NationStates Jolt Archive

In context, it was saying that homosexuality itself is a sin. It condemned the act of homosexual relations itself, not individual nature. Or else, would it not have specified that men were not abandoning the natural use of the women if they were homosexuals? I don't see where it says "and men burned in their unnatural lust for women." Taken in context, it is very clearly a condemnation of homosexuality AND temple prostitution.

Have you ever read the other verses of Romans 1?

Have you (all you religious types) got nothing better to do than an unwelcome storm on every thread regarding this topic?

I am going to make the next thread about Christianity very, very interesting. :)

IF, they are happy, then your point is valid. IF taking narcotics and paint fumes makes the street bum 'happy' who are we to complain?

LOL :D Yeah, they're just a bunch of happy go luckies those self-medicated types are...


Fine, then what happened to their argument that they 'couldn't help it' or, 'who would choose this?' If they can be 'fixed,’ why would they fight it?

Perhaps there is more to it than that? Perhaps pride and choice really do come into the equation?

There is NO choice in what you are being attracted to. Ask any pedophile you find. There is no choice in who you fall in love with, just ask my mother.
Being gay is not about choice any more than being straight is.
I'm bisexual myself, I fell in love with both boys and girls at different stages in my life. If you tell me that you can fight being in love, you've obviously never been.

Personally, I think that gay marriage is a great idea.

At the very least, it means that officially, none of us guys will ever have to marry Rosie O'Donnell.
Oh thank god

Being a Catholic and having gone to a Catholic school, I could not find anywhere in the Bible where is says specifically gay marriage is bad (correct me if I'm wrong). The Bible does say, however, that sex is for creation, not recreation. And since gay couples can't create offspring...well, that's where the problem starts. I think that God doesn't mind gay marriage as long as they don't have sex. Simple as that.

In context, it was saying that homosexuality itself is a sin. It condemned the act of homosexual relations itself, not individual nature. Or else, would it not have specified that men were not abandoning the natural use of the women if they were homosexuals? I don't see where it says "and men burned in their unnatural lust for women." Taken in context, it is very clearly a condemnation of homosexuality AND temple prostitution.

The natural use of women???? :eek:

OMFG, I have a natural use... well, I guess it's nice to know that we can be used for something after all, isn't it? If you'll excuse me for a moment, I think I'm going to be sick for a while...

There is NO choice in what you are being attracted to. Ask any pedophile you find. There is no choice in who you fall in love with, just ask my mother.
Being gay is not about choice any more than being straight is.
I'm bisexual myself, I fell in love with both boys and girls at different stages in my life. If you tell me that you can fight being in love, you've obviously never been.

Not even the nutbars at NARTH believe it's a choice. They're too busy trying to cure them, albeit unsuccessfully. :)

Being a Catholic and having gone to a Catholic school, I could not find anywhere in the Bible where is says specifically gay marriage is bad (correct me if I'm wrong). The Bible does say, however, that sex is for creation, not recreation. And since gay couples can't create offspring...well, that's where the problem starts. I think that God doesn't mind gay marriage as long as they don't have sex. Simple as that.
Then your god also frowns on old and infertile couples
As they also can not reproduce

Another reason why I find the Judea/Christian god morally wrong

I think that is freakin halirous. I wonder if i stod next to a tall person if it would make me taller, i need to grow a few more inches. But personally i don't care if your gay or not. If your gay don't flunt it around me. (and for you people who don't know what flunt means. it means don't go around showing off bout it). I wont have a problem if your gay just as long you keep it to yourself. I really don't want to know about what it's like. I have a good imagination i'll picture it on my own.

Not even the nutbars at NARTH believe it's a choice. They're too busy trying to cure them, albeit unsuccessfully. :)

I had to google NARTH... I had no idea people could be crazy enough to come up with a society like that. I have to say I feel sorry for the poor individuals they will get in their clutches, he/she will most likely come out more disturbed than they got in. Poor sods.

