NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, does anyone else get sick and tired of that arguement/statement?

I find it unoriginal, and so overdone.

Your views?

Never heard that before.

Never heard that before.

Really? Hmm. Must be because you are in Canada.

Probably

Friend was handing out dozens of copies of a picture of someone holding a sign saying that. I got one just because it was funny and stuck it on my binder's clear pocket. People like it. I got sick of it after a month and threw it out. But people liked it...

Nothing against gays/lesbians. Just that I gotta do what I gotta do to make people laugh. Hey, if they want a gay joke, they get one.

I'm Canadian and I've heard it.

I think it's funny, and true.

My reply is simple: Point out where, in the Bible, Adam had a choice. If Eve and Steve were both there and Adam chose Eve primarily, then maybe they've have a point.

Okay, does anyone else get sick and tired of that arguement/statement?

I find it unoriginal, and so overdone.

Your views?

I wasn't aware it was an actual valid arguement rather an idiotic statement.

I wasn't aware it was an actual valid arguement rather an idiotic statement.

It is an arguement. Believe me. I was forced to go to an anti-gay rally by my parents once. They actually used the arguement.

It's been done to death, like many other witty things. It stops being funny around the four billionth time you hear it.

It is an arguement. Believe me. I was forced to go to an anti-gay rally by my parents once. They actually used the arguement.

Did you drop your parents on their head when you were a baby? :D

My reply is simple: Point out where, in the Bible, Adam had a choice. If Eve and Steve were both there and Adam chose Eve primarily, then maybe they've have a point.

Maybe they'd have a point if the Old Testament was the basis of law or of all religions. As its not, freedom of religion dictates that the Christian point of view on homosexuality (or marriage) has no bearing on what non-Christians do.

Did you drop your parents on their head when you were a baby? :D

Huh? Um... I don't know. What's that got to do with anything? My parents are ministers. I'm not a anti-gay person. I'm bi for goodness sakes.

Maybe they'd have a point if the Old Testament was the basis of law or of all religions. As its not, freedom of religion dictates that the Christian point of view on homosexuality (or marriage) has no bearing on what non-Christians do.
Not so fast. If they don't get what they want they'll stop eating Kraft Dinner. :(

Not so fast. If they don't get what they want they'll stop eating Kraft Dinner. :(

If the Christian boycott couldn't take down Disney, they won't take down Kraft.

Maybe they'd have a point if the Old Testament was the basis of law or of all religions. As its not, freedom of religion dictates that the Christian point of view on homosexuality (or marriage) has no bearing on what non-Christians do.

Are you implying that there are no queerballs that claim to be Christians?

Huh? Um... I don't know. What's that got to do with anything? My parents are ministers. I'm not a anti-gay person. I'm bi for goodness sakes.

Did you drop your parents on their head when you were a baby?
Read what he said closer.

If the Christian boycott couldn't take down Disney, they won't take down Kraft.

I went shopping today and I bought as much Kraft stuff as I could stomach. :)

Are you implying that there are no queerballs that claim to be Christians?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that if a group wants to get together and base their religious practices on hating gays and doesn't want to let gays into their churches/temples/mosques, that is their business. However, it stops at the doors of their organizations and should have nothing to do with how others wish to practice their religion and should certainly have nothing to do with decisions that our secular government makes about the secular matters such as hate crime laws and marriage equality.

I went shopping today and I bought as much Kraft stuff as I could stomach. :)

I've evidently missed some piece of news, what is going on with Kraft?

Read what he said closer.

OH! No, I didn't. This was just my mom anyway. My dad could care less about gays.

Are you implying that there are no queerballs that claim to be Christians?

Filthy disease infested fags are into that shit right? Sick ass sheep ass loving perverts.
Simonov, Official Warning for flamebait. Do it again and your posting privileges will be revoked.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

He didn't have to choose Eve, he could have chose not to choose anything.

No, he couldn't have. Didn't you bother to pay attention when you read the Bible? Stop and think about what happened when they were kicked out of the Garden.

He choose Eve because that is what normal people do.

Normal people by who's standards?

If "Steve" was there, Adam and "Steve" would have got into a fight for her, something else normal people do.

Wow. That doesn't even match up with the average definition of "normal." The average definition of normal has them competing and trying to make the other look lesser to get the girl to choose. No actual fighting involved. Same thing happens when it comes to guys.

Using your logic, why weren't the animals chosen by Adam? Filthy disease infested fags are into that shit right? Sick ass sheep ass loving perverts.

According to some versions, Eve was created because Adam tired of animals. Just something to think about.

I've evidently missed some piece of news, what is going on with Kraft?

They're sponsoring some 'Gay Games' thing.

I've evidently missed some piece of news, what is going on with Kraft?
Some euphemistically named "family values" groups are boycotting Kraft Foods for sponsoring the Gay Games or some damn thing.

Huh? Um... I don't know. What's that got to do with anything? My parents are ministers. I'm not a anti-gay person. I'm bi for goodness sakes.

If you read the post again, he is referring to you dropping your parents when you - the insult was directed at your parents, not you.

As for Adam and Steve argument - its pathetic to say the least; if anyone has a problem with my boyfriend and I getting on the good foot to do the bad thing, the suggested thing would be to stop looking through our windows or the keyhole on the door.

Some euphemistically named "family values" groups are boycotting Kraft Foods for sponsoring the Gay Games or some damn thing.

Thanks to you and Cafetopia for the info. I will now have to buy some mac'n'cheese.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/kraftattackedforbackinggaygames
Link to news article about Kraft and Gay Games.

As for Adam and Steve argument - its pathetic to say the least; if anyone has a problem with my boyfriend and I getting on the good foot to do the bad thing, the suggested thing would be to stop looking through our windows or the keyhole on the door.

It's as if they're completely ignorant of the last 2000 years of history and actually think that gay people haven't been beaten on the head with the Bible ever before.

Trust me people, if the church did it hundereds of years ago, it's not witty, fresh or inventive. Saying that just makes you look like an unimaginative kook who thinks the Bible is still relevant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/kraftattackedforbackinggaygames
Link to news article about Kraft and Gay Games.


Ugh. It's the A.F.A. again. I'm ashamed to admit its based here in Mississippi and has got to be one of the most homophoic (and self-deluded--they think they actually hold as much power as one of Falwell's or Robertson's groups) organizations in the country.

It's as if they're completely ignorant of the last 2000 years of history and actually think that gay people haven't been beaten on the head with the Bible ever before.

Trust me people, if the church did it hundereds of years ago, it's not witty, fresh or inventive. Saying that just makes you look like an unimaginative kook who thinks the Bible is still relevant.

Did you know that the Catholic Church (and perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church, I am a little less sure on that) once sanctioned gay marriage--indeed Sts. Serge and Bacchus were gay lovers.

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

This is a very interesting point. If God didn't make Steve, who did? Is there another source of creation in the universe? Perhaps Steve has always existed? Is Steve God's buddy? Are they "good" buddies? Why don't we hear more about Steve in scripture? Are there issues between God and Steve? Pondering the origins of Steve has the potential to turn our understanding of creation upside down.

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

This is a very interesting point. If God didn't make Steve, who did? Is there another source of creation in the universe? Perhaps Steve has always existed? Is Steve God's buddy? Are they "good" buddies? Why don't we hear more about Steve in scripture? Are there issues between God and Steve? Pondering the origins of Steve has the potential to turn our understanding of creation upside down.
LOL

Did you know that the Catholic Church (and perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church, I am a little less sure on that) once sanctioned gay marriage--indeed Sts. Serge and Bacchus were gay lovers.

I'm aware of that. During its early history, the church was actually anti-marriage all together. There are letters between their head ponchos (or is it "honchos"?) debating wether it was a good thing or not, with a lot of them seeing complete celibacy, even for regular people, as the best thing. Took them some time to come around.

Alas, that was a long time ago. We all know what happened. :\

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

This is a very interesting point. If God didn't make Steve, who did? Is there another source of creation in the universe? Perhaps Steve has always existed? Is Steve God's buddy? Are they "good" buddies? Why don't we hear more about Steve in scripture? Are there issues between God and Steve? Pondering the origins of Steve has the potential to turn our understanding of creation upside down.

Have I mentioned before that I like you?

It's as if they're completely ignorant of the last 2000 years of history and actually think that gay people haven't been beaten on the head with the Bible ever before.

Trust me people, if the church did it hundereds of years ago, it's not witty, fresh or inventive. Saying that just makes you look like an unimaginative kook who thinks the Bible is still relevant.

Fortunately, no one on this thread (and I hope no one anywhere, but I know those hopes will be dashed tomorrow at my self-deluded church which I only attend because I love my friends there and I love and respect the pastor) actually uses the phrase seriously. While the Bible is still relevant for certain situations and things, the phrase "God made...and Steve" is an attempt by people like the A.F.A. to create a funny catchphrase that rhymes and presents their viewpopint, so people wil remember it easily and get it stuck in their heads, and some idiots will use it as a reminder that the human race was created as two sexes SO THAT IT COULD PROCREATE. I personally think the phrase at top of this thread is one of the worst things Christians (I don't consider them to be true Christians, but sadly public opinion groups them with us followers of Christ's teachings) have ever thought up.

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

This is a very interesting point. If God didn't make Steve, who did? Is there another source of creation in the universe? Perhaps Steve has always existed? Is Steve God's buddy? Are they "good" buddies? Why don't we hear more about Steve in scripture? Are there issues between God and Steve? Pondering the origins of Steve has the potential to turn our understanding of creation upside down.

LOL. Mayhaps they want to keep the affair quiet? *Shrugs*

Anyways, I think it's a copout for people who want to argue against homo/bisexuality. They haven't bothered to read the Bible and form their own arguements based on that and other doctrines of their faith, but take the easy way out.

Mind you, I'm all for Adam and Steve, Adam and Eve, or any combination of them. I really dun care what someone's preference is. If it makes you happy (and is legal (referring to drugs,etc)), then why should someone judge?

Actually you all wrong.
In the beginning it was not Adam and Eve. It was just Adam all by himself.

And actually the early church promoted marriage as a way to keep men out of sin.

I'm aware of that. During its early history, the church was actually anti-marriage all together. There are letters between their head ponchos (or is it "honchos"?) debating wether it was a good thing or not, with a lot of them seeing complete celibacy, even for regular people, as the best thing. Took them some time to come around.

Alas, that was a long time ago. We all know what happened. :\

Yes, because as those of us unfortunate enough to have been drilled in every aspect of the Bible not only by church but by an abomination of a school (a Christian Preparatory School? In what way does today's American Christian education prepare you for anything about the real world??) know that Paul wrote at least once in his letters in the NT that he only endorsed marriage as a way to keep two peple from fornicating with each other out of lust, and Christ Himself said plainly, there is no marriage in Heaven.

And actually the early church promoted marriage as a way to keep men out of sin.

Exactly my point. I could also bring up the fact that the Holy Mother only started being fervently worshipped as a result of I think Augustine, who urged young men to look to her as their own mother, who could give them strength when tempted to frolic with the tempting young women, as he himself had done and regretted doing.

Even if it wasn't overused, there is no substance to the quote.
I have yet to hear a decent, logical, secular argument to ban others from having gay sex/marriage.

All I get are:
"it's not moral"
"it's not natural"
HIV/STDs
"they will "corrupt" their children"

and other such drivel. Is straight sex any less risky? Are straight parents always good, moralistic, parents?

And who says gays are immoral? I have a gay friend who will drive the speed limit even if it means going 15 mph slower than every other car on the road...
Im straight and I leave them all behind ME.

If you read the post again, he is referring to you dropping your parents when you - the insult was directed at your parents, not you.

Yes, and I corrected it in a later reply, if you look for it.

And who says gays are immoral? I have a gay friend who will drive the speed limit even if it means going 15 mph slower than every other car on the road...
Im straight and I leave them all behind ME.

Well, I'm gay and they all eat my fucking dust! :D

Even if it wasn't overused, there is no substance to the quote.
I have yet to hear a decent, logical, secular argument to ban others from having gay sex/marriage.

All I get are:
"it's not moral"
"it's not natural"
HIV/STDs
"they will "corrupt" their children"

and other such drivel. Is straight sex any less risky? Are straight parents always good, moralistic, parents?

