
and on the racist part i am from the south and i am racist. sorry but if u dont like the idea of being racist then dont adopt it i think it is a long and never ending topic no matter where u go but i also think that if u have a mind u are free to say what u wanna say like i said dont bother me and i wont bother you :fluffle: :sniper:

They must teach pigfucking and incest before grammar in your town.

Chodolo please. Dont. I dont like it, but name calling gets people nowhere.

why hate gays and why hate other races, is what i mean...is there a reason? you dont have to explain - but as you started to i guess you're okay with continuing?

The Bible is an interesting point - i have christian leanings but surely leading a good life should be what is needed, regardless of who you love? "God made everyone the way they are, and God doesnt make mistakes".

As i say - as someone who has christian leanings i find it interesting, so please dont see this as me impugning your faith - i just want to know what you have to say about it, really.

Various religions (incl. Christianity) deplore the performance of homosexual acts not the people doing them.

I f*ckin hate the French. Just kidding.

Lol!

anyway - yes, true - but where does that leave the train of discussion? what does it mean for the people performing the acts?

Various religions (incl. Christianity) deplore the performance of homosexual acts not the people doing them.

I'm inclined to believe various religions also deplore homosexuals themselves. I believe they call them "sinners", that's the word.

And sorry Nimano, I should not have dignified that by posting a reply. :p

well the way i see it is if u are gay u will go to hell its in the Bible.
Hmm... Maybe we should be kissing some gay ass, then. Because, let's face it: any one of us might end up in Hell... and what if when we get there, there are more of them than there are of us?! Oh no!! And don't bother with that "I know I'm not going to Hell because Jesus forgave my sins" bullshit... because if that is true it would have to apply to homosexuals as well, would it not?
But if u are gay just dont come onto me and if u do i will prolly knock u out
Real mature. Someone intimates that they "like" you, and you hit them. So much for Christian values...

On the other hand, I wish more women would defend themselves against the unwanted advances of heterosexual men. Would the same logic not apply?

and on the racist part i am from the south and i am racist.
No excuse. What would Jesus think?
if u have a mind u are free to say what u wanna say like i said dont bother me and i wont bother you

This last bit is intended to sound enlightened, since "leaving each other alone" is usually a decent thing to do. However, when the deck is already stacked in favor of white male bigots, "don't bother me and I won't bother you" means "let's just leave things the way they are... oh, and never mind that it happens to be better for me this way."

I'm inclined to believe various religions also deplore homosexuals themselves. I believe they call them "sinners", that's the word.

And sorry Nimano, I should not have dignified that by posting a reply. :p

Dude, everyone is a sinner, WE SHALL PERISH IN HELLFIRE!!! Ahem, sorry. Went a bit too firebrandish for a minute there. Don't know about the rest but Christians should never deplore people.

Unless.... yeah I was going to go down the French road again

/*
Hmm... Maybe we should be kissing some gay ass, then. Because, let's face it: any one of us might end up in Hell... and what if when we get there, there are more of them than there are of us?! Oh no!! And don't bother with that "I know I'm not going to Hell because Jesus forgave my sins" bullshit... because if that is true it would have to apply to homosexuals as well, would it not?
*/

Nice idea, shame about the gaping plot hole. God will only forgive sins if the person is truly repentant etc. If a homosexual doesn't recognise gay sex as a sin they won't be repentant for it will they? Get it?

I don't care if you're homosexual or not, it really isn't my concern. [official standpoint]

I am curious on the origins of homosexuality. [philosophical standpoint]

I question the motives of people in creating new laws regarding homosexuality (i.e. hate laws). I don't care for the attitude of most homosexuals (I do have some homosexual friends, so most). [personal standpoint]

Edit

Obviously only the last one fits into the topic. However, I felt I should add the other two standpoints in for context.

:sniper: im very homophobic (fear of gay ppl) i av one in 1 of my classes and it scares the shizzle outa me with its eyeliner the fuuny thing is it has to leave school early so know1 um...i wont say kick his @ss but u get the picture. rejioce though since no willyjockys are having kids maybe they will die out + ginger ppl :p

oh i hate religeos ppl 2 i mean its just nationalism were breinwashed as a child be believe all this dogtoffee when clearly if god does exist hes so lazy hes worse than a really nasty god

oh i hate religeos ppl 2 i mean its just nationalism were breinwashed as a child be believe all this dogtoffee when clearly if god does exist hes so lazy hes worse than a really nasty god

I think all the rest of us should be glad to have garnered such informative delicacies from Moonshining's posts. The wit, unparalleled. The intelligence is surely Aristotlean. I pray that we are blessed many more times with the wisdom of this noble being.

I think all the rest of us should be glad to have garnered such informative delicacies from Moonshining's posts. The wit, unparalleled. The intelligence is surely Aristotlean. I pray that we are blessed many more times with the wisdom of this noble being.

I'm pretty sure they (Moonshining) are using sarcasm to make a point. ;) Maybe I'm just nuts.

good parenting is to let a child make mistakes and hope he learns, moonshining.

Now
- sydenia -

Basically its almost certainaly due to hormones and brain chemistry like everyting else about humans - but this is off the point lol.

Moonshining im going to come back to you now - explain yourself, kid. Please.

That's two flamebaiting idiotic newbies in one thread. Someone's having a go at us with puppets I think, for sarcasm purposes. :p

But no matter...

I question the motives of people in creating new laws regarding homosexuality (i.e. hate laws). I don't care for the attitude of most homosexuals (I do have some homosexual friends, so most).

I'm against hate-crime laws. Just because you beat a gay man, or black man, or disabled person to death does not mean you should get harsher punishment.

I am for EQUALITY. Complete EQUALITY.

This means complete marriage rights for gays (although of course we can't force religious people to accept it. As much as I'd like to ram it down their throats, I must respect their ignorance. You can't force racists to like black people, but you sure as hell must ensure blacks get equal rights to them. Same applies here.)

Fodder for thought: There was a certain city called Sodom.

"Hate the sin, and not the sinner." Basically, homosexuality is a sin, but only if it is acted upon. Also, it get blown out of proportion - there ARE worse sins.

I'm pretty sure they (Moonshining) are using sarcasm to make a point. ;)

I bl**dy hope so but I thought by the second one it required something said about it

Fodder for thought: There was a certain city called Sodom.

"Hate the sin, and not the sinner." Basically, homosexuality is a sin, but only if it is acted upon. Also, it get blown out of proportion - there ARE worse sins.

...And babylon was damned for reading their horroscopes (it has become a resting place of deamons). Please dont use religion as a basis for your thoughts without explaining further.

What precisely do you feel is wrong with homosexuality? sorry, that comes acorss as being agressive - not my intention i was just reiterating the question - i understand that it is for religious reasons but id just like more...detail. Again, theres no pressure to reply if you feel im getting at your belifes - i dont do personal attacks so please dont take it that way, though.

Ahem, onwards :-) ?


Chodolo - interesting - i am for gay marriage but i feel i should say i am not 100% with same sex couples and children - i do feel that the family does work best with man and woman...but again i wouldnt go so far as to say i am against it, rather that i am more for traditional parenting, maybe? Hope you know what i mean...i suppose i mean i would not perhaps encourage it - i know its not equality but you must admit that parental instincts etc ahve their roots in biology to a degree that i feel male-female is best for raising children, in a perfect world at any rate. Admittedly there are exceptions - not all male-female couples are good parents and single parents often get by just fine - so to must children in gay marriage do just fine in many cases...

Your thoughts? Please remember i am not against it, but i feel it is not the best way.

...And babylon was damned for reading their horroscopes (it has become a resting place of deamons). Please dont use religion as a basis for your thoughts without explaining further.

What precisely do you feel is wrong with homosexuality? sorry, that comes acorss as being agressive - not my intention i was just reiterating the question - i understand that it is for religious reasons but id just like more...detail. Again, theres no pressure to reply if you feel im getting at your belifes - i dont do personal attacks so please dont take it that way, though.

Answering for Liskeinland (alright, I'm just overopinionated) Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that God.. well.. says so. Several times in the Bible. Like murder is wrong. And worshipping bits of wood. And supporting Manchester United. Okay I can't back that last one up but you get the idea

Answering for Liskeinland (alright, I'm just overopinionated) Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that God.. well.. says so. Several times in the Bible. Like murder is wrong. And worshipping bits of wood. And supporting Manchester United. Okay I can't back that last one up but you get the idea

Only, you see, the Bible also says that wearing two different material types is wrong. So is comming anywhere NEAR a woman during that time of the month (which...is actually fairly good advice :p)

But slavery's alright. At least He was kind enough to give us THAT, eh?

Only, you see, the Bible also says that wearing two different material types is wrong. So is comming anywhere NEAR a woman during that time of the month (which...is actually fairly good advice :p)

Two materials? Really(what context)? I'll bet that's in Leviticus. I know the other bit is. While proclaiming that the Bible is relevant today, one should remember that at that point the Israelites were in the desert. The Healthcare and Hygiene facilities were approaching British hospitals (if you don't get it, Google it) for uncleanliness. That and materials were made of bits of unprocessed cows and sheep (like KFC)

Two materials? Really(what context)? I'll bet that's in Leviticus. I know the other bit is. While proclaiming that the Bible is relevant today, one should remember that at that point the Israelites were in the desert. The Healthcare and Hygiene facilities were approaching British hospitals (if you don't get it, Google it) for uncleanliness. That and materials were made of bits of unprocessed cows and sheep (like KFC)

but you see, you can't just pick and choose what to follow.

It's all or nothing.

but you see, you can't just pick and choose what to follow.

It's all or nothing.

I can't find the materials thing. Give us a reference.

The Earth was covered in water. No living, earth dwelling thing survived.
The Israelites were lost in the desert for 400 years.

See where that's going?
If you can't work out the sensible thing to do (I'm with you on the er.. menstrual.. issue) then go back to the Ten Commandments and start from there.

And don't bother with that "I know I'm not going to Hell because Jesus forgave my sins" bullshit... because if that is true it would have to apply to homosexuals as well, would it not?



Well if they are proud of being gay, how can they ask for forgiveness? You have to be truely sorry for doing whatever, and thus you'd make a great effort to stop yourself from sinning.