I think that is freakin halirous. I wonder if i stod next to a tall person if it would make me taller, i need to grow a few more inches. But personally i don't care if your gay or not. If your gay don't flunt it around me. (and for you people who don't know what flunt means. it means don't go around showing off bout it). I wont have a problem if your gay just as long you keep it to yourself. I really don't want to know about what it's like. I have a good imagination i'll picture it on my own.
Flaunt not flunt (sorry you made a big deal out of that word but spelled it incorrectly)

They will stop showing their affection to each other the second strait couples stop doing the same. You have no right to not be offended

The natural use of women????

OMFG, I have a natural use... well, I guess it's nice to know that we can be used for something after all, isn't it? If you'll excuse me for a moment, I think I'm going to be sick for a while...



Lol, not meant in that sense >.< He means that, in a sexual relationship, men are to copulate with us and not other men. It's not a very misogynist statement if you check the context in which it's being used.

Originally posted by:
Neo Regolia
Yes I'm aware of the conflict over 1 Corinthians and Leviticus.

OK lets say those two passages are true. Do they justify discriminating against an entire group of people? I'll answer that one for you: NO!

Also if you read Leviticus through, like 99.9 percent of it is Orthodox Jewish purity laws. Even so, much as a lot of people would like it, Christians cannot impose every single facet of the relgion on the rest of the world.

OK lets say those two passages are true. Do they justify discriminating against an entire group of people? I'll answer that one for you: NO!

Also if you read Leviticus through, like 99.9 percent of it is Orthodox Jewish purity laws. Even so, much as a lot of people would like it, Christians cannot impose every single facet of the relgion on the rest of the world.



If they were true beyond all doubt, we wouldn't even be having this debate because God's will supercedes ours. No honest Christian could possibly reject what they know to be his irrefutable commands.

If they were true beyond all doubt, we wouldn't even be having this debate because God's will supercedes ours. No honest Christian could possibly reject what they know to be his irrefutable commands.
And yet some don’t see them as irrefutable commands … but of course you will just call them not real Christians :rolleyes: they could not possibly have a different interpretation

Then your god also frowns on old and infertile couples
As they also can not reproduce

Another reason why I find the Judea/Christian god morally wrong

Whoa...I think you just broke my brain. I should tell my religion teacher that. :D Thank you for your insight and saving me from stupidity...to a degree.

No chance I'm giving a fundamentalist a break on this one. I got her up against the ropes, and I'm using her own arguments to invalidate her views, and breaking down slowly but surely forcing her...however slowly...into that corner where she will FINALLY have to admit that she and her people are WRONG for oppressing others...and that WE are right...and deserve our rights.

We are NOT going to go away.

You wanna not hear from us anymore? Then give us our equal rights, quit trying to oppress us...and you likely won't hear from us anymore, either.

Quite frankly, most of us want nothing to do with people like Neo Rogolia. We are, however, forced to have interactions with them...as long as they continue to try to oppress us.

We must stand against oppression.

and we shall.

When they stop...we stop. Not until.

We didn't start the fire.
Damn right. :sniper:

1. Wait humor me. You attend a church where it is disgraceful for women to speak while they are in church? Cool.

Have you ever seen the film Breaking the Waves?

Oh, I really don't mind civil unions with equal rights. I just feel that the government recognizing as legitimate the institution of gay marriage would be a slap in the face of God.
They already recognise atheist marriage. Where's your campaign against that?

I feel like you are oppressing me by trying to get the government to ok something I believe is wrong. It's not just you who feels oppressed
What's being oppressed? Your "right" not to be offended? You "right" to hate gay people?

The institution of marriage in the US is mainly religious. Perhaps if they were to instate the practice of humanist marriages like that one couple had in England, then it would not be infringing upon what I perceive as my rights.
What are your rights?

It would appear the majority is against you if these officials are elected in the first place. Perhaps you fail to realize you are the minority, and as such, recieve less 'notice' than the majority under democracy.

