NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahem, i call douchery on that argument, obviously you are not someone who has much experience with children. Do YOU think a 12 year old is emotionally or intellecutally capable of grasping the ramifications of a contract, much less marriage? Honestly? If you cant come up with a decent argument against something please stop referring to the patently absurd.
If they're not capable mentally or emotionally it's the fault of their parents. Biologically, your brain finishes the final stage of development at age twelve. Plus or minus a year or two. Go read basic psychology. We let stupid people make decisions, we should let anyone capable as well. To do anything less would be discrimination.

Well that's the issue isn't it? Homosexuals don't care about married in church, they care about the state recognizing them and rewarding them. If they cared what the church thought, they wouldn't engage in homosexuality.

Nope, sorry, not what I was talking about at all. Try again.

Nope, sorry, not what I was talking about at all. Try again.
Then what were you talking about, because I think it's pretty hard to misinterpret "if you allow heterosexual marriages why don't you allow all marriages."

Well that's the issue isn't it? Homosexuals don't care about married in church, they care about the state recognizing them and rewarding them. If they cared what the church thought, they wouldn't engage in homosexuality.

Right, sure. I'll just remain abstinent for the rest of my fucking life. Nice try, man.

www.narth.com

Then what were you talking about, because I think it's pretty hard to misinterpret "if you allow heterosexual marriages why don't you allow all marriages."

Why didn't you say this in the first place?

My point is, you say homosexual marriages are bad because, by allowing them, you automatically must allow all others people can think of.
Yet somehow, allowing heterosexual marriages doesn't do this.
What's stopping heterosexual marriages from forcing you to allow all others that doesn't apply to homosexual marriages?

If they're not capable mentally or emotionally it's the fault of their parents. Biologically, your brain finishes the final stage of development at age twelve. Plus or minus a year or two. Go read basic psychology. We let stupid people make decisions, we should let anyone capable as well. To do anything less would be discrimination.

Yes...because theres some guide stick that says not only does everyone develop completely by then no slower nor faster, but that because your brain has finished growing and set itself, you have become more or less as the adult you will be at 12 years old...right. Just because by some miracle the parents are "supposed" to have mentally and emotionally prepared their children for the real world, marriage and responsibility in your world, doesnt mean that in the real world they are. Less time reading psychology texts and more time not reaching for the most outlandish arguments and examples you can please.

Cats are property. Their consent or nonconsent is irrelevant. You can't sell a human, you can't leave on in your will, you can't send one to the pound to get it fixed. Besides, the age of consent is wrong anyway, biologically, a 12 year old has the same decision making powers as anyone older, as his brain is fully developed.

The brain isn't fully developed until 25 years of age! Don't you even read TIME?

www.narth.com

those people disgust me - they're nothing but scientific politicians, trying to put their own ultra-relgious fundie spin on the facts.

Right, sure. I'll just remain abstinent for the rest of my fucking life. Nice try, man.
No one says you have to be abstinent. Just don't pretend to follow doctrine while not following doctrine. Similarly, have sex with all the people at your work you want, just don't become a school teacher.

Why didn't you say this in the first place?

My point is, you say homosexual marriages are bad because, by allowing them, you automatically must allow all others people can think of.
Yet somehow, allowing heterosexual marriages doesn't do this.
What's stopping heterosexual marriages from forcing you to allow all others that doesn't apply to homosexual marriages?
I don't believe that heterosexual marriages should be allowed either. Satisfied?

Yes...because theres some guide stick that says not only does everyone develop completely by then no slower nor faster, but that because your brain has finished growing and set itself, you have become more or less as the adult you will be at 12 years old...right.
Right, girls don't have their periods at roughly the same time, boys don't develop penises in utero at roughly the same time, and people's cells don't wear out at roughly 50 divisions. After all, you do have all those girls who start menstruating in their 40's, those boys who don't grow a penis until they're 50, and you have those immortals whose cells divide indefinitely. What was I thinking, assuming that biological patterns exist in humans?

Just because by some miracle the parents are "supposed" to have mentally and emotionally prepared their children for the real world, marriage and responsibility in your world, doesnt mean that in the real world they are. Less time reading psychology texts and more time not reaching for the most outlandish arguments and examples you can please.
It's not the children's fault they have bad parents. Unless you think you can blame someone for someone else's mistake?

Ahem, i call douchery on that argument, obviously you are not someone who has much experience with children. Do YOU think a 12 year old is emotionally or intellecutally capable of grasping the ramifications of a contract, much less marriage? Honestly? If you cant come up with a decent argument against something please stop referring to the patently absurd.

indeed.

The brain isn't fully developed until 25 years of age! Don't you even read TIME?
Yes, but you're misunderstanding the article. The brain finishes developing at age 12, just like your muscles groups have finished developing at age 1. That does not mean, however, that you cannot strengthen existing connections, it simply means you have reached the end of the brain's developmental cycle.

indeed.
A one sentence post to a refuted argument. Good work, spammer.

Yes, but you're misunderstanding the article. The brain finishes developing at age 12, just like your muscles groups have finished developing at age 1. That does not mean, however, that you cannot strengthen existing connections, it simply means you have reached the end of the brain's developmental cycle.

Are you telling people how to think again, you mischievious man? You do so love to antagonize, sweet cheeks. But that just makes you all the more irresistible...honey buns.

kisses,

No one says you have to be abstinent. Just don't pretend to follow doctrine while not following doctrine. Similarly, have sex with all the people at your work you want, just don't become a school teacher.

Tell that to my favorite teacher, Mr. Bah, whose girlfriend is a science teacher at the same school :D

I don't follow docrine at all, don't even claim to. There are, however, many gay Christians, and many to whom Church marriage is QUITE important - give that a bit of thought.

Homosexuality may be a sin but it sure is fun!

- Bah Bye Sugar Plumbs!

I don't believe that heterosexual marriages should be allowed either. Satisfied?

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, go play Counterstrike or something.

If you look at the Bible (which many of u obviously haven't) in the new testament it willl tell u the problem with the world is rebellion. In Romans it says that the reason ppl r gay is cos they gave up natural relationships with each other for a lie cos of their rebellion. Those of u who r so cynical about the Bible obviously haven't read it, with all of the old testament being validated by Jesus, and the processes that not even the old ppl could handle, and Jesus instead was the sacrifice.
Marriage was meant for Adam and Eve...Not adam and steve (that gets annoying). wat good comes from a homosexual relationship, it is unnatural. A child will generally know it is unnatural, just like a child knows there is something wrong with a disabled person.
In terms of the things that ppl do that r against the bible, ppl r sorry for what they have done and repent of their sins, and try not to go on with it. Many ppl do things that r not from the bible, premarital sex is against the bible, but it is generally accepted, even though it shouldn't be.
It is not wrong to love another person, the Bible even tells ppl to love one another, but in brotherly love. u should treat ppl as direct relations-as sisters or mothers. It is wrong to act on ur feelings, it is not wrong to be tempted.

Perversion means in its second context

"A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant"

And rape, whilst wrong, is useualy between a man and a women. Certianly it was when refered to in the bible and Man-Women sex is not considered deviant or abnormal. And if you are going to take use of language personally in this case then you need to develop a thicker skin.

I beg to differ - rape is quite the problem in the gay community, almost as much as in the straight community. It's made worse by the fact that rapists tend not to wear condoms, and therefore, contribute to the spread of AIDS.

Tell that to my favorite teacher, Mr. Bah, whose girlfriend is a science teacher at the same school :D

I don't follow docrine at all, don't even claim to. There are, however, many gay Christians, and many to whom Church marriage is QUITE important - give that a bit of thought.
The church isn't important to them if they don't follow its teachings.

Right, girls don't have their periods at roughly the same time, boys don't develop penises in utero at roughly the same time, and people's cells don't wear out at roughly 50 divisions. After all, you do have all those girls who start menstruating in their 40's, those boys who don't grow a penis until they're 50, and you have those immortals whose cells divide indefinitely. What was I thinking, assuming that biological patterns exist in humans?

BEING as ive been around a little girl (my sister) who started her period for the first time at 11, and then went to high school with a girl who got her first period at 15....yeah..theres some room for variation there id say. Speaking only from..oh..first hand personal experience. Being as some babies are born at 8 months and come out fine...and others stay in for nearly 10...mmmm yeah could have some variation. Especially since the human brain is a very delicate field of study..that we frankly know very little about.


It's not the children's fault they have bad parents. Unless you think you can blame someone for someone else's mistake?

So...do you propose we legislate for what SHOULD be or for what IS?

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, go play Counterstrike or something.
WTF? What's not intelligent about believing that the government has no place is a social institution between two people?

If you look at the Bible (which many of u obviously haven't) in the new testament it willl tell u the problem with the world is rebellion.

Nice name you have. :P

If you look at the Bible (which many of u obviously haven't) in the new testament it willl tell u the problem with the world is rebellion. In Romans it says that the reason ppl r gay is cos they gave up natural relationships with each other for a lie cos of their rebellion. Those of u who r so cynical about the Bible obviously haven't read it, with all of the old testament being validated by Jesus, and the processes that not even the old ppl could handle, and Jesus instead was the sacrifice.
Marriage was meant for Adam and Eve...Not adam and steve (that gets annoying). wat good comes from a homosexual relationship, it is unnatural. A child will generally know it is unnatural, just like a child knows there is something wrong with a disabled person.
In terms of the things that ppl do that r against the bible, ppl r sorry for what they have done and repent of their sins, and try not to go on with it. Many ppl do things that r not from the bible, premarital sex is against the bible, but it is generally accepted, even though it shouldn't be.
It is not wrong to love another person, the Bible even tells ppl to love one another, but in brotherly love. u should treat ppl as direct relations-as sisters or mothers. It is wrong to act on ur feelings, it is not wrong to be tempted.

Then you would tell me to remain abstinent for my entire life? To have unsatisfying, unfulfilling relationships with women (which I've tried multiple times)? What did your God see in me that makes me so deserving of pain?

BEING as ive been around a little girl (my sister) who started her period for the first time at 11, and then went to high school with a girl who got her first period at 15....yeah..theres some room for variation there id say. Speaking only from..oh..first hand personal experience. Being as some babies are born at 8 months and come out fine...and others stay in for nearly 10...mmmm yeah could have some variation. Especially since the human brain is a very delicate field of study..that we frankly know very little about.
That's why I said plus or minus a year. No girl will start her period at age 40 unless something is greiviously wrong. Similarly, not everyone is ready to make responsible decisions at age 18, judging by the disproportionate number of alcohol related fatalities in that age group.

So...do you propose we legislate for what SHOULD be or for what IS?
You don't legislate for something that already is, you legislate to change it to what it should be.

Then you would tell me to remain abstinent for my entire life? To have unsatisfying, unfulfilling relationships with women (which I've tried multiple times)? What did your God see in me that makes me so deserving of pain?
Many people never marry. Your pain is not unique. Have no relationships at all, unless you believe the sole purpose of life is getting fucked?

Religion = Root of all evil

WTF? What's not intelligent about believing that the government has no place is a social institution between two people?

So try to answer my questions, or stop responding to them.

The church isn't important to them if they don't follow its teachings.

What would you have them do? Remain in loneliness for all their lives? Writhe in emotional pain?

"choice" or not (it's not), the fact remains that gays cannot change what they are. Many religious homosexuals have tried to go through "conversion therapy" - it just doesn't work.

You don't legislate for something that already is, you legislate to change it to what it should be.

Unless you're passing legislation to protect something that already exists. I find your mind works interestingly, babykins. Do keep it up. I'm all yours.

Should it be about the sex all the time? There is more to a person, and besides, if u marry someone for their looks, that will disappear when they get older, and then wat do u have.
If u've had unsatisfying relationships with women it just sorta proves why u shouldn't have premarital sex, cos it sorta messes witth u the day after, or u end up with kids, or AIDS. wats stopping u from having unsatisfying relationships with other men

That's why I said plus or minus a year. No girl will start her period at age 40 unless something is greiviously wrong. Similarly, not everyone is ready to make responsible decisions at age 18, judging by the disproportionate number of alcohol related fatalities in that age group.

You just refuted your own argument. Not everybody is ready to make responsible decisions at age 18, expecting 12 year olds to be able to just because "their brain is fully developed" is a stupid argument.


You don't legislate for something that already is, you legislate to change it to what it should be.

No......do you base your legislation on the facts of the world..or on some fantasy land world where everything is how you think it SHOULD BE? Because what you propose is just that.

So try to answer my questions, or stop responding to them.
Ask a question then. I thought I answered your question, except apparently there was some secret question imbedded in it.

What would you have them do? Remain in loneliness for all their lives? Writhe in emotional pain?

"choice" or not (it's not), the fact remains that gays cannot change what they are. Many religious homosexuals have tried to go through "conversion therapy" - it just doesn't work.
And at the end of the day, pedophiles are pedophiles, murderers are murderers, adulterers are adulterers. The church does not sanction these, should they in the interest of preventing emotional pain? No, the church has its rules, if you want to play the game, you play by the rules.

Many people never marry. Your pain is not unique. Have no relationships at all, unless you believe the sole purpose of life is getting fucked?

certainly not my sole purpose, but getting rammed, oh say... more frequently than twice in my entire life would be nice. And to not get spit on by self-righteous Christians while I'm doing it.

I understand your reasoning, and see your kind heart. However, I'm quite a sexual person, and could suffer psychologically quite a bit if I tried to abstain for my entire life.

I won't do that to myself.

Religion = Root of all evil


Azark = Owner of brain of childish opinions about religion.

You just refuted your own argument. Not everybody is ready to make responsible decisions at age 18, expecting 12 year olds to be able to just because "their brain is fully developed" is a stupid argument.
Not everyone is ready to, but everyone is physically able to. Stupid 18 year olds often have stupid role models. An 18 year old is no less capable than a 50 year old of making an informed decision. The fact they fail at it is not my fault.

No......do you base your legislation on the facts of the world..or on some fantasy land world where everything is how you think it SHOULD BE? Because what you propose is just that.
I base my legislation on science and common good. What do you pull yours out of?

u'll find a girl's body is fully developed at 12 sexually, and not ready for the mental challenges of a relationship that an 18 year old would hopefully be ready for

certainly not my sole purpose, but getting rammed, oh say... more frequently than twice in my entire life would be nice. And to not get spit on by self-righteous Christians while I'm doing it.

I understand your reasoning, and see your kind heart. However, I'm quite a sexual person, and could suffer psychologically quite a bit if I tried to abstain for my entire life.

I won't do that to myself.

Well you see, this 8 year old I know is kinda hot, and I really, really don't want to suffer psychologically, so I'm going to throw out the teachings of the church I claim I belong to, in my own petty self-interest. Sounds kinda crappy when you look at it for what it is doesn't it?

Ask a question then. I thought I answered your question, except apparently there was some secret question imbedded in it.

Well, it seems you read my question as "Should people be allowed to marry?".
Try again.

Should it be about the sex all the time? There is more to a person, and besides, if u marry someone for their looks, that will disappear when they get older, and then wat do u have.
If u've had unsatisfying relationships with women it just sorta proves why u shouldn't have premarital sex, cos it sorta messes witth u the day after, or u end up with kids, or AIDS. wats stopping u from having unsatisfying relationships with other men


Please...god in heaven...please try and actually proofread your posts and cut it out with the u for you and r for are...please. It makes my head explode.

Your argument is full of fallacies as well. Sexual attraction is more than just looks for one. For another, perhaps premarital sex with men hasnt left him feeling unsatisfied hmm? For the last part, absolutely nothing, homosexuals take the same risks of a crappy relationship as a hetero couple do. However, the longest lasting relationship ive ever seen, is my great uncle and his boyfriend, whove been together for near forty years now. I havent seen a hetero relationship last that long yet.

Should it be about the sex all the time? There is more to a person, and besides, if u marry someone for their looks, that will disappear when they get older, and then wat do u have.
If u've had unsatisfying relationships with women it just sorta proves why u shouldn't have premarital sex, cos it sorta messes witth u the day after, or u end up with kids, or AIDS. wats stopping u from having unsatisfying relationships with other men

Homosexuality isn't just about sex - I've had three relationships with women, all of whom are still good friends of mine, throughout which I had sex only once. Still, they were unsatisfying.

PREMARITAL SEX?
Tell that to me while I'm being whipped while hogtied.
Sorry bub, wrong audience. If I waited til marriage for sex I'd be waiting a long, long, long, loooong time.

Azark = Owner of brain of childish opinions about religion.

Oh give me a break. Any one who doesnt think that is simple and niave. How many people are killed in the name of one god or another.

Well, it seems you read my question as "Should people be allowed to marry?".
Try again.
Then why don't you ask it then, instead of referencing it and saying I'm interpreting it wrong? That's generally how conversations work. If I say, do you flower Thursdays, whose fault is it that you don't understand what the fuck I'm talking about, the idiot speaking, or the person who only wants a legitimate question?

Oh give me a break. Any one who doesnt think that is simple and niave. How many people are killed in the name of one god or another.
Far less than Communism and Nazism killed. And disease. In fact, religion really isn't even in the top five. Good try though.

Azark = Owner of brain of childish opinions about religion.

Or, conceivably, Azark = Owner of brain well-suited for soundbytes. But not anything worth going on about at length, surely.

Please...god in heaven...please try and actually proofread your posts and cut it out with the u for you and r for are...please. It makes my head explode.

Your argument is full of fallacies as well. Sexual attraction is more than just looks for one. For another, perhaps premarital sex with men hasnt left him feeling unsatisfied hmm? For the last part, absolutely nothing, homosexuals take the same risks of a crappy relationship as a hetero couple do. However, the longest lasting relationship ive ever seen, is my great uncle and his boyfriend, whove been together for near forty years now. I havent seen a hetero relationship last that long yet.

AMEN! I point to my mom's friend Nancy and her partner Sharon, 35 happy years and counting.

And yes, I do happen to find sex with men quite satisfying. A little bondage and fetish can help, too.. but you'd probably run squealing at the thought of it.

Not everyone is ready to, but everyone is physically able to. Stupid 18 year olds often have stupid role models. An 18 year old is no less capable than a 50 year old of making an informed decision. The fact they fail at it is not my fault.

Physically able to does NOT mean they have the range of experience to do so.


I base my legislation on science and common good. What do you pull yours out of?

Apparently bad science since youve posted no real proof that the human brain is capable of that at age 12 yet people have pointed out time magazine did an article claiming 25 for full development. As for the common good? What common good comes out of denying rights to one section of the tax paying adult age of majority population that the other tax paying adult age of majority population gets hm?

[QUOTE=Freoria] Sexual attraction is more than just looks for one. For another, perhaps premarital sex with men hasnt left him feeling unsatisfied hmm? QUOTE]
well, for most guys, its really the looks that influences him. isn't sex spose to be the closest a person can get to another physically? how then does that work if it is 10, 20, 50 ppl?