And who says gays are immoral? I have a gay friend who will drive the speed limit even if it means going 15 mph slower than every other car on the road...
Im straight and I leave them all behind ME.

I'm not for banning due to all state sanctioned marriage being a violation of the seperation of church and state.
But if a person is living in a way that contrary to the beliefs of my church, there is nothing that says he has a right to be a member of or to step inside, my church.

Mm.. well, I personally see their point, but I do wish that 1)they'd stop coming up with such lame catch phrases, 2)quit being so radical about their stance/belief, 3)demonstrate a better sense of tolerance, even in their evangelism.

I disagree with homosexual/bisexual behavior, but I certainly wouldn't go about to Methodist churches or Gay Parades sporting signs that say "God Hates Fags!" (which more or less really scream "I'm afraid of your lifestyle and will use God as a scapegoat to express my hatred of you!"). Certainly unChristian of them, I think... at least very foolish in an attempt to show love for others.

I think that maybe I should go to one of those Flamebaiting Groups with a sign that says "God appreciates your ferver, but thinks you're stupid."

I'm not for banning due to all state sanctioned marriage being a violation of the seperation of church and state.
But if a person is living in a way that contrary to the beliefs of my church, there is nothing that says he has a right to be a member of or to step inside, my church.

And no gay person has ever asked the federal government--or any government--to try to force a religious organization to grant them membership. They might ask the organization itself, they might poll it, they might write letters, but they will never get any law passed forcing a religious group to accept them--nor should they.

What I want to know, is why religious people think they should have laws passed forcing the rest of us to live OUR secular lives the way they live their religious ones.

I think that maybe I should go to one of those Flamebaiting Groups with a sign that says "God appreciates your ferver, but thinks you're stupid."

Kind of reminds me of the bumper stickers that say "Jesus Love You--Everyone Else Thinks You're An Asshole!" Off topic yes, but amusing nontheless.

[/tangent]

And no gay person has ever asked the federal government--or any government--to try to force a religious organization to grant them membership. They might ask the organization itself, they might poll it, they might write letters, but they will never get any law passed forcing a religious group to accept them--nor should they.

What I want to know, is why religious people think they should have laws passed forcing the rest of us to live OUR secular lives the way they live their religious ones.
1. That is the way it should stay. It should be up to organizations if they want to accept them.

2. because most religious people are either ignorant or brainwashed, not trully understanding what Christianity really is or what the foundation of our nation is.

What I want to know, is why religious people think they should have laws passed forcing the rest of us to live OUR secular lives the way they live their religious ones.

They don't think for themselves. They don't reason and look around (and in the Bible) and say, gee, God loves people, and homosexuals are people, too, so maybe we shouldn't harass them and tell them what's right and wrong. They can't handle people doing things they aren't allowed to do, or things they are personally opposed to/horrified by, so they try to spread their hatred through the government or the media, when they're the only ones who feel that way.

I'm not for banning due to all state sanctioned marriage being a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Could you elaborate that please, I am not sure understand your point.


But if a person is living in a way that contrary to the beliefs of my church, there is nothing that says he has a right to be a member of or to step inside, my church.

Nobody I have seen so far in this threat have stated that :) and I don't believe that that will ever present a problem - if that is a point of view shared by the congregation, I believe that gay christians would keep away. If on the other hand that is not a shared belief in the congregation, then in my mind you are in the wrong. But I do not know your congregation and with humanities tendency to stick together with people that share their base beliefs I instinctly feel that your last statement are shared by the whole flock.

Actually it was Eve and Bea, Adam was created looooooong after them.

And no gay person has ever asked the federal government--or any government--to try to force a religious organization to grant them membership. They might ask the organization itself, they might poll it, they might write letters, but they will never get any law passed forcing a religious group to accept them--nor should they.

What I want to know, is why religious people think they should have laws passed forcing the rest of us to live OUR secular lives the way they live their religious ones.

Hmm.. I'll attempt at answering your question, but note that these aren't necessarily my beliefs just because I'm spiritually against homosexuality.

I've heard televangelists, forum-evangelists (the annoying guys who lurk on boards until they see someone say something that perhaps seems "sinful"), and others spout the same, methodical answer that this nation was founded on Christian principles, ergo it is a Christian nation. Anything that threatens the foundations must be rejected in order to keep Christian morality alive and kicking. Secularists are deemed as the minority and thus are the "odd ones out" when it comes to civil rights and liberties.

I think that about sums it... correct me if I missed anything.

2. because most religious people are either ignorant or brainwashed.

Thank you for admitting that.

But if a person is living in a way that contrary to the beliefs of my church, there is nothing that says he has a right to be a member of or to step inside, my church.

I understand where you're coming from - religious orginizations should have some rights as to who they accept - I just think that those standards for accepting people into a Church should be based on Church doctorine (the Bible) and not individual preferences or fear. If your Church were to examine things, they would realize that it is written that the wages of one sin is death. Not just homosexuality, not even that you would die a more slow and apinful death, just that any sin is deserving of death. Therefore, any sinful lifestyle, even one not as apparent as homosexualist shoudl be turned away if your premis is to keep all sinners out of your church. Churches should have a rigirous enterence exam:

Are you a habitual liar?

Are you lustful, even in your thoughts?

Do you hate anybody?

Do you desire to have things that arn't yours?

If you answered yes to any of the questions here, you can't come into this Church.

If the premise is just that homosexuality is sin; okay, I can deal with that. If the premise is that homosexuality is worse than other unrepented sin (which is the manner in which almost every church in the U.S. acts); not okay, go read your Bible some more.

[Forgive the typos - it's 1:00 am]

Could you elaborate that please, I am not sure understand your point.



State officials should not be requiring people to have licenses to marry. Nor should state officials be conducting marriage. They should only be done by religious figures or someone else that ain't connected to the state.
Marriage is the spiritual union of the man to the woman. As such it is religious in nature.

That paticular state ment makes me sick.

The creation myth of Genisis says nothing about homosexuals being bad.
It just says that a man and woman were both created.

That's all.

Just because that happens, it doesn't mean,

"OH MY GOD, GAYS ARE BAD!"

Thank you for admitting that.



I understand where you're coming from - religious orginizations should have some rights as to who they accept - I just think that those standards for accepting people into a Church should be based on Church doctorine (the Bible) and not individual preferences or fear. If your Church were to examine things, they would realize that it is written that the wages of one sin is death. Not just homosexuality, not even that you would die a more slow and apinful death, just that any sin is deserving of death. Therefore, any sinful lifestyle, even one not as apparent as homosexualist shoudl be turned away if your premis is to keep all sinners out of your church. Churches should have a rigirous enterence exam:

Are you a habitual liar?

Are you lustful, even in your thoughts?

Do you hate anybody?

Do you desire to have things that arn't yours?

If you answered yes to any of the questions here, you can't come into this Church.

If the premise is just that homosexuality is sin; okay, I can deal with that. If the premise is that homosexuality is worse than other unrepented sin (which is the manner in which almost every church in the U.S. acts); not okay, go read your Bible some more.

[Forgive the typos - it's 1:00 am]

But you see, that's the whole prooblem with churches these days, they are doing just what you said, and not giving a rip about how Christ or the Bible's principles would have them act. They judge and condemn and form a pretty much insular clique. I despise it, and they are a good part of the main reasons I despise organized religion of the Christian persuasion, with the exceptions of organizations that exist to help people, like clothing funds/thrift stores, or monasteries and convents that aid poor and suffering people.

State officials should not be requiring people to have licenses to marry. Nor should state officials be conducting marriage. They should only be done by religious figures or someone else that ain't connected to the state.
Marriage is the spiritual union of the man to the woman. As such it is religious in nature.


thank you for elaborating

Here's something to chew on for those who wish to really evangelise over something that's really worth evangelising over: Jesus spent time with possibly the most sinful kind of people--prostitutes, lepers (who were believed to have committed some sort of sin, and was punished by God with a skin disease), and even the tax collectors ;). He never condemned their actions, and only told Mary Magdelene (prostitute) to "Go and sin no more" after she accepted his help. In fact, Jesus never preached to those who didn't want to hear his messages. The crowds followed him to specific spots to hear his sermons, and the Pharisees asked him questions, expecting answers. Never once did he walk up to a prostitute (or homosexual for that manner) and point, saying "Believe in me, ye sinful heathen! You will burn if you don't! I'll see to it personally! ".

Which makes me wonder if I would really serve a Lord who would do such things... *ponders*. Thankfully though, I serve a Lord who loves all, even if they're in the wrong (and who isn't, if you think about His standards?). :)

State officials should not be requiring people to have licenses to marry. Nor should state officials be conducting marriage. They should only be done by religious figures or someone else that ain't connected to the state.
Marriage is the spiritual union of the man to the woman. As such it is religious in nature.

I disagree.

Marriage started out simply as a legal contract saying two people love each other.
Soon it became some huge religous thing, and it suddenly had a 'saantity.'
It always had, but the fact of the matter remains, that the government SHOULD run marriages if so inclined, but they have no right over who gets married to who - or what.

Which makes me wonder if I would really serve a Lord who would do such things... *ponders*. Thankfully though, I serve a Lord who loves all, even if they're in the wrong (and who isn't, if you think about His standards?). :)

If only all religious people thought like you do :fluffle:

Thank you for admitting that.



I understand where you're coming from - religious orginizations should have some rights as to who they accept - I just think that those standards for accepting people into a Church should be based on Church doctorine (the Bible) and not individual preferences or fear. If your Church were to examine things, they would realize that it is written that the wages of one sin is death. Not just homosexuality, not even that you would die a more slow and apinful death, just that any sin is deserving of death. Therefore, any sinful lifestyle, even one not as apparent as homosexualist shoudl be turned away if your premis is to keep all sinners out of your church. Churches should have a rigirous enterence exam:

Are you a habitual liar?

Are you lustful, even in your thoughts?

Do you hate anybody?

Do you desire to have things that arn't yours?

If you answered yes to any of the questions here, you can't come into this Church.

If the premise is just that homosexuality is sin; okay, I can deal with that. If the premise is that homosexuality is worse than other unrepented sin (which is the manner in which almost every church in the U.S. acts); not okay, go read your Bible some more.

[Forgive the typos - it's 1:00 am]

1. I think you taking that out of context, since you only qouted part of it.

2. It don't matter what the sin is, if you continue in it, with out remorse, and actually embrace as "good", then you don't belong in the church.
To be honest I have been on two church boards where I voted to kick 4 people out.
One for continuing in adultery, another for blaspheming the Bible, another for doing drugs, and one who insisted on teaching racism.
I myself was once threatened with ejection cause I stopped going to church. I saw hypocrisy, pointed it out, stopped going and was threatened with ejection.
Every other church I visited is the same. they preach against adultry but then they go home and do adultry. So though I am very religious, I take all churches with a grain of salt, judging each one according to a list of things they are supposed to exhibit if they really are a true congregation.

And that my dear sir, explains my distrust of even chaplains since chaplains are part of the establishment.

Let us just say that do my not going, I may have lost my Deacon status.

I get pretty tired of it. I like to point out to anyone who says that that acording to one of the apocryphal books of the Bible the first human God created, before Adam and Eve was in fact a hermaphrodite.

Eve was Adam's third wife, after Lilith rejected him, and he rejected the other poor one who never even got a name.

I disagree.
*snip*
but they have no right over who gets married to who - or what.

*blink*

So I can marry my laptop then? *wide eyes* Sure, we have our differences, and I'd hope that it'd clean up its act when it comes to accepting viruses and what not but... we're made for each other! *nuzzles* <aside> Sweet sweet love, now we have a chance in life! We don't need to hide our feelings any longer!

</sleep-deprived joke/sarcasm>

And no gay person has ever asked the federal government--or any government--to try to force a religious organization to grant them membership. They might ask the organization itself, they might poll it, they might write letters, but they will never get any law passed forcing a religious group to accept them--nor should they.

What I want to know, is why religious people think they should have laws passed forcing the rest of us to live OUR secular lives the way they live their religious ones.
I'm not jumping into the overall debate here. But this one deserved counter...

What about the Boy Scouts? They not only sued to be allowed in, when they lost, they sued to have the Boy Scouts banned from public schools.

I disagree.