BTW-I'm an equal opportunity bigot. I hate all humans equally, but I love those cute little furry critters.

First post on the forums... woo hoo...

Okay, Im not racist at *all*. I would actually like to talk to a racist to see exactly why they are. Hating people that are black for a certain reason is one thing, hating people that are black because they're black is another; it doesn't make sense.

On the gay subject, I do believe that God does not like gays. I believe that it is immoral and unusual to be gay. If God wanted two guys together we'd be reading about Adam and Steve rather than he and Eve. Gay people do not benefit society at all, we would not be here if we were all gay. Some people propose that being gay is "normal", and no matter how you stretch it, its not. I have never heard of a gay animal, they know that its no good for their species, they must produce to survive. If we all turned gay, 100 years from now there will be no more of the human race.

I would not be here if my dad was gay, you would not be here if your dad was gay, etc. However, Im not going to fight someone because they are, Im not going to refuse to talk to you, I won't curse at you or spit at you. I just dislike the way you live, as I do a prostitute or a drug dealer.

My two cents, it may be too much for you, if it is, Im sorry. This is the way I feel and you're not gonna change my mine so dont even try.

The funny thing being that there are quite a few cases of homosexuality or bisexuality being present in different species...

Yeah, if our father's were gay, most of us wouldn't be here. Excepting those people with father's who tried to conform to society and ended up in loveless marriages or whatever. I dunno. But that's pretty much a moot point seeing as most of us don't have gay fathers. Supporting the existance of homosexuality isn't going to magically turn everyone into a homosexual.

Er, not trying to change your opinion or anything... just maybe rethink the reasons behind it...?

and i am racist.
That is just about the most self-damning statement I've ever heard

Careful...People might think you're a homophobe-phobe...or even a xenophobe-phobe

I have never heard of a gay animal, they know that its no good for their species, they must produce to survive.


bottle nose dolphins, kangaroos, penguins, chimpanzees, mountain gorillas cats, dogs, guinea pigs, goats, orangutans, whales, warthogs, fruit bats, chaffinches.

congrats, now you have heard of gay animals. over 200 species have been observed to show regular and positively adaptive homosexual behavior (meaning that the homosexual behavior is not detrimental in any way to their propagation).


If we all turned gay, 100 years from now there will be no more of the human race.

gay people are just as fertile as straight people. the human race would not die out even if 100% of our population was homosexual.

I would not be here if my dad was gay, you would not be here if your dad was gay, etc.

again, your father could just as easily have produced the sperm that became you if he was a homosexual, and that sperm would have been no less viable. granted, your mother might not have been the woman who was impregnated by him, and in that sense "you" might not have been born as the person you are, but the same would be true if your father was a heterosexual who happened to live in a different town or something and had never met your mother.


However, Im not going to fight someone because they are, Im not going to refuse to talk to you, I won't curse at you or spit at you. I just dislike the way you live, as I do a prostitute or a drug dealer.

glad to know that you hate all people involved in victimless crimes. one day perhaps someone will introduce you to the concept of personal responsibility.


My two cents, it may be too much for you, if it is, Im sorry. This is the way I feel and you're not gonna change my mine so dont even try.
why is that? if somebody presents evidence that proves your claims to be false, wouldn't you rather react to that with intelligence, curiosity, and rational thinking, instead of simply plugging your ears and trying to ignore reality? why would you be so desperate to cling to your homophobia?

Chodolo - interesting - i am for gay marriage but i feel i should say i am not 100% with same sex couples and children - i do feel that the family does work best with man and woman...but again i wouldnt go so far as to say i am against it, rather that i am more for traditional parenting, maybe? Hope you know what i mean...i suppose i mean i would not perhaps encourage it - i know its not equality but you must admit that parental instincts etc ahve their roots in biology to a degree that i feel male-female is best for raising children, in a perfect world at any rate. Admittedly there are exceptions - not all male-female couples are good parents and single parents often get by just fine - so to must children in gay marriage do just fine in many cases...

Your thoughts? Please remember i am not against it, but i feel it is not the best way.

I think the best family is one father, one mother, one son, and one daughter. Households with only one child lead to either neglect, because the child has no sibling to play with, or spoiling, since the parent(s) give too much to their only child. Households with two sons, and no daughters, or two daughters, and no sons, lead to unhealthy competition. Households with more than four children are bad for all involved, the children can't individually recieve the attention they need. Single parent households...well, we all know how hard those are. Many of us have first hand experience with that.

You see where I'm going with this? No household is perfect. Having two fathers, or two mothers denies the child some benefits of having both genders as parents. But would I ban gay couple adoption? Hell no. Any family is better than no family. It's not the ultimate nuclear family, agreed, but it works well enough, better than most single parent households I'd imagine. (obviously, I'm not against single parent adoption either.)

On the gay subject, I do believe that God does not like gays. I believe that it is immoral and unusual to be gay. If God wanted two guys together we'd be reading about Adam and Steve rather than he and Eve.

Adam and Steve! Brilliant! :p

Gay people do not benefit society at all, we would not be here if we were all gay.

Then you had better not turn gay on us! And be sure that you spread your seed across as many women as possible, because God has charged thee with propogating the human race. Now, get busy. Right now. Start humping. Every second you waste is a potential life destroyed. Think of the potential lives.

Some people propose that being gay is "normal", and no matter how you stretch it, its not. I have never heard of a gay animal, they know that its no good for their species, they must produce to survive.

I'm gonna introduce you to an excellent website: GOOGLE (http://www.google.com).

You are wrong.

If we all turned gay, 100 years from now there will be no more of the human race.

Then, um, don't turn gay. I'm not planning on it. Even if gay marriage is allowed...I'm not planning on it. Make sense?

I would not be here if my dad was gay, you would not be here if your dad was gay, etc. However, Im not going to fight someone because they are, Im not going to refuse to talk to you, I won't curse at you or spit at you. I just dislike the way you live, as I do a prostitute or a drug dealer.

It's a good thing your dad was not gay then!

Do you consider homosexuality to be a virus, like it gets spread? Because I find it unlikely that suddenly die-hard heteros will turn into flaming homos just cause we suddenly tolerate gayness.

My two cents, it may be too much for you, if it is, Im sorry. This is the way I feel and you're not gonna change my mine so dont even try.

I think you are too much for yourself. ;)

stopping by to put in my two cents...

i absolutely hate homophobes. i am not gay myself but my best friend is and he is the best guy you will ever meet. i hate racists too. you can't just say that everyone who's X (gay , black, jewish, whatever) is bad, because you don't know every X person. gays are human too. and if you hate a gay person for some other reason then that they're gay, that's fine. i have met gay people i cannot stand. and with the religious bit, i am not religious myself so all i can say is: god loves everyone, right? no matter what? if we're all gods children then so are homosexuals. please, someone, *kindly* correct me if im wrong. i don't want to have a battle of wits.

and if gay marrage is ever outlawed in the U.S, gosh, i don't know what i'll do. that is the most.... absurd thing ever. "liberty and justice for all"

"liberty and justice for all"

Heh... unless you're something other than rich, white, male and straight.

It's interesting how this thread has turned into a homophobia thread. It seems to be a widely-accepted fact that racism is wrong, but if there's a homo running about, he/she/ze is fair game. Not to say that (most of) you guys haven't been really cool about it, but there just seems to be a stronger sentiment against gays than against other races.

Now I'm straight, but have some gay friends, and they are really nice people.

But, particularly as I used to go to an all-boys school before I went to college, homophobia was rife.

In my opinion, religion plays no part, it's just a convenient excuse. As has been previously said, you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. I bet 1/2 these so called religious homophobes don't even go to Church.

And as for homosexuality harming the human race. What utter tosh. With world population spiralling out of control, in anything, it is HETEROSEXUALITY that is harming the human race.

I'm not even going to waste my time replying to that racist though. NOT. WORTH. THE. EFFORT.

Well, that's my rant over.

:sniper: im very homophobic (fear of gay ppl) i av one in 1 of my classes and it scares the shizzle outa me with its eyeliner the fuuny thing is it has to leave school early so know1 um...i wont say kick his @ss but u get the picture. rejioce though since no willyjockys are having kids maybe they will die out + ginger ppl :p

I'm sorry you feel that way, Moonshining. I have a few gay/bi friends although I myself am heterosexual. I can honestly say it has never bothered me to be around gays in any way, shape or form.

The common assumption is that because a gay man is talking to you, they MUST be trying to get into your shorts. Of course, that is a lie. You may not be their 'type' :D

"Do what thou wilt, and hurt no-one, shall be the whole of the law"

Obviously all these homophobes are so devishly attractive that any gay man would give his D & G boots for a night with them. Either that or they need to find ladders so as to get over themselves :rolleyes:

Fodder for thought: There was a certain city called Sodom.

"Hate the sin, and not the sinner." Basically, homosexuality is a sin, but only if it is acted upon. Also, it get blown out of proportion - there ARE worse sins.

Funfact: After being liberated from Egypt, many Jews went of to different lands {also called the Diaspora}. One of these places was a little known nation called Greece. You see, the Greeks had a social rule that simply was not broken: treat all visitors with the utomost curtosy and hospitality...for, they could be a god in disguise. This practice basicly sat atop all others, because, lets face it, who wants to piss off a god?


You see, when God sent his angels, he asked them to find ten{I think} decent people within the citys, and he would spare them. It is said a man named Lott met them and took them into his family's home {score big points for the citizens.} However, the city's people got wind that Lott had allowed two men to take refuge within his home, and these men weren't exactly unattractive either. Basicly, they gathered outside of Lott's door and emplored him to hand the men, angels, over. He refused, knowing what they intended to do to them. He held fast....until they broke down the door.

Now, I don't know about you, beating and gang-raping your guests isn't being a very good host.

Thus, they had broken a cardinal rule, and the Angels decided the city's deserved what was comming to them. They saved Lott and his family, but well, you know the rest of the story.

{Infact, this rule was so important, Abraham and Aaron broke it just before stepping foot into the Canaan, then felt too guilty to enter; this after a fourty year trek in the desert...}

I've never understood the misuse of the term homophobe. I mean, most of the people branded as homophobes aren't afraid of gay people, they hate them. I, on the other hand, don't hate gays. But when I'm in Toronto and a 6'5", 250 lb male starts looking at me funny, well I tend to get the hell out of the situation, usually by running. Would that not make me a homophobe?