Far less than Communism and Nazism killed. And disease. In fact, religion really isn't even in the top five. Good try though.


Well thank you for that comparison. Even though it has nothing to do with any thing. Heroin has probably killed less people than them, but its still illegal, eh.

Well you see, this 8 year old I know is kinda hot, and I really, really don't want to suffer psychologically, so I'm going to throw out the teachings of the church I claim I belong to, in my own petty self-interest. Sounds kinda crappy when you look at it for what it is doesn't it?

Wow, taken out of context this is a really weird post, sweetums. It's givin' me the creepiest chills...

Well you see, this 8 year old I know is kinda hot, and I really, really don't want to suffer psychologically, so I'm going to throw out the teachings of the church I claim I belong to, in my own petty self-interest. Sounds kinda crappy when you look at it for what it is doesn't it?

Except that said eight-year-old is not consenting, and would be violated and traumatized by such an incident. The only thing that gets screwed up in anal sex is the assole.

Physically able to does NOT mean they have the range of experience to do so.
An 80 year old may not have the range of experience to vote, but that doesn't mean you'd whine if they were denied the option.

Apparently bad science since youve posted no real proof that the human brain is capable of that at age 12 yet people have pointed out time magazine did an article claiming 25 for full development. As for the common good? What common good comes out of denying rights to one section of the tax paying adult age of majority population that the other tax paying adult age of majority population gets hm?
http://mi.essortment.com/jeanpiagettheo_rnrn.htm
"The formal operational stage begins in most people at age twelve and continues into adulthood. This stage produces a new kind of thinking that is abstract, formal, and logical. Thinking is no longer tied to events that can be observed. A child at this stage can think hypothetically and use logic to solve problems. It is thought that not all individuals reach this level of thinking. Most studies show only forty to sixty percent of American college students and adults fully achieve it. In developing countries where the technology is not as advanced as the United States, almost no one reaches the formal operational stage."
I said deny that to all. I never said allow heterosexual marriages. Learn your enemy, so you look less stupid when you make up stuff.

Sexual attraction is more than just looks for one. For another, perhaps premarital sex with men hasnt left him feeling unsatisfied hmm?
well, for most guys, its really the looks that influences him. isn't sex spose to be the closest a person can get to another physically? how then does that work if it is 10, 20, 50 ppl?

Yes....back up your argument with a broad generalization that has no real basis in scientific fact. By your simplistic standard all men should cease completely being attracted to their wives as they age and lose their good looks. Multiple people have no bearing on this argument as of yet, trying to "slippery slope" this only results in absurd arguments being poked at as absurd. Even if it is "looks" not everyone has the same standard, eye of the beholder and all that.

Except that said eight-year-old is not consenting, and would be violated and traumatized by such an incident. The only thing that gets screwed up in anal sex is the assole.
I'm not arguing this from the secular stand point, I'm arguing it from the religious one. Before God, you're no different than the pedophile, than the thief, than the murderer. He who is guilty of one point in the law is guilty of all and all that.

Well thank you for that comparison. Even though it has nothing to do with any thing. Heroin has probably killed less people than them, but its still illegal, eh.
Yes, because there's no safe way to use heroin. If you don't think there's any safe way to use religion, I hope Mother Teresa spits on you.

Except that said eight-year-old is not consenting, and would be violated and traumatized by such an incident. The only thing that gets screwed up in anal sex is the assole.

Isn't that sorta illegal, and sick, but then if u trry and justify homosexuality (which was illegal in numerous places a few decades ago), these actions will soon be justifiable-which really is sick

[QUOTE=Freoria] Sexual attraction is more than just looks for one. For another, perhaps premarital sex with men hasnt left him feeling unsatisfied hmm? QUOTE]
well, for most guys, its really the looks that influences him. isn't sex spose to be the closest a person can get to another physically? how then does that work if it is 10, 20, 50 ppl?

Four things to refute this point:
1)emotional appeal is either equal to or more important than looks for me
2)I'll still be having sex and enjoying it at fifty
3)It's possible to enjoy both romance and sex
4)I don't recommend having sex with lots of strangers. If you want to gorge on sex, get into a passionate relationship, and go at it like horny rabbits.

Yes, because there's no safe way to use heroin. If you don't think there's any safe way to use religion, I hope Mother Teresa spits on you.


Mother Teresa wasn't loved because she was religious... She was loved because she was a good person.

Yes....back up your argument with a broad generalization that has no real basis in scientific fact. By your simplistic standard all men should cease completely being attracted to their wives as they age and lose their good looks. Multiple people have no bearing on this argument as of yet, trying to "slippery slope" this only results in absurd arguments being poked at as absurd. Even if it is "looks" not everyone has the same standard, eye of the beholder and all that.
but isn't the truth that divorce rates increase after the couple retire and realise they can't live with each other?

Mother Teresa wasn't loved because she was religious... She was loved because she was a good person.
her actions were fueled by her religious conviction

An 80 year old may not have the range of experience to vote, but that doesn't mean you'd whine if they were denied the option.
Actually i would whine if they were denied the option, the man pays taxes, did his dues and had his opportunity to gain said range of experience. A 12 year old has not


http://mi.essortment.com/jeanpiagettheo_rnrn.htm
"The formal operational stage begins in most people at age twelve and continues into adulthood. This stage produces a new kind of thinking that is abstract, formal, and logical. Thinking is no longer tied to events that can be observed. A child at this stage can think hypothetically and use logic to solve problems. It is thought that not all individuals reach this level of thinking. Most studies show only forty to sixty percent of American college students and adults fully achieve it. In developing countries where the technology is not as advanced as the United States, almost no one reaches the formal operational stage."
I said deny that to all. I never said allow heterosexual marriages. Learn your enemy, so you look less stupid when you make up stuff.

Bolding mine and all i will say to you from that is this. There is a reason we have an age of majority, 18 or 21 depending. It is so children have time to finish developing, and gain the range of experience and responsibility to handle the real world.

I'm not arguing this from the secular stand point, I'm arguing it from the religious one. Before God, you're no different than the pedophile, than the thief, than the murderer. He who is guilty of one point in the law is guilty of all and all that.

All paths lead to God and to Holiness. It is our actions and our desire and ability to do goodness that matters, not our pedantic following of ancient scriptures.

Before God, love is indeed blessed and holy. That means love between cats, dogs, rats, mice, and fish - and between men, and between women, and hermaphrodites too.

her actions were fueled by her religious conviction


And if you believe a person can't be good without religion, I hope your god spits on you.
I feel i am a good person. Im also an atheist. A paradox? I think not.

Actually i would whine if they were denied the option, the man pays taxes, did his dues and had his opportunity to gain said range of experience. A 12 year old has not
12 years is a long time. You're saying it's okay to discriminate against young people since they haven't had the time to properly gain experience, but not okay to discriminate against old people for the same reason.

Bolding mine and all i will say to you from that is this. There is a reason we have an age of majority, 18 or 21 depending. It is so children have time to finish developing, and gain the range of experience and responsibility to handle the real world.
Yes, that was established before the advent of neuroscience. Just as we once thought the world was flat, science has proven otherwise.

I hope Mother Teresa spits on you.

Mother Teresa wouldn't spit on anyone, Arammanar, not even you. It saddens me that you would cheapen the memory of one of the single greatest humanitarians of our modern era for the sake of illustrating another one of your eminently disposable and as always, utterly disgraceful posts.

The bloom is off the rose, lover. The bloom is most decidely off the rose.

All paths lead to God and to Holiness. It is our actions and our desire and ability to do goodness that matters, not our pedantic following of ancient scriptures.

Before God, love is indeed blessed and holy. That means love between cats, dogs, rats, mice, and fish - and between men, and between women, and hermaphrodites too.
if u take that approach u definately don't know God, how can u know all paths lead to the top of the mountain if u too r on the path-only the person on the top (God) can tell you if you are right, and he doesn't

All paths lead to God and to Holiness.
Actually, only one path does, the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and the fact you didn't know that further supports the idea that homosexuals don't take faith seriously.

It is our actions and our desire and ability to do goodness that matters, not our pedantic following of ancient scriptures.
Actually, it isn't. Faith is the path to salvation, not works. Your good deeds don't cover up your bad deeds, you can't say well, I give to charity, so it's okay for me to break this part of the law.

Before God, love is indeed blessed and holy. That means love between cats, dogs, rats, mice, and fish - and between men, and between women, and hermaphrodites too.
Jesus said that if you love God, you will keep His commandments. Are you arguing with Jesus?

And if you believe a person can't be good without religion, I hope your god spits on you.
I feel i am a good person. Im also an atheist. A paradox? I think not.
You can believe what you believe, but my God won't spit on me because you are following what you believe being an atheist. My God says there is no one righteous, not even one

Isn't that sorta illegal, and sick, but then if u trry and justify homosexuality (which was illegal in numerous places a few decades ago), these actions will soon be justifiable-which really is sick

Except that pedophilia is psychologically damaging and involves rape, and therefore will never be anything but taboo.

In ancient Greece - one of the greatest of all Mankind's civilizations - homosexuality was not just standard, but celebrated. While it was acceptable for 12 year old boys to fool around, a 35-year-old still could not pick up a teenager.

if u take that approach u definately don't know God, how can u know all paths lead to the top of the mountain if u too r on the path-only the person on the top (God) can tell you if you are right, and he doesn't

Everybody knows God, you schmuck. He's the one who cuffs you on the head everytime you make assumptions about other people's relationships with him.

Actually, only one path does, the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and the fact you didn't know that further supports the idea that homosexuals don't take faith seriously.


Actually, it isn't. Faith is the path to salvation, not works. Your good deeds don't cover up your bad deeds, you can't say well, I give to charity, so it's okay for me to break this part of the law.


Jesus said that if you love God, you will keep His commandments. Are you arguing with Jesus?
uh, it the way, the truth, and the life...
i know my works don't cover my bad deeds, but i do them in attempts to please God, and because I want to-so this is trying to keep his commandments through love of God. But no one can succeed totally, except Jesus.

And if you believe a person can't be good without religion, I hope your god spits on you.
I feel i am a good person. Im also an atheist. A paradox? I think not.

Well the stock religion answer is that you are good because God made you so. Even if you don't believe in him.

Ah whatever. I came here to play some political simulation. I'm not here to preach my opinions.
Have a good night everyone. I shall not be back

Actually, only one path does, the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and the fact you didn't know that further supports the idea that homosexuals don't take faith seriously.


Actually, it isn't. Faith is the path to salvation, not works. Your good deeds don't cover up your bad deeds, you can't say well, I give to charity, so it's okay for me to break this part of the law.


Jesus said that if you love God, you will keep His commandments. Are you arguing with Jesus?

Faith is Sin, sonny. Only Doubt will get you through this life. Only sacred Doubt ultimately reveals Wisdom. Faith and a cup of coffee will get you...a cup of coffee, if you know what I mean.

Except that pedophilia is psychologically damaging and involves rape, and therefore will never be anything but taboo.

In ancient Greece - one of the greatest of all Mankind's civilizations - homosexuality was not just standard, but celebrated. While it was acceptable for 12 year old boys to fool around, a 35-year-old still could not pick up a teenager.
And what happened to Greece, and Rome who promoted homosexuality? They were destroyed in one of the most humilating ways, and almost all of their work has been destroyed!

Actually, only one path does, the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and the fact you didn't know that further supports the idea that homosexuals don't take faith seriously.


Actually, it isn't. Faith is the path to salvation, not works. Your good deeds don't cover up your bad deeds, you can't say well, I give to charity, so it's okay for me to break this part of the law.


Jesus said that if you love God, you will keep His commandments. Are you arguing with Jesus?

Jesus was a prophet. Jesus was not God.

What caused you to peg me as a Christian?

I'm Pagan, thank you very much, and according to the law that I choose to follow (of which I am learned and study regularly), all paths lead to God. Some paths take longer than others. Faith does nothing other than prove you believe blindly and without logic. Faith is what allowed the Catholic Church to rob the people blind all those years.

12 years is a long time. You're saying it's okay to discriminate against young people since they haven't had the time to properly gain experience, but not okay to discriminate against old people for the same reason.

Actually its not the same reason..old people..by virtue of being oh..OLD have HAD the time to gain experience in the world..in fact they very likely have HAD to do so. Young people..by virtue of being young..have not. By your argument you could theoretically cram responsibility and all the harshness of life on your children so that they..may well be ready at 12 to face the real world..marriages and relationships. I however couldnt advocate snuffing out a childhood. If thats what you're saying should happen i'll have to break off the discussion there and walk off in disgust.


Yes, that was established before the advent of neuroscience. Just as we once thought the world was flat, science has proven otherwise.

Neuroscience, the inexact and still mysterious study of the human brain. Yes..the brain may be fully grown...NO people have not been able to cram it full of the skills they need to survive in 12 years

Faith is Sin, sonny. Only Doubt will get you through this life. Only sacred Doubt ultimately reveals Wisdom. Faith and a cup of coffee will get you...a cup of coffee, if you know what I mean.
Are you really that pessimistic? Sacred doubt? what stops you from doubting this "Sacred doubt" and from doubting your very own existance? You must have faith, or you are nothing.
Faith, hope and love are the greatest things in this life

Jesus was a prophet. Jesus was not God.

What caused you to peg me as a Christian?

I'm Pagan, thank you very much, and according to the law that I choose to follow (of which I am learned and study regularly), all paths lead to God. Some paths take longer than others. Faith does nothing other than prove you believe blindly and without logic. Faith is what allowed the Catholic Church to rob the people blind all those years.
Then get married in a Pagan church, by all means. But you were arguing something else entirely.

And what happened to Greece, and Rome who promoted homosexuality? They were destroyed in one of the most humilating ways, and almost all of their work has been destroyed!

Really? Then what of:

-Democracy
-The roots of English
-The Latin alphabet (you're reading it right now)
-Numerous architectural advances
-Advances in use of the wheel
-Major influence in the history, genetics, and technological advance of Europe
et cetera et cetera et cetera et (insert Latin expression here)

Jesus was a prophet. Jesus was not God.

What caused you to peg me as a Christian?

I'm Pagan, thank you very much, and according to the law that I choose to follow (of which I am learned and study regularly), all paths lead to God. Some paths take longer than others. Faith does nothing other than prove you believe blindly and without logic. Faith is what allowed the Catholic Church to rob the people blind all those years.
Faith in religion is not blind. Faith in science is actually more blind than you realise, or might like. A french physicist is quoted of saying that "It is absurd that a group of molecules could create a living organism!" but there is nothing else to believe.
Yes, the catholic church had corrupt ppl, but they did not follow the gospel. These ppl acted through the church, not the church as a whole acting through them. There is no organisation that is perfect.

Then get married in a Pagan church, by all means. But you were arguing something else entirely.

Pagan church? Ummm....

You mean "get married by a coven," don't you?

I am arguing theology. The majority of the world's religions agree that all paths lead to God eventually, and that good works and self-understanding are the ways to God/nirvana/the Summerland/so on and so forth

And what happened to Greece, and Rome who promoted homosexuality? They were destroyed in one of the most humilating ways, and almost all of their work has been destroyed!

Obviously History isn't your strongest suit. The works of Rome loom in every corner of Europe, and have done so since the days of the Empire. Roads, viaducts, canals, towns, cities, temples, arenas...yeah, they're like, all destroyed or something.

LMFAO

Actually its not the same reason..old people..by virtue of being oh..OLD have HAD the time to gain experience in the world..
Stereotyping. Naughty naughty. Not all old people are competent to make decisions, just as all young people are not. Yet the only fair way to do it is to let them make decisions when they are physically capable of doing so.

in fact they very likely have HAD to do so. Young people..by virtue of being young..have not. By your argument you could theoretically cram responsibility and all the harshness of life on your children so that they..may well be ready at 12 to face the real world..marriages and relationships. I however couldnt advocate snuffing out a childhood. If thats what you're saying should happen i'll have to break off the discussion there and walk off in disgust.
I would advocate teaching your child right and wrong, and raising them so they're mature enough to face reality.

Neuroscience, the inexact and still mysterious study of the human brain. Yes..the brain may be fully grown...NO people have not been able to cram it full of the skills they need to survive in 12 years
That's not my fault. They should not be denied the right to make their own decisions just because YOU say they shouldn't be allowed to. I could say the exact same thing against you, that you don't seem ready to make decisions and thus should not be given the option to. Anything other than biology is subjective.

Pagan church? Ummm....

You mean "get married by a coven," don't you?

I am arguing theology. The majority of the world's religions agree that all paths lead to God eventually, and that good works and self-understanding are the ways to God/nirvana/the Summerland/so on and so forth
Actually, no religion would argue that. Whether you follow a Ten Commandments, an Eightfold path, or the Book of the Sword, no serious religion says that all paths lead to a god. To say so negates the purpose of religion.

Really? Then what of:

-Democracy
-The roots of English
-The Latin alphabet (you're reading it right now)
-Numerous architectural advances
-Advances in use of the wheel
-Major influence in the history, genetics, and technological advance of Europe
et cetera et cetera et cetera et (insert Latin expression here)
Weren't many of those from the Eastern Roman empire? whose emperor changed the capital to constantiople? who changed the religion to christianity and formed the Roman Catholicism?

And what happened to Greece, and Rome who promoted homosexuality? They were destroyed in one of the most humilating ways, and almost all of their work has been destroyed!

Correcting one logical fallacy and one historic inaccuracy.

They accepted it, not promoted it.

There is absolutely no historical evidence that homosexuality destroyed the greeks and romans....as i recall the romans took over the greeks and stole their gods. Which would be an example of a bigger empire conquering you not homosexuality bringing you down. In addition the roman empire overexpanded itself grew corrupt in the beaurocracy and had a madman at the helm of it. The people theyd conquered then rose up against them in various places and snipped chunks of empire off for themselves. Also not a direct result of homosexuality. Unless you subscribe to the idea that homosexuals are more prone to dementia and bribery than heteros.

I forget the latin term for the fallacy in that argument but its roughly translated to If this:than that

Faith in religion is not blind. Faith in science is actually more blind than you realise, or might like. A french physicist is quoted of saying that "It is absurd that a group of molecules could create a living organism!" but there is nothing else to believe.
Yes, the catholic church had corrupt ppl, but they did not follow the gospel. These ppl acted through the church, not the church as a whole acting through them. There is no organisation that is perfect.

You sound like officers trying to excuse themselves for prison abuse in Iraq.

The church did indeed fail to "follow the gospel" as a whole. They had elaborate organizations designed to keep control over the governments of Europe, and had many ways to make money off the people - pardons, tithes, so on and so forth.

Pagan church? Ummm....

I am arguing theology. The majority of the world's religions agree that all paths lead to God eventually, and that good works and self-understanding are the ways to God/nirvana/the Summerland/so on and so forth
So, its majority rule now? in fact, there is no majority rule-there cannot be a compromise in reality

You sound like officers trying to excuse themselves for prison abuse in Iraq.