Marriage started out simply as a legal contract saying two people love each other.
Soon it became some huge religous thing, and it suddenly had a 'saantity.'
It always had, but the fact of the matter remains, that the government SHOULD run marriages if so inclined, but they have no right over who gets married to who - or what.
No. the first state marriages didn't occur until the mid 19th century

*blink*

So I can marry my laptop then? *wide eyes* Sure, we have our differences, and I'd hope that it'd clean up its act when it comes to accepting viruses and what not but... we're made for each other! *nuzzles* <aside> Sweet sweet love, now we have a chance in life! We don't need to hide our feelings any longer!

</sleep-deprived joke/sarcasm>

Yes, if you wanted to. I wouldn't care, and if you both really loved each other, you could.

I could marry Baal, Lord of Destruction, or maybe the Town of Newfawnsworth, or the Salt Mines below Detroit, and you know what?

it should be perfectly legal.

If only all religious people thought like you do :fluffle:

*blush* Thanks for the compliment. I wish that too (saying this in an attempt to not come across as bragging). Sadly, it isn't always so.

I disagree.

Marriage started out simply as a legal contract saying two people love each other.
Soon it became some huge religous thing, and it suddenly had a 'saantity.'
It always had, but the fact of the matter remains, that the government SHOULD run marriages if so inclined, but they have no right over who gets married to who - or what.

Where'd you get this idea? Has the institution of marriage changed at all as far as being the union of two people for familial and/or romantic purposes, since before governments ever existed?? Religions came long before governments, and by the same route, marriage is first a religious institution before it is ever a legal one. Besides, it was a Christian institution long before America was ever found by any European, so that makes it a religious thing more than a legal one.

Yes, if you wanted to. I wouldn't care, and if you both really loved each other, you could.

I could marry Baal, Lord of Destruction, or maybe the Town of Newfawnsworth, or the Salt Mines below Detroit, and you know what?

it should be perfectly legal.

somebody has been watching way too much The Simpsons :p :D

Yes, if you wanted to. I wouldn't care, and if you both really loved each other, you could.

I could marry Baal, Lord of Destruction, or maybe the Town of Newfawnsworth, or the Salt Mines below Detroit, and you know what?

it should be perfectly legal.

Except that the entire population of the Town of Newfawnsworth might feel a little tied down, there being only one of you, but you having many of them.

I get pretty tired of it. I like to point out to anyone who says that that acording to one of the apocryphal books of the Bible the first human God created, before Adam and Eve was in fact a hermaphrodite.

Eve was Adam's third wife, after Lilith rejected him, and he rejected the other poor one who never even got a name.
Before Eve, Adam was the hermaphrodite.

Yes, if you wanted to. I wouldn't care, and if you both really loved each other, you could.

I could marry Baal, Lord of Destruction, or maybe the Town of Newfawnsworth, or the Salt Mines below Detroit, and you know what?

it should be perfectly legal.

Oou? I have the perfect plan! I'll marry the government of the United States, then I'll divorce it, gaining half of its assets in the alimony!

*maniacal laughter followed by devious plotting*

Okay, does anyone else get sick and tired of that arguement/statement?

I find it unoriginal, and so overdone.

Your views?
I find it inaccurate too. It should be "Adam and Evil, not Adam and Eve." :D


Only just kidding! :D

Here's something to chew on for those who wish to really evangelise over something that's really worth evangelising over: Jesus spent time with possibly the most sinful kind of people--prostitutes, lepers (who were believed to have committed some sort of sin, and was punished by God with a skin disease), and even the tax collectors ;). He never condemned their actions, and only told Mary Magdelene (prostitute) to "Go and sin no more" after she accepted his help. In fact, Jesus never preached to those who didn't want to hear his messages. The crowds followed him to specific spots to hear his sermons, and the Pharisees asked him questions, expecting answers. Never once did he walk up to a prostitute (or homosexual for that manner) and point, saying "Believe in me, ye sinful heathen! You will burn if you don't! I'll see to it personally! ".

Which makes me wonder if I would really serve a Lord who would do such things... *ponders*. Thankfully though, I serve a Lord who loves all, even if they're in the wrong (and who isn't, if you think about His standards?). :)
You are what Christ (or who) was referring to when He referred to His church. For anyone who has been raised in a church has certainly heard the phrase "The church is the people, not the buidling." (Here is the church, and here is the steeple. Open up the doors, and see all the people.... ::plays with his hands interlocked as a chapel::) Christ is most proud of your insight, Romanore. Your view of true Christianity is exactly what Christ was trying to get across in the first place, until fundamentalist nut jobs started thinking of things like God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, yuk yuk.

No. the first state marriages didn't occur until the mid 19th century

...ohs...

/is pwned.

Damn. Well I tried...>=I

But regardless, in my mind, the ONLY thing the state and government should have to do with marriage is giving the rights to people;

Other then that, the government has not any reason to be bugging me and my girlfriend with all this, "YOU FAGGOT PEICES OF SHIT! YOU CAN'T GET MARRIED!" because of some stupid book that I have never even read, and never really care to read.

Also, by the way, I myself am a Ithinist and always have been. There were times when I was a Catholic, but it was very soon in my life that I started looking for other roads to follow.

My own messed up form of Wicca, Buddism, Athiesm, Cookiesm (XD), etc. In fact, it's a little bit of everything, and it is, in my brain, the cloest think to perfection. I call it Ithin.

Oou? I have the perfect plan! I'll marry the government of the United States, then I'll divorce it, gaining half of its assets in the alimony!

*maniacal laughter followed by devious plotting*

*joins in*

BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Brilliant! For giving you the inspiration for the idea, I demand a cut of the profits!

Except that the entire population of the Town of Newfawnsworth might feel a little tied down, there being only one of you, but you having many of them.

...Yes, I'd say, but nobody would be tied down because I'm not taking THEM as my hausbands and wives,

The town itself is my wife, not what's in it.

somebody has been watching way too much The Simpsons :p :D

This was on the Simpsons o.0

Before Eve, Adam was the hermaphrodite.

Why call it 'Adam'? You could equally call it 'Lilith'. It would be more accurate to say Adam/Lilith.

The point was, according to that story God's idea of sex and sexuality was obviously not as clear cut as some would have us believe.

Why call it 'Adam'? You could equally call it 'Lilith'. It would be more accurate to say Adam/Lilith.

The point was, according to that story God's idea of sex and sexuality was obviously not as clear cut as some would have us believe.

A flesh eating hermaphadote, too! :D

Why call it 'Adam'? You could equally call it 'Lilith'. It would be more accurate to say Adam/Lilith.

The point was, according to that story God's idea of sex and sexuality was obviously not as clear cut as some would have us believe.
Actually the original idea didn't work so now we have Eve.

...Yes, I'd say, but nobody would be tied down because I'm not taking THEM as my hausbands and wives,

The town itself is my wife, not what's in it.

Oh, of course, excellent point and I'm surprised I didn't understand at once, for my long lost love since I left her is the beautiful city of Asheville, NC, and the surrounding mountains. really the entire Asheville area, including all of Buncombe county. If I could marry that sweet ass, I would be all over that like a fat kid on a Chinese buffet. And no offense to any fat kids out there, I've just always wanted to use that analogy somewhere random.

A flesh eating hermaphadote, too! :D
Adam was a vegetarian. He didn't even eat insects.

This was on the Simpsons o.0


Not the exact same words, but the idea was there. Homer sets up shop as a wedding chappel, and after marrying of all the gays, starts marrying everybody to everything. I believe that Cleetus is married to some piece of livestock and the captain was married to a ships figurehead with the comment "yarrr... hurry afore she changes her mind"

Oh, of course, excellent point and I'm surprised I didn't understand at once, for my long lost love since I left her is the beautiful city of Asheville, NC, and the surrounding mountains. really the entire Asheville area, including all of Buncombe county. If I could marry that sweet ass, I would be all over that like a fat kid on a Chinese buffet. And no offense to any fat kids out there, I've just always wanted to use that analogy somewhere random.

And honestly, you SHOULD be able to.

But the government says you can't.

Stupid fat ass government.

You are what Christ (or who) was referring to when He referred to His church. For anyone who has been raised in a church has certainly heard the phrase "The church is the people, not the buidling." (Here is the church, and here is the steeple. Open up the doors, and see all the people.... ::plays with his hands interlocked as a chapel::) Christ is most proud of your insight, Romanore. Your view of true Christianity is exactly what Christ was trying to get across in the first place, until fundamentalist nut jobs started thinking of things like God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, yuk yuk.

Thanks to you also, and God bless you! Although, I have my faults as well, so I still have some things to clear up before He can say to me "Well done, my good and faithful servant!". Oi.. I still get jitters thinking about that moment.

Anyway, regardless, I do hope that in time, those that are really true to their beliefs in Scripture will approach the matter in a far more loving way. Condescention(sp?--sorry, it's late) to others, and boasting with a "I'm better than you!" attitude is so hypocritical, it's not even funny. Paul even stressed to (paraphrased) "not boast in ourselves, but boast in the love of Christ". Although I will say that there are some who "evangelise" in the ignorant belief that they're doing it in love, truly wanting to help others in their sin. However, this helps no one, and they really need to realize this. I'll end this tangent with this, a quotation of Jesus Himself: "How dare you say to your brother, "Let me take the splinter out of your eye", when all the time there is a plank in your own? Hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

Adam was a vegetarian. He didn't even eat insects.

I know, I was making a comment on Flesh Eatin Zombie's name.

Because it's funny.

The rest was just stupidity, bordem, and the rest.

Not the exact same words, but the idea was there. Homer sets up shop as a wedding chappel, and after marrying of all the gays, starts marrying everybody to everything. I believe that Cleetus is married to some piece of livestock and the captain was married to a ships figurehead with the comment "yarrr... hurry afore she changes her mind"

Ah. Well I never rememeber seeing that.

I wish I had though.

Sounds funny though XD

And honestly, you SHOULD be able to.

But the government says you can't.

Stupid fat ass government.

I hear ya. I vote DCR for prez!!!! sorry to mix threads but I know that DCR would let me marry a city. At least, I hope so...

*joins in*

BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Brilliant! For giving you the inspiration for the idea, I demand a cut of the profits!

Sure! How does 10% sound? That should set you up for oh...say... life? ;)

Thanks to you also, and God bless you! Although, I have my faults as well, so I still have some things to clear up before He can say to me "Well done, my good and faithful servant!". Oi.. I still get jitters thinking about that moment.

Anyway, regardless, I do hope that in time, those that are really true to their beliefs in Scripture will approach the matter in a far more loving way. Condescention(sp?--sorry, it's late) to others, and boasting with a "I'm better than you!" attitude is so hypocritical, it's not even funny. Paul even stressed to (paraphrased) "not boast in ourselves, but boast in the love of Christ". Although I will say that there are some who "evangelise" in the ignorant belief that they're doing it in love, truly wanting to help others in their sin. However, this helps no one, and they really need to realize this. I'll end this tangent with this, a quotation of Jesus Himself: "How dare you say to your brother, "Let me take the splinter out of your eye", when all the time there is a plank in your own? Hypocrite! Take the plank out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

Couldn't have said all of this better myself. I agree wholeheartedly, esp. with my own lack of deserving His affirmation that I am His good and faithful servant. Though I not gonna worry about it, cause if I'm His good and faithful servant, then it will show and they will know me by His fruits. And I endorse your final quote as the clincher to sum up all that I feel about the people who condescend toward gays and all other manners of whom they deem to be "sinners." It makes me mad to see such a blatant disregard for even attempting to follow scriptural directions on how to better your own life and help others, too. Oh, and certainly, till the day you leave this earth, may God bless you, for He already has witha discerning mind and a heart after His own.

I hear ya. I vote DCR for prez!!!! sorry to mix threads but I know that DCR would let me marry a city. At least, I hope so...

That gives me an idea for a photomanipulation...:D

Maybe they'd have a point if the Old Testament was the basis of law or of all religions. As its not, freedom of religion dictates that the Christian point of view on homosexuality (or marriage) has no bearing on what non-Christians do.
You forget that every major religion has tennets against homosexuality. Christianity, Islam, even Buddhism. You can't blame it all on Christians.

Sure! How does 10% sound? That should set you up for oh...say... life? ;)

Yes!

Sounds great!