I've never understood the misuse of the term homophobe. I mean, most of the people branded as homophobes aren't afraid of gay people, they hate them.

I'm of the belief that all hate is in some way derivative of fear. Like real burning hate that is. A lot of times these days 'hate' is thrown around like 'dislike'.

I'm inclined to believe various religions also deplore homosexuals themselves. I believe they call them "sinners", that's the word.

And sorry Nimano, I should not have dignified that by posting a reply. :p
Quite true, we do call them "sinners." However, that would be based on the fact that everyone is a sinner, including me and everyone else, even the ones who go to church, the elders, the preacher, and everyone else. See why we can call them sinners? Also, we learn from Jesus' example to "hate the sin, love the sinner." You should have done your homework. Now, a homosexual cannot go to heaven, and not because they are gay, but because they refuse to see that as a sin. I, however, see my sins for what they are, and thus I am given the gift of heaven.

Sorry for the preachy beginning, but if we are gonna talk about religion I am gonna do it right.

Anyhow, I am not "homophobic," but at the same time I do not like homosexuality. I believe you have made a grave misunderstanding, in that you assume that those people who disapprove of homosexuals do so out of ignorance. If such is your belief, then there will be no dissuading you, as it is unlikely in the extreme that anything I say will change your mind. However, I would suggest that you take time to ponder why it is that you hold this stereotype.

As far as racism, I must admit that I am, in my own way, slightly racist. You see, I grew up in the south, and I was taught from childhood not to be racist. However, it was only after I got older that I found myself disliking the majority of black people. Now, this is not to say all of them, and I truly do base my opinions on a person-to-person basis. Something I have also learned is that the term "******" is not simply a color, but an attitude. For instance, I know some black people that are far smarter than me, and others whom I have been friends with since the 2nd grade. However, here in the south the vast majority consist of what might fall under the term "******." Now, to be fair, we have a substantial number of white people that I would term "niggers" too. "Niggers," to me, consist of a group of foul-mouthed, trashy looking, sketchy, untrustworthy, cheating, lying, violent assholes who are almost guaranteed to be carrying a weapon on their person. I realize that sounds horrible, and seems tinged with a good deal of malice, but unfortunately it seems to be the case. For instance, I used to get guys to buy me cigarettes when I was underage, and every time I got a white guy to do it, they came through for me, but the first 3 times I asked a black man, they all 3 stole my money. In fact, I still have the same situation when I pull a "Hey Mister" for beer. A white guy will get it for me every time, but a black man has, and will, steal my money. In fact, I and 3 friends had to chase a black guy in my truck one time after we gave him 20 bucks for beer and he decided to jump the fence behind the gas station. Now, at the risk of sounding extremely superficial, it is extremely easy to tell whether a black man is a "******" or not. Simply look at what he is wearing. If he is wearing a "doo rag," baggy pants that sag around his knees and Air Jordans then he is almost certainly a "******." However, a normal black man will be dressed just like any reasonable white person, in clothes that fit. Now, in my defense, I do happen to have some very good black friends who are rednecks like me, and they are cool as hell. So perhaps its just a matter of perspective, but my general opinion is that the majority of black people I know are assholes and "niggers," and if you choose to consider me racist because of that then meh.

I'm of the belief that all hate is in some way derivative of fear. Like real burning hate that is. A lot of times these days 'hate' is thrown around like 'dislike'.
Then you are of a belief that is wrong. Sorry, but I can't agree with you there. After all, I hate this guy I work with, and I do mean a true burning hate, and yet I'm not scared of him. He's just an enormous asshole. And I hate preppy kids, but I'm not acred of them. I think that your argument is simply your own personal way of showing your disgust for people who disagree with you, and you probably commonly refer to as "close-minded" or ignorant. It is a common trait, and thus comes as no surprise.

Wow...this has taken off.

Firstly, i feel maybey tieing together this thread would be good - so i am going to asttempt that and then we can move on a little...now..things got a little hazy around this point:

Two materials? Really(what context)? I'll bet that's in Leviticus. I know the other bit is. While proclaiming that the Bible is relevant today, one should remember that at that point the Israelites were in the desert. The Healthcare and Hygiene facilities were approaching British hospitals (if you don't get it, Google it) for uncleanliness. That and materials were made of bits of unprocessed cows and sheep (like KFC)

Now! An answer, if i may. Yes, much of the early bibles laws (in a smilar way to kosher eating) were for health reasons...therefor is it plausible to suggest that gay sex was outlawed for similar reasons? I have no experiance in the issue but i imagine a condom (or enema? im being serious...) would be rather necessary to prevent infections - and though i heard the egyptians did have some sort of reusable condom things way, way back...i belive 400 years wandering in the desert meant that production may ahve been disrupted, yeah? So - that seems valid...so in that scenario, is the anti-homosexuality stuff still relevant?

Think on it...i will. (you especially DeadlySe7en)

Next - next were the gay animals - which as almost all of us already knew was a non-point, because there are indeed many-a-many gay animals (and i mean outside of southpark...classical referance, dont'cha know).

Now a couple of mano-a-mano replies:

DeadlySe7en - im sorry but gay people are far more helpful to the world than us straight guys - look at some of the greatest thinkers of all time and you will find that they were gay - the roots of western philosphy were in Greece where homosexuality was as far as i know the norm amongst the intellectual section of society. Im sorry but you didnt do your research.

Schnappslant - the materials thing is in a recent-ish book, whereby a prominant hebrew (i think! im horribly convinced that i got that one wrong) scholar compiled a list of "how the bible says modern life should be run"...you may have more luck finding that

Teddytopia - you are quite right come to think of it

Chodolo - whereas i didnt mean the actual...numbers invlved in a family - thanks anyway it was interesting - and no i woudlnt ban a gay couple adopting but i would certainaly be happier to see a child with good straight parents than with good gay parents...i must ask they read back to see why i have said this, in the event that it has offended anybody - as my reasons are in no way anti-homosexual.


I am very sorry to have rushed through all that...please forgive me if you think i was a little short with people - wanst the intention, im in a rush im afraid. The reason that i rushed through was because I wanted to pose a question.

Since the majority of the anti-homosexual posts have been based on religious grounds - which is valid in the context of this discussion - please could those opposed on these grounds answer to the following:

"God made us all, and god does not make mistakes" - movie quote.
"forknowledge is not the same as intent" - Paradise Lost referance.

If god is almighty and our creator, and god has a plan, and homosexuality is the result of physical/neurological factors - and therefore homosexuals are gods work...whats wrong with it, really?


This argument is a little shakey, and i have tried not to put my personal views into it - but it is only *a little* shakey - for the most part it is as solid an argument as can be made with regards to religion and its interpretation.


Please discuss...while we are at it maybe we can discuss whether not acting upon forknowledge does in fact ammount to intent or an agenda.

I will bore you all with my own views tomorrow

Sleep Well.



Michael

Then you are of a belief that is wrong. Sorry, but I can't agree with you there. After all, I hate this guy I work with, and I do mean a true burning hate, and yet I'm not scared of him. He's just an enormous asshole. And I hate preppy kids, but I'm not acred of them. I think that your argument is simply your own personal way of showing your disgust for people who disagree with you, and you probably commonly refer to as "close-minded" or ignorant. It is a common trait, and thus comes as no surprise.

Ah, but who are you to say which of out belief's is the wrong one, just based upon our own personal opinions? I'm perfectly willing to accept that my view is wrong, I'm not a psychologist or anything. But I do disagree with your saying it is my way of showing my disgust for people who disagree with me. For one, I don't understand how that relates to what I said exactly - explain further? And also, it isn't just something I decided on out of the blue, I actually put a lot of thought and discussion into it and I haven't really stumbled across an example where it doesn't work.

Though then again, I'm working with my personal definition of 'hate', so that changes things. I personally think 'hate' is definitely an overused term and that most of the time it's only 'dislike'. I don't hate anything, but I do dislike a lot of things/people.

And also, I rarely call people 'close-minded' or ignorant. I always try to see things from the other person's point of view, and even though I don't agree with it, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, they are entitled to said opinion. This includes homophobic people.

Hadesrulesmarch - you seem to feel quite strongly so it seems only right to talk to you as well! sorry, you posted while i was wroting...anyway.

Homosexuality: You do not like it. Right, well fair enough i suppose but you know that as this is a debate you are going to be posed questions about your belifes...

True or fale - throughout history, dislike/hatred of gay's has in fact been largely down to ignorance? Alas its true...im sorry to put words in your mouth but im afraid thats the truth. *That* is why the stereotype exists.

Now, on religious grounds i can not fault you - the bible does indeed say that no one may enter heaven except through jesus, and in fact shortly before or after i think rules out acheiving heaven "by deeds alone". So yes, true. But to bring paradise lost (and its newer re-imagining - His Dark Materials) back into the equation - and my own views im afraid - do you not feel that an utterly tyranical heaven where only the tiniest fragment of the world (and many who make up that fragment will be good but...simple, perhaps?) may enter is in fact far less of a fitting place to spend eternity than in hell, where almsot everyone else is? including the founders of western philosophy and high ideals, writers, poets, scientists and those who simply were too brave to say honustly in their final moments that they were regretful of every wrong they had commited in the sight of god? Furthermore those who dies without the last rites or were not aware of the depth of their sin...

Myself...I am partial to the idea of heaven as i would like it, but if it is the same haven portrayed throughout the bible ("..and even now in heaven there were angels carrying savage wepons..") where only said few enter and the essentially good masses are thrown from gods sight...well...i hope that my death is not iminant, as i will need time to think.

I also left out "every good person who ever lived before the coming of jesus or who adheres to a non-christian faith"

I question the motives of people in creating new laws regarding homosexuality (i.e. hate laws).Feel free; I'll give you mine. First, making sentencing depend on intent is hardly unprecidented; the difference between murder and manslaughter say. I am very much in favour of hate laws, I just think they're misnamed. There are a couple of elements to a hate crime; the crime itself, but also the effect on the targetted community. The terrorizing of communities is a crime that does merit a response. It's not so much that the crime is motivated by hate, but that when part of the intent of a crime is to terrorize that aspect should be recognized and punished.