The church did indeed fail to "follow the gospel" as a whole. They had elaborate organizations designed to keep control over the governments of Europe, and had many ways to make money off the people - pardons, tithes, so on and so forth.
Tithing is Biblical. Pardons are not. Yet you cannot blame the religion for perversion by its followers.

You sound like officers trying to excuse themselves for prison abuse in Iraq.

The church did indeed fail to "follow the gospel" as a whole. They had elaborate organizations designed to keep control over the governments of Europe, and had many ways to make money off the people - pardons, tithes, so on and so forth.
Thanks, i feel so much more authorative...
what happened later in history? Martin Luther came along and reformed the system of the church so the corruption would stop.

Weren't many of those from the Eastern Roman empire? whose emperor changed the capital to constantiople? who changed the religion to christianity and formed the Roman Catholicism?
You really need to read your history books before arguing any further. The split in the empire - led by Charlegmane - occurred well after most of those advances, and well after the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. Charlegmane "formed" nothing - he allowed for (some say promoted, or even orchestrated) the split of the Empire, and subsequently, the Church.

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

Marriage has nothing to do with religion in the first place. It is a civil institution. In the Middle Ages it was customary to celebrate marriages outside the village church because that was the main public place where people could be gathered, so that everybody would know about the marital status of Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so. Sometime during the 17th century it was moved inside the church because it seemed like a nice idea. :)

Thanks, i feel so much more authorative...
what happened later in history? Martin Luther came along and reformed the system of the church so the corruption would stop.

Attempted to, at least. After the door was shut on him, he rallied up his own supporters, who then formed a Church in his name. Numerous Churches followed. His strategy worked only in that it weakened both the power of the Catholic Church and of religion as a whole.

I recommend, for those interested in a detailed and intellegent summary of the cause-effect interplay of military and religious power in historic Europe, the considerable section dedicated to this group of subjects in _Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies_, by Jared Diamond. It's a book that explores why and how the major civilizations ended up where they are today, starting way back in prehistory. Excellent book, for those willing to trudge through the muck.

Are you really that pessimistic? Sacred doubt? what stops you from doubting this "Sacred doubt" and from doubting your very own existance? You must have faith, or you are nothing.
Faith, hope and love are the greatest things in this life

Faith is not inextricably linked to hope or love. I merely say that Faith is an open proclamation to God that you have no interest in performing your function in this continuum.

What is your function? It is not to fawn over God. God has no need of sycophancy. God wants you to gain, accrue, and dispense Wisdom.

Wisdom is not gained through Faith. Wisdom can only be attained through experience. Experience is had through exploration. Exploration is undertaken to satisfy curiousity. And curiousity stems from doubt.

This is why Doubt is Holy and Sacred, while Faith is a spiritual dead-end, an admission of personal incompetence where this mortal existence is concerned.

I think, therefore I am. I do not doubt my existence. And I don't doubt God's existence either. But whereas I have a deep abiding and personal relationship with God, those who subscribe to an organized religion have less of a relationship with God than they have with their clergyman.

I have no Faith, and yet I am not 'nothing', I am 'something' - I am one of God's creations, and I don't have to justify one iota of my personal relationship with my Creator to any old run-of-the-mill adherent. Go bark up another tree, m'sieu. Je ne voudrais pas que tu seras humilie en face du tout le monde ici.

*baises*

Faith is not inextricably linked to hope or love. I merely say that Faith is an open proclamation to God that you have no interest in performing your function in this continuum.

What is your function? It is not to fawn over God. God has no need of sycophancy. God wants you to gain, accrue, and dispense Wisdom.

Wisdom is not gained through Faith. Wisdom can only be attained through experience. Experience is had through exploration. Exploration is undertaken to satisfy curiousity. And curiousity stems from doubt.

This is why Doubt is Holy and Sacred, while Faith is a spiritual dead-end, an admission of personal incompetence where this mortal existence is concerned.

I think, therefore I am. I do not doubt my existence. And I don't doubt God's existence either. But whereas I have a deep abiding and personal relationship with God, those who subscribe to an organized religion have less of a relationship with God than they have with their clergyman.

I have no Faith, and yet I am not 'nothing', I am 'something' - I am one of God's creations, and I don't have to justify one iota of my personal relationship with my Creator to any old run-of-the-mill adherent. Go bark up another tree, m'sieu. Je ne voudrais pas que tu seras humilie en face du tout le monde ici.

*baises*

Barring your use of a now long-since-disproven philisophical argument ("I think, therefore I am), it's a good set of maxims you have here. Quite a potential for an overall religious philosophy. Care to elaborate?

:all ears:

I've got to go to bed, people. Blessed be, and good night.

Don't forget to worship Christ before bed! He might send you to Hell for blasphemy if you don't! :rolleyes:

Stereotyping. Naughty naughty. Not all old people are competent to make decisions, just as all young people are not. Yet the only fair way to do it is to let them make decisions when they are physically capable of doing so.

Often stereotyping exists because its true. If you can honestly argue the majority of elderly people havent had the EXPERIENCE to make these decisions more power to you, senility and the fog that sets in your thinking from old age are a different subject entirely, moreover you SEE that being overruled by senile elderly peoples children taking over power of attourney for them or siezing it.

I would advocate teaching your child right and wrong, and raising them so they're mature enough to face reality.
Being taught right from wrong is pretty simplistic and has nothing to do with this argument, raising them so theyre mature enough to face reality. You expect 12 year olds to be able to face say..murder and rape as "maturely" as a 30 year old? At a time when the vast majority of your peers still burst out giggling at the sound of a fart?


That's not my fault. They should not be denied the right to make their own decisions just because YOU say they shouldn't be allowed to. I could say the exact same thing against you, that you don't seem ready to make decisions and thus should not be given the option to. Anything other than biology is subjective.

They are denied the right to make their own decisions because the majority of them are obviously not ready to do so, as evidenced by the thoughts of parents raising children throughout this and most other first world countries when they came up with the plan of the age of majority. Other countries may differ, in many life is a lot harder and responsibility is driven into the population at a young age...this is not necessarily a good thing. Now....exactly how many children have you raised?

I've got to go to bed, people. Blessed be, and good night.

Don't forget to worship Christ before bed! He might send you to Hell for blasphemy if you don't! :rolleyes:
And pray to your Pagan gods, a religion created in the 1800's by a bunch of people who didn't know what druids were.

Often stereotyping exists because its true. If you can honestly argue the majority of elderly people havent had the EXPERIENCE to make these decisions more power to you, senility and the fog that sets in your thinking from old age are a different subject entirely, moreover you SEE that being overruled by senile elderly peoples children taking over power of attourney for them or siezing it.
Yes, people should have a right until they show they can no longer use it properly. People should be able to make decisions until they show they no longer can, alcohols should be able to drink as long as they can do it responsibly, etc.

Being taught right from wrong is pretty simplistic and has nothing to do with this argument, raising them so theyre mature enough to face reality. You expect 12 year olds to be able to face say..murder and rape as "maturely" as a 30 year old? At a time when the vast majority of your peers still burst out giggling at the sound of a fart?
At 12, I had my favorite Aunt die, from being murdered in a car wreck from a drunk driver. Her funeral was closed casket because her body was so mangled. I watcher her die in a hospital. At 16, the only grandfather I ever knew died in October, from prostate cancer that spread to his brain and caused him to be unable to even recognize me. At 17, my mother died on my birthday, from PNET, a brain cancer so rare that the only doctor we could find had only heard of 4 cases, all that ended in death. Her last words to me were: Watch out for trucks, sometimes they go fast and they can't stop. And you know what? I'd say I was pretty fucking mature about it. My family didn't puss away from things such as death, finality, and morality, my dad wasn't afraid to tell me that life isn't always gumdrops and fairies. I was mature before these deaths, because my father and mother explained to me that to live on this earth, I will have to move through tough times, and make hard decisions, and make sacrifices. And I have. Am I, at age 19, any less capable of making a rational decision than a 50 year old? I who cared for my brothers for two years, who had to explain to my 11 year old brother that the reason that Mom couldn't talk to him was because her brain was Swiss cheese? Maturity is not dependent on events, it's how you're prepared for those events.

Faith is not inextricably linked to hope or love. I merely say that Faith is an open proclamation to God that you have no interest in performing your function in this continuum.

What is your function? It is not to fawn over God. God has no need of sycophancy. God wants you to gain, accrue, and dispense Wisdom.

Wisdom is not gained through Faith. Wisdom can only be attained through experience. Experience is had through exploration. Exploration is undertaken to satisfy curiousity. And curiousity stems from doubt.

This is why Doubt is Holy and Sacred, while Faith is a spiritual dead-end, an admission of personal incompetence where this mortal existence is concerned.

I think, therefore I am. I do not doubt my existence. And I don't doubt God's existence either. But whereas I have a deep abiding and personal relationship with God, those who subscribe to an organized religion have less of a relationship with God than they have with their clergyman.

I have no Faith, and yet I am not 'nothing', I am 'something' - I am one of God's creations, and I don't have to justify one iota of my personal relationship with my Creator to any old run-of-the-mill adherent. Go bark up another tree, m'sieu. Je ne voudrais pas que tu seras humilie en face du tout le monde ici.

*baises*
Wisdom can be gained through faith. God has almighty wisdom and knowledge, even if you wish and doubt with all your heart for knowledge and God does not impart it to you, then you cannot do anything. It is only through God that knowledge comes, not doubt. Solomon had faith, and he was the wisest man on earth, before he doubted God and turned to other gods

Barring your use of a now long-since-disproven philisophical argument ("I think, therefore I am), it's a good set of maxims you have here. Quite a potential for an overall religious philosophy. Care to elaborate?

:all ears:

Ahh, grasshopper...it all is part and parcel of, as you say, an overall religious philosophy that I am and have been ruminating over and cogitating for many months now, but it had lurked in one form or another in my life for...well, as far back as I can remember. It has become very apparent to me of late that what I am developing will definitely have an impact on many peole's lives.

I have another mission in life, you see. Other than to accrue and dispense Wisdom. And that task sounds difficult, but in some ways, should prove easier than my primary mission: To set people Free. All the people, as many as come to realize their need for Freedom and release from spiritual bondage.

I invoke the Flame of Knowledge, and the Spirit of Inquiry - the Flame is the creative force of Spacetime, and the basis for holy Doubt - both God and the Gift of Knowledge given to humanity, one and the same. The Spirit is the Giver of the Gift, a Promethean figure who seeks to liberate humanity from ignorance and inequity by endowing us with Doubt.

I run the risk of saying too much too early on. There are many details I need to resolve before I am ready to share this new system with most of the rest of the world, but imagine a Church whose stated purpose is to have as few members as possible...the adherents of my religion will be empowered, and encouraged to leave the church and go seek Wisdom wherever it may be found, even in other people's churches if need be. But again, I say too much too soon. I don't want to come off like yet another nutter with too much time on his hands.

Yes, people should have a right until they show they can no longer use it properly. People should be able to make decisions until they show they no longer can, alcohols should be able to drink as long as they can do it responsibly, etc.


At 12, I had my favorite Aunt die, from being murdered in a car wreck from a drunk driver. Her funeral was closed casket because her body was so mangled. I watcher her die in a hospital. At 16, the only grandfather I ever knew died in October, from prostate cancer that spread to his brain and caused him to be unable to even recognize me. At 17, my mother died on my birthday, from PNET, a brain cancer so rare that the only doctor we could find had only heard of 4 cases, all that ended in death. Her last words to me were: Watch out for trucks, sometimes they go fast and they can't stop. And you know what? I'd say I was pretty fucking mature about it. My family didn't puss away from things such as death, finality, and morality, my dad wasn't afraid to tell me that life isn't always gumdrops and fairies. I was mature before these deaths, because my father and mother explained to me that to live on this earth, I will have to move through tough times, and make hard decisions, and make sacrifices. And I have. Am I, at age 19, any less capable of making a rational decision than a 50 year old? I who cared for my brothers for two years, who had to explain to my 11 year old brother that the reason that Mom couldn't talk to him was because her brain was Swiss cheese? Maturity is not dependent on events, it's how you're prepared for those events.
Yes, ppl should have a chance to prove they can use authority, but who is going to test them to find out? and i sympathise for you

Yes, people should have a right until they show they can no longer use it properly. People should be able to make decisions until they show they no longer can, alcohols should be able to drink as long as they can do it responsibly, etc.


At 12, I had my favorite Aunt die, from being murdered in a car wreck from a drunk driver. Her funeral was closed casket because her body was so mangled. I watcher her die in a hospital. At 16, the only grandfather I ever knew died in October, from prostate cancer that spread to his brain and caused him to be unable to even recognize me. At 17, my mother died on my birthday, from PNET, a brain cancer so rare that the only doctor we could find had only heard of 4 cases, all that ended in death. Her last words to me were: Watch out for trucks, sometimes they go fast and they can't stop. And you know what? I'd say I was pretty fucking mature about it. My family didn't puss away from things such as death, finality, and morality, my dad wasn't afraid to tell me that life isn't always gumdrops and fairies. I was mature before these deaths, because my father and mother explained to me that to live on this earth, I will have to move through tough times, and make hard decisions, and make sacrifices. And I have. Am I, at age 19, any less capable of making a rational decision than a 50 year old? I who cared for my brothers for two years, who had to explain to my 11 year old brother that the reason that Mom couldn't talk to him was because her brain was Swiss cheese? Maturity is not dependent on events, it's how you're prepared for those events.


I see...19....I'm 25, have you ever been 25? No of course you havent. I'm going to tell you flat out, that i handled things a hell of a lot differently at 19 than i do at 25, at 25 my crap is together, drama in my life is nigh non existant and ive held down the same job for 3 years. At 19 I had been through four jobs..couldnt have a weekend without some dramatic bullcrap starting up in my life via conflict with family or friends. Youve had tragedy...thats sad and it forced you to grow up fast, not everyone has that available to them and not everyone should be forced to. Which is why kids should be eased into maturity and responsibility..not stuffed into a sink or swim situation.

Christ won't do a Damn thing.

And all those who worship Christ are doomed to perdition by their own dogma.

Didn't God instruct that no one raise up a false icon before him? Christ might have been the messenger, but the worship belongs to God, right?

I love reminding religous zealots of how their faith fails and contraditcs itself.

Sin was decided by MAN, interpreting what he believed an omnicient Diety would have wanted to say.

But think on this, folks. God supposedly gave Man freewill, so that he could choose and worship and believe of his own choice. Because without belief, God is nothing, for the power of God can only come unto you through Faith. Right? Fear defeats freewill. People who succumb to fear no longer Choose their actions, but instead have their paths curtailed... have their choices dictated to them. The concept of Sin.. having someone laying down the HOLY LAW so that you might fear for your immortal soul. Well, fearing for your soul means you no longer believe in God... it means you Believe in the Priest who tells you to be good or Santa won't bring you any presents.

God has no need to tell Man through ANY medium what he should and should not do. He already knows it all, right? He knows it all before it even happens, right? If he's got all the Data already, then it doesn't matter who is told not to Sin, or who is made to Fear his Wrath, because God already knows what that person is going to do, before that person is going to be born.

No... Sin, the concept of what a Sin is... that's all Man's creation. Completely. ANd the fallacy that Homosexuality is a Sin (or ANYTHING is a Sin for that matter) is just the Biggest, most Egotistical Loudmouths impressing their fears on the rest of us.

Ahh, grasshopper...it all is part and parcel of, as you say, an overall religious philosophy that I am and have been ruminating over and cogitating for many months now, but it had lurked in one form or another in my life for...well, as far back as I can remember. It has become very apparent to me of late that what I am developing will definitely have an impact on many peole's lives.

I have another mission in life, you see. Other than to accrue and dispense Wisdom. And that task sounds difficult, but in some ways, should prove easier than my primary mission: To set people Free. All the people, as many as come to realize their need for Freedom and release from spiritual bondage.

I invoke the Flame of Knowledge, and the Spirit of Inquiry - the Flame is the creative force of Spacetime, and the basis for holy Doubt - both God and the Gift of Knowledge given to humanity, one and the same. The Spirit is the Giver of the Gift, a Promethean figure who seeks to liberate humanity from ignorance and inequity by endowing us with Doubt.

I run the risk of saying too much too early on. There are many details I need to resolve before I am ready to share this new system with most of the rest of the world, but imagine a Church whose stated purpose is to have as few members as possible...the adherents of my religion will be empowered, and encouraged to leave the church and go seek Wisdom wherever it may be found, even in other people's churches if need be. But again, I say too much too soon. I don't want to come off like yet another nutter with too much time on his hands.
with what authoriity do you say these things?

Wisdom can be gained through faith. God has almighty wisdom and knowledge, even if you wish and doubt with all your heart for knowledge and God does not impart it to you, then you cannot do anything. It is only through God that knowledge comes, not doubt. Solomon had faith, and he was the wisest man on earth, before he doubted God and turned to other gods

What are you talking about? God imparts knowledge to me regularly. And my doubt is what brings me closer TO God. It has nothing to do with wishing, or believing. It comes from Knowing, and I can't explain that one to you, other than to say that Knowledge is a byproduct of exploration, part of the divining process I outlined (in reverse, actually) a few posts back.

King Solomon was a literalist, and perhaps the first recorded cynic. His relationship with God was precisely that - HIS relationship with God. Think more of your own relationship, and don't trouble yourself over that of others. They are fully-grown, mature, and as capable of having and sustaining a relationship with God (or the Gods, or the Higher Self, etc.) as any 'shake-n-bake' religious adherent claims to.

Next quibble?

Christ won't do a Damn thing.

And all those who worship Christ are doomed to perdition by their own dogma.

Didn't God instruct that no one raise up a false icon before him? Christ might have been the messenger, but the worship belongs to God, right?

I love reminding religous zealots of how their faith fails and contraditcs itself.

Sin was decided by MAN, interpreting what he believed an omnicient Diety would have wanted to say.

But think on this, folks. God supposedly gave Man freewill, so that he could choose and worship and believe of his own choice. Because without belief, God is nothing, for the power of God can only come unto you through Faith. Right? Fear defeats freewill. People who succumb to fear no longer Choose their actions, but instead have their paths curtailed... have their choices dictated to them. The concept of Sin.. having someone laying down the HOLY LAW so that you might fear for your immortal soul. Well, fearing for your soul means you no longer believe in God... it means you Believe in the Priest who tells you to be good or Santa won't bring you any presents.

God has no need to tell Man through ANY medium what he should and should not do. He already knows it all, right? He knows it all before it even happens, right? If he's got all the Data already, then it doesn't matter who is told not to Sin, or who is made to Fear his Wrath, because God already knows what that person is going to do, before that person is going to be born.