*takes out Bible*


I PRONOUNCE YOU MAN AND NATION!

You forget that every major religion has tennets against homosexuality. Christianity, Islam, even Buddhism. You can't blame it all on Christians.

Most of what the Bible says against Homosexuality isn't really even acutally against it.
Never once does good say, "I hate Fags!"
People just imply that because he doesn't say he loves them, he hates them.

Most of what the Bible says against Homosexuality isn't really even acutally against it.
Never once does good say, "I hate Fags!"
People just imply that because he doesn't say he loves them, he hates them.
Its called hate the sin but love the sinner.

Most of what the Bible says against Homosexuality isn't really even acutally against it.
Never once does good say, "I hate Fags!"
People just imply that because he doesn't say he loves them, he hates them.
If you reREAD my original statement, you'll notice that I said "homosexuality", not "homosexuals".

Hate the sin...love the sinner.

If we don't have the same rights why should we pay the same taxes?

I don't care if it's called marriage or some other name, just give us equal rights. That's all that matters. :mad:

If you reREAD my original statement, you'll notice that I said "homosexuality", not "homosexuals".

Hate the sin...love the sinner.
how interesting we posted the same thing.

Couldn't have said all of this better myself. I agree wholeheartedly, esp. with my own lack of deserving His affirmation that I am His good and faithful servant. Though I not gonna worry about it, cause if I'm His good and faithful servant, then it will show and they will know me by His fruits. And I endorse your final quote as the clincher to sum up all that I feel about the people who condescend toward gays and all other manners of whom they deem to be "sinners." It makes me mad to see such a blatant disregard for even attempting to follow scriptural directions on how to better your own life and help others, too. Oh, and certainly, till the day you leave this earth, may God bless you, for He already has witha discerning mind and a heart after His own.

*nod* True that. It's my belief that Christ more or less emphasised the "Walk the walk" way of living when it comes to living in His name. Sure, "Talk the talk" is necessary at times, but generally toward the flock itself, not the strays. Here's an ideal that I've pretty much come up with, but only through my personal summarization of Christ and the Apostles' message: "Live the life you live, not for your own sake, but for Christ. Live the life you live for the sheep, for the goats, and for all other Creation, for God has blessed you with life." Not all that good, but hey. It works, right?

Anyway, as I'm a church-fearing---err, going man, I will need to call it a night. If this thread continues tomorrow, I'll be sure to jump in again.

God bless you all.

If you reREAD my original statement, you'll notice that I said "homosexuality", not "homosexuals".

Hate the sin...love the sinner.

Being gay isn't a sin.

If we don't have the same rights why should we pay the same taxes?

I don't care if it's called marriage or some other name, just give us equal rights. That's all that matters. :mad:
marriage is just a form of union. no one has a right to be married.

But the right to form a union, whatever you want to call it, is already covered the right to freedom of association

Being gay isn't a sin.
i would beg to differ. Depending on which religion you want to debate it from of course. If I am correct, Hinduism has no sin so everything is allowed in that religion

marriage is just a form of union. no one has a right to be married.

But the right to form a union, whatever you want to call it, is already covered the right to freedom of association

But we don't have the SAME rights... If your so-called spouse dies, you don't automatically have spousal rights to say where they get buried etc. or even if you can attend the funeral... The deceased's immediate blood relatives CAN and often DO overrule you.

Doesn't matter that you've been living together as a 'married couple' for 25 years. We DEFINITELY do not have the same rights as straight couples.

i would beg to differ. Depending on which religion you want to debate it from of course. If I am correct, Hinduism has no sin so everything is allowed in that religion

In catholicism, it is not.

Again, God never says anything against them, even in the Sodom and Gomara story.

What?!

The two Angels sent to lodge with Lot are attractive. So attractive, every man in the city, young and old come. They are about to get violent, and Lot offer them his daughters instead, but they insist on the daughter. Just before blood is spilled, the angels decide to Nuke the city.

Why did God nuke it? Not because it was full of Gays, because those people were trying to rape the angels. Male-male rape, (Which isn't considered rape, but I'm not sure of the actual title for it) like any other form of rape, is a terrible thing.
That is why God destroyed the city.

No one also ever points out some other passages that tell that it was greed and ambition that destroyed Sodom and Gamora.

Goodness, yes, I dislike that phrase almost as much as "the homosexual/gay agenda" and "gays are child molesters" because all are annoying and all tend to be followed by complete and utter tripe.

Goodness, yes, I dislike that phrase almost as much as "the homosexual/gay agenda" and "gays are child molesters" because all are annoying and all tend to be followed by complete and utter tripe.

THANK YOU!!!!

Most of what the Bible says against Homosexuality isn't really even acutally against it.
Never once does good say, "I hate Fags!"
People just imply that because he doesn't say he loves them, he hates them.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I know this is OT and that Jesus broke the old covenant, but this is still the scripture espouted by the anti-gay christians (plus a lot of Sodom references that are a bit more vague)

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I know this is OT and that Jesus broke the old covenant, but this is still the scripture espouted by the anti-gay christians (plus a lot of Sodom references that are a bit more vague)

The sodomite references in the KJV are almost all considered to be mistranslation. Pretty much the only people who hold to those are the KJV only crew, and that only because they believe that the 1611 KJV is infallable.

In catholicism, it is not.

Again, God never says anything against them, even in the Sodom and Gomara story.

What?!

The two Angels sent to lodge with Lot are attractive. So attractive, every man in the city, young and old come. They are about to get violent, and Lot offer them his daughters instead, but they insist on the daughter. Just before blood is spilled, the angels decide to Nuke the city.

Why did God nuke it? Not because it was full of Gays, because those people were trying to rape the angels. Male-male rape, (Which isn't considered rape, but I'm not sure of the actual title for it) like any other form of rape, is a terrible thing.
That is why God destroyed the city.

No one also ever points out some other passages that tell that it was greed and ambition that destroyed Sodom and Gamora.
You are assuming the angels were male and not hermaphrodite.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I know this is OT and that Jesus broke the old covenant, but this is still the scripture espouted by the anti-gay christians (plus a lot of Sodom references that are a bit more vague)

Look at the top of Page 7 for my veiws on Sodom and Gomara

The main reason that Levaticus 20:13 states that is simple;
They were trying to create a unique culture from the surronding Gentile areas. They were really trying to make a distinct culture, and therefore, they did everything the oppisiste, espeically things of sexuallity, because they felt that it was a terriblely bad thing.
And plus, if it really was that important, it would be stated over and over again, like all major points in the Bible.

You are assuming the angels were male and not hermaphrodite.

I suppose I am.
But if I am then so is ever other gay basher in exsitance :D

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


I know this is OT and that Jesus broke the old covenant, but this is still the scripture espouted by the anti-gay christians (plus a lot of Sodom references that are a bit more vague)
"Think not that I have come to eliminate the law. Not one bit of the law shall change until heaven and earth are passed away." Jesus

Ok, this is to the guy who started this thread...

You say that you are bi-sexual right? (I am not trying to force you into being right) Both of your parents are ministers so I trust my instinct to say that you believe in God...God made two beings, Male and female, they had kids, their kids had kids, and so on and so forth...obviously one of the finer points to like is to reproduce. Males cant reproduce with other males, females cant reproduce with other females. so the state \ment "adam and eve, not adam and steve" is true even if you do not believe in god. Please do not drag religion into this. I do not want to make anyone mad but being gay (on either gender) is wrong, not wrong in the sense that you will go to hell if you do not repent for your sins, but wrong by human purpose. I do believe in God, I am a Christian Baptist from Tennessee but i am trying to work my point both ways. Dont think that i am singling you out Uquin(sp?), b/c im not. I wish i could gather up all gays and stress the fact that its wrong by human purpose.

*nod* True that. It's my belief that Christ more or less emphasised the "Walk the walk" way of living when it comes to living in His name. Sure, "Talk the talk" is necessary at times, but generally toward the flock itself, not the strays. Here's an ideal that I've pretty much come up with, but only through my personal summarization of Christ and the Apostles' message: "Live the life you live, not for your own sake, but for Christ. Live the life you live for the sheep, for the goats, and for all other Creation, for God has blessed you with life." Not all that good, but hey. It works, right?

Very well put, bro. It definitely works, and I only pray it woulf work for the fundamentalist right. Anyway, I should so be doing what you are doing, so have agood night and I will to. Adiós.

The sodomite references in the KJV are almost all considered to be mistranslation. Pretty much the only people who hold to those are the KJV only crew, and that only because they believe that the 1611 KJV is infallable.
eh no. You might try to New International Version. They went back and checked the original texts, you know the ones on papyrus scrolls, and even then the texts called homosexuality a sin.
There is also the Today's English Version. And various others. They all say the same.

Look at the top of Page 7 for my veiws on Sodom and Gomara

The main reason that Levaticus 20:13 states that is simple;
They were trying to create a unique culture from the surronding Gentile areas. They were really trying to make a distinct culture, and therefore, they did everything the oppisiste, espeically things of sexuallity, because they felt that it was a terriblely bad thing.
And plus, if it really was that important, it would be stated over and over again, like all major points in the Bible.
That was partly the reason. But the reason they did that was because God considered it a sin. And for jews and christians it remains a sin.

You are assuming the angels were male and not hermaphrodite.


Actually many biblical scholars believe that angles are asexual, based on Mark 12:25 (I know it is tenous at best)

Actually many biblical scholars believe that angles are asexual, based on Mark 12:25 (I know it is tenous at best)

Well, apart from viewopints, I've never heard of either a female or a male angle. Which is aucte and which obtuse? I expect females are acute, cause we all know they're cute.

The funny thing about that statement is that I am in the process of writing my first novel and the gest of it is that all the gays and lesbians (as well as some other minorities) are driven off the Earth to a new planet. Adam and Steve are the figurehead leaders of this New Eden. :D

Actually many biblical scholars believe that angles are asexual, based on Mark 12:25 (I know it is tenous at best)
correct me if i'm wrong but I thought hermaphrodites were asexual

Well, apart from viewopints, I've never heard of either a female or a male angle. Which is aucte and which obtuse? I expect females are acute, cause we all know they're cute.
Hey, I ain't got no problem with Melissa and Heather, as long as they're both bi. Nothing like getting two for the price of one eh.

Actually many biblical scholars believe that angles are asexual, based on Mark 12:25 (I know it is tenous at best)
And sorry to bash your spelling, I just find it so humorous when angels come to be angles. Teehee. And I completely agree that angels are asexual, at least in our terms, for male and female or human terms, from a human point of view, and God created sex when He created us, note angels came before humans. Additionally, Christ said in Heaven there is no marriage, so yet another reason for angels to be asexual. Doesn't mean they aren't incredibly beautiful. Why do you think the whole town of Sodom wanted to have their way with them?

"Think not that I have come to eliminate the law. Not one bit of the law shall change until heaven and earth are passed away." Jesus

In that case, Jesus did something wrong.
The Law of Love states that...
/blahblahblah

It states that Jesus is here to say that we are to love everyone, and that everyone can be accepted, blah vlah blah, cheesy cheesy cheesy.

That's enough outta me, as I am offically too tired to debate.
Goodnight, humans.

correct me if i'm wrong but I thought hermaphrodites were asexual
I will correct you. Hermaphrodites exhibit characteristics of BOTH sexes, whears asexual means that it does not deal with sex at all. Like apathy, you don't deal with it. Think asexually reproducing, like sea sponges. Asexual is the lack of sexuality, whereas hermaphrodites would be unisexual or bisexual (not in orientation, but in classification) or dualsexual or stuff.

eh no. You might try to New International Version. They went back and checked the original texts, you know the ones on papyrus scrolls, and even then the texts called homosexuality a sin.
There is also the Today's English Version. And various others. They all say the same.

In some places, yes. In others (try deut 23.17) there has been mistranslation. "Sodomite" in the KJV reads "male prostitute" or similer in most modern translations.

In some places, yes. In others (try deut 23.17) there has been mistranslation. "Sodomite" in the KJV reads "male prostitute" or similer in most modern translations.
male prostitute or sodomite they are the same.

I am tired and need to be up 5 hours. So I will return tommorrow.

male prostitute or sodomite they are the same.

I am tired and need to be up 5 hours. So I will return tommorrow.