The government has enforced church "dogma" since so long ago, and it has worked until fairly recently. As we move further away from church, and as sick practices such as "gay marriage" are proposed, it only hastens the decline of society. Your mere presence here only serves to prove me correct. 100 years ago we did not have problems with serial killers and 'mental cases' being acquited and undergoing rehab and escaping from their crimes. Back when we followed religion, lazy people did not recieve welfare checks they were punished by society. Underage sex was not seen as 'cool' but as an offense. Pregnant teenagers are far too acceptable today to even make the possibility of fixing that problem a reality.

It's called democracy, and it's called the right track. Maybe you should get on it.
Luckily, no country is a pure democracy, and minority rights are protected. Besides, religious nuts and theocrats are not the majority, they're a lunatic fringe.

Your idea of the past is unrealistic. There were just as many social problems 100 years ago as there are today. Ever heard of Jack the Ripper? Abortion happened, just with knives and hooks rather than in surgeries. "lazy people were punished by society" - oh yeah, I can tell that you are ruled by a spirit of love for your fellow man!

And yet some don’t see them as irrefutable commands … but of course you will just call them not real Christians they could not possibly have a different interpretation


Did I not say if they WERE? He made the presupposition that they were true.

Whoa...I think you just broke my brain. I should tell my religion teacher that. :D Thank you for your insight and saving me from stupidity...to a degree.
Not saying I am 100 percent right but that’s how I see it :)

Damn right.



And they claim that WE'RE the fanatics :rolleyes:

If it were referring to ritualistic prostitution, then why would it refer to the sex acts themselves (not the reason for committing them) as shameful and unnatural? Referring to abandoning natural relations with women in favor of men as indecent, regardless of whether performed in prostitution or not, can only be an inference of the sin of the act.

For a heterosexual man, natural relations would be with women. In fact, for a heterosexual man following Scripture, it would be with his wife only. If he then allowed himself to be used by another male, despite the fact that he had no feelings at all towards that person and was in fact not even attracted to them, is that not shameful by your morals?

And they claim that WE'RE the fanatics :rolleyes:
When nothing else works and people are still denied equality sometimes they have to do what works

For a heterosexual man, natural relations would be with women. In fact, for a heterosexual man following Scripture, it would be with his wife only. If he then allowed himself to be used by another male, despite the fact that he had no feelings at all towards that person and was in fact not even attracted to them, is that not shameful by your morals?


Yes, but that is not all that passage condemns. It also condemns homosexuality.

When nothing else works and people are still denied equality sometimes they have to do what works



I'm sorry, but who is the militant wacko again who advocates violence against Christians just so she can indulge in her own sinful acts? Did I ever suggest fighting homosexuals in a physical manner? By advocating violence, she pretty much lost all credibility she had.

Yes, but that is not all that passage condemns. It also condemns homosexuality.
I see it as relations that do not follow where your heart is

Another ambiguous statement from a supposedly divinely inspired document

:rolleyes:

god needs a good editor

Yes, but that is not all that passage condemns. It also condemns homosexuality.

Only if you are specifically looking for it to.

The only part of the passage that can even be considered to be condemning homosexuality is the part that says they left their natural use of women and lusted for men.

The only people who have a natural attraction to women are heterosexual or bisexual males. Homosexual males are attracted (naturally) only to men. You may not like that view of it, but it is just as valid as yours (if not more) from a simple reading of the text.

I see it as relations that do not follow where your heart is

Another ambiguous statement from a supposedly divinely inspired document



god needs a good editor



It's not that ambiguous.....if you honestly look for the truth in the statement instead of what you want it to say, then you will see that it condemns homosexuality too.

I'm sorry, but who is the militant wacko again who advocates violence against Christians just so she can indulge in her own sinful acts? Did I ever suggest fighting homosexuals in a physical manner? By advocating violence, she pretty much lost all credibility she had.

Where in that passage was violence advocated?

It's not that ambiguous.....if you honestly look for the truth in the statement instead of what you want it to say, then you will see that it condemns homosexuality too.

There you go asserting your own infallibility again.

You just can't imagine for a second that anything you say might be wrong, eh?