No... Sin, the concept of what a Sin is... that's all Man's creation. Completely. ANd the fallacy that Homosexuality is a Sin (or ANYTHING is a Sin for that matter) is just the Biggest, most Egotistical Loudmouths impressing their fears on the rest of us.
if sin is created by man, man is evil, homosexuality is created by man, and man is evil, then what is homosexuality?
think of this, God was in existance before we were, so why does he then need us after he created us? It is like a person creating something, the person doesn't need the creation, but that doesn't stop him from existing even if the creation doesn't believe in him (as absurd as that sounds).
God knows what we are going to do, but still gives us the freewill even though he knows what the result will be.
Chirst is a trinity with God the father and the holy spirit.
people do not fear for their souls when they are saved, and the holy law you talk about was the old testament, which validated Jesus, and when Jesus came to earth created a new covenant.

I see...19....I'm 25, have you ever been 25? No of course you havent. I'm going to tell you flat out, that i handled things a hell of a lot differently at 19 than i do at 25, at 25 my crap is together, drama in my life is nigh non existant and ive held down the same job for 3 years. At 19 I had been through four jobs..couldnt have a weekend without some dramatic bullcrap starting up in my life via conflict with family or friends. Youve had tragedy...thats sad and it forced you to grow up fast, not everyone has that available to them and not everyone should be forced to. Which is why kids should be eased into maturity and responsibility..not stuffed into a sink or swim situation.
My point was not that a tragedy made me stronger, it was that I was ready for the tragedy when it happened. Noah built his ark before the flood. I could handle these things because I was prepared for them, if you're not prepared, then you will sink at some point.

with what authoriity do you say these things?

I offer no authority. I offer Freedom. I say we have all grown over time and space, and have come to a point in our individual and extended group development that we no longer have a need for a priestly caste. Humanity has paid tithes sinces the first ziggurat was built at Ur, and finally, things have progressed to the point where we can, in large numbers in fact, learn to forget the instrumentality, the artifice, of organised religion and come ever so slightly closer to realising our full human potential.

My point was not that a tragedy made me stronger, it was that I was ready for the tragedy when it happened. Noah built his ark before the flood. I could handle these things because I was prepared for them, if you're not prepared, then you will sink at some point.

Its going to have to be an agree to disagree thing then. Some people a succession of tragedies like that will break under it, however much they think theyre prepared for it.

What are you talking about? God imparts knowledge to me regularly. And my doubt is what brings me closer TO God. It has nothing to do with wishing, or believing. It comes from Knowing, and I can't explain that one to you, other than to say that Knowledge is a byproduct of exploration, part of the divining process I outlined (in reverse, actually) a few posts back.

King Solomon was a literalist, and perhaps the first recorded cynic. His relationship with God was precisely that - HIS relationship with God. Think more of your own relationship, and don't trouble yourself over that of others. They are fully-grown, mature, and as capable of having and sustaining a relationship with God (or the Gods, or the Higher Self, etc.) as any 'shake-n-bake' religious adherent claims to.

Next quibble?
you sound like you know the bible, maybe better than i do, but no where in the bible does it say anything about doubting God, and wouldn't it work in reverse if someone doubted, u would lose the knowledge you thought you gained

I offer no authority. I offer Freedom. I say we have all grown over time and space, and have come to a point in our individual and extended group development that we no longer have a need for a priestly caste. Humanity has paid tithes sinces the first ziggurat was built at Ur, and finally, things have progressed to the point where we can, in large numbers in fact, learn to forget the instrumentality, the artifice, of organised religion and come ever so slightly closer to realising our full human potential.
our human potential can only be achieved through the faith that we can actually get to that point, not that doubt will lead the way. What you are saying is that you have faith in the power of doubt. I have a relationship with Jesus, and through Jesus God, but the only reason I need Jesus is because God is pure and holy, so much so it would destroy me if he imparted knowledge onto me as he seems to do onto you.

you sound like you know the bible, maybe better than i do, but no where in the bible does it say anything about doubting God, and wouldn't it work in reverse if someone doubted, u would lose the knowledge you thought you gained

Unbind your mind, there is no time my friend. The Bible is a book. Written by dead people, over many centuries, with lots of edits and revisions, translated poorly into english a long time ago. There's more to this continuum than old books. Lots more. Not to say there isn't Wisdom to be found in reading books, it's just...vicarious at best. Direct experience outweighs the printed word, far more often than not.

Is it better to hear or sing a song, or to study the lyrics and analyze chord changes?

Its going to have to be an agree to disagree thing then. Some people a succession of tragedies like that will break under it, however much they think theyre prepared for it.
I am training to be a psychiatrist. The mind and its workings fascinate me. One thing that I have seen repeatedly, in all my classes from social psychology to biophysiology, is that the human brain is remarkably gifted in maintaining and repairing itself. If it is nutured correctly, there is very little it cannot withstand. Most psychotics and people who "break," do so because they were not given proper care.

Christ won't do a Damn thing.

And all those who worship Christ are doomed to perdition by their own dogma.

Didn't God instruct that no one raise up a false icon before him? Christ might have been the messenger, but the worship belongs to God, right?

I love reminding religous zealots of how their faith fails and contraditcs itself.

D'oh. God=Jesus, Jesus=God. No? Jesus, God in human form? No?

I love pointing out to you guys that you can't spell. Makes us both idiots though.

Sin was decided by MAN, interpreting what he believed an omnicient Diety would have wanted to say.

But think on this, folks. God supposedly gave Man freewill, so that he could choose and worship and believe of his own choice. Because without belief, God is nothing, for the power of God can only come unto you through Faith. Right? Fear defeats freewill. People who succumb to fear no longer Choose their actions, but instead have their paths curtailed... have their choices dictated to them. The concept of Sin.. having someone laying down the HOLY LAW so that you might fear for your immortal soul. Well, fearing for your soul means you no longer believe in God... it means you Believe in the Priest who tells you to be good or Santa won't bring you any presents.

God has no need to tell Man through ANY medium what he should and should not do. He already knows it all, right? He knows it all before it even happens, right? If he's got all the Data already, then it doesn't matter who is told not to Sin, or who is made to Fear his Wrath, because God already knows what that person is going to do, before that person is going to be born.
So you say God doesn't exist, then you say he does, then you say he's a product of human belief. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!! Anyway. It's not fear of God. It's an understanding of what happens if you don't do what he says. It's equivalent, in that case, of sticking your fingers in the live plug socket (my favourite analogy/example/thing) you don't fear that you'll do that of your own volition. You try not to do it, full stop.

Yes God knows what will happen, what you'll do before it happens because he know the future. Unfortunately this view is blocked from us and we just see the two (or more) choices, not the outcome. Doesn't make it a forced decision, only that you either drive to work or take the bus. You can't do both of these unless you're a part-time bus driver.

No... Sin, the concept of what a Sin is... that's all Man's creation. Completely. ANd the fallacy that Homosexuality is a Sin (or ANYTHING is a Sin for that matter) is just the Biggest, most Egotistical Loudmouths impressing their fears on the rest of us.
That's your opinion I suppose and people should respect it. But you should respect that some believe that an all-powerful God laid them out some groundrules and said 'you should really try and follow these'. Going against them is like flipping the bird at God and saying 'no, I'm doing it my way'.

Hurry up with those posts. This thread'll overtake the 'Gay Marriage' one in a minute!!

Its going to have to be an agree to disagree thing then. Some people a succession of tragedies like that will break under it, however much they think theyre prepared for it.

I'm with Freoria on this one. Unless you want me to go into details, I'll simply let it lie with "My life hasn't been the most wonderful." And the reason I didn't break wasn't because I was ready for things, or because prepared for them-hell, it's not like life says "Ok, just so you know, in a week I'm really gonna shit in your mouth. Just a quick heads up." Things HAPPEN. That's what life is. Constant change. Ready or not, here it comes. Chances are, most of the time, people CAN'T be ready.

So you make due with what you have, you bit down, claw up, and survive until things change again. If things are scarce, you become lean. Waste not, want not. If all you can do is survive, then you bloody well do it. And you learn very fast that most of your life is going to be unexpected things happening in random sequence.

There's no preperations to be made when you can't see the future.

Unbind your mind, there is no time my friend. The Bible is a book. Written by dead people, over many centuries, with lots of edits and revisions, translated poorly into english a long time ago. There's more to this continuum than old books. Lots more. Not to say there isn't Wisdom to be found in reading books, it's just...vicarious at best. Direct experience outweighs the printed word, far more often than not.

Is it better to hear or sing a song, or to study the lyrics and analyze chord changes?

*clap* Well said. It's always good to meet someone who knows what the Bible is: a book.

There's no preperations to be made when you can't see the future.
Always carry prophylactics and a penknife. Preferably not in the same pocket.

Well said. It's always good to meet someone who knows what the Bible is: a book.
Collection of books and letters. Get it right, grrrr!!

A book. All books are exactly the same. Even non-fiction vs fiction. All the same. Uh huh. No doubt.

Oh dear. I think the point you were trying to make was that you believe the Bible is a book written by man which tries to impose laws on them. That right? It's one opinion. I'd just say watch out for books written 2600+ years ago which tell you what's going to happen tomorrow! (not literally, or I'd be buying a lottery ticket right now)

I dun see whats wrong with homosexulatiy I mean it doesn't really matter. Homosexuality is just another state of mind. And according to scrupiture if god made everything then god made certain people homosexual so what do religious ppl have against it.

Oh and the non-religious ppl. It doesn't matter really. Just cuz someone likes the same sex doesn't mean there is something wrong.

So homosexual haters :sniper:
and
homophobics :mp5:
and
Bush :gundge:

Unbind your mind, there is no time my friend. The Bible is a book. Written by dead people, over many centuries, with lots of edits and revisions, translated poorly into english a long time ago. There's more to this continuum than old books. Lots more. Not to say there isn't Wisdom to be found in reading books, it's just...vicarious at best. Direct experience outweighs the printed word, far more often than not.

Is it better to hear or sing a song, or to study the lyrics and analyze chord changes?
no, the Bible was written by the living God through the prophets, but there were some edits, but there were many copies written out-more than any other ancient work by a substantial amount. If God really sanction us to believe something he didn't want us too, he wouldn't let us find it. He is good, and wise-something u seem to be looking for
if you believe experience is the only way to wisdom, then you will end up with very little wisdom at death, unless you have a plan for immortality too

our human potential can only be achieved through the faith that we can actually get to that point, not that doubt will lead the way. What you are saying is that you have faith in the power of doubt. I have a relationship with Jesus, and through Jesus God, but the only reason I need Jesus is because God is pure and holy, so much so it would destroy me if he imparted knowledge onto me as he seems to do onto you.

Wow, they really got to you, didn't they? There's no-one closer to God than you, sweetie, and you're just as close to God as anybody else. You're as close to God as Jesus ever was, as is everybody else. You're as close as the Pope, as G.W. Bush, as that drunken bum I see outside the community centre on weekdays.

I don't have Faith, I have Doubt. Not Faith in the power of doubt, but sacred Doubt, Doubt that has brought us as a species to the point of knowing the human genome, of understanding what forces lurk in the hearts of stars, of learning what it means to follow in the footsteps of God. With only Faith to guide us, we would still be in the stone age.

I'll take Doubt anyday.

I have only a few words of response.

God is supposed to be all forgiving, no?

Therefore, god would forgive all sins, and if we're categorizing homosexuality as a sin it would be forgiven by god. And therefore, not really a sin.

If christians are supposed to live up to their god, in his image, you'd think they'd try to be all forgiving too. You know, brotherly love. Literally.

if you believe experience is the only way to wisdom, then you will end up with very little wisdom at death, unless you have a plan for immortality too

The same can be said for a person who does nothing but read all their life.

Wow, they really got to you, didn't they? There's no-one closer to God than you, sweetie, and you're just as close to God as anybody else. You're as close to God as Jesus ever was, as is everybody else. You're as close as the Pope, as G.W. Bush, as that drunken bum I see outside the community centre on weekdays.

I don't have Faith, I have Doubt. Not Faith in the power of doubt, but sacred Doubt, Doubt that has brought us as a species to the point of knowing the human genome, of understanding what forces lurk in the hearts of stars, of learning what it means to follow in the footsteps of God. With only Faith to guide us, we would still be in the stone age.

I'll take Doubt anyday.
Jesus is at the right hand of God in heaven

no, the Bible was written by the living God through the prophets, but there were some edits, but there were many copies written out-more than any other ancient work by a substantial amount. If God really sanction us to believe something he didn't want us too, he wouldn't let us find it. He is good, and wise-something u seem to be looking for
if you believe experience is the only way to wisdom, then you will end up with very little wisdom at death, unless you have a plan for immortality too

Yes God is Wise, and Good. He has, in a very personal and very real manner, told me to free humanity by spreading Doubt and sowing the seeds of uncertainty, in order to allow his creations to reach a higher level of understanding themselves and the nature of this continuum. That is very Good, and most Wise. Growth is Good. Change is Good. And growth is change for the better.

As for your concerns regarding how much or how little wisdom I may yet accrue before making my egress, thanks, but mind your own business. I've been charged by a meta-entity to bring about fundamental changes in the human condition. I should say my afterlife is rather sewn up. And it's my own affair, besides.

I have only a few words of response.

God is supposed to be all forgiving, no?

Therefore, god would forgive all sins, and if we're categorizing homosexuality as a sin it would be forgiven by god. And therefore, not really a sin.

If christians are supposed to live up to their god, in his image, you'd think they'd try to be all forgiving too. You know, brotherly love. Literally.

You're right on with that last bit. Any "Christian" who isn't forgiving for loving has a lot to learn. As for the sin bit, I don't think it's that simple. If you avoid sin only to avoid God's wrath, then you're missing a big part of the picture. Being a good person and denying sin is about more than just reward and punishment.

Disclaimer: that last part was in no way related to homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't a sin for other reasons.

The same can be said for a person who does nothing but read all their life.
True, but i have something to look forward to in death, and look at it not as the loss of wisdom, but as gaining of almighty wisdom

True, but i have something to look forward to in death, and look at it not as the loss of wisdom, but as gaining of almighty wisdom

Well so do I, I hope. Why doesn't experience lead to wisdom? I fail to understand your point of view here.

Actually, no religion would argue that. Whether you follow a Ten Commandments, an Eightfold path, or the Book of the Sword, no serious religion says that all paths lead to a god. To say so negates the purpose of religion.
May I interject here and say that it's only religions of "the book" ie Judaism, Islam and Christianity that believe their way is the only one. Other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism believe all paths are valid. I was raised Hindu, and have an interest in Buddhism (mainly in Buddhist art, but that has involved reading up about the faith), so I think I'd know. That's why you don't see Hindu's trying to convert people. Well, except Hare Krishna's, but they're a weird sect...

Jesus is at the right hand of God in heaven

Jesus was a temporary, earthbound avatar of the Christian deity Jehovah, who was reabsorbed by Jehovah at point of death. It's not like God is a celestial Capo, with Jesus as his lieutenant. Heaven is not like an episode of the Sopranos, there guy.

You're right on with that last bit. Any "Christian" who isn't forgiving for loving has a lot to learn. As for the sin bit, I don't think it's that simple. If you avoid sin only to avoid God's wrath, then you're missing a big part of the picture. Being a good person and denying sin is about more than just reward and punishment.

Disclaimer: that last part was in no way related to homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't a sin for other reasons.
you cannot be a good person by God's standards, only by human standards. God does nothing wrong, ppl do things wrong-so if u do less u r good, but no one is good to someone who does nothing wrong

May I interject here and say that it's only religions of "the book" ie Judaism, Islam and Christianity that believe their way is the only one. Other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism believe all paths are valid. I was raised Hindu, and have an interest in Buddhism (mainly in Buddhist art, but that has involved reading up about the faith), so I think I'd know. That's why you don't see Hindu's trying to convert people. Well, except Hare Krishna's, but they're a weird sect...

I hear you on that one. Bland food, too...

I have only a few words of response.

God is supposed to be all forgiving, no?

Therefore, god would forgive all sins, and if we're categorizing homosexuality as a sin it would be forgiven by god. And therefore, not really a sin.

If christians are supposed to live up to their god, in his image, you'd think they'd try to be all forgiving too. You know, brotherly love. Literally.
Hmm. Almost works.. yes.. it.. oh no. Wait. You're wrong. :D

God is all forgiving of the people who choose to believe in him and the things he's done, like sending Jesus to die thus giving us the opportunity to apologise directly to God for the shitty stuff we do. Jesus is the way, truth and the life, only through him will people get to heaven etc.

Sin keeps us away from God. If we believe that Jesus is the way, we should try to emulate him. Humans aren't perfect so they fuck up. Christians are supposed to try and be forgiving. I can't think of anyone I hold a particularly harsh grudge against, except British Rail (grr, trains breaking grrr) but I'm sure someon'll will come a long and piss me off soon.

Where were you going with the brotherly love thing? Incest? and homosexuality (if you're your brother's brother. Just straight incest if you're a girl) :p

As for the sin bit, I don't think it's that simple. If you avoid sin only to avoid God's wrath, then you're missing a big part of the picture. Being a good person and denying sin is about more than just reward and punishment.

I over-simplify alot.

I'm all about hedonism. If it feels right, it must be good. That's me.

I don't believe in sin. I think it's a christian construct. As is the devil.

And I think religion in general is just a bad idea.

More over-simplification.

In the end, homosexuality is, in my opinion, not a sin. Never was. And if you all want to tell me who to sleep with and who to avoid like the black plague, then you all have way too much time on your hands.

It's not like I'm doing it on your couch in your living room. What I do in my bedroom is my business, not the church, not my neighbors, and certainly not the government.

Jesus was a temporary, earthbound avatar of the Christian deity Jehovah, who was reabsorbed by Jehovah at point of death. It's not like God is a celestial Capo, with Jesus as his lieutenant. Heaven is not like an episode of the Sopranos, there guy.
uh, ok, all that stuff about reabsorbtion and Jehovah sorta just flew over my head. Jesus is God, and was man on Earth, who descended into Hell for three days and was raised to life and visited ppl and then ascended. Heaven is not an episode of the Sopranos I agree. In heaven, there are angels singing praise to God all the time on the throne, with Jesus on the right hand side of the throne. Jesus is not a lieutenant, he was God in human form

Jesus was a temporary, earthbound avatar of the Christian deity Jehovah, who was reabsorbed by Jehovah at point of death. It's not like God is a celestial Capo, with Jesus as his lieutenant. Heaven is not like an episode of the Sopranos, there guy.

Um, I hate to sound like the stereotypical Catholic here, but that's actually full-fledged heresy. Christ is part of the trinity, and is perfectly equal to God. He wasn't just an avatar.

well i'm done - i feel badly for having gone off on such a protracted off-topic rant. i apologize.

i think im feeling sleepy, so good night.

uh, ok, all that stuff about reabsorbtion and Jehovah sorta just flew over my head. Jesus is God, and was man on Earth, who descended into Hell for three days and was raised to life and visited ppl and then ascended. Heaven is not an episode of the Sopranos I agree. In heaven, there are angels singing praise to God all the time on the throne, with Jesus on the right hand side of the throne. Jesus is not a lieutenant, he was God in human form

So God has...himself at his right hand?