Ehhhmmm, the biblical Sodomite is a reference to the inhabitants of the city Sodom. It is only due to the biblical story that we today equals a sodomite with a buggerer,

Hey, I ain't got no problem with Melissa and Heather, as long as they're both bi. Nothing like getting two for the price of one eh.
I know I'm stupid for asking but who are Melissa and Heather? I wanna meet them...heheh

male prostitute or sodomite they are the same.

I am tired and need to be up 5 hours. So I will return tommorrow.

Ok. I may not be here tomorrow as I'm travelling then taking an exam, but I will address this last point now. Sodomite and male (temple) prostitute are not the same at all. "Sodomite" generally refers to someone who has anal sex, especially with men (although as someone mentioned earlier the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not primarily about homosexuality at all), whereas a the shrine prostitues mentioned in deut 23.17 and other texts in the OT (eg. 1 kings 14.24, 15.12, 22.46).

Hey, I ain't got no problem with Melissa and Heather, as long as they're both bi. Nothing like getting two for the price of one eh.


so girl-on-girl action is not an abomination unto the lord?

so girl-on-girl action is not an abomination unto the lord?
It is considered the same thing as guy on guy as far as the Bible goes, but you know this is the internet, and we guys can't help but at least joke about how we condone the hot chicks havin' a little fun w/ ea. other because it turns us on. Guys doin' it, eh, no.

so girl-on-girl action is not an abomination unto the lord?

Not if you're going by the OT. The only biblical reference to girl-on-girl action is in Romans 1, and it's debatable as to exactly what it refers to (possibly orgies performed to honour Asheresh, fertility godess, possibly a random group of women deciding to have sex with each other for a different reason).

Ok, this is to the guy who started this thread...

You say that you are bi-sexual right? (I am not trying to force you into being right) Both of your parents are ministers so I trust my instinct to say that you believe in God...God made two beings, Male and female, they had kids, their kids had kids, and so on and so forth...obviously one of the finer points to like is to reproduce. Males cant reproduce with other males, females cant reproduce with other females. so the state \ment "adam and eve, not adam and steve" is true even if you do not believe in god. Please do not drag religion into this. I do not want to make anyone mad but being gay (on either gender) is wrong, not wrong in the sense that you will go to hell if you do not repent for your sins, but wrong by human purpose. I do believe in God, I am a Christian Baptist from Tennessee but i am trying to work my point both ways. Dont think that i am singling you out Uquin(sp?), b/c im not. I wish i could gather up all gays and stress the fact that its wrong by human purpose.

The problem with that argument is that Adam and Eve were both physically immortal and possibly sterile before their fall. They certainly had no children before they were kicked out of the garden. Reproduction wasn't the original purpose of sex.


My take on it is simple. God did originally create Adam and Steve. However, neither of them apreciated the situation because artifical lubricant had not yet been invented. God went back to the drawing board, invented the vagina, and swept the whole Steve fiasco under the rug.

I don't sick of it but that's probably 'cause I rarely hear it used as a serious anti-gay argument. So when I do hear it it just reminds me of Alan Partridge, and thus reminds me of "Dan! Dan! Dan! Dan! Dan! Dan!...... DAN! Dan! Dan!..." and so on.

The problem with that argument is that Adam and Eve were both physically immortal and possibly sterile before their fall. They certainly had no children before they were kicked out of the garden. Reproduction wasn't the original purpose of sex.
which certainly implies pleasure was. And that brings up an interesting question - dolphins are the only other animals on earth besides humans who have sex for satisfaction. Why do you think that is? Other animals may get satisfaction, but they do it for mating purposes. Dolphins actualy enjoy it like we do. According to scentific studies that is. I wonder if the sexologists conducted any of those? I only ask because I consider dolphins to be some sort of either sentient or pretty damn close creature that we could learn a lot more than we are from.

My take on it is simple. God did originally create Adam and Steve. However, neither of them apreciated the situation because artifical lubricant had not yet been invented. God went back to the drawing board, invented the vagina, and swept the whole Steve fiasco under the rug.

Err, virgin females tend to be dry and scratchy. Evidently Eve must have had some breaking in prior to the Garden of Eden.

which certainly implies pleasure was. And that brings up an interesting question - dolphins are the only other animals on earth besides humans who have sex for satisfaction. Why do you think that is? Other animals may get satisfaction, but they do it for mating purposes. Dolphins actualy enjoy it like we do. According to scentific studies that is. I wonder if the sexologists conducted any of those? I only ask because I consider dolphins to be some sort of either sentient or pretty damn close creature that we could learn a lot more than we are from.

I wonder if dolphins also have these peculiar (ok... downright strange bordering on borderline) beliefs regarding sex, sexuality and spirituality.

which certainly implies pleasure was. And that brings up an interesting question - dolphins are the only other animals on earth besides humans who have sex for satisfaction. Why do you think that is? Other animals may get satisfaction, but they do it for mating purposes. Dolphins actualy enjoy it like we do. According to scentific studies that is. I wonder if the sexologists conducted any of those? I only ask because I consider dolphins to be some sort of either sentient or pretty damn close creature that we could learn a lot more than we are from.

Actually, monkeys have been seen masturbating, and various other animals also have sex for non-procreation purposes (social reasons, pleasure). I can't remember any examples right now, but I saw this thing on telly the other day that mentioned some.

so girl-on-girl action is not an abomination unto the lord?
it is too him, but not to me :)
To be with two hot looking females. That's like paradise. Its even better when there are more females involved.

Actually, monkeys have been seen masturbating, and various other animals also have sex for non-procreation purposes (social reasons, pleasure). I can't remember any examples right now, but I saw this thing on telly the other day that mentioned some.
Ok, monkeys are an obvious animal to classify as semi sentient. I mean humans have figured out not only how to communicate with them (Goodall), but also how to teach them and they use toold, etc. The whole primate avdanced brain syndrome. LoL syndrome. anyway, I realize that I have no basis for saying solphins are the only ones, but they were the first ones I ever heard about doing it recreationally. I guess it's just weirder w/ dolphins, cause most aquatic animals are the egg type, only the mammals do anything about family life or sex.

Hmm.. I'll attempt at answering your question, but note that these aren't necessarily my beliefs just because I'm spiritually against homosexuality.

And you can hold that opinion, just don't expect government to reflect that religious enspired belief.

I've heard televangelists, forum-evangelists (the annoying guys who lurk on boards until they see someone say something that perhaps seems "sinful"), and others spout the same, methodical answer that this nation was founded on Christian principles, ergo it is a Christian nation. Anything that threatens the foundations must be rejected in order to keep Christian morality alive and kicking. Secularists are deemed as the minority and thus are the "odd ones out" when it comes to civil rights and liberties.

I think that about sums it... correct me if I missed anything.

True, but the problem is with many of these so-called evangelicals, many of them lack the basic university education to even make their arguments stand on two feet, and withstand any independent scrutiny, and secondly, it would be incorrect in assuming that America was founded on Christian values.

America was found as an expanion of the British empire and a way to make a quick buck - yes, all the romantic BS that preachers and evangelicals would like to preach to give the US a nice romatic overtone to the founding of it; the basic fact is, US had resources, businesses people saw this as a great way to make a buck; the US split from Great Britian because the powers that be started to challenge this ability to make a buck.

Yes, we too in New Zealand have idiots who claim that New Zealand was founded on Christian values, when the reality is, none of our Prime Ministers so far have been hard core Christians - most of them have either been; Atheist, Agnostic or Jewish - take your pick.

The way i look at it, if you wanna be gay, be gay, if you wanna be lesbian, be lesbian, as long as you don't go about pushing your views / yourself on others, thats fine by me. Personally, i wouldn't dream of turning to the dark side, but thats just me, if your views are different, so be it.

Personally, i wouldn't dream of turning to the dark side, but thats just me, if your views are different, so be it.


Don't worry, you couldn't turn to the "darkside" *rollseyes* even if you "wanted" to.

sorry, i went to see it last night, couldn't resist temptation any longer *not that kind of temptation you sick minded little ...... * (i'm in the uk so it's bin out about 2 weeks now)

Without going too off topic, it wasn't bad, but cliched to hell...

Not only is it unoriginal and overused, it's completely irrelevant. We're talking about laws designed to make sure nobody's unfairly persecuted, regardless of what they believe -- that's got nothing whatsoever to do with Genesis.

That trite slogan is more proof that it takes only a very small mind to galvanize those who would have the world believe as they do, regardless of the sense or hypocrisy involved. You need cutesy little couplets like that so the morons chanting them can remember them. Nothing sickens me more than the endless yammering by BOTH sides as they chant across picket lines. Slogans are empty, repeatable words designed to appeal to memory's least common denominator; the "Adam & Steve" slogan is king of that particular antheap.

Finally, one doesn't need to be pro-gay to be pro-civil rights -- nor does one need to be anti-Christian to be anti-mob rule. Myself, I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. It isn't my job to dictate someone else's personal decisions and nor should it be any group's, be they religious or secular, to impose their morality as it pertains to personal issues upon the nation as a whole.

Christians, read your own book and live-let live for once, willya?

Homosexuals, go about your lives without mentioning being gay unless the subject comes up, please.

Yes, I know those are generalizations, but sometimes you have to generalize to make a point. Live with it. God knows I'll live with it when someone returns the favor to me a post or two from now.

My reply is simple: Point out where, in the Bible, Adam had a choice. If Eve and Steve were both there and Adam chose Eve primarily, then maybe they've have a point.

No they wouldn't - it would just mean Adam was straight. To which the answer is "Yes, so what ?" After all, last time I looked gay people were not denying that straight people existed ;)

Homosexuals, have lotsa sex and recruit new members.

Christians, go about your lives without mentioning Christianity unless the subject comes up, please.

Would this still work?

Err, virgin females tend to be dry and scratchy. Evidently Eve must have had some breaking in prior to the Garden of Eden.

That's what the clitoris is for. Didn't you read the manual? Press button until lubricated, then insert.

That's what the clitoris is for. Didn't you read the manual? Press button until lubricated, then insert.


Oh...what the hell would I know anyhoo... :)

God made two beings, Male and female, they had kids, their kids had kids, and so on and so forth...obviously one of the finer points to like is to reproduce. Males cant reproduce with other males, females cant reproduce with other females. so the state \ment "adam and eve, not adam and steve" is true even if you do not believe in god.

Your reasoning is only valid if you think that having sex MUST be for reproduction and that using it for e.g. relaxation is somehow wrong. Considering that "by design of the body" (if you believe in a designer) most sex will not result in offspring, this seems to be an illogical assumption.

Furthermore, one can also argue that the Adam and Eve thing means humans should live in groups of 2 parents + children - or to rephrase: that our whole society with cities, villages and churches visited by multiple people is wrong - unless they are all populated with familymembers that reproduce with eachother. Why are so few Christians arguing in favour of that ?

God made two beings, Male and female, they had kids, their kids had kids, and so on and so forth...obviously one of the finer points to like is to reproduce. Males cant reproduce with other males, females cant reproduce with other females. so the state \ment "adam and eve, not adam and steve" is true even if you do not believe in god. Please do not drag religion into this.

If you're not dragging religion into this, why do you assume humans have a purpose? To have a purpose requires being given that purpose by someone, or something. It's in the very meaning of the word "purpose". You can't argue for a purpose without a creator. Also, the value judgement you make (which I have italicised) is wholly subjective. Personally I place such qualities as dignity and loyalty far above the ability to reproduce, not wanting to condemn a mother who couldn't. What you mean to say is that it is natural, and so is good. If you need me to point out the fallacy in this, please feel free to ask, but really, I shouldn't have to.

I do not want to make anyone mad but being gay (on either gender) is wrong, not wrong in the sense that you will go to hell if you do not repent for your sins, but wrong by human purpose.

Define this "human purpose" for me without using a purpose-giver.