Feel free; I'll give you mine. First, making sentencing depend on intent is hardly unprecidented; the difference between murder and manslaughter say. I am very much in favour of hate laws, I just think they're misnamed. There are a couple of elements to a hate crime; the crime itself, but also the effect on the targetted community. The terrorizing of communities is a crime that does merit a response. It's not so much that the crime is motivated by hate, but that when part of the intent of a crime is to terrorize that aspect should be recognized and punished.

You do have a point here. I didn't think of it like that. I still think though, that crimes that punish based on what you were thinking at the time are fundamentally flawed. What if race/sexual orientation was just a small part of the motivation? Hate crime laws are special treatment, IMO.

The example you give of manslaughter vs. murder is different. Manslaugher is unintentional. Murder is intentional. The reason for the murder is incidental, what matters was if the homicide was intentional or not, regardless of what caused the intent.

I belive that a hate-driven murder should not be punished more severely than for any other for of murder (kiling with intent). The catch is that i belive murder deserves the greatest possible sentance (capitol punishment if your country works like that, or the next mst severe sentance - whatever that may be. Clearly circumstances such as self defence would prevent maximum sentancing...though then it would be manslaughter?

The reason for this is because utterly intentional murder is wrong, it being racially etc motivated makes it no *more* wrong as far as sentancing goes...

I guess the same for any other crime...If a white man hates another white man enough to do him harm in some way its just as bad as if the same white guy harms another ethnic group because of their origins...Its more disgusting I admit but its the same thing...

I dunno...anyone know of a suitable moral dilemma based on this argument?

I could be wrong, i just cant think of circumstance off the top of my head in which intention would make a crime more of a crime

They must teach pigfucking and incest before grammar in your town.

lol :D

Racism: My views on race is that it should just be ignored, like eye color. On applications to jobs or colleges, you should just list your SSN, and no other identifying information. Get rid of race for the purpose of admissions, hate crimes, employment, or anything, and base things solely on the merits of all the factors involved.

Homophobia: I don't hate gay people. I disapprove of homosexuality, as I disapprove of lying, stealing, or murder, but someone who simply finds members of the same-sex attractive doesn't bother me. Thoughts and feelings are your own business. However, when you try to legislate rights for yourself, or throw your sexuality in other people's faces, then it's no longer your business, and that's what I a have a problem with.

lol there are a hell of alot more homaphobs on this board than this! they just wont show themselves without something to argue about.

anyway rascism makey my blood boil, not so much homophobia, but i have had a couple of angry outbusts at ppl here for their rascist belives which tends to be a mix of reason and insaults..

anyway rascism makey my blood boil, not so much homophobia, but i have had a couple of angry outbusts at ppl here for their rascist belives which tends to be a mix of reason and insaults..
Very satisfying :)

Racism: My views on race is that it should just be ignored, like eye color. On applications to jobs or colleges, you should just list your SSN, and no other identifying information. Get rid of race for the purpose of admissions, hate crimes, employment, or anything, and base things solely on the merits of all the factors involved.

Homophobia: I don't hate gay people. I disapprove of homosexuality, as I disapprove of lying, stealing, or murder, but someone who simply finds members of the same-sex attractive doesn't bother me. Thoughts and feelings are your own business. However, when you try to legislate rights for yourself, or throw your sexuality in other people's faces, then it's no longer your business, and that's what I a have a problem with.

Is that a fucking joke?

Just go away. You're a bigoted idiot.

'I have no problems with homosexuals, as long as they understand they're second rate citizens."

Is that a fucking joke?

Just go away. You're a bigoted idiot.

'I have no problems with homosexuals, as long as they understand they're second rate citizens."
How surprising that Goed, of all people, would flame someone as opposed to making an actual point. Legislation is a physical manisfestation of something immaterial, the immaterial I don't have a problem with. You're a retarded bleeding heart.

How surprising that Goed, of all people, would flame someone as opposed to making an actual point. Legislation is a physical manisfestation of something immaterial, the immaterial I don't have a problem with. You're a retarded bleeding heart.

How surprising?

**pauses**

You mean...someone here actually KNOWS me? Bloody hell...

And technically, I was making a point. It was "your opinion sucks."




And I stand by that. You are flat out saying "I don't have a problem with homosexuals, as long as they understand they are subhuman." Which, in my oh so humble opinion, makes you a right bastard.

Subhuman? I'm not advocating they go into death camps now am I? I'm simply saying that I disagree with their idealogy, and that I myself would never work to legalize it, anymore than I would legalize murder. And you still haven't said anything of relevance to this thread, so go away.

Subhuman? I'm not advocating they go into death camps now am I? I'm simply saying that I disagree with their idealogy, and that I myself would never work to legalize it, anymore than I would legalize murder. And you still haven't said anything of relevance to this thread, so go away.

In arguing with you, I am saying things of relevance to this thread-in fact, this banter between is is completely on topic.

And you ARE saying they're subhuman by telling them "I don't like the way you were born." There is one, and only one difference between what you are saying, and saying that people with brown eyes can't have a driver's liscence or be recognized by the government-only one of those, sadly enough, would be laughed out of a court.

You are being bigoted, and you are saying that your ignorance must be mandated. That is inherently wrong, and YOU, for doing it, are wrong.

In arguing with you, I am saying things of relevance to this thread-in fact, this banter between is is completely on topic.

And you ARE saying they're subhuman by telling them "I don't like the way you were born." There is one, and only one difference between what you are saying, and saying that people with brown eyes can't have a driver's liscence or be recognized by the government-only one of those, sadly enough, would be laughed out of a court.

You are being bigoted, and you are saying that your ignorance must be mandated. That is inherently wrong, and YOU, for doing it, are wrong.
No evidence that wasn't later refuted has said the homosexuality is inborn. Furthermore, homosexuality isn't like eye color, you can't see homosexaulity unless a person willingly reveals it. You're reducing the argument to something it isn't, and in doing so, are being stupid.

No evidence that wasn't later refuted has said the homosexuality is inborn. Furthermore, homosexuality isn't like eye color, you can't see homosexaulity unless a person willingly reveals it. You're reducing the argument to something it isn't, and in doing so, are being stupid.

It is unknown weither or not homosexuality is inborn. However, most evidence points to it NOT being a choice.

A person with brown eyes could wear sunglasses.



Tell me the difference between "I am against homosexuals having rights" and "I am against black people having rights."

Homophobia: I don't hate gay people. I disapprove of homosexuality, as I disapprove of lying, stealing, or murder, but someone who simply finds members of the same-sex attractive doesn't bother me. Thoughts and feelings are your own business. However, when you try to legislate rights for yourself, or throw your sexuality in other people's faces, then it's no longer your business, and that's what I a have a problem with.

Arammanar in the short time i have known of your existance i have yet to see you make a more valid comment than Goed - your point on homosexuality is flawed because you fail to distinguish that there are 2 (basic) sexual orientations which have to be treated in more or less the same way, and not one and "the wrong one". You have not explained why you dissaprove of homosexuality you have merely stated that you do, albeit in a structured manner. Back on the subject of your argument/point's flaw/s: You are in effect saying that homosexuals (who have been continuously been discriminated against throughout contemporary...as in post-classical...history) should not "fight" not to be discriminated against. Oui? If you think race does not matter but sexual orientation does...well...I will wait on your reply.

(Note - to a homosexual, you throw your sexuality in their face and also put your rights above their own - which is a good way of paraphrasing your final sentance, isnt it?)

It is unknown weither or not homosexuality is inborn. However, most evidence points to it NOT being a choice.

A person with brown eyes could wear sunglasses.



Tell me the difference between "I am against homosexuals having rights" and "I am against black people having rights."
Show me a study that corraborates with that. Then explain why people can "change" sexualities. A person with brown eyes wearing sunglasses is different than a person deciding not to steal, or a man deciding not to sleep with other men. Being brown-eyed is an external characteristic, having impulses to steal or screw with men are internal characteristics.

Arammanar in the short time i have known of your existance i have yet to see you make a more valid comment than Goed - your point on homosexuality is flawed because you fail to distinguish that there are 2 (basic) sexual orientations which have to be treated in more or less the same way, and not one and "the wrong one". You have not explained why you dissaprove of homosexuality you have merely stated that you do, albeit in a structured manner. Back on the subject of your argument/point's flaw/s: You are in effect saying that homosexuals (who have been continuously been discriminated against throughout contemporary...as in post-classical...history) should not "fight" not to be discriminated against. Oui? If you think race does not matter but sexual orientation does...well...I will wait on your reply.

(Note - to a homosexual, you throw your sexuality in their face and also put your rights above their own - which is a good way of paraphrasing your final sentance, isnt it?)
Homosexuality is the wrong sexuality. It has no compelling state interest.

I am sorry, but i have to insist you explain that further - with a list of other issues or traits you see as being of no use to a state. Clearly the world would have been better off without philosophy, democracy, enlightened rule (not the same as democracy...democracy is a mixed bag), and of course Oscar Wilde...but i would still like you do give a list of some things *you* find...surplus to requirements.

The human soul should top this list unless i have read you incorrectly, but i am trying hard to give no further personal commentry.

Shall we continue?


[edited to add "soul"...i dunno how i forgot to add that.]

I am sorry, but i have to insist you explain that further - with a list of other issues or traits you see as being of no use to a state. Clearly the world would have been better off without philosophy, democracy, enlightened rule (not the same as democracy...democracy is a mixed bag), and of course Oscar Wilde...but i would still like you do give a list of some things *you* find...surplus to requirements.

The human should top this list unless i have read you incorrectly, but i am trying hard to give no further personal commentry.

Shall we continue?
Homosexuality does not, in and of itself, create any positive thing that the state should pay for. Thus, it should not be paid for by the state, in the form of marriage. Give them civil unions.

Feel free; I'll give you mine. First, making sentencing depend on intent is hardly unprecidented; the difference between murder and manslaughter say. I am very much in favour of hate laws, I just think they're misnamed. There are a couple of elements to a hate crime; the crime itself, but also the effect on the targetted community. The terrorizing of communities is a crime that does merit a response. It's not so much that the crime is motivated by hate, but that when part of the intent of a crime is to terrorize that aspect should be recognized and punished.