Talk about arrogent :p

I over-simplify alot.

I'm all about hedonism. If it feels right, it must be good. That's me.

I don't believe in sin. I think it's a christian construct. As is the devil.

And I think religion in general is just a bad idea.

More over-simplification.

In the end, homosexuality is, in my opinion, not a sin. Never was. And if you all want to tell me who to sleep with and who to avoid like the black plague, then you all have way too much time on your hands.

It's not like I'm doing it on your couch in your living room. What I do in my bedroom is my business, not the church, not my neighbors, and certainly not the government.
over simplification eh? well, here it is. if homosexuality is right, the gov is wrong. if te gov is wrong, it shouldn't be there. if the gov isn't there, there is chaos and anarchy. so chaos and anarchy is right?
in anarchy everything the gov upheld is wrong-murder, theft, rape-how can this be right?

that's actually full-fledged heresy.


I love the smell of heresy in the morning!

except for the select few who actually read the Bible, the general idea is that the Bible says that Adam and Eve populated the world with two sons. Did I miss something. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well actually you may be missing the fact that the bible dosent really like talking about Women.They are in their but ...?
The daughters are nameless.
Maybe its incest that causes Homosexuality?

oh alright then. have it your way.The basics are all their, the rest is politics and interpretation. However...

God, my God, anyway, hasn't the stomach or the patience for sycophants, hence no Heaven with choruses of angels, fluffy clouds, or men in tinsel halos. Creation simply is. God simply is. The afterlife? Worry about that when it rushes up to meet you. I think you'll be surprised.

over simplification eh? well, here it is. if homosexuality is right, the gov is wrong. if te gov is wrong, it shouldn't be there. if the gov isn't there, there is chaos and anarchy. so chaos and anarchy is right?
in anarchy everything the gov upheld is wrong-murder, theft, rape-how can this be right?

The government has been wrong before...and it will be in the future.

However, according to your religion, everything is wrong because the world is inherently sinful. Therefore we should all live in a chaotic state :p

...but now, sweet fairy princes and princesses, I must away to get some shut-eye, ere I look a fright tomorrow morning...

if homosexuality is right, the gov is wrong. if te gov is wrong, it shouldn't be there. if the gov isn't there, there is chaos and anarchy. so chaos and anarchy is right?
Wow, so many mistakes, so little time.
First governments are wrong all the time. Slavery, apartheid, all sorts of stuff... And they're still around.
And anarchy and chaos are not the same thing. Anarchy means "the absence of a ruler" rather than a situation of chaos. here's a link if you feel like reading hundreds of pages.
Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)

Well actually you may be missing the fact that the bible dosent really like talking about Women.They are in their but ...?
The daughters are nameless.
Maybe its incest that causes Homosexuality?
um, Adam and eve had more children that weren't listed, and Adam and eve were perfect beings created in the image of God, but after the fall they slowly deteriorated-the Bible does mention women, but only in specific incidents.

There is a flaw in your logic. Any case like that (If homosexuality is genetic) would mean that we would get an ever dwindling number of homosexuals. The numbers would start off towards the begining of human history as high and lower down throught. Yet we are seeing now (Since the dawn of postmodernism I might add) a massive increase in the number of self claimed homosexuals. Since it occoured at the same time postmodernism began, I should think that that is enough of a reason to atribute it as a sociological factor rather than a genetic one.

Not necassarily it could be a coming out thing.

except for the select few who actually read the Bible, the general idea is that the Bible says that Adam and Eve populated the world with two sons. Did I miss something. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well actually you may be missing the fact that the bible dosent really like talking about Women.They are in their but ...?
The daughters are nameless.
Maybe its incest that causes Homosexuality?

Note to self: bible was written mostly by men. Women were non-entities in the time period the bible was written in. They were property to their fathers and husbands so it's not entirely surprising that they would be absent in the bible.

I'm also fond of entertaining the idea that humans are actually the progeny of Adam and his first wife, Lillith.

Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality. Unless of course the incest is taking place between two same-gendered family members.

Not necassarily it could be a coming out thing.
Yup, see the Poll on gay marriages thread for this one... I don't feel like going into it AGAIN. :p

Wow, so many mistakes, so little time.
First governments are wrong all the time. Slavery, apartheid, all sorts of stuff... And they're still around.
And anarchy and chaos are not the same thing. Anarchy means "the absence of a ruler" rather than a situation of chaos. here's a link if you feel like reading hundreds of pages.
Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)
yea, i didn't say they were the same thing, chaos usually results from chaos-i said gov shouldn't be in there if they r wrong, but there is no other way of operating (unless u follow sex pistols)

And now I'm bored.

Goodnight.

Note to self: bible was written mostly by men. Women were non-entities in the time period the bible was written in. They were property to their fathers and husbands so it's not entirely surprising that they would be absent in the bible.

I'm also fond of entertaining the idea that humans are actually the progeny of Adam and his first wife, Lillith.

Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality. Unless of course the incest is taking place between two same-gendered family members.
wasn't adam's 'other wife' in greek mythology...

I love the smell of heresy in the morning!

LOL!

but there is no other way of operating (unless u follow sex pistols)
Read the link darling. ;)

k, i will, but im gonna go to sleep

Note to self: bible was written mostly by men. Women were non-entities in the time period the bible was written in. They were property to their fathers and husbands so it's not entirely surprising that they would be absent in the bible.

I'm also fond of entertaining the idea that humans are actually the progeny of Adam and his first wife, Lillith.

Incest has nothing to do with homosexuality. Unless of course the incest is taking place between two same-gendered family members.

I've heard of Lillith too. There was also an unnamed wife of Adam before Eve but after Lillith. Still, Eve was the one that remained, take that as you will.

As for women in the bible, there's more of 'em in the NT. Remember that the first soul saved in the second age of mankind was Christ's mother Mary.

I've heard of Lillith too. There was also an unnamed wife of Adam before Eve but after Lillith. Still, Eve was the one that remained, take that as you will.
I've heard of Lillith, and that her story was basically censored from the bible. Anyone care to tell me more?

I've heard of Lillith, and that her story was basically censored from the bible. Anyone care to tell me more?

Here's pretty much all I know. Lillith wasn't created from Adam, she was created apart from him for him. One major mythological difference between men and women is that men tend to be active while women are passive. Lillith was very active and aggressive. When making love, she wanted to be side by side Adam as a symbol of equality. And she didn't compromise when she wanted something. Adam complained to God and Lillith went away - no one really knows where. The second unnamed wife came along then. She was too passive. She did nothing, said nothing. Again, Adam felt unfullfilled in his desire for a compainion. Eve was then created from him and was the best of both worlds: more passive than Adam, but still active enough spiritually to take the apple from the Tree of Knowledge.

I'd like to point out that all that may just be folklore - I can't back it up with sources of any kind. Sorry. :rolleyes:

Not necassarily it could be a coming out thing.

I'm not sure he realizes amongst some very old species there are many examples of non-reproductive members and the overall ratio is dependant on such things as genetics and environmental factors.

Here's pretty much all I know. Lillith wasn't created from Adam, she was created apart from him for him. One major mythological difference between men and women is that men tend to be active while women are passive. Lillith was very active and aggressive. When making love, she wanted to be side by side Adam as a symbol of equality. And she didn't compromise when she wanted something. Adam complained to God and Lillith went away - no one really knows where. The second unnamed wife came along then. She was too passive. She did nothing, said nothing. Again, Adam felt unfullfilled in his desire for a compainion. Eve was then created from him and was the best of both worlds: more passive than Adam, but still active enough spiritually to take the apple from the Tree of Knowledge.I like the sound of this Lillith woman, and that story would explain why she was cut from the bible...

I like the sound of this Lillith woman, and that story would explain why she was cut from the bible...

Yeah. I'm a big fan of lore - knowledge that you need to earn. The Bible was written for the common man and woman. Sometimes you need to dig deeper to get the whole picture, and anyone who thinks religion/theology/mythology is simple is just plain shallow or egotistic. Think of the Bible as a High-School Physics book. Sure, F=MA. No problem. But like hell you'll find an equation in that book involving air resistance or Legrangians.

Think of the Bible as a High-School Physics book. Sure, F=MA. No problem. But like hell you'll find an equation in that book involving air resistance or Legrangians.
Nice analogy, and it explains a lot doesn't it. ;)
Although religion/spirituality isn't really my thing, that's a good principle to apply everywhere else too. And now that I'm at university, everything we learned in high school is basically wrong. :p

I think religion is a thing of the past....used to control the masses by striking fear into people that they will be sent to hell for comitting such sins as bein gay.....i feel that some sins ie murder n thins like that shud definately be adhered to but on the issues of homosexuality i feel that to judge people on the fact that the church says its a sin is wrong i see nothin wrong with two people who love each other marryin...because they are people at end of the day...n its thier choice, plus its hardly a marriage its more of a commitment ceremony so i dont see the problem..........

Nice analogy, and it explains a lot doesn't it. ;)
Although religion/spirituality isn't really my thing, that's a good principle to apply everywhere else too. And now that I'm at university, everything we learned in high school is basically wrong. :p

Exactly! I'm a fan of Victor Hugo (author of Les Mis). His basic view is that life is all about Progression. Progression is a wonderful word because it means success, failure, setback, study, experience, and everything in between. And all those things make you better as a person. Learn something, move on. Learn something else, re-evaluate old ideas. Progress.
:D

D'oh. God=Jesus, Jesus=God. No? Jesus, God in human form? No?

I love pointing out to you guys that you can't spell. Makes us both idiots though.


So you say God doesn't exist, then you say he does, then you say he's a product of human belief. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!! Anyway. It's not fear of God. It's an understanding of what happens if you don't do what he says. It's equivalent, in that case, of sticking your fingers in the live plug socket (my favourite analogy/example/thing) you don't fear that you'll do that of your own volition. You try not to do it, full stop.

Yes God knows what will happen, what you'll do before it happens because he know the future. Unfortunately this view is blocked from us and we just see the two (or more) choices, not the outcome. Doesn't make it a forced decision, only that you either drive to work or take the bus. You can't do both of these unless you're a part-time bus driver.


That's your opinion I suppose and people should respect it. But you should respect that some believe that an all-powerful God laid them out some groundrules and said 'you should really try and follow these'. Going against them is like flipping the bird at God and saying 'no, I'm doing it my way'.

Hurry up with those posts. This thread'll overtake the 'Gay Marriage' one in a minute!!


Not once did I say that God either existed, or did not exist. Simply said that anyone attempting to interpret and dictate what He intends for us is only impressing their own personal beliefs upon the masses under the cloak of Religion. God did not lay out any Ground rules. Man laid out the ground rules, in what he believed God wanted.

It is indeed fear of the Wrath of God. Why else listen to a Priest of Pastor preach about why one should live a certain way, and not live another way. What difference does it make how one lives, if God knows all? The expression Fire and Brimstone ring any bells? Why be told about going to Hell if you Sin? To inspire fear of sinning. According to the Catholic Dogma, you can commit ANY sin you like, and as long as you confess your sins and accept God into your heart, you are guaranteed a spot in the Kingdom of Heaven. So according to that, Sinning isn't even wrong. Just not accepting God into your heart before you die is wrong, if you base what is right and wrong on entrance into Heaven.

But, I love how people look at the bible now, and say. "Oh, that part is Old, and can be discarded... but THIS part is newer, and is valid." How certain passages are so easily discounted, and others are swung about like a holy sword. If you can discount Any portions of the bible, you can discount ALL of it. But looking at the Old Testament compared to the new testament... first, there are all these Abominations that require people to be stoned to death and burned alive, etc. then the Ten Commandments come out to say "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Whoa. Yo.. God. Make up your mind. Now fast forward to the Crusades.. and all the Killing done in the name of God. Wasn't he clear, as in it was literally written in stone, that "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? Yet, here are all these people, being instructed that it's Ok to Kill in the name of God. Fast Forward to the Witch Trials in Salem. Ok, not as many Deaths, but a Religious farce none the less. Again, backed by people purportedly following the bible. Time and time and time again atrocities are comitted in the name of God, the Bible, and Religion. Sure, we can look back and say that they were wrong back then. This bashing of Homosexuality in the name of Religion and God is no different.

Let's look at the concept that is being bantered back and forth tho. That Homosexuality is wrong, because it is not productive; because it does not produce children. Extend that logic, and God wants humanity dead. Yup. If God wanted mankind to pair up and multiply (...go forth and multiply...) then we are doomed to over populate the planet, wiping out the rest of the creations on the planet with our sheer mass, and killing ourselves off, exhausting the resourses we would need to survive.

The logic that if I want my views respected I must respect other views is flawed as well.. for that means that I must respect the views of the individuals who want me dead. Not going to Happen.

god does exist but people who take "his words" to heart are being lead into narrow mindedness

the Bible is a book written by humans therefore methinks there is some slight exxagerations......somewhere along the lines.

therefore who is to say wots truth or not truth......wots right n wots not right.....????? who damn it

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. All mainstream and peer-respected scientific groups hold that to be true.

And people DO have the right to as they want. Until it takes rights from someone else. My right to swing my fist stops where your nose ends.

Not all. As it has been stated many times, for every study that says its genetic there is another which says it is enviromental. It would seem to me though that it is enviroment which plays a bigger part than genetics as if it were genetics, we would expect to see now either a consistant percentage of the population being gay or a drop. Instead we are seeing a rise which is out of step with population growth. Ergo it is unlikely to be genetic. There may be genes which make you more likely to be homosexual in the same way there are genes that make you more likely to be a thief or other criminal but there is no one gene or sereis of genes that definitely makes you Gay. Enviromental factors seem to play a much bigger factor eg, China and its large gay population combined with its large single male population as a result of both culture and one child policy.

Not all. As it has been stated many times, for every study that says its genetic there is another which says it is enviromental. It would seem to me though that it is enviroment which plays a bigger part than genetics as if it were genetics, we would expect to see now either a consistant percentage of the population being gay or a drop. Instead we are seeing a rise which is out of step with population growth. Ergo it is unlikely to be genetic. There may be genes which make you more likely to be homosexual in the same way there are genes that make you more likely to be a thief or other criminal but there is no one gene or sereis of genes that definitely makes you Gay. Enviromental factors seem to play a much bigger factor eg, China and its large gay population combined with its large single male population as a result of both culture and one child policy.


*wonders where he's getting this... information*

*wonders where he's getting this... information*
Straight from God's mouth to your ear. ;)

But seriously, how long can he ignore the agrument that the proportion of gay people in the population probably isn't increasing, it's the proportion of gay people that are "out" which has increased due to the sexual liberation that's been going on since the 60's? Can you sneak up and remove his blinkers?

Straight from God's mouth to your ear. ;)

But seriously, how long can he ignore the agrument that the proportion of gay people in the population probably isn't increasing, it's the proportion of gay people that are "out" which has increased due to the sexual liberation that's been going on since the 60's? Can you sneak up and remove his blinkers?

Yes the population that is "out" is increasing. But also its increasing in terms of those who were born in the postmodern era. That is still risisng, which makes no sense if homosexuality is genetic. You would have expected it to stableise once postmodernism became accepted.

So God has...himself at his right hand?

Talk about arrogent :p

No one can claim to understand the trinity completely. There are many examples where if we see it from a human perspective we dont understand it. However the details of the trinity and how the three communicate and relate to one another are irelevent as long as we accpet this, all three are equal, no one is above the other.

Then why don't you ask it then, instead of referencing it and saying I'm interpreting it wrong? That's generally how conversations work. If I say, do you flower Thursdays, whose fault is it that you don't understand what the fuck I'm talking about, the idiot speaking, or the person who only wants a legitimate question?

Because it wasn't my question? Honestly, I don't see the big deal here.
I ask a question, and you say something completely unrelated to it. That is *not* how conversations generally work.

But also its increasing in terms of those who were born in the postmodern era. That is still risisng, which makes no sense if homosexuality is genetic. You would have expected it to stableise once postmodernism became accepted.
Where are you getting these stats? How do you know?
And dude, get a grip, you're speaking as if postmodernism as if it's a unified ideology out to destroy the world. From what I gather, postmodernism is the rejection of a unifying ideology, so to state that "postmodernism has been accepted" is a bit odd. Also it's basically a buzzword with little or no practical meaning. like PC...

No one can claim to understand the trinity completely. There are many examples where if we see it from a human perspective we dont understand it. However the details of the trinity and how the three communicate and relate to one another are irelevent as long as we accpet this, all three are equal, no one is above the other.Oh, come on. We all know completely what trinity is, and that it was only introduced to adjust some theological errors in the set-up of the Christian pantheon.

and that it was only introduced to adjust some theological errors in the set-up of the Christian pantheon.
I don't know about this. Pray tell... *laughs evilly*

Where? If you dare say "find it" then I'll know you're just one of the ignorant bigots who supports something as long as they don't have to think.

Wow, you love to resort to personal insults don't you?

Government recognition of polygamy would completely do away with the government's main interest in recognizing marriages - namely, its own convenience. In addition, *new* laws would be needed to include polygamy, while recognition of homosexual unions just requires issuing them licenses and providing the same protections. Thus, to state that "if you recognize one, you have to recognize the other" is ludicrous.

As for animals/toasters/etc - these cannot give informed consent or sign contracts - thus they cannot marry.

Wow, you love to resort to personal insults don't you?

Government recognition of polygamy would completely do away with the government's main interest in recognizing marriages - namely, its own convenience. In addition, *new* laws would be needed to include polygamy, while recognition of homosexual unions just requires issuing them licenses and providing the same protections. Thus, to state that "if you recognize one, you have to recognize the other" is ludicrous.

As for animals/toasters/etc - these cannot give informed consent or sign contracts - thus they cannot marry.

I personally see no reason why polygamous marriage SHOULDN'T be recognized... god knows it's hard enough for most people to make a marriage between two people last... if they think they can better juggle 8 partners, more power to them.

The US government is obviously trying to set up a guard against polygamy implicitly in their battle against homosexual union... i.e. where they could define marriage as between "man" and "Woman", they are being VERY careful to make sure it is ONE man and ONE woman.

Why shouldn't multiple partners be acceptable? Why shouldn't homosexual partners be acceptable? It all comes down to the same thing... one group of poeple trying to enforce THEIR religious/moral views on others.

People LOVE who they find themselves LOVING. They do not choose, and it has nothing to do with what society allows, or what the government recognises.

Homosexual marriage, and, in fact, polygamous marriage, is about gaining the LEGAL RIGHTS accorded to one model of LOVE, but denied to other models of LOVE.