[QUOTE=According to some versions, Eve was created because Adam tired of animals. Just something to think about.[/QUOTE]

In even more versions, Eve was Adam's 3rd attempt at a mate. And he screwed animals up until Eve was created because she was created to be lesser than Adam, and to submit to his desires and wants.
Adam's First mate Lilith refused to lie beneath him, because she was born of true earth and Adam's back, and was his equal.(she even questioned why HE shouldn't lie beneath her... pre-hisortric woman on top position? j/k) Also she had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and was smart enough to be grossed out by the fact that he liked kinky animal sex. He ended up raping her, so she called out the true name of god, and was called up to god, where he pretty much pulled a wham bam thank you ma'am, and kicked her out to roam the world because he, like Adam, feared having an equal.
Adam watched his second mate be created and was soooo grossed out by the process and told god he didn't want her and refused to name her. so he put adam to sleep and WHAM-O!
Mate # 3 whiney Eve. I think if the whole serpent thing hadn't happend it is entirely possible that the arrogant dork WOULD have asked for another like him and ended up being "Adam and Steve".... after all he'd already banged every animal in existance and turned down 2 mates. He probably would have asked for a guy. I guess we'll never know.... damn that apple!!!

and another note. The serpent that fed Eve the apple was believed to be Lilith herself, and the serpent knew Eve in the ...er.... "biblical" sense. SO technically early stories have Adam as a sheep raper and Eve as a lesbian.

I guess we'll never know.... damn that apple!!!

Fruit, not necessarily apple. Probably a fig. And notice how close the words fig and fag are. Coincidence? I think not !

*wonders how many people will actually take this seriously*

anyone without a sense of humor.

anyone without a sense of humor.

You would be surprised at the number of people that take offense at the statement that an English bible is merely a translation and therefor cannot be taken literally.

I often thought about the origins of religion and, if written by men of power and not the word of god, to what purpose did it serve?

I noticed the sins of Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, Greed, Pride and others. It ocured to me that the rules set forth in the bible seem to facilitiate civilisation growth in some manner

Sloth: So the workers are always working in their free time
Gluttony: So nobody wastes the food that is gathered
Lust: So that people stay monogamous and produce childern in a more stable fashion.
Greed: so people dont have a problem with paying high taxes
Pride: so poeple are always happy to serve their leaders even if they are cruel or irresponsible.

Naturally since Procreation requires a Hetrosexual relationship, Its hardly surprising that homosexuality is frowned upon by the church.

However the united states is a well established nation and the continued power that religion holds over it, which helped it grow, may now be damaging it because it has finished growing.

Also it is now possible for lesbians to have children through complex IVF methods so the argument is even more irrelevant now.

All the Seven Deadlies actually collapse down to Pride. Each instance is a case of not surrendering to God's Will:

In Envy, assuming what God has given you is not good enough for you, and resenting God for "doing better by others".
In Lust, desiring your own interests of pleasure above God's plan for you, of reproduction - and also in loving others too much, denying God the love you should have for Him.
In Greed, wanting more than you have the need for (which is what God had planned out for you).
In Gluttony, wasting what God has given you by overindulgence.
In Wrath, attempting to deny God the right to judge, or assuming God's justice in this world or the next is insufficient and taking matters into one's own hands.
In Sloth, not wanting to fulfil God's purpose.
In Vanity (Pride), holding oneself above one's station in the eyes of God; in the archetypal instance, holding oneself above God. In doubting God's purpose for him, Bruce Nolan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/) is guilty of Pride.

Not all theologians agree with this heirarchy, but it makes a kind of sense. In you assume God's purpose to be good then more or less anything evil can be taken to be going against God's purpose - and is that not assuming oneself too good for God's purpose?

I agree, although my thoery is that the bible was written as a means of manipulating god fearing citizens

because after all The religious are most often so because of an obsession with heaven or a desperate fear of hell. Infact to follow gods laws just to get a place in heaven could be considered vanity. :)

Never heard it before, but there doesn't seem to be much point to it.

Btw, the first two humans were Ask and Embla, not Adam and Eve. http://tigerdiamond.net/images/e0/whistling.gif

I agree, although my thoery is that the bible was written as a means of manipulating god fearing citizens

Of course! I'm not saying you're wrong, old bean - just that there's a little more consistency to it which makes it that much more believable even though you know what it's really there for. In fact, God's purpose, as espoused in this particular instance by the Seven Deadlies theory, is very much about keeping a community functioning and happy and stable - including maintaining the power heirarchy.

LOL "Old Bean"

Ripping good laugh :)

I never get sick of the "Adam/Eve vs Adam/Steve line," because it's always good for a laugh. People who believe in the Adam and Eve creation myth are as silly as people who believe that Aesop's fable about the sour grapes means we should never eat grapes. By repeating the "Adam/Steve" line they are just advertising how childish their brains have remained.

Plus, they are shouting to the heavens, "I DON'T READ BOOKS!" If they did, they would know that homosexuality occurs in nature all the time, so clearly "God" made both "Adam and Eve" and "Adam and Steve."

And ALSO, the "Adam and Steve" line still leaves open the question of "Eve and Lilith." So men can't be gay, because God didn't make them that way, but women can do whatever they want. After all, God hates women anyhow, and punishes them every chance He gets, so what do women have to lose? We're already dirty, lesser beings who were created only to serve as pleasure devices for males, so who cares what we do with our dirty little selves? ;)

God Made Adam and Animals who were his friend.

Eve came later.

The Bible makes a pro-bestiality argument, if anything.

I think it's funny. However, it *is* getting old.

dolphins are the only other animals on earth besides humans who have sex for satisfaction.


Not so. The same can be said of chimps. And incidentially, homosexual behaviour has been observed in both chimps and dolphins.

another interresting fact - there has been several cases of male dolphins trying to rape women who thought they would have a nice 'swim with the dolphins' experience.

This is just the sort of ready-made, bite-sized pat response that is the antithesis of lively discussion. As soon as I hear crap like this in any exchange, I feel cheated of my interest in that exchange.

What's the point of continuing a dialogue wherein a participant merely parrots back simplistic pre-packaged dogma at you?

Btw, the first two humans were Ask and Embla, not Adam and Eve.

True, true

Huh? Um... I don't know. What's that got to do with anything? My parents are ministers. I'm not a anti-gay person. I'm bi for goodness sakes.
I would pay to see the look on your parent's faces when you tell them (or did tell them).

you think YOURE sick of it, imagine the gay guys who are named adam or steve!!

(or the poor college roommates who get randomly assigned. adam and steve in room 169)

think they consider changing their names? or using their middle names?

Frankly, there is just as much evidence supporting Adam and Steve as there is supporting Adam and Eve: None.

you think YOURE sick of it, imagine the gay guys who are named adam or steve!!

(or the poor college roommates who get randomly assigned. adam and steve in room 169)

think they consider changing their names? or using their middle names?

Probably. I pity them very much. (But then I got assigned room 32D, so meh. :p People laugh.)

i found it very funny when i 1st heard it on 'alan partridge' but i think thats thanks to the comical talent of steve coogan not the saying itself

It is an arguement. Believe me. I was forced to go to an anti-gay rally by my parents once. They actually used the arguement.
An anti-gay rally? WTF? I've never heard of those. What gives?

Are you implying that there are no queerballs that claim to be Christians?

Filthy disease infested fags are into that shit right? Sick ass sheep ass loving perverts.
Dude, I'm sorry but you're an idiot.

Dude, I'm sorry but you're an idiot.

and an idiot who has been banned from the forum for two week for his troubles

An anti-gay rally? WTF? I've never heard of those. What gives?

It's when a few rednecks gather to protest gay marriage - they're obsessed with gays, but aren't gay. See? Makes no sense.

Probably. I pity them very much. (But then I got assigned room 32D, so meh. :p People laugh.)
lol
it certainly made ME laugh

;) Adam & Eve had an immoral sexual liasion and produced Steve. Steve, in turn had an immoral sexual liasion with....uhmmm...hmmmmm.Can you say God created incest? I thought you could. :D

For some reason most gay bashers fear that letting homosexuals exist will entice all people to become homosexual.Of course, most of them are against male homosexuality, and saliva all over themselves thinking about girl on girl action. :rolleyes:

So, maybe God created Anna and Eve, they found and extra chromosone and mixed in testosterone for kicks and created Adam, thus making the first threesome in history. :p

Surely he created Adam, Eve and Steve? Being the "Creator" and all.

Hmm.. I'll attempt at answering your question, but note that these aren't necessarily my beliefs just because I'm spiritually against homosexuality.

I've heard televangelists, forum-evangelists (the annoying guys who lurk on boards until they see someone say something that perhaps seems "sinful"), and others spout the same, methodical answer that this nation was founded on Christian principles, ergo it is a Christian nation. Anything that threatens the foundations must be rejected in order to keep Christian morality alive and kicking. Secularists are deemed as the minority and thus are the "odd ones out" when it comes to civil rights and liberties.

I think that about sums it... correct me if I missed anything.

Oh that seems the way the logic runs in their heads--its just not good logic. Its based on the false premise that the US was indeed founded as a Christian nation--it is not--and the belief that freedom of religion only applies to Christians who believe a certain way and happen to fancy themselves in the majority when it applies to everyone, regardless of the percentage of the population they make up.

I'm not jumping into the overall debate here. But this one deserved counter...

What about the Boy Scouts? They not only sued to be allowed in, when they lost, they sued to have the Boy Scouts banned from public schools.

The boy scouts are not a religion and use public properties, so they don't fall under the protection of freedom of religion.

You forget that every major religion has tennets against homosexuality. Christianity, Islam, even Buddhism. You can't blame it all on Christians.

It doesn't matter if every major religion does or doesn't. There are those out there who have no problem with it--INCLUDING SOME CHRISTIANS.

And while I do tend to focus on Christians, I realize that other religions have problems with homosexuality. The difference? The other religions aren't trying to set up my home country as a religious state controlled by a fundamentalist interpretation of a less than accurate, poorly translated book.

Yes, I hate the "not Adam and Steve" 'argument'. It's almost as annoying as "God Hates Fags!" signs.

Yes, I hate the "not Adam and Steve" 'argument'. It's almost as annoying as "God Hates Fags!" signs.

... apart from the "Adam and Steve" thing is actually presented as a serious argument by a large number of people, wheras most Christians tacitly admit that the "God Hates Fags" might conflict just a tinsy bit with basic Christian principles and doctrine. :p

gayness is a sin cause it goes against the bible.

Fortunately, no one on this thread (and I hope no one anywhere, but I know those hopes will be dashed tomorrow at my self-deluded church which I only attend because I love my friends there and I love and respect the pastor) actually uses the phrase seriously. While the Bible is still relevant for certain situations and things, the phrase "God made...and Steve" is an attempt by people like the A.F.A. to create a funny catchphrase that rhymes and presents their viewpopint, so people wil remember it easily and get it stuck in their heads, and some idiots will use it as a reminder that the human race was created as two sexes SO THAT IT COULD PROCREATE. I personally think the phrase at top of this thread is one of the worst things Christians (I don't consider them to be true Christians, but sadly public opinion groups them with us followers of Christ's teachings) have ever thought up.
I haven't read the rest of the thread to see if anyone has brought this up, but are you implying that the two genders were only made to procreate, and that homosexuality is ok?

gayness is a sin cause it goes against the bible.


Prove the Bible is right and they only way??? Tell me how it is a sin..because god said so??? ITS NATURAL...and yes I am a homosexual...its natural. Christians that are way out there that hold up these "Adam and Eve, not adam and steve" signs and "god hates fags" are really hypocritical for one. And another thing they can't support their arguments with reason. So they use slanderous remarks to try to get their message by. I'm only talking about extremists...

The boy scouts are not a religion and use public properties, so they don't fall under the protection of freedom of religion. Actually, they have been declared a religious organization and that is how the ACLU has gotten them kicked out of being able to use some public properties here and there, including schools.

Prove the Bible is right and they only way??? Tell me how it is a sin..because god said so??? ITS NATURAL...and yes I am a homosexual...its natural. Christians that are way out there that hold up these "Adam and Eve, not adam and steve" signs and "god hates fags" are really hypocritical for one. And another thing they can't support their arguments with reason. So they use slanderous remarks to try to get their message by. I'm only talking about extremists...
i'm only trying to help you.

You need to repent or you'll go to hell. Its in the bible.

Prove the Bible is right and they only way??? Tell me how it is a sin..because god said so??? ITS NATURAL...and yes I am a homosexual...its natural. Christians that are way out there that hold up these "Adam and Eve, not adam and steve" signs and "god hates fags" are really hypocritical for one. And another thing they can't support their arguments with reason. So they use slanderous remarks to try to get their message by. I'm only talking about extremists...
It's natural?