All aspects of hate crimes are already covered in existing laws. It isn't like homosexuals weren't coverd by those laws, there is no need to create a separate law just for them. The same applies to race, etc. If you're a human being, then you are already protected by existing laws.

It is my strong opinion that the last thing we need are more laws, particularly redundant ones. I'd much prefer the time and effort was spent to clear out obscure, archaic and pointless laws.

"Thee, serpet, subtlest beast of all the feild
I knew, but not with human voice endued;"

Arammanar, That was not an answer to my question, merely half of it at best.

Have some substance, please, 'lawyers answers' are poor one's.

"Thee, serpet, subtlest beast of all the feild
I knew, but not with human voice endued;"

Arammanar, That was not an answer to my question, merely half of it at best.

Have some substance, please, 'lawyers answers' are poor one's.
Then please ask a question without paragraphs of confusing rambling.

You understood what i was asking very well, that you cant (or wont) answer a question which you understand speaks volumes.

Being brown-eyed is an external characteristic, having impulses to steal or screw with men are internal characteristics.

Depression, schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses are internal characteristics as well. Should insurance companies not help cover the expenses for treatment simply because they can't tell by glancing at someone whether or not they need the medicine?

You understood what i was asking very well, that you cant (or wont) answer a question which you understand speaks volumes.
NO I DIDN'T. IF I DID I WOULDN'T HAVE TOLD YOU TO ASK IT. The fact that you either post a condemning remark or a "question" embedded in a dozen lines of rhetoric speaks ill of you. If you ask a one or two sentence question in readable English I'll deal with it. If not, stop trolling.

Depression, schizophrenia, and other mental illnesses are internal characteristics as well. Should insurance companies not help cover the expenses for treatment simply because they can't tell by glancing at someone whether or not they need the medicine?
If you're "depressed" but you go around singing Kumbayah and saying how happy you are, you're not depressed are you? If you're moping around, not leaving your house, and crying each night, then you have an external sign of an internal characteristic. An insurance company is incapable of paying for treatment of diseases with no symptoms.

Before i leave for the time being i will reprhrase what i said, for your benefit, Arammanar.

Your views appear to be contradictory.
Do you belive that homosexuals should protest at being discriminated against?
If not, do you agree that you, in fact, agree with disciminating against someone based on their sexuality?
If so, do you accept that sexuality must at the final level be due to physiological/neuroligical traits?

Also

Do you belive that people should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and judged accordingly based on their merits?
Do you agree that this is what you said with regards to race?
Do you agree that racial characteristics are also physiological/neurological (possibly) in nature?

Then, in accordance with the law that if A=B, and B=C, C=A (zero'th law of quantum somethingorother i think..), do you agree that you are pro-discrimination based upon physiological or neurological traits?

AND. I would like that list of which i spoke from you.

If you're "depressed" but you go around singing Kumbayah and saying how happy you are, you're not depressed are you? If you're moping around, not leaving your house, and crying each night, then you have an external sign of an internal characteristic. An insurance company is incapable of paying for treatment of diseases with no symptoms.

I said "by glancing at someone". Sure, if you spy on someone, you can tell they're depressed. If you do that, you can tell if someone is gay too. Is one man having sexual relations with another not the same thing? It's still "an external sign of an internal characteristic".

Do you belive that homosexuals should protest at being discriminated against?
If they're not being hired because they are attracted to guys, yes. If they are not being hired because they have shown themselves to be unfit to work there for ANY reason, then no.

If not, do you agree that you, in fact, agree with disciminating against someone based on their sexuality?
Discriminating based on someone's thoughts or feelings is wrong. Discriminating based on their actions is not.

If so, do you accept that sexuality must at the final level be due to physiological/neuroligical traits?
The nonobservable side to sexuality is immaterial. The expressed side, actually engaging in homosexual acts, is a choice.

Do you belive that people should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and judged accordingly based on their merits?
Yes.

Do you agree that this is what you said with regards to race?
Do you mean:
1) That each race must be evaluated on its merits or
2) That members of any race must be evaluated based on merits?
I'm in favor of 2.

Do you agree that racial characteristics are also physiological/neurological (possibly) in nature?

Yes.

I said "by glancing at someone". Sure, if you spy on someone, you can tell they're depressed. If you do that, you can tell if someone is gay too. Is one man having sexual relations with another not the same thing? It's still "an external sign of an internal characteristic".
I'm depressed. Give me money. Don't try and verify it, just take my word for it. Homosexuality is not like depression, so the argument falls apart anyway.

You're missing the point. It is not the insurance company's job to decide whether or not someone is depressed; that responsibility belongs to the doctor. Likewise, instead of saying gays don't deserve rights, maybe we should take the time to get the facts straight first instead of making assumptions about the causes of homosexuality.

Being brown-eyed is an external characteristic, having impulses to steal or screw with men are internal characteristics.

Homosexuality is not like depression, so the argument falls apart anyway.

Stealing is no more akin to homosexuality than depression is.

It is if you view them both as wrong. But the larger issue should be why are we having this discussion in the first place? Why have marriage benefits for anybody?

i dont think homos are sub human i just dont whant them anywhere near me i guess homophobia is like being afraid of spiders some ppl eat em some ppl scream. c im not so bad p.s they now let homos in the army i mean who wants to be stuck in a trench with a horny fag :gundge:

If you have arachnophobia, you don't eat spiders. That's the last thing people with arachnophobia want to do. They want to get the hell away from spiders, not have them squirming around in their mouths.

And why do you assume that just because someone is gay, they're horny? In my experiences, straight guys are typically hornier than gay guys. And you have no right to complain about who is serving in the military when they're there to serve your ungrateful ass.

I think Moonshining is having a go at us, I could be mistaken. ;)

But the larger issue should be why are we having this discussion in the first place? Why have marriage benefits for anybody?

Good question. Earlier we brought up the problem of allowing religions the freedom to marry or not marry whom they choose, when the government itself endorses religion. We suggested that the government should completely step out of marriage, and ONLY bother with civil unions. And gays could get civil unions. And religions would be free to be as bigoted as they want, no matter. Everyone happy.

But as far as marriage/civil union benefits, it's something about the government wanting to help married families get along. You know, when politicians say they are fighting for the middle class, or married American, or whatnot. Just some tax breaks for people raising a family.

Personally... I agree with you, the government should have NO business in marriage at all, and not even give benefits of any sort to civil unions. The only reason the government needs to recognize civil unions is for ease of tax purposes, census, and the like. There should be no "encouragement" to get married/civil unioned.

And this would defeat the arguments of those who say, "People are just gonna marry their dog or chair to get benefits if we allow gay marriage!"

Best solution all around!

i dont think homos are sub human i just dont whant them anywhere near me i guess homophobia is like being afraid of spiders some ppl eat em some ppl scream. c im not so bad p.s they now let homos in the army i mean who wants to be stuck in a trench with a horny fag :gundge:

well in that case i hope he's bigger than you and shags your arse blue and back :D

Now! An answer, if i may. Yes, much of the early bibles laws (in a smilar way to kosher eating) were for health reasons...therefor is it plausible to suggest that gay sex was outlawed for similar reasons? I have no experiance in the issue but i imagine a condom (or enema? im being serious...) would be rather necessary to prevent infections - and though i heard the egyptians did have some sort of reusable condom things way, way back...i belive 400 years wandering in the desert meant that production may ahve been disrupted, yeah? So - that seems valid...so in that scenario, is the anti-homosexuality stuff still relevant?

Schnappslant - the materials thing is in a recent-ish book, whereby a prominant hebrew (i think! im horribly convinced that i got that one wrong) scholar compiled a list of "how the bible says modern life should be run"...you may have more luck finding that

Since the majority of the anti-homosexual posts have been based on religious grounds - which is valid in the context of this discussion - please could those opposed on these grounds answer to the following:

"God made us all, and god does not make mistakes" - movie quote.
"forknowledge is not the same as intent" - Paradise Lost referance.

If god is almighty and our creator, and god has a plan, and homosexuality is the result of physical/neurological factors - and therefore homosexuals are gods work...whats wrong with it, really?

I will bore you all with my own views tomorrow

Sleep Well.

Michael


Sorry, I wrote a big, long post which my computer in its infinite spite decided to eat promptly before crashing. So you get the short, short version.

Mankind = wrong
God = Right

Don't whine and whinge. If anything, just take that as my view and think me wrong. So your bloke writing books about materials. Don't really care. give me a Bible ref. I have one open on my desk. Ok, primarily it's there so I can refer to it writing these posts.

Around Leviticus 18 v3 it says do not do as the Egyptians do (before the whole tirade of unlawful sexual relations) so the condom things out. And several times later in the Bible the gay sex thing gets lambasted so not just Jews, 400 years, Desert (Aaron and Moses not Abraham, whoever said that).

Homosexual intercourse. Boils down to marriage. God said don't have extra-marital sex (yes he did. No, not just 'don't have affairs outside your marriage'). Adultery refers to committing adult acts outside marriage. God says marriage shall be between one man and one woman (sorry Mormons). Follow this thread.....

If I may, let me suggest to you that the urge to commit homosexual acts is a temptation. I now expect representatives of the gay community to scream at me. Shut up. Listen. The temptation to commit homosexual acts, very much like some people's urges to injure, kill people, even to rape people. In this manner this urge can be equated to the temptation to have straight extra-marital sex. How's that for equality?

Everyone in their lives is tempted to do something God says is wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is lying (with the obvious exception of people who do not live long enough to be able to make conscious decisions, i.e. unable to be tempted). Here's a newsflash for you. All sins are the same in God's eyes. Insulting someone is equal to taking their life, in seriousness.

So. In this regard, Christians who scream at homosexuals that they are dirty and evil are wrong. "Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone". God loves everyone. If we don't, we are sinful.

To anyone who cannot accept this post as the rational explanation of my understanding of the Christian belief regarding this matter, I am sorry. Please ask yourself why you don't accept it.

And yes. That was the short, short version

* In my Bible Deut 22 v5 says: 'A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear woman's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this'.*

But to be fair not many people liked J Edgar Hoover anyway.

Goed, can the way you look at other people's posts actually be considered reading or does your vision go all hazy when you try.

Arammanar, all you've said, over and over again, is "homosexuality is wrong."