And that is the crux. The fundamentalists might as well face the fact that men LOVE men, and women LOVE women, and one man LOVES two women, and one woman LOVES two men, and no amount of legislation or religious foot-stamping is going to change that.

And, once they admit that to themselves, maybe they'll be enlightened to the fact that, whether or not they choose to recognise that LOVE, the LOVE isn't what they are causing controversy over... it's the LEGAL RIGHTS - which SHOULD fall entirely OUTSIDE of the perview of religion.

Luke 20:25 "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

Not all. As it has been stated many times, for every study that says its genetic there is another which says it is enviromental. It would seem to me though that it is enviroment which plays a bigger part than genetics as if it were genetics, we would expect to see now either a consistant percentage of the population being gay or a drop. Instead we are seeing a rise which is out of step with population growth. Ergo it is unlikely to be genetic. There may be genes which make you more likely to be homosexual in the same way there are genes that make you more likely to be a thief or other criminal but there is no one gene or sereis of genes that definitely makes you Gay. Enviromental factors seem to play a much bigger factor eg, China and its large gay population combined with its large single male population as a result of both culture and one child policy.

So tell me, if homosexuality were a choice, why would people choose it?

So tell me, if homosexuality were a choice, why would people choose it?

Why would anyone choose to punch holes into their flesh? Take substances that are proven to kill? Defy parents and thumb their noses at "the system?"

Who knows... In Ancient Rome and Greece Homosexuality was encouraged because (I believe) the theory was that soldiers would fight harder if they fought next to the ones they loved. Although I've also heard the theory that it took the sexual edge off of the soldiers when they were on long campians.

Nowadays... experimentation? Curiosity? the thrill? I guess it depends on the person.

Why would anyone choose to punch holes into their flesh? Take substances that are proven to kill? Defy parents and thumb their noses at "the system?"

Who knows... In Ancient Rome and Greece Homosexuality was encouraged because (I believe) the theory was that soldiers would fight harder if they fought next to the ones they loved. Although I've also heard the theory that it took the sexual edge off of the soldiers when they were on long campians.

Nowadays... experimentation? Curiosity? the thrill? I guess it depends on the person.

This really pisses me off. You honestly fucking think I'd choose to be singled out from the crowd for jeering and ridicule? Get a brain, man. Seriously... fck... :headbang:

Nowadays... experimentation? Curiosity? the thrill? I guess it depends on the person.

I'd say that those are very imporant traits in a human.
Would we ever have flown were it not for experimentation and curiosity?
And have we outlawed many dangerous sports? I think not.

Yes the population that is "out" is increasing. But also its increasing in terms of those who were born in the postmodern era. That is still risisng, which makes no sense if homosexuality is genetic. You would have expected it to stableise once postmodernism became accepted.

Unfortunately, due to people like you, many gay men are still closeted. Homosexuality has not *at all* been accepted.

No one can claim to understand the trinity completely. There are many examples where if we see it from a human perspective we dont understand it. However the details of the trinity and how the three communicate and relate to one another are irelevent as long as we accpet this, all three are equal, no one is above the other.

Christian version:

God rules over humans ruthlessly - we're supposed to love him for it

Pagan/buddhist/so on version:

God is in all of us - we're supposed to love God (the world, and therefore, each other along with everything else) for it.


Seriously - Jesus was a great prophet with a great message. If only Christians would stop to LISTEN to that message (and some do - look at the massive system of "good works" - hospitals, universities, orphanages and so on - run by the Catholic and other churches), the world would be a whole lot better off.

I apologize if the post I am about to make is similar in nature to a previously made post, however I did not feel like reading through 112 pages.
I do not believe in homosexual marriage. I believe it should be between a man and a woman. Why? Because marriage is a christian institution before God. If all homosexual couples want is the same civil rights that married couples get, then I see no reason why they cannot be granted those rights through a civil unition. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? Because it is highly offensive to a very large part of the world population.
There is a way to satisfy BOTH parties here.
Allow gays to have civil unions that grant them the same legal rights and opportunities as married couples. If they can get what they want without offending christians, then why not?

I apologize if the post I am about to make is similar in nature to a previously made post, however I did not feel like reading through 112 pages.
I do not believe in homosexual marriage. I believe it should be between a man and a woman. Why? Because marriage is a christian institution before God. If all homosexual couples want is the same civil rights that married couples get, then I see no reason why they cannot be granted those rights through a civil unition. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? Because it is highly offensive to a very large part of the world population.
There is a way to satisfy BOTH parties here.
Allow gays to have civil unions that grant them the same legal rights and opportunities as married couples. If they can get what they want without offending christians, then why not?

First: marriage is NOT a christian institution. If you use the bible as your justification for sanctity of marriage, then you are admitting that marriage was a Hebrew institution... and, since christianity is heresy in the eyes of Judaism, it is most certainly NOT a christian tradition.

Second: Marriage existed even before the Hebrews, so it isn't even a Hebrew institution.

Third: the whole point of the gay marriage debate is that they do not have the same rights as straight marriages. Most, I imagine, would be entirely happy with a civil union, but some would want church weddings. And, if their local church is WILLING to do a gay marriage, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Fourth: Most gay people would, I imagine, be happy to accept a civil union, IF straight people had to have a civil union as well. If you removed marriage, or made it a religious formality - rather than an 'alternative' that is ONLY available to straight couples.

Fifth: Where does scripture say that a man shall not marry a man, or a woman marry a woman? It doesn't. Adam sets an example of a man cleaving to his wife, but Adam also discusses leaving his 'mother and father' in the same phrasing... so one has to assume that there has been some 'editing' at some point... since Adam didn't have a mother - or anyway of knowing what one was.

Sixth: Thousands of religions practice marriages. Why should the Christian one be the one that gets priority?

Seventh:Why NOT offend christians? Christians are offending non-christians by insisting that marriage is a clearly defined christian principle.

Eighth:It is highly offensive to a large part of the worlds population that homosexuals ARE NOT allowed to marry. Most of the homosexuals, for a start.. one would guess... and a large number of people who believe that equality should not be defined by gender orientation.

Okay, firstly, I think many people are confused on the nature of "sin". If we study carefully, we will find that Bible teaches that all men are sinners "born in sin, shapen in iniquity". We cannont change what we are i.e. "can the leopard change his spots, or the ethiopian his skin?" Our forefather Adam, was a sinner, so we are all born with the propensity and desire to commit sins. Some of us have inherited certain sinful traits. These traits may express themselves in various forms, and they may also be controlled to a certain extent by will power etc. But the fact remains that the sin is there and we cannot change it no matter how hard we suppress it. The answer is that homo-sexuality is a sin, but I think the question that really needs answering is "Will I be judged and condemned for being a homosexual?" This is the question that needs to be asked, because regardless of the nature of the act, the sinner should only be concerned with how his nature will affect his opportunity at achieving eternal life. The answer to this correct question is reiterated throught the Bible. God is omni-potent and able to save to the uttermost all that come to Him through Christ Jesus. For us to believe that God cannot save us from ourselves (our sinful genes, desires and character that we were born with or have developed) is for us to disbelieve God, and in essence claim that He is a liar. Will we be judged for our sinful nature? John 3:19 says that the test by which men are judged is that "Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light". So then, we are judged for not choosing to accept God's free salvation and disbelieving His testimony concerning Himself. It is a simple choice, do you believe Jesus can save you? If no, then you are condemned according to the Bible because you have made God out to be a liar. After the truth has been revealed to you, do you accept it or reject it? If you reject it, then you are condemned for prefferring light to darkness according to the Bible.
God Bless.

Gay marriage is a reality. At least where I'm from. Cope with it.

Change is inevitable, change is good. It indicates growth. Any attempt to stifle growth or change invariably leads to struggle, with the end result being change, albeit accompanied with far more fear, loathing, and gnashing of teeth.

It's already here, so learn to love your gay/bi/lesbian/TG brothers and sisters or move out of the way, but keep your petty criticisms where they belong, in a Klan meeting. We'd love you for it, really we would.

Okay, firstly, I think many people are confused on the nature of "sin". If we study carefully, we will find that Bible teaches that all men are sinners "born in sin, shapen in iniquity". We cannont change what we are i.e. "can the leopard change his spots, or the ethiopian his skin?" Our forefather Adam, was a sinner, so we are all born with the propensity and desire to commit sins. Some of us have inherited certain sinful traits. These traits may express themselves in various forms, and they may also be controlled to a certain extent by will power etc. But the fact remains that the sin is there and we cannot change it no matter how hard we suppress it. The answer is that homo-sexuality is a sin, but I think the question that really needs answering is "Will I be judged and condemned for being a homosexual?" This is the question that needs to be asked, because regardless of the nature of the act, the sinner should only be concerned with how his nature will affect his opportunity at achieving eternal life. The answer to this correct question is reiterated throught the Bible. God is omni-potent and able to save to the uttermost all that come to Him through Christ Jesus. For us to believe that God cannot save us from ourselves (our sinful genes, desires and character that we were born with or have developed) is for us to disbelieve God, and in essence claim that He is a liar. Will we be judged for our sinful nature? John 3:19 says that the test by which men are judged is that "Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light". So then, we are judged for not choosing to accept God's free salvation and disbelieving His testimony concerning Himself. It is a simple choice, do you believe Jesus can save you? If no, then you are condemned according to the Bible because you have made God out to be a liar. After the truth has been revealed to you, do you accept it or reject it? If you reject it, then you are condemned for prefferring light to darkness according to the Bible.
God Bless.

All of which is irrelevent if you are atheistic, or just better acquainted with biblical scripture than the average layperson, who spouts the 'against homosexuality' creed as though it were even mentioned in the bible.

Of course, according to biblical logic... gays SHOULD be allowed to marry, so that they will not have intercourse outside of wedlock...

I personally see no reason why polygamous marriage SHOULDN'T be recognized... god knows it's hard enough for most people to make a marriage between two people last... if they think they can better juggle 8 partners, more power to them.

Perhaps, but the truth of the matter is that 8 partners would not fit into the current legal construct known as marriage. All of the protections are specifically designed for 2 people. In order to recognize polygamy, a new code of laws to regulate this new institution would have to be passed.

My point was not whether or not we *should* allow polygamy, it was simply that the statement that it directly follows from allowing homosexuals to marry is pure stupidity.

I've no problem with people being gay, i dont agree with it, but i'm not against it.
I simplydont see the attraction of having sex with another man and havin a penis put in a place that is only meant to allow the departure of faeces and not the entrance of a penis

Disclaimer: The following is what I learned. I am not expressing my views on homosexuality here at all.

Why is Homosexuality a sin?

1. We have to go back to creation here. G-d made man (as in human kind - not a male) in the image of himself - this meant that Adam had both male and female characteristics. Then G-d saw that Adam was lonely, so he took a part of him, and made another person (woman, Eve) from that part. i.e. G-d seperated humans man and woman at this point indicating that both male and female together make a complete creature that is the image of G-d. Sexual desire (of the hetero sexual kind) is said to be due to the yearning to reach a more G-d like state. Man + Man and Woman + Woman does not = image of G-d therefore it is not the correct relationship type

2. It says in the bible that homosexualuty is a sin. It says other things are sins too - like a man sleeping with his wife while she is menstruating. This is not a cultural value - it is an objective law.

3. An important part of our life's work is to 'go forth and multiply' this can not happen for same sex couples with out intervention. Note: this doesn't mean that sex is only to have kids. Sex with a married partner is also for fun. In fact its essential to the relationship.

Question 2: Why would G-d make people be born gay (gay gene) if it is wrong?

We were made with an inclination to do good things, and an inclination to do bad things. One of the life goals we should have is to keep our inclination to do bad under control. Some people are born with a greater or more difficult inclination to control. That is the way things work. We should just deal with it. Homosexuality can be thought of as a bad inclination that we shouldn't act on. Difficult, but there we go. It is important to note here that it is NOT a sin to be attracted to people of the same gender, just to have sex with them. Just as it is a sin to have sex with some one of the opposite gender outside of wedlock. Seems out dated now to some people, but I suppose you just have to come to your own conclusions as to whether it is devine (and therefore always relevent) or just written by man, perhaps with the influence of G-d and may need an update.

Thanks for your attention,

-GL

First: marriage is NOT a christian institution. If you use the bible as your justification for sanctity of marriage, then you are admitting that marriage was a Hebrew institution... and, since christianity is heresy in the eyes of Judaism, it is most certainly NOT a christian tradition.

Second: Marriage existed even before the Hebrews, so it isn't even a Hebrew institution.


Marriage as an institution did not exist for a long time. Marriage as an idea however existed at the begining of time and Gay marriage is not a part of the idea (see Genesis 2: 24)


Fifth: Where does scripture say that a man shall not marry a man, or a woman marry a woman? It doesn't. Adam sets an example of a man cleaving to his wife, but Adam also discusses leaving his 'mother and father' in the same phrasing... so one has to assume that there has been some 'editing' at some point... since Adam didn't have a mother - or anyway of knowing what one was.


You rearly should research before you enter these threads. The line is in Leviticus 18:22 "A man shall not lie with a man, for that is an abomination" or something to that extent. So yes it does say in scripture that homosexuality is a sin.


Sixth: Thousands of religions practice marriages. Why should the Christian one be the one that gets priority?


Show me a religion that in its original doctrine (holy book) that homosexual marriage is an idea that is supported (not just not mentioned and so we assume its ok)


Seventh:Why NOT offend christians? Christians are offending non-christians by insisting that marriage is a clearly defined christian principle.


The same reason that we dont offend Muslims or Hindus or any other religion. People seem to forget Christianity when it comes to political correctness, though they are quite happy to protect Muslims


Eighth:It is highly offensive to a large part of the worlds population that homosexuals ARE NOT allowed to marry. Most of the homosexuals, for a start.. one would guess... and a large number of people who believe that equality should not be defined by gender orientation.

You must understand. To Christians who see homosexuality as a sin, the idea of Gay marriage is like letting two people who are openly rapeists, thives, murderes and unrepentent for it go into church and have a union just for their sinning type. Homosexuality may be a sin just like other sins but unlike other sins, people are becoming prideful about it. To the church this presents a problem. How can you be prideful in sin? How can you say "I sin and I am proud of it an unrepentent".

Christian version:

God rules over humans ruthlessly - we're supposed to love him for it



Do you see a giant cloudy hand coming down from the sky and smacking us whenever we do something wrong? Just where do you get the idea that God is somehow ruthless? He sent his son to die and save us, I would hardley call that ruthless

You rearly should research before you enter these threads. The line is in Leviticus 18:22 "A man shall not lie with a man, for that is an abomination" or something to that extent. So yes it does say in scripture that homosexuality is a sin.

No, that says that sex between two men (at most) is a sin.

as far as why homosexuality is a sin....for the same reason that blacks were once considered less of a being than whites....they're different in shape, way, and/or form so they are to be feared and hated.

It's the sick sad truth....

It was never considered a...Sin...to be black or any other race. The bible does have passages specificly condeming racisim and indeed discrimination of any kind.

Acts 10:28
He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.

Its not like apartihied was supported by the church. Comparing homosexuality being a sin to racisim is a little simplistic. The idea that the jump from racial equality to equality for those of diffrent sexual orientation is simple and easy is one which assumes that you are born gay. You arn't. And to those who say you are, I say, look at the example of China, possibly the country with the largest Gay population in the world and why. Well posibly that its also the country with the largest population in the world OR maybe because the male/female population ratio there is significently in the favour of men. This is because of the Chinese one child policy. In China to have a girl as you first (and only) child is considered to be a 'problem' because women do not inherit, they cannot pass on the family name (Dynistic security in terms of name is still very important in China) and they cannot work for the family as well as men (or so they believe). Concequently there is a large single male population over there AND a large number of them are Gay, a very large number in fact. Are you going to tell me that those people wouldn't be gay if there were an equal number of men and women?

No, that says that sex between two men (at most) is a sin.

Follow logic through for a second. Are you saying God would outlaw one form of homosexuality but let the other one go? Why would he do that? And dont come back with "Why would he even outlaw one form of homosexuality" for these two reasons

A) I asked first (childish I know but sometimes that seems the only way to speek to some of you)

B) The reason that God would outlaw it has been explained throughout the thread. It is not how God wanted us to behave in regards to sex as he wanted sex to be something special between man and women as a result of love. Go read all the posts by those who beleive homosexuality is a sin and you will see why it is.

Disclaimer: The following is what I learned. I am not expressing my views on homosexuality here at all.

Why is Homosexuality a sin?

1. We have to go back to creation here. G-d made man (as in human kind - not a male) in the image of himself - this meant that Adam had both male and female characteristics. Then G-d saw that Adam was lonely, so he took a part of him, and made another person (woman, Eve) from that part. i.e. G-d seperated humans man and woman at this point indicating that both male and female together make a complete creature that is the image of G-d. Sexual desire (of the hetero sexual kind) is said to be due to the yearning to reach a more G-d like state. Man + Man and Woman + Woman does not = image of G-d therefore it is not the correct relationship type

Why do you believe in or why were you taught only the second version of creation in the Bible? What makes that the correct choice?

If you believe the first version, God made humankind in God's image - but there is no reason to believe the first people were hermaphrodites.

2. It says in the bible that homosexualuty is a sin. It says other things are sins too - like a man sleeping with his wife while she is menstruating. This is not a cultural value - it is an objective law.

Actually, it says you can't have sex for seven days, even if the menstuation only lasts 3. I wonder how many people have broken that one...

3. An important part of our life's work is to 'go forth and multiply' this can not happen for same sex couples with out intervention. Note: this doesn't mean that sex is only to have kids. Sex with a married partner is also for fun. In fact its essential to the relationship.

One could argue that with the population where it is now, "go forth and multiply" isn't such an imperitive order.

Question 2: Why would G-d make people be born gay (gay gene) if it is wrong?

We were made with an inclination to do good things, and an inclination to do bad things. One of the life goals we should have is to keep our inclination to do bad under control. Some people are born with a greater or more difficult inclination to control. That is the way things work. We should just deal with it. Homosexuality can be thought of as a bad inclination that we shouldn't act on. Difficult, but there we go. It is important to note here that it is NOT a sin to be attracted to people of the same gender, just to have sex with them. Just as it is a sin to have sex with some one of the opposite gender outside of wedlock. Seems out dated now to some people, but I suppose you just have to come to your own conclusions as to whether it is devine (and therefore always relevent) or just written by man, perhaps with the influence of G-d and may need an update.

However, love is not a bad thing. Saying that homosexuality is wrong would mean that God makes some human beings gay so that they can never participate in one of the highest forms of love a human being can experience. Doesn't seem right to me.

Well, God made us in his own image, thats what whoever wrote Genesis says anyway. So, are gays in his image too?

Personally if we are in his image, I think He did a good job, humans are vengeful, greedy, jealous and self-righteous; so just like the thing that supposedly created us then!!!!