Is that why gay men have a vagina and lesbians have a penis?

The penis and vagina were made to fit each other. The anus is not an in-hole, that's why it has sphincters. They keep things out that shouldn't be there.

Inform me of another species that has a predominately gay population and didn't get that way from there being a lack of male or female presence.

It's not natural.

Actually, they have been declared a religious organization and that is how the ACLU has gotten them kicked out of being able to use some public properties here and there, including schools.

Then if they are indeed a religious group (as would be by their own choice) no one can force them to accept gays--which they haven't been forced to do. Nor should they be using public properties because that would be an endorsement of religion.

gayness is a sin cause it goes against the bible.

That somewhat depends on what you think Jesus died for, since all the comments against homosexuality are in the old testament. And, according to some, were "slightly" mistranslated - or to rephrase: were not adressing homosexuality at all.

Of course, if you do accept the things in the OT as law, I assume you never wear clothes made of two different fabrics and often sacrifice goats by burning them with an aroma that pleases the Lord ?

And if you insist on taking the whole Bible literally: follow in the footsteps of the first humans by having sex with your sisters ;) Or in the case of Adam and Eve: with a clone made from a part of your body..

It's natural?

Is that why gay men have a vagina and lesbians have a penis?

The penis and vagina were made to fit each other. The anus is not an in-hole, that's why it has sphincters. They keep things out that shouldn't be there.

Inform me of another species that has a predominately gay population and didn't get that way from there being a lack of male or female presence.

It's not natural.

No species has a predominantely gay population. However, Dolphins and Penguins, Dogs and Birds have all shown gay members--some that mate for life--regardless of the gender mix available in the population.

And sphincters aren't to keep things out, they are to keep things in. And pre-tell, why is it that the only true male G-spot (the prostate) can only be accessed throught he anus?

Then if they are indeed a religious group (as would be by their own choice) no one can force them to accept gays--which they haven't been forced to do. Nor should they be using public properties because that would be an endorsement of religion.
Using public properties is not an endorsement of religion, it's freedom of religion. A Muslim can pray to Allah on any peice of ground that he wants to, just as any Christian can pray anywhere they want to. It's not an endorsement, nor is it a condemnation.

No species has a predominantely gay population.
I think by "predominantly gay population" s/he meant "a population within the species, of whatever size, that is predominantly homosexual", rather than the way that I(and I assume you also) interpreted it, as meaning "a mostly gay species".

Using public properties is not an endorsement of religion, it's freedom of religion. A Muslim can pray to Allah on any peice of ground that he wants to, just as any Christian can pray anywhere they want to. It's not an endorsement, nor is it a condemnation.

Actually, it is an endorsement. You can practice your private religion on publicly owned land--ie praying--but it is a much larger issue to allow self-avowed religious groups to use that land for meetings.

Further, those groups still have to obey federal laws. By denying equal access, they lose the right to use publicly owned lands. It's a trade off.

It's like certain federal grants to companies--you can only get them if you have EEO and follow certain environmental protocols. When you refuse to abide by the rules that govern a building, you lose the right to use it.

No species has a predominantely gay population. However, Dolphins and Penguins, Dogs and Birds have all shown gay members--some that mate for life--regardless of the gender mix available in the population.

And sphincters aren't to keep things out, they are to keep things in. And pre-tell, why is it that the only true male G-spot (the prostate) can only be accessed throught he anus?
You are right about the sphincters, I was backwards in my thinking.

If you've ever experienced an orgasm, your prostate contracts regardless of whether or not there is anything pressing on it. That only helps the contraction. The prostate gland is responsible for making a sort of buffer solution to neutralize the vaginal pH during sex and making the nutrients in semen that sustain the sperm. It was not intended to be a G-spot.

http://www.prostatecare.com/prostate/what_does_it_do.html

It's not natural.

Neither are going to Church and reading a Bible...

You are right about the sphincters, I was backwards in my thinking.

If you've ever experienced an orgasm, your prostate contracts regardless of whether or not there is anything pressing on it. That only helps the contraction. The prostate gland is responsible for making a sort of buffer solution to neutralize the vaginal pH during sex and making the nutrients in semen that sustain the sperm. It was not intended to be a G-spot.

http://www.prostatecare.com/prostate/what_does_it_do.html

Yes, I know exactly what it does and how its involved. I'm a medical student and a homosexual. While I have never been fucked, I have been penetrated--and let me tell you, its a hell of a lot better than orgasm and ejaculation alone.

Neither are going to Church and reading a Bible...
I don't know if you've realized, but there are a lot more faithful people in this world than there are homosexuals. Most people use faith to determine their direction in life. A sense of direction is very natural.

Actually, it is an endorsement. You can practice your private religion on publicly owned land--ie praying--but it is a much larger issue to allow self-avowed religious groups to use that land for meetings.

Further, those groups still have to obey federal laws. By denying equal access, they lose the right to use publicly owned lands. It's a trade off.

It's like certain federal grants to companies--you can only get them if you have EEO and follow certain environmental protocols. When you refuse to abide by the rules that govern a building, you lose the right to use it.

Thankfully, there was a Boy Scouts act introduced this year just so that they would be assured of using public property:

The Support Our Scouts Act: clarifies federal law so that no local, state, or federal agency can deny Scouts access to public government property, required because they have been sued so often that many places refused to let them have access for fear of being sued themselves.

Lots of churches and religous groups use school grounds afterhours and on weekends. Public buildings can be rented or used and they aren't suppose to discriminate based on religion.




EDIT: I said it had passed, that was in error, it has been recently introduced, so I changed my post to show that.

I don't know if you've realized, but there are a lot more faithful people in this world than there are homosexuals. Most people use faith to determine their direction in life. A sense of direction is very natural.

Is that the same definition of natural you used previously ?
And how is loving your fellow men not natural in this definition ?

That somewhat depends on what you think Jesus died for, since all the comments against homosexuality are in the old testament. And, according to some, were "slightly" mistranslated - or to rephrase: were not adressing homosexuality at all.

Of course, if you do accept the things in the OT as law, I assume you never wear clothes made of two different fabrics and often sacrifice goats by burning them with an aroma that pleases the Lord ?

And if you insist on taking the whole Bible literally: follow in the footsteps of the first humans by having sex with your sisters ;) Or in the case of Adam and Eve: with a clone made from a part of your body..
I know what the bible says. I know its true. All of it. I know cause I sit in my cellar all day reading it. Its what I'm doing now, in my cellar with the doors locked. Cause believe me, the world is going to end day after tommorrow. So I sold my car and all my other stuff, cause when Jesus comes I won't be needing any of it. I got everything I need. A shot gun, lots of food and water. And an electric taser gun to use on any sinners that knock on my door.
If you was smart, you would do the same thing. Though you ain't got much time. You only got two days.

Is that the same definition of natural you used previously ?
And how is loving your fellow men not natural in this definition ?
Last time I checked, I said nothing about loving people as being unnatural.

I know what the bible says. I know its true. All of it. I know cause I sit in my cellar all day reading it. Its what I'm doing now, in my cellar with the doors locked. Cause believe me, the world is going to end day after tommorrow. So I sold my car and all my other stuff, cause when Jesus comes I won't be needing any of it. I got everything I need. A shot gun, lots of food and water. And an electric taser gun to use on any sinners that knock on my door.
If you was smart, you would do the same thing. Though you ain't got much time. You only got two days.
or you could stop defacing Christianity...

If you truly knew the story of the rapture, you'd know that you won't be needing your shot gun either. If you are a Christian, you won't be here.

or you could stop defacing Christianity...
defacing Christianity? You need to stick your nose in the Bible boy. Read it. Not listen to all these false christians.

I don't know if you've realized, but there are a lot more faithful people in this world than there are homosexuals. Most people use faith to determine their direction in life. A sense of direction is very natural.
I'm not sure I understand your definition of "natural". Perhaps you could tell us what it is?

Last time I checked, I said nothing about loving people as being unnatural.

True - you said that having sex with a member of the same gender is not natural. You used a question about the animal kingdom to support this claim.

Now I ask why in a definition of natural, based on biology and the animal kingdom, reading the Bible and going to church are natural, while homosexuality is not. There are after all much more gay than bible reading animals.

defacing Christianity? You need to stick your nose in the Bible boy. Read it. Not listen to all these false christians.
You're the type of person perverting the image of true Christians everywhere. People out there might actually believe that you are one and that you're how all of us act.

You're the type of person perverting the image of true Christians everywhere. People out there might actually believe that you are one and that you're how all of us act.
I am a true Christian. You've polluted by all those false prophets and false christians going around and twisting the word of God.
Listen to me, boy, I'm trying to help you. See the light. I'm trying to show you the light.

True - you said that having sex with a member of the same gender is not natural. You used a question about the animal kingdom to support this claim.

Now I ask why in a definition of natural, based on biology and the animal kingdom, reading the Bible and going to church are natural, while homosexuality is not. There are after all much more gay than bible reading animals.
Needing direction in life is a pyschological matter. Isn't psychology a credible science? They sure do teach it in universities like it is. I wasn't just talking about the Bible, by the way. It's already been determined that Christianity isn't the only religion that condemns homosexuality. I also have a hard time believing that there are more than 2 or 3 billion homosexual animals. While I know that there are billions more animals than there are humans, I've never come across any gay animals (beasts, not humans) personally. I don't discredit the finding of these populations with homosexual animals in them, but they appear to be few and far between.

I am a true Christian. You've polluted by all those false prophets and false christians going around and twisting the word of God.
Listen to me, boy, I'm trying to help you. See the light. I'm trying to show you the light.
Yay, I get to tell someone off! I love you ultra-conservative uptight Christian types. By debating you on NS, I get to release my agression towards RL people in my area!

What if one chooses not to be "enlightened" by your religion? Why can't you leave them alone, regardless of what you believe? They have made their decision. If you believe they are damned to your "hell", you should remember that they made that choice.

Yay, I get to tell someone off! I love you ultra-conservative uptight Christian types. By debating you on NS, I get to release my agression towards RL people in my area!

What if one chooses not to be "enlightened" by your religion? Why can't you leave them alone, regardless of what you believe? They have made their decision. If you believe they are damned to your "hell", you should remember that they made that choice.
In case you weren't aware, he's joking. He irritated me enough, and I fell into his dumb trap.

Okay, does anyone else get sick and tired of that arguement/statement?

I find it unoriginal, and so overdone.

Your views?

Eh...I find homosexuality overdone.

Yay, I get to tell someone off! I love you ultra-conservative uptight Christian types. By debating you on NS, I get to release my agression towards RL people in my area!

What if one chooses not to be "enlightened" by your religion? Why can't you leave them alone, regardless of what you believe? They have made their decision. If you believe they are damned to your "hell", you should remember that they made that choice.
Cause I got to make sure they ain't got no excuses. Now they can't say I didn't warn them.

It's natural?

Is that why gay men have a vagina and lesbians have a penis?

The penis and vagina were made to fit each other. The anus is not an in-hole, that's why it has sphincters. They keep things out that shouldn't be there.

Inform me of another species that has a predominately gay population and didn't get that way from there being a lack of male or female presence.

It's not natural.

Thats for reproducing, not for loving....

I think saying if homosexuality occurs in nature then it is okay is bad for GBLTs everywhere. It is just a plain bad argument, and when people see others using this argument it causes them not to see any of their arguments are credible. Animals naturally have multiple partners at the same time, but poligamy is against the law, and most would think that it is good that there is poligamy is illegal. So there are cases where things are "natural", but are considered wrong. Natrual does not mean right.
GBLTs are people just like everyone else, and so should be treated as people. This is really the only argument necessary, trying to tell pejudice people that it is naturally won't help the gay community at all.

And yes, the Adam and Steve argument is very annoying. Especially for those who believe in evolution.

I think if I was trying to defend the naturalness of homosexuality, I don't think I would be bringing up the animal kingdom as an example for comparison. When over-population in lab mice and rats occur in measured environments, the more overcrowded they are the more likely they are to start to exhibit lots of strange traits. Like mob murders, homosexuality acts, cannibalism etc.