Prove it.

Furthermore, prove that it's a negative thing.

The fact is, you DO have a problem with homosexuals, because you have a problem with homosexuality. People don't say "I'm fine with murderers-but the act of murder is just wrong!" No, that's complete BULLSHIT. Bullshit, just like YOU'VE been spewing.

Back! But i only had the one drink so im not quite with you yet Arammanar.

Back to buisness...

Arammanar:

We are not talking about people being hired. We are talking about discrimination in all areas of life.

Actions? you still have not explained what you feel to be wrong with their actions, but to go on the weak material you have provided me - Can you imagine going through the whole of your life without ever having sex with a woman? Before i went out i thought i might put that to you as a joke, but i am in fact now being quite serious. As a straight guy, would you allow yourself to go through life without having sex with a woman? especially assuming you fall in love? (no one say "catholic preist" here please, as that is unique throughout the whole world i think was told to me once...and in fact in many cases preists have not been celibate their whole lives at any rate)

That counts for your arguments regarding the differance between "feeling" and "doing" as well. Simply put, the urge to have sex is not one which is conciously controlled for the most part, and its nigh on the single most powerful urge throughout nature - you would like people to deny themselves consenting sex with a member of the same sex because *you* dont like it even though *you* can not say why you feel it to be wrong?

Next, i meant 2, though i doubt you failed to understand the question.


So, your retort can be summed up as:

"people can be gay if they want but they shouldnt have gay sex"

because...

"its wrong"

because...

"..."


If this is the case, i would suggest that you are immature to the point where you can not put yourself in the position of a gay man in your "ideal world (though surely less ideal because there are gay people there at all, yes?).

For example..."I could not live my life like this, and as i have no compelling reason for them to do so - they should not have to"

Its very, very simple. Failing that i am afraid you must face up to the fact that you may not be very secure in your masculinity/sexuality...Unless you can convince me otherwise. Please accept that you have made no serious effort to do that thusfar.


Apolagies to everyone for the typos and the outburst in general.


Schnappslant, thank you that all makes clear sense. In fairness, i cant argue with your reasons if they are purely based on your faith, since you were good enough to explain why your faith holds its opinions.
Id also like to say sorry for the hygine-based suggestions - they really were no more than me testing the waters. However, as you might expect, i can not entirely agree with your faith - but i have no right to condem it...clearly if you told me your faith was all for getting inquisitorial on any guy who wore pink i would probably be less...convinced...but as it is your dislike of homosexuality appears to be founded on ideals rather than "gut reaction".

If you are open to it we can discuss god and christianity at greater length, and go into questions such as "which god? why? but/if/blah/etc" but for now the discussion can not go any further because you dont argue with faith or discuss it unless he or she who holds the fait in question is up for discussing it.
Thank you again.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is where i am told you will find what you need to know about fabrics, but that is completely aside

Night all


Michael

clearly if you told me your faith was all for getting inquisitorial on any guy who wore pink i would probably be less...convinced...but as it is your dislike of homosexuality appears to be founded on ideals rather than "gut reaction".

If you are open to it we can discuss god and christianity at greater length, and go into questions such as "which god? why? but/if/blah/etc" but for now the discussion can not go any further because you dont argue with faith or discuss it unless he or she who holds the fait in question is up for discussing it.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is where i am told you will find what you need to know about fabrics, but that is completely aside

Your boy's off on the Deut ref. It does ring a bell from somewhere.

I have personal issues with pink. My female friends are quickly getting very annoyed with me. Hate the colour, not the wearer!

I also have issues with homophobes or (God forbid) rascists who try and justify their views with Christianity. I think that's the best impression to take from my garbled posts.

Always up for discussing faith. I SHALL CONVERT THE LOT OF YOU, MUHWAHWAHWAHWAHWA!! *cough* chokes on communion bread and suffocates. Communion pretzel Mr Bush?

Actions? you still have not explained what you feel to be wrong with their actions, but to go on the weak material you have provided me - Can you imagine going through the whole of your life without ever having sex with a woman? Before i went out i thought i might put that to you as a joke, but i am in fact now being quite serious. As a straight guy, would you allow yourself to go through life without having sex with a woman? especially assuming you fall in love? (no one say "catholic preist" here please, as that is unique throughout the whole world i think was told to me once...and in fact in many cases preists have not been celibate their whole lives at any rate)

I've never said homosexuals can't have sex. I'm against that section of sodomy laws.


That counts for your arguments regarding the differance between "feeling" and "doing" as well. Simply put, the urge to have sex is not one which is conciously controlled for the most part, and its nigh on the single most powerful urge throughout nature - you would like people to deny themselves consenting sex with a member of the same sex because *you* dont like it even though *you* can not say why you feel it to be wrong?

No, you're completely distorting my words. Methinks you've had too much to drink.


Next, i meant 2, though i doubt you failed to understand the question.

Learn to phrase things more coherently then. It wasn't a matter of understanding, it just looked like a trap.


"people can be gay if they want but they shouldnt have gay sex"
because...
"its wrong"
because...
"..."

People can be gay and screw themselves stupid if they both want. I just won't support it by letting them get married for it.

If this is the case,

It's not.

Its very, very simple. Failing that i am afraid you must face up to the fact that you may not be very secure in your masculinity/sexuality...Unless you can convince me otherwise. Please accept that you have made no serious effort to do that thusfar.

So now you're calling me gay? You really are quite a find, I've never debated with someone quite as...gifted...as you.

Is it ok to hate queens? because they really really annoy me.

Is it ok to hate queens? because they really really annoy me.
Hate anyone, as long as it's justified. Don't hate gays for being gay, hate them because they stole your car, or raped your kid, or for something bad that they did, rather than for something about them you don't like.

People can be gay and screw themselves stupid if they both want. I just won't support it by letting them get married for it.

So you're saying that laws should be made based around your-and specifically only your-moral beliefs?

Yeah well I don't really see homophobic as a relevant term, people branded that don't look particuarly scared of em. Personally I reckon racism's a bit pointless, unless someone's a complete asshole due to living up to a stereotype of their race. I'll call a black guy who runs around acting like a prick a fucking ******, but that's just cos I don't like them personally and it's a really quick way to insult them. If there's a black guy I like, fuck it man I'll gladly hang out with em, it's just a skin colour and that's that.
As for homophbia, I'd more accurately call myself a 'homoskeptic'. I just don't get it. It's a sexual perversion, not a lifestyle, ok? It's not necessarily immoral or unethical, but just admit you've got a fetish for something a bit unnatural like the rest of us (yeah I said unnatural, get over it, that dosen't constitute procreation, and that's that). So yeah, I've got gay friends, but I only hang around with them because they're the sort of gay folk who realise it dosen't mean listening to shitty music or (over)acting like a prat all the time to fulfill a dumbass stereotype. So in conclusion, you might as well leave the gays and blacks alone, let's just shoot overly-camp people, they're annoying and not very funny anyway. Plus you rednecks'll probably get a few queers into the bargain anyhow. Everyone's happy. Except for the dead ones, I suppose.

As for homophbia, I'd more accurately call myself a 'homoskeptic'. I just don't get it. It's a sexual perversion, not a lifestyle, ok?
While it's not a lifestyle, it's also not a sexual perversion

It's not necessarily immoral or unethical, but just admit you've got a fetish for something a bit unnatural like the rest of us (yeah I said unnatural, get over it, that dosen't constitute procreation, and that's that).
By that logic, hetrosexual people have an "opposite sex" fetish.

:sniper: im very homophobic (fear of gay ppl) i av one in 1 of my classes and it scares the shizzle outa me with its eyeliner the fuuny thing is it has to leave school early so know1 um...i wont say kick his @ss but u get the picture. rejioce though since no willyjockys are having kids maybe they will die out + ginger ppl :p


And what makes you think you can kick his ass? Thirteen years ago when I was in highschool, I was a straight male with eyeliner and a mohawk. I came from a small redneck town, so every half wit like yourself felt that I was an easy target. Although now I would never try and promote violence...I never backed off from a fight. Won some, lost some...but nobody ever walked away thinking they could just jump on the 'faggot' in the back of the class. I had a heavy fisted father, and four older brothers...I knew how to take care of myself. Your lack of eye liner doesn't make you tough, or a man.

It's sad that you feel so much hate...but be careful, you can never really know who you are messing with.

p.s-Christ man, your grammar is worse then mine. Try ignoring the feller with the makeup, and and pay attention to your teacher in class. Hell, you might even get sMrT enough to have a job one day.

Funfact: After being liberated from Egypt, many Jews went of to different lands {also called the Diaspora}. One of these places was a little known nation called Greece. You see, the Greeks had a social rule that simply was not broken: treat all visitors with the utomost curtosy and hospitality...for, they could be a god in disguise. This practice basicly sat atop all others, because, lets face it, who wants to piss off a god?


You see, when God sent his angels, he asked them to find ten{I think} decent people within the citys, and he would spare them. It is said a man named Lott met them and took them into his family's home {score big points for the citizens.} However, the city's people got wind that Lott had allowed two men to take refuge within his home, and these men weren't exactly unattractive either. Basicly, they gathered outside of Lott's door and emplored him to hand the men, angels, over. He refused, knowing what they intended to do to them. He held fast....until they broke down the door.

Now, I don't know about you, beating and gang-raping your guests isn't being a very good host.

Thus, they had broken a cardinal rule, and the Angels decided the city's deserved what was comming to them. They saved Lott and his family, but well, you know the rest of the story.

{Infact, this rule was so important, Abraham and Aaron broke it just before stepping foot into the Canaan, then felt too guilty to enter; this after a fourty year trek in the desert...}


I thought Lott handed over his daughters to the rapeing hordes, to spare the angels.

Hmm, that's awful Christian don't you think? Let your teenagers get gang raped, to spare the mighty immortals in God's service.

Homosexuality does not, in and of itself, create any positive thing that the state should pay for. Thus, it should not be paid for by the state, in the form of marriage. Give them civil unions.


Wow I get sick of that argument. Are you married with children? If not, please hand over your rights right now. I am 28 years old, hetro..yet I have no children. I am not "producing" for society...except for all the bloody taxes I pay. Hmmm, good thing that Gay's don't have to pay taxes because they don't produce children...wait...think I hear sarcasm calling.