You rearly should research before you enter these threads. The line is in Leviticus 18:22 "A man shall not lie with a man, for that is an abomination" or something to that extent. So yes it does say in scripture that homosexuality is a sin.

Actually, that doesn't say that homosexuality is a sin. It says that a man lying with a man like a woman is wrong. It does not say that being a homosexual is wrong. Of course, there is quite a bit to wonder about - considering that a man cannot lie with a man like a woman - unless the Bible is pushing anal sex.

Show me a religion that in its original doctrine (holy book) that homosexual marriage is an idea that is supported (not just not mentioned and so we assume its ok)

The Kama Sutra, a holy book, contains instructions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The same reason that we dont offend Muslims or Hindus or any other religion. People seem to forget Christianity when it comes to political correctness, though they are quite happy to protect Muslims

No one has any right to not be offended.

You must understand. To Christians who see homosexuality as a sin, the idea of Gay marriage is like letting two people who are openly rapeists, thives, murderes and unrepentent for it go into church and have a union just for their sinning type. Homosexuality may be a sin just like other sins but unlike other sins, people are becoming prideful about it. To the church this presents a problem. How can you be prideful in sin? How can you say "I sin and I am proud of it an unrepentent".

No, it really isn't at all - since the idea of gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with your church. Your church doesn't have to let gay people in, it doesn't have to marry them, it doesn't have to recognize their marriage. The *government*, which is separate from your church, does.

So tell me, if homosexuality were a choice, why would people choose it?

Because in our beloved postmodern society, it seems to be fasionable to not only be diffrent because of who you are already, but to go out of the way to make yourself more diffrent. And that is (for some people, not all) why they think they are becoming homosexual.

You must however understand that when I say its a choice, what I mean is that it is not predestined from birth. People are not 'born' gay. They may have genes which have tendencys towards homosexuality, but there are also genes that give tendencies towards all sorts of other sinns. Please dont think I am saying "People decide one day to be gay and that is how it happens, a simple consious choice" obviously there are a number of factors, but to say that homosexual feelings are in anyway a result of something nautral is wrong. They can come about as a result of genetic (although I still doubt this) factors (although these do not make people gay definitely, as I said no one is born gay) but the larger factor is enviromental. Now I think I am right in saying that no one here can prove that people are somehow "Born" gay so it must happen somewhere along the line in life. Wheter or not those enviromental factors affect a person may not be up to them but what I am saying is that it is possible that someone who is gay in one circumstance would not be gay if his/her life were diffrent.

The Kama Sutra, a holy book, contains instructions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.


Check again, I said Gay marriage

The same reason that we dont offend Muslims or Hindus or any other religion. People seem to forget Christianity when it comes to political correctness, though they are quite happy to protect Muslims

Seems alittle unfair doesnt it? Why is that Christianity takes so much heat for its views, yet others do not? :confused:

Follow logic through for a second. Are you saying God would outlaw one form of homosexuality but let the other one go? Why would he do that? And dont come back with "Why would he even outlaw one form of homosexuality" for these two reasons

A) I asked first (childish I know but sometimes that seems the only way to speek to some of you)

B) The reason that God would outlaw it has been explained throughout the thread. It is not how God wanted us to behave in regards to sex as he wanted sex to be something special between man and women as a result of love. Go read all the posts by those who beleive homosexuality is a sin and you will see why it is.

You are confusing sexual activity for sexuality - they are not the same thing.

And *God* didn't outlaw homosexuality, Hebrew priests who recognized that it didn't cause babies did. These days, everbody doesn't need to be having as many babies as possible, so the law is useless.

Check again, I said Gay marriage

In many religions, marriage and sex are interchangable.

And the Wiccan and Druidic traditions don't necessarily have a "holy book," but have always blessed homosexual marriages.

No one has any right to not be offended.


Funny, your wonderful paradise of postmodern media seems to think so. Or else why would the commision for racial equality be so often sticking its nose into the BBC, claiming that programs are offending people, defending their right not to be offended.

its not a sin in itself, according to most constitutions, but to expose it is or should be!

like i might have a 4 years old and go out in a park with him....i dont want him to see two men kissing and have to explain him why. he could be traumatized by that....its not normal that they are allowed to express so much in public. if they want to love eachother they can do it in public in the limits of decency, and not so thst every1 can see what they r doing....

Concequently there is a large single male population over there AND a large number of them are Gay, a very large number in fact. Are you going to tell me that those people wouldn't be gay if there were an equal number of men and women?


Consistently bringing up China...

The Chinese psychiatric profession did not depathologize/decriminalize homosexuality until the early 1990's and I find it a bit hard to believe they have a disparately enormous gay population. While China may have a disproportianately large single male population it would follow there is also a disproportionate large population of homosexual men, excluding any environmental/sociological factor brought about the skewing towards a greater population of males. I'd be intersted in seeing the occurrence of male homsexulaity as well as lesbianism on a per 1000 basis.

Secondly, China is a mix of large modern cities and farming towns. Homosexuals tend to gravitate towards the cities. Given what is presumably the conservative culture of rural China, the unlikelihood of people who may be homosexual living in rural China to 'fess up to being gay including the difficulty in obtaining accurate census data in far flung rural areas would seem to disqualify the case of China as a useful petri dish in this case... unless you are doing biased *cough* research. :/

No, it really isn't at all - since the idea of gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with your church. Your church doesn't have to let gay people in, it doesn't have to marry them, it doesn't have to recognize their marriage. The *government*, which is separate from your church, does.

I was stating the churches view on Gay marriage. Its accurate and you cant pull it down by shouting about the church and state being seperated. What I said is how the church often views Gay marriage. You cant change that.

I go with the abolitionists. But if you have actually read the Old Testament, you know it states quite clearly that it is ok to own another human being, and even that killing a slave is perfectly fine if he survives for a day, since the slave was just property to begin with. How is quoting exact laws from the Old Testament "illegitimate use"?Because you use it to infer things about the slave trade that everyone is familiar with involving whips and horrible, horrible things. The institution was quite different. And also because you fail to understand the difference between cultural laws specific to the time for Israel, and moral laws that still apply. Like ones against homosexuality.

Wow, you are awfully sure of your own infallibility. I could use the Bible to show that homosexuality is ok, but always with the caveat that I might be wrong. If you cannot admit that you might be wrong, you have no faith in your own conclusions.If you want me to qualify everything I say, I think I can do that. Normally I just assume people understand that it's one person's opinion. I know it's my opinion...but I'm right! ;)

And this has what to do with the order to kill *ALL* men, women, and children? You really think every single man, woman, and child in Canaan was bent on destroying all Israelites? And even if they were, would that excuse genocide?

Even if all Muslims (which they don't) wanted to kill everyone in America, would that justify us nuking every Muslim country? I think not.Again you draw inferences and analogies to present day events that aren't fair. In Biblical times, there was some tough stuff that HAD to be done so that the planet would be ready for Christ. And if that means killing people opposed to the will of God, then that's what it means.

If you believe the Bible is absolutely and literally true, you know that God sometimes changes plans. Sometimes God gets angry and decides to smite people. How can you be truly sure that this wasn't the case?Because, as I said, it's not part of the plan. Jesus has already come to the world 2000 years ago, so why smite someone nowadays? From now until the end of time, we have all we need. That's why we have no more Prophets. We're all set.


Martyr complex, anyone? I never drew any such parallel. I drew a parallel between genocide and genocide - plain and simple. Christianity never even came into the comparison.You said God might have called the Nazis to execute the Jews. That was the parallel exactly.


You're right. You go to the only church in the world in which every single parishioner is a true believer who has researched everything for themselves and examined all viewpoints.I know. I'm pretty lucky. It's interesting you don't believe me, but I'm not kidding, here.

Where exactly? The only passage I know of is largely based off of a probable mistranslation.Pauls' "In Adam all sinned", from the Psalms' "Surely I have been sinful from birth", a passage saying "The thoughts of Man's hearts in only evil all the time", another about how "No one can say Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit."

That's just off the top of my head. It's a very supported teaching, and central to understanding the biggest teaching of Grace. I'll quote some more if you want, but I'm running late. Gotta help some people vote.

What about single sex schools. Are you going to tell me perhaps that the homosexual relationships that start there (Both in male and female schools) would have happened if they were in a multi gendered school. An old friend of mine who is now at an all girls school says she knows of at least three lesbian relationships in that school. Now you can challenge that but I'm sure others know of a simmilar phonomnona.

And anyway, people are missing my point. Since no one can prove that people are "Born Gay" it would be logical to presume that it is in fact enviromental factors that contribute the most to wheter or not someone becomes homosexual.

Dude, you know that marriage confers special benefits. The moment the government got involved it ceased to be a religious institution. You're the damn hypocrite.

Yes, special benefits like increased taxes.

Grow up.

Funny, your wonderful paradise of postmodern media seems to think so. Or else why would the commision for racial equality be so often sticking its nose into the BBC, claiming that programs are offending people, defending their right not to be offended.

*My* what? I have no wonderful paradise of postmodern anything and I think the mainstream media is crap.

The truth is, nobody has a right to not be offended. Human beings should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but only to the extent that said rights do not infringe upon those of another. You can't claim rights that you won't give to other human beings because you "might be offended."

You stating that a homosexual union should not be called marriage because you find homosexuality offensive is exactly like me saying that you should not have the right to call yourself Christian, because I am personally offended by some of your viewpoints.

I was stating the churches view on Gay marriage. Its accurate and you cant pull it down by shouting about the church and state being seperated. What I said is how the church often views Gay marriage. You cant change that.

You said that having the government recognize homosexual unions is like forcing the church to let homosexuals in. This is in no way true.

What about single sex schools. Are you going to tell me perhaps that the homosexual relationships that start there (Both in male and female schools) would have happened if they were in a multi gendered school. An old friend of mine who is now at an all girls school says she knows of at least three lesbian relationships in that school. Now you can challenge that but I'm sure others know of a simmilar phonomnona.

What about co-ed schools? I went to one in a small conservative town and now I'm into adulthood I'm a bit shocked how many of my classmates are gay and lesbian in numbers that well exceed the 10% estimate.

And anyway, people are missing my point. Since no one can prove that people are "Born Gay" it would be logical to presume that it is in fact enviromental factors that contribute the most to wheter or not someone becomes homosexual.

Not sure what your point is, and several times you claimed to have proven people WERE NOT born gay. You are citing ratios between sexes which is an ecological/environmental factor out of any individual's control. Secondly, it has been shown with reliable accuracy, the hyopthalamus of homosexual males has typically female structure and possess a thicker than average corpus collosum. These structures are laid down during embryonic development and to infer "choice" can have such a drastic change on fundamental brain structure borders on metaphysics.

Because you use it to infer things about the slave trade that everyone is familiar with involving whips and horrible, horrible things. The institution was quite different. And also because you fail to understand the difference between cultural laws specific to the time for Israel, and moral laws that still apply. Like ones against homosexuality.

I haven't said anything about whips or horrible treatment, although it was perfectly allowed, as long as the person survived at least a night.

No, I am opposed to slavery in all forms because of what it is. One human being cannot own another human being and call themselves righteous. Period. There is no middle ground here - human beings are not property to be bought and sold. And no all-good God could ever condone such a practice, regardless of how "nicely" they were treated.

If you want me to qualify everything I say, I think I can do that. Normally I just assume people understand that it's one person's opinion. I know it's my opinion...but I'm right! ;)

There you go again. If you admit something is your opinion, you cannot say "I am absolutely right." Otherwise, you are just paying lip service to the opinions of others and not paying attention to other viewpoints. People who do so have little faith.

Again you draw inferences and analogies to present day events that aren't fair. In Biblical times, there was some tough stuff that HAD to be done so that the planet would be ready for Christ. And if that means killing people opposed to the will of God, then that's what it means.

Yes, and I'm sure infants and toddlers are already old enough to be irrevocably opposed to the will of God. Stop trying to rationalize genocide - it is evil, plain and simple, no doubt about it. If you think it is justified, that is fine, but you must admit that your God is evil.

Because, as I said, it's not part of the plan. Jesus has already come to the world 2000 years ago, so why smite someone nowadays? From now until the end of time, we have all we need. That's why we have no more Prophets. We're all set.

And like I said, if you believe the Bible as literal truth, then God changes God's mind sometimes.

You said God might have called the Nazis to execute the Jews. That was the parallel exactly.

The parallel was genocide for genocide. If God really did tell the Israelites to commit genocide, there is no reason to believe God didn't really tell the Nazis to commit genocide. If genocide is not absolutely and objectively wrong, we have no reason to condemn what the Nazis did.

((And you still have not shown any inkling of me equating Nazi with Christian - so your comment that I tried to draw a parallel between them was obviously bogus))

I know. I'm pretty lucky. It's interesting you don't believe me, but I'm not kidding, here.

Wow. You are *extremely* naive. How old are you? 12?

Pauls' "In Adam all sinned",

which was most likely mistranslated. The word for "Adam" in Hebrew was the same for "humankind" and translators had to decide which to use. In some places, it was obvious, but was not obvious in others. The quote on which Paul based this statement was most likely meant to be Adam, but was passed on as mankind.

from the Psalms' "Surely I have been sinful from birth",

has nothing to do with original sin.

a passage saying "The thoughts of Man's hearts in only evil all the time",

sounds like Paul again.

another about how "No one can say Christ is Lord except by the Holy Spirit."

has nothing to do with original sin.

And anyway, people are missing my point. Since no one can prove that people are "Born Gay" it would be logical to presume that it is in fact enviromental factors that contribute the most to wheter or not someone becomes homosexual.

Ha! And this from someone whose beliefs are based entirely on FAITH and not logic or scientific fact. Do not bring science in when you reject perfectly good scientific theories of biology and physics. And if the whole "its just a theory" crap comes up, then you should put some of your research time into what a Scientific Theory actually entails. Mathmatical statistics, sound ideas and having to convice those that publish your paper, and a referee at the top of thier field, that it is a sound hypothesis and can be shown beyond reasonable doubt.

And anyway, people are missing my point. Since no one can prove that people are "Born Gay" it would be logical to presume that it is in fact enviromental factors that contribute the most to wheter or not someone becomes homosexual.

What a silly thing to say. One could just as easily say:

Since no one can prove that there is a God, it would be logical to presume that the experience of God is in fact just misfirings in the brain that make someone think God has spoken to them.

It is just as logical as your statement. Let's be honest here. All valid scientific data points to the fact that sexuality is not a choice. If you think about your own sexuality, you will know that it was not a choice. So stop trying to prove that it is.

Yes, special benefits like increased taxes.

Grow up.

Screw taxes. The rights of marriage that gay peopel want have as little to do with taxes as Hitler had to do with being nice to Jewish people!

Marriage rights include things like joint ownership of property, joint custody of children, inheritance law, and the guarantee to be able to visit your life in the hospital. So don't talk to me about taxes. There are far, far more important things at stake here than money.

And while we are on the subject, marriage DECREASES taxes (at least in the USA, I will admit I cannot speak for other nations). So until you get your facts straight, you don't need to tell anyone to "grow up" because I imagine you are the only preteen here.

its not a sin in itself, according to most constitutions, but to expose it is or should be!

like i might have a 4 years old and go out in a park with him....i dont want him to see two men kissing and have to explain him why. he could be traumatized by that....its not normal that they are allowed to express so much in public. if they want to love eachother they can do it in public in the limits of decency, and not so thst every1 can see what they r doing....


The same could be true of heterosexual public displays of affection. Heck, those nauseate me. Levels of public decency and whether something is right or wrong are two separate issues.

Because in our beloved postmodern society, it seems to be fasionable to not only be diffrent because of who you are already, but to go out of the way to make yourself more diffrent. And that is (for some people, not all) why they think they are becoming homosexual.


Codswallop. IF that were true then in areas like Mississippi, no one woudl be gay. Yet there is a gay population here. And why would there have been gays before the era when to be different was okay? What about the eras when conformity was tantamount? People wouldnt' be gay then.

I am not going to deny that being bisexual is not a "cool, popular" thing in certain groups of female, teeny-bopping tweens, but it is certainly NOT A choice for teh overwhelmingly large majority of gay people in this world.



You must however understand that when I say its a choice, what I mean is that it is not predestined from birth. People are not 'born' gay. They may have genes which have tendencys towards homosexuality, but there are also genes that give tendencies towards all sorts of other sinns. Please dont think I am saying "People decide one day to be gay and that is how it happens, a simple consious choice" obviously there are a number of factors, but to say that homosexual feelings are in anyway a result of something nautral is wrong. They can come about as a result of genetic (although I still doubt this) factors (although these do not make people gay definitely, as I said no one is born gay) but the larger factor is enviromental. Now I think I am right in saying that no one here can prove that people are somehow "Born" gay so it must happen somewhere along the line in life. Wheter or not those enviromental factors affect a person may not be up to them but what I am saying is that it is possible that someone who is gay in one circumstance would not be gay if his/her life were diffrent.

Even if its something that develops in the first six years of life, its still not a choice. Any more than someone who had a genetic disaposition to grow tall if they eat protein chose to be short becaue they ate carbs most of their life. :rolls eyes:

And while we are on the subject, marriage DECREASES taxes (at least in the USA, I will admit I cannot speak for other nations). So until you get your facts straight, you don't need to tell anyone to "grow up" because I imagine you are the only preteen here.

This is not necessarily true. If both members of a couple work, and they are middle class, they will pay a higher percentage of federal taxes if they are married than if they are not. States vary, but are often the same.

Even if its something that develops in the first six years of life, its still not a choice. Any more than someone who had a genetic disaposition to grow tall if they eat protein chose to be short becaue they ate carbs most of their life. :rolls eyes:

Of course it is. And if someone's mommy didn't breast feed them and they didn't build up immunities very fast and they were sick a lot - well, they chose that too.

for one thing i hate homo's. if god ment for guys or girls to make love to the same sex he ould have made us all the same sex. but he didint, guys are supposed to make love to girls to reproduce and whoever does otherwise is just rong in the head,

What a silly thing to say. One could just as easily say:

Since no one can prove that there is a God, it would be logical to presume that the experience of God is in fact just misfirings in the brain that make someone think God has spoken to them.

It is just as logical as your statement. Let's be honest here. All valid scientific data points to the fact that sexuality is not a choice. If you think about your own sexuality, you will know that it was not a choice. So stop trying to prove that it is.

What data, can you give examples? And as for your point, the existance of God, as far as I know would be impossible to prove by scientific methods as that would mean we could somehow analyse him, thus making us more powerful than him. We cant do that as we are not greater than him. Nowhere has anyone said Gods existance can be proved by scientific methods, however homosexuality as a choice can be. And understand what I mean when I say choice. What I mean is that envirometal factors affect it and so if someone is removed from that enviroment then they may not be as likely to become Gay. Read my previous points to see more clearly what I mean

'N' so it's writt'n, lad
its not a sin in itself, according to most constitutions, but to expose it is or should be!
According to the Bible, so's wearing clothes made of several different garments... I remember being heavily traumatized by that when I was four... :D

Quit it, OK?