And I don't think I would use even healthy animals for an example to justify my own behavior, I mean really. Animals do all kinds of nasty things like eat their own offspring and roll around in fecus and whatnot. Not exactly good roll models. :(

I always found it interesting that the ancient egyptians thought of dogs as humans closest relative, not the chimp or ape, they said that a dog is more human because it shows the ability to have "shame" and remorse.

In case you weren't aware, he's joking. He irritated me enough, and I fell into his dumb trap.
No, I didn't know! I've never seen this "Achuelia" in the forum, and he/she had over 50 posts! The average puppet only gets 1-10 before I notice them. So I thought this was a real person with those real beliefs.

No, I didn't know! I've never seen this "Achuelia" in the forum, and he/she had over 50 posts! The average puppet only gets 1-10 before I notice them. So I thought this was a real person with those real beliefs.
HAHAHA

you = funny

HAHAHA

you = funny
your location = my location

No, I didn't know! I've never seen this "Achuelia" in the forum, and he/she had over 50 posts! The average puppet only gets 1-10 before I notice them. So I thought this was a real person with those real beliefs.
now I got proof you are in league with Bush the antichrist.
Your own comments.

Really? Hmm. Must be because you are in Canada.

actually not that long ago there was a massive rally in Canada and people had signs and they were chanting those words,im Canadian and i've heard it many times before this.

I think if I was trying to defend the naturalness of homosexuality, I don't think I would be bringing up the animal kingdom as an example for comparison. When over-population in lab mice and rats occur in measured environments, the more overcrowded they are the more likely they are to start to exhibit lots of strange traits. Like mob murders, homosexuality acts, cannibalism etc.

And I don't think I would use even healthy animals for an example to justify my own behavior, I mean really. Animals do all kinds of nasty things like eat their own offspring and roll around in fecus and whatnot. Not exactly good roll models. :(
But the thing is here, we aren't the ones that bring up naturality. The opposing sider says "Homosexuality is unnatural, and only natural things are right!" We are simply showing that it does occur in nature. I, for one, don't believe naturality has any bearing on whether something is right or wrong, but the opposing side does. Those who say "Natural=right" are the ones that would seem to believe that doing as animals do is right, not I.

That somewhat depends on what you think Jesus died for, since all the comments against homosexuality are in the old testament. And, according to some, were "slightly" mistranslated - or to rephrase: were not adressing homosexuality at all.

Of course, if you do accept the things in the OT as law, I assume you never wear clothes made of two different fabrics and often sacrifice goats by burning them with an aroma that pleases the Lord ?

And if you insist on taking the whole Bible literally: follow in the footsteps of the first humans by having sex with your sisters Or in the case of Adam and Eve: with a clone made from a part of your body..
1. Ever heard of Romans 1? It talks about people being punished for their homosexuality, so I'm pretty sure this view carries over into the "NT".

2. The NT is only an exception to the OT laws when it claims to be. This is evident in the eye for an eye/turn the other cheek contradictions and so on. The NT also discredits sacrifice, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and He took away the need to do so. Jesus also said that what you put into your mouth isn't important compared to what you put in your mind.

3. In the beginning, having sex with siblings and relatives was necessary to populate the Earth. In Leviticus, it was deemed illegal for God's people to do. The rib arguement fits into this same reasoning. How would Adam have populated the Earth if Eve wasn't created?

now I got proof you are in league with Bush the antichrist.
Your own comments.
flaming things up???

1. Ever heard of Romans 1? It talks about people being punished for their homosexuality, so I'm pretty sure this view carries over into the "NT".



I think you need to re-read Romans 1 very carefully.

now I got proof you are in league with Bush the antichrist.
Your own comments.
No, but I have been raised to worship Ozzy Osbourne, the self-proclaimed "Prince of f***ing Darkness!" :D

But the thing is here, we aren't the ones that bring up naturality. The opposing sider says "Homosexuality is unnatural, and only natural things are right!" We are simply showing that it does occur in nature. I, for one, don't believe naturality has any bearing on whether something is right or wrong, but the opposing side does. Those who say "Natural=right" are the ones that would seem to believe that doing as animals do is right, not I.
Humans were created to be superior to animals, not to eat our own crap. It occurs in nature under altered circumstances. You can't tell me that an animal with no capability of in-depth reasoning can decide that his male counterpart looks like a better mate than his female counterpart.

Actually, they have been declared a religious organization and that is how the ACLU has gotten them kicked out of being able to use some public properties here and there, including schools.

Oohh, so close. And yet so far ...

In order to claim an exemption from anti-discrimination laws, the Boy Scouts declared themselves a religious organization. In fact, they insisted that religious dogma is central to the purpose of Boy Scouts.

As a religious organization, the Boy Scouts cannot be subsidized by the government.

If you care to look at actual facts, the Boy Scouts have not been "kicked out" of using any public properties in the same manner or terms as other members of the public or public organizations.

What has been successfully contested by the ACLU were situations where the Boy Scouts got special treatment. Access not allowed to others. Renting of public facilities through exclusive contracts or on special terms. Public funds used to support a specific religion.

Because the government discriminating in favor of a religious organization violates the First Amendment.

1. Ever heard of Romans 1? It talks about people being punished for their homosexuality, so I'm pretty sure this view carries over into the "NT".

Just FYI, Romans 1 does not talk about people being punished for their homosexuality. It talks of homosexual behaviour being a result of idolatry. This possibly, although not certainly, describes the practices of those who engage in rites and idol worship in fertility cults.

Needing direction in life is a pyschological matter. Isn't psychology a credible science?

Yes, but it only applies to humans. Which means that by calling it natural, you acknowledge that human needs may differ from those of animals. Which in turn means you cannot use the animal kingdom as an argument to say homosexuality is not natural.

While I know that there are billions more animals than there are humans, I've never come across any gay animals (beasts, not humans) personally.

When I look outside I can see two birds that are both very male and very much busy doing stuff with eachother ;) But I agree they are a minority.

I think you need to re-read Romans 1 very carefully.
I did so. I also found a peice of scripture in 1 Cor. (NT).

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

*snip*
What has been successfully contested by the ACLU were situations where the Boy Scouts got special treatment. Access not allowed to others. Renting of public facilities through exclusive contracts or on special terms. Public funds used to support a specific religion.


Actually, I agree. They shouldn't get special agreements. Maybe a frequent customer discount or something, if it is offered to everyone else as well. The only part I don't care for is the fear put into small districts, they become afraid to do the right thing not because they will lose, but because they are afraid they won't be able to fight the legalities of it.

The secondary point is, banning scouts isn't the right solution, getting everyone else the same rates is the right solution.

Yes, but it only applies to humans. Which means that by calling it natural, you acknowledge that human needs may differ from those of animals. Which in turn means you cannot use the animal kingdom as an argument to say homosexuality is not natural.



When I look outside I can see two birds that are both very male and very much busy doing stuff with eachother ;) But I agree they are a minority.
My first arguement had to do with the anatomy of humans. So you could totally do away with my claim on the animal kingdom and use it if you felt like it. Look it up, I don't feel like quoting. It's on page 13, I think.

I don't know what crazy farm you live on (must be Kentucky or somewhere), but you need to separate your birds.

Yes, but it only applies to humans. Which means that by calling it natural, you acknowledge that human needs may differ from those of animals. Which in turn means you cannot use the animal kingdom as an argument to say homosexuality is not natural.

Would the biological definition suffice or do we gotta stick to religious conventions?

Using public properties is not an endorsement of religion, it's freedom of religion. A Muslim can pray to Allah on any peice of ground that he wants to, just as any Christian can pray anywhere they want to. It's not an endorsement, nor is it a condemnation.

Exactically!

And allowing one religious group -- like the Boy Scouts -- to use public property but not allowing others to use that property would be an endorsement.

Or allowing one religious group special access to public property.

Or giving them public funds.

Exactically!

And allowing one religious group -- like the Boy Scouts -- to use public property but not allowing others to use that property would be an endorsement.

Or allowing one religious group special access to public property.

Or giving them public funds.
Who are they not allowing?

Homosexuals, have lotsa sex and recruit new members.

Christians, go about your lives without mentioning Christianity unless the subject comes up, please.

Would this still work?

Probably not, but I'd be okay with that approach, too. Especially that second statement.

Humans were created to be superior to animals, not to eat our own crap. It occurs in nature under altered circumstances. You can't tell me that an animal with no capability of in-depth reasoning can decide that his male counterpart looks like a better mate than his female counterpart.

It occurs in nature under very normal circumstances, amongst species as wide as the oft-quoted dolphins and chimps but also amongst various canine species, such as hyenas and a few kinds of wolves. And that's not all; that's just all I can bring to mind right now. I'll go find the article if you like.

EDIT: Annoyingly, I could only find the article (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18124305.300) from 18 months ago, showing not only does homosexual behaviour occur in normal circumstances but that in some cases it plays important roles in some animal societies. There is a much more recent one, but my stash of New Scientists is at home at the moment and it's too recent for them to have archived.

Of course, pointing out how something is natural does not make it good. I wish everyone who is trying to use such an argument would realise this. But since it's not likely that you all will, please see the article above.

Homosexuals, have lotsa sex and recruit new members.

Christians, go about your lives without mentioning Christianity unless the subject comes up, please.

Would this still work?
WOAH, I know you didn't.

Was this thread started by a Christian? Not that I can tell.

Are Christians the only ones that push their beliefs on anyone? Not that I can tell.

By "recruiting new members", aren't you doing the same thing that you accuse Christians of?

I was walking across the street to my dorm when someone asked me if I would have sex with him. Does this sound like I brought up the conversation? Not particularly.

It occurs in nature under very normal circumstances, amongst species as wide as the oft-quoted dolphins and chimps but also amongst various canine species, such as hyenas and a few kinds of wolves. And that's not all; that's just all I can bring to mind right now. I'll go find the article if you like.
I want you to find this unbiased article. Maybe I'd take your arguement a little more seriously.

WOAH, I know you didn't.

Was this thread started by a Christian? Not that I can tell.

Are Christians the only ones that push their beliefs on anyone? Not that I can tell.

By "recruiting new members", aren't you doing the same thing that you accuse Christians of?

I was walking across the street to my dorm when someone asked me if I would have sex with him. Does this sound like I brought up the conversation? Not particularly.

Umm it was tongue in cheek but I did that to contrast two ridiculous beliefs by transposing things a bit to see if it still seemed equitable.

Umm it was tongue in cheek but I did that to contrast two ridiculous beliefs by transposing things a bit to see if it still seemed equitable.
I understand that, but I just wanted to let everyone out there know that compared to everyone else, Christians aren't as bad as they're made out to be. Everyone in this world has their own set of faults, and it's how you deal with those that really matters.

Argh. It's there, above, Antiherida. Sorry, you replied faster than I'd anticipated. Okay, it may not be wholly unbiased, but then, in such a charged subject, I'd love to be shown a SINGLE unbiased study. It's not actually possible, I don't think.

Moreover, it's not as though the findings are questionable. "Over 300 vertebrate species" in which some form of homosexual contact "regularly occurs", in some cases "as often as heterosexual mating".

Of course, pointing out how something is natural does not make it good. I wish everyone who is trying to use such an argument would realise this. But since it's not likely that you all will, please see the article above.

I am assuming everybody participating in the debate already knows this. That does not mean the debate itself is uninteresting.

Argh. It's there, above, Antiherida. Sorry, you replied faster than I'd anticipated. Okay, it may not be wholly unbiased, but then, in such a charged subject, I'd love to be shown a SINGLE unbiased study. It's not actually possible, I don't think.

Moreover, it's not as though the findings are questionable. "Over 300 vertebrate species" in which some form of homosexuality "regularly occurs", in some cases "as often as heterosexual mating".
I do agree with you that it occurs, but I have doubts about the normal circumstances. Since neither of us can agree on this subject, I say we call it a truce and deal with it. You will have your feelings on the matter, and I will have mine. All that we're doing now is festering the point until we've forgetten what we're really arguing for. I've not seen it happen, but I don't usually go hang out with a big group of animals just for laughs or anything.

I accept your call for a truce. However, if this discussion comes up in a few months when the more recent article has been archived online, or if I can find it in paper, I shall post it up here for the deliberation of all, and hostilities can be renewed. However, it's always nice to debate with someone polite - kudos to you, Antheridia.