That has to be one of the saddest and unfounded arguments to ever disgrace the ideals of 'logic'.

Wow I get sick of that argument. Are you married with children? If not, please hand over your rights right now. I am 28 years old, hetro..yet I have no children. I am not "producing" for society...except for all the bloody taxes I pay. Hmmm, good thing that Gay's don't have to pay taxes because they don't produce children...wait...think I hear sarcasm calling.

That has to be one of the saddest and unfounded arguments to ever disgrace the ideals of 'logic'.
Maybe homosexual unions serve the society precisely by NOT producing kids, thus cutting down on shoplifting, teenage pregnancy (leave it), and paperwork necessary for ASBO's!

Whenever I'm looking for ignorance, I just scan the page for that stupid sniping smilie. It's on so many stupid posts it's like a tag that says "Look at me, I'm full of unfounded hatred and intolerance!"

On a thread-related note, if you haven't already got one, you're going to get at least one reply that says "I ain't homophobic, I'm not afraid of gays, I just don't like them.", though likely with far worse grammar and spelling.

Sorry if I come across as ticked off, I was reading up on that Matt Shepard incident. Can you believe that Fred Phelps picketed that kid's funeral? Can you imagine how his family felt?

Jesus, if you're up there, please, PLEASE tell me Phelps is going to hell.

People can be gay and screw themselves stupid if they both want. I just won't support it by letting them get married for it.

What do you mean "letting them get married"? Are you the marriage monitor? If some gay people married each other, why would it be you that let them? And why would that mean you supported them? Do you visit all weddings and shout "come on you bride and groom / groom and groom / bride and bride" ?

I'm from the Netherlands, and like some probably know, we have a legal gay-marry (first country that allow it), which is recognised by the government and gives the same right to a homosexual couple as to a heterosexual couple.

In The Netherlands homosexual people are kind of accepted, not by all people, but I believe more than in other European countries and definitely more than in the US.
In my opinion that just fair, and nothing more that fair. Studies proof that being gay is not something that is cause by nurture, but by nature.
5 % of all people are gay (but perhaps do not admit that).

And I really cannot see why you shouldn't allow two people, who truly love each other and want to be seen as official lovers by the law, to get married and get their state regornizion.

And by the way, I never hear arguments that fit into a secular state, where religion and politics/government are separated.
Perhaps any one can help me with this, because I really believe that there is no legitimate secular reason to forbid gay-marriages.

(snip)


Homophobia: would have to say no. Must admit, I don't find it particularly appealing, but if 2 consenting adults want to be together, good for them I say. Should be entitled to all the same rights, etc...

Racism: Dislike any particular group for being a certain race/creed/colour, no. But if I was still living in London, and saw a group of young black men walking towards me, I'd be more worried than if they were a group of young chinese women. In terms of marriage, etc.. makes no difference what the 'race' is.

hope that clarifies my position.

I've never understood the misuse of the term homophobe. I mean, most of the people branded as homophobes aren't afraid of gay people, they hate them. I, on the other hand, don't hate gays. But when I'm in Toronto and a 6'5", 250 lb male starts looking at me funny, well I tend to get the hell out of the situation, usually by running. Would that not make me a homophobe?

actually in that situation i think you'd be called smart

Feh, I might as well pop-in to speak my view on this.

Quite simply, I am slightly uneasy about the idea of homosexuality. Before anyone starts shouting 'HOMOPHOBE! DIEEEEE!', etc., what I mean is the concept itself. I'm from a community where it doesn't really exist. I know no homosexual people, nor anyone who really even thinks about it (Not negatively, Positively, anything.), it's like it doesn't exist to 'em.

Basically, if two people are homosexual, fine, they aren't worse or better people for it. They're just normal people to me. But since i'm not used to it, the concept itself doesn't seem normal to me, and I don't really see what the appeal of it is. If I met a gay person, and had to ask one question, i'd ask 'Why do you like being homosexual?'.

Also, since people are also talking a bit about racism, i'll say right now that the above applies to how racist I am or aren't. Quite simply, I live in a community with very few people who aren't white, Scottish people. Those people who i've known as I grew up who are black are fine to me. I view 'em as normal people, but when i'm in an area away from where I live, and it happens to be predominantely black, i'd feel uneasy, simply cause i'm not used to so many black people.


So yeah, to sum up the above, i'm simply not used to homosexual or black people much, but I don't think of them as bad people, and I don't think of their skin colour/sexual orientation as 'Horrible', don't think they should 'Burn in hell' (I aint religious), and I don't think anyone should act worse towards them for what they are.

I am curious on the origins of homosexuality.
Philosophically speaking, it's very difficult to find a reason.

However, more and more scientists tend to believe one is born gay and that there are different stages to discovering one's sexuality (e.g. awareness, acceptance,...). Most gay people say they already felt 'different' at a young age, which supports that theory.

Apparantly the homophobian/racist "christians" here who claim they hate them because gays are sinners according to christian faith, that the white race is superior to 'other' races, and that their religion is superior to all others haven't read the Bible well... Those "christians" claim they do the right thing, in other words 'righteousness' sake'... But doesn't the Bible say: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:10 - Jesus)

erm, wow! thought the thread was dead.

Right...back to it again...

#89 is what i will be referring to for a few minutes here, for those who wish to refer back to it.

Arammanar:
Your argument is that i twisted what you said to read that you were against gay sex for no real reason? Well...if that isnt the case please tell me what the reason is? or are you not against gay sex?

Next on my agenda...

People can be gay and screw themselves stupid if they both want. I just won't support it by letting them get married for it.

When did you and i start discussing marriage in particular? I can not seem to find it...though i can fin a simillar post of yours wherin our topic of discussion suddendly became Hiring/employment...
To the best of my knowledge, marriage is not the issue my friend (for as per the note we began on, we must not be enemies).

Learn to phrase things more coherently then. It wasn't a matter of understanding, it just looked like a trap.

It has all been a trap. It has all been a trap because i am fascinated to know why you will not tell us (all) what it is you find to be wrong with the existance of homosexuality in society?

As has been pointed out - they give as much back to society as you do at the very least, and also are statistically more likely than you to contribute to the culture of our times. Furthermore they are less likely to be involved in crime, i am pretty sure - and we must all ask ourselves how much good we are actually doing for the world when we choose to have children - for example do you belive you are/will be a good father? If not, are you not doing society harm? I would like you to answer all the above questions. To clarify for you - "question" referrs to each supposition or statment followed by a question mark ("?").

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimano
Its very, very simple. Failing that i am afraid you must face up to the fact that you may not be very secure in your masculinity/sexuality...Unless you can convince me otherwise. Please accept that you have made no serious effort to do that thusfar.



So now you're calling me gay? You really are quite a find, I've never debated with someone quite as...gifted...as you.

The implicit (and obvious) question has been made "bold" for your benefit. Instead of answering to the charges brought against yuour good name you choose to poke fun at me for saying that you could have issues with your sexuality - which i am at pains to point out is not the same as being gay.


So, once again i ask you:

What, in your opinion is wrong with homosexuality?

and also, as you brought it up

What do you have against gay marriage?


Now...back later when things have moved on and i have eaten...Idlike to point out that there are a great many other things i would like to say about arammanar's posting, but i havent the time nor the energy at the moment - so please dont feel i have agreed with any of his defences towards me - its just that i havent the time to continue trying to force him to answer the questions put to him instead of trying to poke at my reasoning in order to take attention from the fact that he still hasnt answered the question/s.

Apparantly the homophobian/racist "christians" here who claim they hate them because gays are sinners according to christian faith
Missed the point. Don't detest people (detesting people is a sin), detest the sin itself.

that the white race is superior to 'other' races
Wha...!!

and that their religion is superior to all others
Oh ok, I get where you're going with this.

haven't read the Bible well.
That's the thing. That's right. Those groups of people are basing their ideals on bits they like. But then you carried on. D'oh

Those "christians" claim they do the right thing, in other words 'righteousness' sake'... But doesn't the Bible say: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:10 - Jesus)
BUT..... Christians who follow the Bible would claim that the right thing to do is to point out to others (in an appropriate way) that things they are doing are wrong. Point out, not try and change forcibly.

However if you're saying that practicing homosexual 'christians' are the ones being persecuted and are righteous, that's wrong. Then you start classifying them as one of the groups above, following what they like as it suits them.

Hmm, I guess you're right. I must have interpreted it in a wrong way.

Hmm, I guess you're right. I must have interpreted it in a wrong way.
sarky git!!

Catbert: You must have misunderstood your question. All the information is on my website, shoo, shoo..

Am i the only one who wishes schnas. was a hardline christian activist with belifes simillar to those displayed on www.landoverbaptist.com ?

Would be more..fun..that way. Sigh.

Ah well.

:p

(whats "razz" lol :( ?)

Am i the only one who wishes schnas. was a hardline christian activist with belifes simillar to those displayed on www.landoverbaptist.com ?

Would be more..fun..that way. Sigh.

Ah well.

:p

(whats "razz" lol :( ?)
Cool!! I needed a laugh :p . I know it's wrong but people who think like that make me laugh, not at them but the ideas and the way they illustrate them. Hmm.. John Kerry advertised as the Devil!!

HAIL BUSH OUR BELOVED LEADER

Cracks me up..

sorry this is a bit off-thread, but i found it on one of the links someone supplied. well its got to be read to be beleived


TIPS: As a True Christian™, What Can I Do to Break the Devil’s Fast and Share Jesus With a Muslim on the Ramadan Diet?

1. Realize that enticing someone off of a diet can often best be accomplished if it is done gradually. Don't offer up a roasted hedgehog if a Chips Ahoy cookie will do the trick. If the Ramadan dieter first appears reluctant to eat, try telling her, "Look, if you are worried about putting on weight, you can always make yourself vomit later."