Teh H0ly 1ntentionz
for one thing i hate homo's. if god ment for guys or girls to make love to the same sex he ould have made us all the same sex. but he didint, guys are supposed to make love to girls to reproduce and whoever does otherwise is just rong in the head,
Ban airplanes. If God meant for us to fly he'd have given us wings. :rolleyes:

Traumas in the park
like i might have a 4 years old and go out in a park with him....i dont want him to see two men kissing and have to explain him why. he could be traumatized by that....its not normal that they are allowed to express so much in public. if they want to love eachother they can do it in public in the limits of decency, and not so thst every1 can see what they r doing....
If you don't tell him that homosexuality is wrong, you won't have to "explain it to him". :rolleyes: Yes, he might ask "what are those two guys doing".. well, just explain it the way you'd explain heterosexuals kissing.

Earlier it wasn't normal to see people with a different skin colour than you. It wasn't normal for Afro-Americans to be able to vote. It wasn't normal to wear bikinis. So let's ban all those things. No democracy in the USA! It wasn't normal 200 years ago before the Revolution! :D

Now, if you don't mind me asking... are you one of those who think it's okay that 7-13 year old kids play action games and watch violent movies? Hint, hint... :rolleyes: No wait.. of course watching someone get shot is less traumatizing than watching... [gasp] FAGZZ!!!!!!!!11111111111111111

Born gay or not?
Totally, utterly irrelevant. It's not their choice either way.

"Ol' Skool"
An old friend of mine who is now at an all girls school says she knows of at least three lesbian relationships in that school. Now you can challenge that but I'm sure others know of a simmilar phonomnona.
Three? Whoa, oh my God?!
...How many people go to the school? 500? 2000? 4000? Do you have any idea of how little three relationships are?! Oh, and I'm sure that there are a lot, lot more than three.

Geez, grow up! You're worse than the idiot who went "there are gays here in Wyoming, too. Like... two or three, maybe". :rolleyes:

Back to the Scriptures
I want to add this:
According to the Bible, heterosexual intercourse is also a sin. "And the Raven Sin let loose Sins upon the world, and the first Sin was intercourse". Read Stephen King's book "Carrie" :p .

What the Bible says is totally irrelevant. You can't force things onto people just because your religions tells you to. I suppose it'd be OK if a Buddhist party won the election and banned the eating of meat? I thought not. :rolleyes:

From now until the end of time, we have all we need.
Get out from under your freaking rock and take a look at how the world is doing. :mad: Your ignorance nauseates me.

OK, quit being such bigots. The Bible's irrelevant here as you're just picking out things that suit your beliefs and then throw the rest away. And even if someone did live 100% by the Bible, they still wouldn't have the right to oppress gays.

Oh, and since we all know you're just using the Bible as an excuse, let's move on, shall we?

Not sure what your point is, and several times you claimed to have proven people WERE NOT born gay. You are citing ratios between sexes which is an ecological/environmental factor out of any individual's control. Secondly, it has been shown with reliable accuracy, the hyopthalamus of homosexual males has typically female structure and possess a thicker than average corpus collosum. These structures are laid down during embryonic development and to infer "choice" can have such a drastic change on fundamental brain structure borders on metaphysics.

ALL homosexual males have this brain condition? I would like to see the data on that. And even if it is true, there are biological predispositons towards other sins to, but it doesnt mean those people are born forever to commit that sin. God ensures that we are not tempted beyond our means. It is possible not to be homosexual, granted lots of people are not willing to try, but it is possible

What data, can you give examples? And as for your point, the existance of God, as far as I know would be impossible to prove by scientific methods as that would mean we could somehow analyse him, thus making us more powerful than him. We cant do that as we are not greater than him. Nowhere has anyone said Gods existance can be proved by scientific methods, however homosexuality as a choice can be. And understand what I mean when I say choice. What I mean is that envirometal factors affect it and so if someone is removed from that enviroment then they may not be as likely to become Gay. Read my previous points to see more clearly what I mean

I can, and have given many examples. Do a Pubmed search.

As for proving that homosexuality is not a choice, only by your screwed up definition of choice can it be called such. Homosexuality most likely comes from a combination of genetic factors, hormone balances in the womb, and early childhood experiences. But none of these things equate to choice, which involves a conscious decision.

Unless, of course, choice does not equal choice.

It is possible not to be homosexual, granted lots of people are not willing to try, but it is possible

If you are homosexual, it is not possible to stop being homosexual. You can refuse to act upon any sexual urges and live a loveless life of celibacy, but you cannot simply stop being homosexual.

Oh, and since we all know you're just using the Bible as an excuse, let's move on, shall we?

I'm a Christian, not a homophobe. I am not afraid of Gays and I dont hate them. I am not using the Bible as an excuse becuae I dont hate gays. So I have to ask you, what am I using it as an excuse for.


Three? Whoa, oh my God?!
...How many people go to the school? 500? 2000? 4000? Do you have any idea of how little three relationships are?! Oh, and I'm sure that there are a lot, lot more than three.

Geez, grow up! You're worse than the idiot who went "there are gays here in Wyoming, too. Like... two or three, maybe".


The schools population is about 800 if you must know but my point was, would those people have become lesbians if they had gone to a mixed gender school?

'N' so it's writt'n, lad

According to the Bible, so's wearing clothes made of several different garments... I remember being heavily traumatized by that when I was four... :D

Quit it, OK?

Traumas in the park

If you don't tell him that homosexuality is wrong, you won't have to "explain it to him". :rolleyes: Yes, he might ask "what are those two guys doing".. well, just explain it the way you'd explain heterosexuals kissing.

Earlier it wasn't normal to see people with a different skin colour than you. It wasn't normal for Afro-Americans to be able to vote. It wasn't normal to wear bikinis. So let's ban all those things. No democracy in the USA! It wasn't normal 200 years ago before the Revolution! :D

Now, if you don't mind me asking... are you one of those who think it's okay that 7-13 year old kids play action games and watch violent movies? Hint, hint... :rolleyes: No wait.. of course watching someone get shot is less traumatizing than watching... [gasp] FAGZZ!!!!!!!!11111111111111111

Born gay or not?
Totally, utterly irrelevant. It's not their choice either way.

"Ol' Skool"

Three? Whoa, oh my God?!
...How many people go to the school? 500? 2000? 4000? Do you have any idea of how little three relationships are?! Oh, and I'm sure that there are a lot, lot more than three.

Geez, grow up! You're worse than the idiot who went "there are gays here in Wyoming, too. Like... two or three, maybe". :rolleyes:

Back to the Scriptures
I want to add this:
According to the Bible, heterosexual intercourse is also a sin. "And the Raven Sin let loose Sins upon the world, and the first Sin was intercourse". Read Stephen King's book "Carrie" :p .

What the Bible says is totally irrelevant. You can't force things onto people just because your religions tells you to. I suppose it'd be OK if a Buddhist party won the election and banned the eating of meat? I thought not. :rolleyes:


Get out from under your freaking rock and take a look at how the world is doing. :mad: Your ignorance nauseates me.

OK, quit being such bigots. The Bible's irrelevant here as you're just picking out things that suit your beliefs and then throw the rest away. And even if someone did live 100% by the Bible, they still wouldn't have the right to oppress gays.

Oh, and since we all know you're just using the Bible as an excuse, let's move on, shall we?

Great points that will undoubtedly fall on ears that will supply the same answers as ever. Their blind faith is also deaf.

I'm a Christian, not a homophobe. I am not afraid of Gays and I dont hate them. I am not using the Bible as an excuse becuae I dont hate gays. So I have to ask you, what am I using it as an excuse for.
I should have realized that the format of my post made it look like I was addressing you personally.

I was not. So sorry. The paragraph you quote was a general message meant for people who use Christianity as an excuse to hate gays.

If you are homosexual, it is not possible to stop being homosexual. You can refuse to act upon any sexual urges and live a loveless life of celibacy, but you cannot simply stop being homosexual.
I used to be gay but then fell in love with a girl. So yes, it's possible. Probably not voluntarily, but yes, it's possible.

The schools population is about 800 if you must know but my point was, would those people have become lesbians if they had gone to a mixed gender school?
Impossible to say.

This friend of mine who goes to a "unisex" ;) school was in deep, deep, deep love with this guy. And I mean deep love. But then she suddenly fell deeply in love with this girl (and I mean deeply).

*If* God made everything, then where did gay people even come from?

I mean, if God made everything, and being gay is wrong, why did he create it?

I used to be gay but then fell in love with a girl. So yes, it's possible. Probably not voluntarily, but yes, it's possible.

i find it really odd that people seem to think they must be gay OR straight; you are attracted to men but also fell in love with a woman, so you conclude you must be straight, when the logical conclusion would be that you are simply bisexual. you didn't stop being gay, you simply were bisexual all along and hadn't met a woman who fit with you in the way you were looking for.

i honestly will never understand straight people and gay people; how could you possible ignore half of the attractive people in the world? how can you pass up chances for love based on genitals?

I can, and have given many examples. Do a Pubmed search.


What is that?


As for proving that homosexuality is not a choice, only by your screwed up definition of choice can it be called such. Homosexuality most likely comes from a combination of genetic factors, hormone balances in the womb, and early childhood experiences. But none of these things equate to choice, which involves a conscious decision.

Unless, of course, choice does not equal choice.

Ok this is what I believe regarding people being homosexual

1) There is no such thing as being "born gay". People can be more likely to be gay as a result of some genetic factors and hormonal imbalances but in no way does it MAKE you certian to be gay.

2) The main factor that decides whether someone is gay or not is ENVIROMENTAL factors, not genetic ones. As far as I have seen the proof that homosexuality is genetic is flawed on the basis of the following problems

A) The rediculous ammount of health risks accioated with it, nothing that you are BORN to be is that damaging to health.

B) The idea of a geneitc condition which could then stop said condition from ever being passed on is stupid. It would have died out by now if it started off at the beginging of human history. You can say its "complex" and that "molecular genetics" allow for it, but frankly its just stupid. And to those who say that homosexuality is a mutation designed to deal with an overcrowded planet, how would genes know if the planet is overcrowded?

*If* God made everything, then where did gay people even come from?

I mean, if God made everything, and being gay is wrong, why did he create it?

There is a simple answer to this. Are you also saying God created nuclear weapons, anthrax, guns, traffic jams. "No" I hear you say "These are man made". So is homosexulity, as a result of sin man caused it to happen.

i find it really odd that people seem to think they must be gay OR straight; you are attracted to men but also fell in love with a woman, so you conclude you must be straight, when the logical conclusion would be that you are simply bisexual. you didn't stop being gay, you simply were bisexual all along and hadn't met a woman who fit with you in the way you were looking for.
Nope. Remember that sexual preferences are more than love. It's about affection for cuteness and such as well. When I was gay, I was not attracted to girls at all. Now I'm not attracted to boys. I don't go down the street thinking "wow, cute guy!", I go down the street thinking "wow, cute girl!". Hastily explained, but you get the point. ;)

And I don't believe you have to be either gay or straight. I fully believe in bisexuality. Geez, I don't even think it's right to say "I believe in it" when it's right there in front of me. It feels like saying "hey, I think it's raining" in the middle of a rainstorm :p .

1) There is no such thing as being "born gay".
Just like there's no such thing as being born heterosexual. All new-borns are asexual, and only develop sexual feelings later on.

If you mean that it's impossible that you're born with a pre-determined coding saying who you're going to love, boy or girl, then that's entirely different. I don't know the answer to that, so I won't pretend I do. And I believe it doesn't matter what the answer is, so I will not guess.

2) The main factor that decides whether someone is gay or not is ENVIROMENTAL factors, not genetic ones. As far as I have seen the proof that homosexuality is genetic is flawed on the basis of the following problems
Well, mostly it's flawed because for something to be genetical, there has to be a gene for it (that's "gene" and not "gen" in English, right?), which there isn't. Human DNA is fully mapped, according to this science magazine I read (Scandinavian Illustrert Vitenskap/Science Illustrated) but no "Gay Gene" has been found.

nothing that you are BORN to be is that damaging to health.
I so wish that was true. But sadly it happens that babies are born damaged. Take babies born with... say... cancer? Hazardous to your health? You bet! Something some babies are born with? Sadly, yes. :( Genetical? I don't know about cancer being genetical, but a lot of diseases and other mean stuff is.

Also, there are Siamese twins born sharing, say, a heart. Unless they're operated before birth, both will die.

Oh, and...
http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/9902/baby.jpg
You be the judge :( . That cancer case doesn't look too healthy to me..

i find it really odd that people seem to think they must be gay OR straight; you are attracted to men but also fell in love with a woman, so you conclude you must be straight, when the logical conclusion would be that you are simply bisexual. you didn't stop being gay, you simply were bisexual all along and hadn't met a woman who fit with you in the way you were looking for.

i honestly will never understand straight people and gay people; how could you possible ignore half of the attractive people in the world? how can you pass up chances for love based on genitals?
Oh thats one of the most gorgeous posts I've seen in awhile. Cudo's to that!

A) The rediculous ammount of health risks accioated with it, nothing that you are BORN to be is that damaging to health.

And what are these health risks?

What the Bible says is totally irrelevant. You can't force things onto people just because your religions tells you to. I suppose it'd be OK if a Buddhist party won the election and banned the eating of meat? I thought not. :rolleyes:

OK, quit being such bigots. The Bible's irrelevant here as you're just picking out things that suit your beliefs and then throw the rest away. And even if someone did live 100% by the Bible, they still wouldn't have the right to oppress gays.

Oh, and since we all know you're just using the Bible as an excuse, let's move on, shall we?

For the *insert large number here* time we are discussing why it is that Christians see homosexuality as a sin. We are not here to insult the Christian viewpoint and say "Argh Christians are all homphobes".

And what are these health risks?

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!

Seriously I am getting fed up of explaing the same thing to diffrent people, to all the newbs to this thread, go back and read it before you ask anything. I think its fair to say I have been on here the longest and I'm getting fed up of upstart newbs asking questions which have been delt with a long time back.

Fnoridish Infamy, you only have 14 posts in total, never mind on this thread, so come back when you have read it through. And dont give me this "I cant be bothered" nonsense. If you rearly want an answer then you will be willing to find it.

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!

Seriously I am getting fed up of explaing the same thing to diffrent people, to all the newbs to this thread, go back and read it before you ask anything. I think its fair to say I have been on here the longest and I'm getting fed up of upstart newbs asking questions which have been delt with a long time back.
Even when your shitty excuses for answers are disproven. Maybe I'll run around yelling the world is flat.

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!

Seriously I am getting fed up of explaing the same thing to diffrent people, to all the newbs to this thread, go back and read it before you ask anything. I think its fair to say I have been on here the longest and I'm getting fed up of upstart newbs asking questions which have been delt with a long time back.

Fnoridish Infamy, you only have 14 posts in total, never mind on this thread, so come back when you have read it through. And dont give me this "I cant be bothered" nonsense. If you rearly want an answer then you will be willing to find it.

Go back and read over 100 pages of bickering? Sorry, but no.

If you're going to talk about health risks, be specific. If you don't care to back up your point, then what are you doing here? I'm sure it can't take you more than a minute to repeat one thing. I know I've had to shoot down the same arguments from homophobes over and over and over; it doesn't take very long.

And what does my post number have to do with anything?

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!

Seriously I am getting fed up of explaing the same thing to diffrent people, to all the newbs to this thread, go back and read it before you ask anything. I think its fair to say I have been on here the longest and I'm getting fed up of upstart newbs asking questions which have been delt with a long time back.

Fnoridish Infamy, you only have 14 posts in total, never mind on this thread, so come back when you have read it through. And dont give me this "I cant be bothered" nonsense. If you rearly want an answer then you will be willing to find it.

Wow... that seems childish. Want to limit anyone else's opinion just because it annoys you / you think post numbers are equal to general intelligence?

What data, can you give examples? And as for your point, the existance of God, as far as I know would be impossible to prove by scientific methods as that would mean we could somehow analyse him, thus making us more powerful than him. We cant do that as we are not greater than him. Nowhere has anyone said Gods existance can be proved by scientific methods, however homosexuality as a choice can be. And understand what I mean when I say choice. What I mean is that envirometal factors affect it and so if someone is removed from that enviroment then they may not be as likely to become Gay. Read my previous points to see more clearly what I mean

You're talking about of both sides of your ass. It's a choice but the environment causes it? Choices are internal. They are not caused by the environment.

And what sources? Here's a summary from the APA. While I will agree this is not a journal article, or direct proof of research, it is a stance that is taken by a group of well-respected scientists as a result of the research that is available.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!

Seriously I am getting fed up of explaing the same thing to diffrent people, to all the newbs to this thread, go back and read it before you ask anything. I think its fair to say I have been on here the longest and I'm getting fed up of upstart newbs asking questions which have been delt with a long time back.

Fnoridish Infamy, you only have 14 posts in total, never mind on this thread, so come back when you have read it through. And dont give me this "I cant be bothered" nonsense. If you rearly want an answer then you will be willing to find it.

Actually, all your "health risks" were disproven. So "what health risks" is a good question.

For the *insert large number here* time we are discussing why it is that Christians see homosexuality as a sin. We are not here to insult the Christian viewpoint and say "Argh Christians are all homphobes".
No, we're discussing the Christian view on homosexuality.

"Insulting the Christian viewpoint"? "Argh Christians are all homphobes"? I never did any of those things. You make it sound like all Christians hate gays. Well, for your info, most don't. As for "insulting their view point".. OK, I'll explain.

People like Reverend Phelps would hate gays no matter what the Bible said. They quote scriptures just because it makes their message sound more powerful, while at the same time ignoring other parts.

Insulting the view points of homophobes? You're damn right I am. Insulting christianity in general? Nope, not me. Not unless you believe that all Christianity is about is homophobia.

Are you saying that you don't pick what to believe and what not to believe when it comes to religion? In that case, you're a special person as, as far as I know, everyone has a different view on religion. I pointed out that the fact that everyone has a "pick-and-discard" view on everything from what food to like to politics to religion, you can't use your tastes and beliefs alone as arguments. You have to back them up. I didn't say it was wrong to have a unique belief.

GO BACK AND READ THE THREAD!
All 116 pages :rolleyes: ?

The original question was answered on the first pages anyways:

1. Because the Bible says so.
2. Because they need an excuse to hate gays.

If that was all you wanted out of this thread, we should just lock it right now as the thesis has been answered 100 times already.

And what are these health risks?
A very, very good question...

And what does my post number have to do with anything?
Nothing. I have 2000 posts logged at another debate forum. :rolleyes: Oh, and not to flame you, but if you want to convince people you're not a "forum newbie", don't double-post. There's a thing called "Edit post" ;) ..