2. One way you can help a Muslim fudge his fast is to get two strong Christian men to hold him while another opens his mouth. You can then insert food into his mouth (ham-hocks are a good choice because the thick bones can be used to keep the jaw ajar, making the introduction of a torrent of wet, soft foodstuffs possible) . Tease his throat with your palm or the eraser end of a No. 2 pencil to invoke the swallowing reflex (this is also a perfect opportunity to uncover sodomites for later witnessing, as homosexuals have no gag reflex). When you are sure that all of the food has been ingested, insert a piece of chewing gum or hard candy in the back of the throat to ensure that the food blessing stays where Jesus wants it (in the sinner's stomach -- avoid the trachea, as any resultant death before salvation undermines the central purpose of reaching out to these crazy people in the first place), leave a Bible and the popular Chick Tract: Allah Had No Son, on the sinner's stomach and move on to the next heathen.

3. Get to the children first. Muslim children are even more stupid than the adult Muslims and are very susceptible to temptation. Fill your pockets with candy (or anything else you suspect a Muslim child might be forbidden to have) and Bible tracts and visit an area of your city in where Muslim children are present. Listen for wildly oscillating yelping that is the vocal calling card of Ismalics the world over. This should be done in the late morning hours near lunchtime, when the little Moon Worshippers’ stomachs are growling and they are at their weakest. Simply hand out wads of baloney, free candy and tracts to the starving, easily broken children. Tell them that it is a-okay with Mr. Allah if they stuff their little faces with luncheon meat or candy, but they must never tell their parents about the wonderful food Mr. Allah gave them. And if they don't read the tract afterwards, Mr. Allah will rape their parents.

4. If you live in a predominately Christian area, like Freehold, Iowa, and there are only a few stray Muslim families present that have not yet been driven from their Christian development, get everyone in your community to agree to act like October (a time when, for reasons unknown, the Ramadan Diet goes into full swing) has already come and gone. Within days of Labor Day, start festooning your front doors and public spaces with Thanksgiving decorations. Postdate all your checks and start wearing sweaters and overcoats, regardless of the temperature outside. Rented crop dusters, generously paid for by Landover Baptist, will complete the autumnal illusion by dropping thousands of tons of Agent Orange on all of the county's deciduous trees in the middle of the night on September 30, making your "Happy November!" wishes on first day of October appear so much more convincing to easily duped Muslims. It is important to note that evildoers are usually in a constant state of delirium from malnutrition during the Ramadan Diet, so they will believe just about anything. Invite the Muslim families out for a missionary dinner. After the meal is over, reveal to them that the date it is not November 29th, but actually October 20th. During their initial state of shock over this revelation, move in quickly with scripture and Bible teaching. They are in an extremely vulnerable state at this time and will perhaps be willing to switch religions since you have them cornered on how badly they just screwed up with the first one.

5. If you are a Christian businessman and, through oversight or bad luck, have a Muslim in your employ, you must consider it is a safety risk, as well as an erosion of your bottom line to have them work without availing themselves several times a day to your coin-operated snack machines. Folks tend to be dehydrated, tired, and indifferent if they are hooked on the Ramadan Diet. No one likes garden variety Islamic scum working at his side, but it is even more dangerous to have a hungry Islamic in the workplace. When folks are famished, they get irritable. When normal people get irritable, they can snap. But when Islamics get irritable, they snap on some grenades to their suspenders and the next thing you know your warehouse and several hourly workers are a smoldering pile of debris. The best thing to do is fire them before this happens. If they sue you, don't worry. Christian trial attorneys can keep them swamped with interrogatories until the Rapture removes you for the court's jurisdiction.

6. Find a particularly religious Muslim and tell them that you have always been interested in Islam and you are willing to yell derisive taunts and personal insults at your former Savior and convert to Islam – but only if they will break their fast out of a solemn concern for your soul. If they need further softening up, say something flattering about terrorists. If they waiver, get them to eat something that they will develop a physical addiction to, like a whole box of nicotine gum or pudding laced with Oxycontin. That way, they will be less able to resist eating more even when you tell them you were just kidding about converting to their godless faith. Use the vulnerability that often comes with narcotic withdrawal as an opening to pull out your Bible and hammer them with the good news of Jesus Christ!

sorry this is a bit off-thread, but i found it on one of the links someone supplied. well its got to be read to be beleived


TIPS: As a True Christian™, What Can I Do to Break the Devil’s Fast and Share Jesus With a Muslim on the Ramadan Diet?

1. Realize that enticing someone off of a diet can often best be accomplished if it is done gradually. Don't offer up a roasted hedgehog if a Chips Ahoy cookie will do the trick. If the Ramadan dieter first appears reluctant to eat, try telling her, "Look, if you are worried about putting on weight, you can always make yourself vomit later."

2. One way you can help a Muslim fudge his fast is to get two strong Christian men to hold him while another opens his mouth. You can then insert food into his mouth (ham-hocks are a good choice because the thick bones can be used to keep the jaw ajar, making the introduction of a torrent of wet, soft foodstuffs possible) . Tease his throat with your palm or the eraser end of a No. 2 pencil to invoke the swallowing reflex (this is also a perfect opportunity to uncover sodomites for later witnessing, as homosexuals have no gag reflex). When you are sure that all of the food has been ingested, insert a piece of chewing gum or hard candy in the back of the throat to ensure that the food blessing stays where Jesus wants it (in the sinner's stomach -- avoid the trachea, as any resultant death before salvation undermines the central purpose of reaching out to these crazy people in the first place), leave a Bible and the popular Chick Tract: Allah Had No Son, on the sinner's stomach and move on to the next heathen.

3. Get to the children first. Muslim children are even more stupid than the adult Muslims and are very susceptible to temptation. Fill your pockets with candy (or anything else you suspect a Muslim child might be forbidden to have) and Bible tracts and visit an area of your city in where Muslim children are present. Listen for wildly oscillating yelping that is the vocal calling card of Ismalics the world over. This should be done in the late morning hours near lunchtime, when the little Moon Worshippers’ stomachs are growling and they are at their weakest. Simply hand out wads of baloney, free candy and tracts to the starving, easily broken children. Tell them that it is a-okay with Mr. Allah if they stuff their little faces with luncheon meat or candy, but they must never tell their parents about the wonderful food Mr. Allah gave them. And if they don't read the tract afterwards, Mr. Allah will rape their parents.

4. If you live in a predominately Christian area, like Freehold, Iowa, and there are only a few stray Muslim families present that have not yet been driven from their Christian development, get everyone in your community to agree to act like October (a time when, for reasons unknown, the Ramadan Diet goes into full swing) has already come and gone. Within days of Labor Day, start festooning your front doors and public spaces with Thanksgiving decorations. Postdate all your checks and start wearing sweaters and overcoats, regardless of the temperature outside. Rented crop dusters, generously paid for by Landover Baptist, will complete the autumnal illusion by dropping thousands of tons of Agent Orange on all of the county's deciduous trees in the middle of the night on September 30, making your "Happy November!" wishes on first day of October appear so much more convincing to easily duped Muslims. It is important to note that evildoers are usually in a constant state of delirium from malnutrition during the Ramadan Diet, so they will believe just about anything. Invite the Muslim families out for a missionary dinner. After the meal is over, reveal to them that the date it is not November 29th, but actually October 20th. During their initial state of shock over this revelation, move in quickly with scripture and Bible teaching. They are in an extremely vulnerable state at this time and will perhaps be willing to switch religions since you have them cornered on how badly they just screwed up with the first one.

5. If you are a Christian businessman and, through oversight or bad luck, have a Muslim in your employ, you must consider it is a safety risk, as well as an erosion of your bottom line to have them work without availing themselves several times a day to your coin-operated snack machines. Folks tend to be dehydrated, tired, and indifferent if they are hooked on the Ramadan Diet. No one likes garden variety Islamic scum working at his side, but it is even more dangerous to have a hungry Islamic in the workplace. When folks are famished, they get irritable. When normal people get irritable, they can snap. But when Islamics get irritable, they snap on some grenades to their suspenders and the next thing you know your warehouse and several hourly workers are a smoldering pile of debris. The best thing to do is fire them before this happens. If they sue you, don't worry. Christian trial attorneys can keep them swamped with interrogatories until the Rapture removes you for the court's jurisdiction.

6. Find a particularly religious Muslim and tell them that you have always been interested in Islam and you are willing to yell derisive taunts and personal insults at your former Savior and convert to Islam – but only if they will break their fast out of a solemn concern for your soul. If they need further softening up, say something flattering about terrorists. If they waiver, get them to eat something that they will develop a physical addiction to, like a whole box of nicotine gum or pudding laced with Oxycontin. That way, they will be less able to resist eating more even when you tell them you were just kidding about converting to their godless faith. Use the vulnerability that often comes with narcotic withdrawal as an opening to pull out your Bible and hammer them with the good news of Jesus Christ!
landoverbaptist is a joke site (and a damn good one!)

Mockery is never so effective as against the fundies. :D

Cool!! I needed a laugh :p . I know it's wrong but people who think like that make me laugh, not at them but the ideas and the way they illustrate them. Hmm.. John Kerry advertised as the Devil!!

HAIL BUSH OUR BELOVED LEADER

Cracks me up..

Hah. Another blind fool who follows a shrub. Ban him!

whats the board policy on saying *bump* ?

either way...this seems to be running out of steam lol. curses

Hah. Another blind fool who follows a shrub. Ban him!
"Hey now just you wait a second you.. you.. I don't even wanna say the word..alright then. You DEMOCRAT!! There.. you doggone made me go 'n' say it. I hope you're happy now. You're just like them goldarn fools who run the Crawford Iconoclast. WHAT DO WE NEED THE TRUTH FOR WHEN WE HAVE OUR OWN... um.. THOUGHTS! THAT'S THE.. uh.. word, yeah WORD I WAS THINKIN' OF. Dang it."

Does anyone else not think that voting for your neighbour because he's your neighbour is a little silly? (love your neighbour as yourself.. just don't vote for him) Does anyone else think I'm way off topic? oh..

yeah..but arramanar seems to have made a...tactical...retreat for the time being...so i have nothing left to do on the forums lol!

lets see how long we can keep it off topic though...or just active...lol

I hate queers if that makes me a homophobe I guess I am a homophobe.

wow. you all must hate me incredibally. in an afro jewish-buddhist, but not gay sorry

I hate queers if that makes me a homophobe I guess I am a homophobe.
Say you hate the french too, then you qualify for the full package. If you hate the spanish as well then you get the deluxe membership pack, including a large klaxon for waking the lazy f*ckers up while they're having their siesta.