Only if you are specifically looking for it to.

The only part of the passage that can even be considered to be condemning homosexuality is the part that says they left their natural use of women and lusted for men.

The only people who have a natural attraction to women are heterosexual or bisexual males. Homosexual males are attracted (naturally) only to men. You may not like that view of it, but it is just as valid as yours (if not more) from a simple reading of the text.



No, personally I wish God did not condemn homosexuality. I, in my limited human wisdom, see nothing wrong with it. But, reading the passage objectively, I am forced to come to the conclusion that God does regard it as sin. No matter how much I dislike it.

It's not that ambiguous.....if you honestly look for the truth in the statement instead of what you want it to say, then you will see that it condemns homosexuality too.
Amazing I was going to say the same thing to you … depub gave a good description on what I see in that passage
Yet somehow your view is the right one

:rolleyes:

There you go asserting your own infallibility again.

You just can't imagine for a second that anything you say might be wrong, eh?



Actually, I've gone through stages in my life of agnosticism and doubting God's justice in denying homosexuals the right to copulate. So yes, I actually used to be opposed to this verse. But things have changed, God has shown me the Truth, and I now know that He knows best.

If they were true beyond all doubt, we wouldn't even be having this debate because God's will supercedes ours. No honest Christian could possibly reject what they know to be his irrefutable commands.

Those are god's irrefutable commands? Funny how selective you people can become... so you don't eat pork (Lev 11.7)? And you will circumsise any male children you will have on the 8th day (Lev 12.3)? You would demand execution for adulterers (Lev 20.10)? You would stone people for interpreting Tarot cards (Lev 20.27)? All these commands are found in the same book that comdemns homosexual relations.
Btw, the bible only EVER refers to homosexual men, women aren't comdemned once for being with other women. So, I guess I can be bisexual all I want, huh?

No, personally I wish God did not condemn homosexuality. I, in my limited human wisdom, see nothing wrong with it. But, reading the passage objectively, I am forced to come to the conclusion that God does regard it as sin. No matter how much I dislike it.
And we are forced to come to different conclusions

Yet you make the claim of objectivity to try to solidify your view that your interpretation is right

Where in that passage was violence advocated?



Read all of her posts, I remember at one point being suprised when she advocated violent resistance to us.

Originally posted by:
Neo Rogolia
If they were true beyond all doubt we wouldn't even be having this conversation Like I posted before( you may not remember. It was like 50 pages ago) that I personally don't consider anything infallible unless Jesus said it personally or its a similar theme. Did Jesus write 1 Corinthians 2 Timothy or Leviticus? Nope.

Also like I posted before I don't think morals specific to ONE religion should govern EVERYONE's lives. In this case, no other world religion except Christianity condemns homosexuality.

I don't think being homosexual is a choice. You can go against your orientation but not choose it. One last thing:

Do you believe that homosexuals are "abomination to God"? Because if thats so(and I'm not saying it is) then those psycho kids who killed Matthew Shepherd were "cleansing" humanity.

Think about what i've posted before u (or anyone else) replies.

Those are go's irrefutable commands? Funny how selective you people can become... so you don't eat pork (Lev 11.7)? And you will circumsise any male children you will have on the 8th day (Lev 12.3)? You would demand execution for adulterers (Lev 20.10)? You would stone people for interpreting Tarot cards (Lev 20.27)? All these commands are found in the same book that comdemns homosexual relations.
Btw, the bible only EVER refers to homosexual men, women aren't comdemned once for being with other women. So, I guess I can be bisexual all I want, huh?

Nasty restroom graffiti is usually about gay men too but never mentions lesbians, at least in a harsh way. :)

And we are forced to come to different conclusions

Yet you make the claim of objectivity to try to solidify your view that your interpretation is right


If you consider the entire verse instead of just the parts you want to see, that IS the only conclusion one could possibly reach!

If the state got out of marriage completely, and gave no legal status to ANY marriage, then people could "marry" how they chose according to whatever beliefs, no matter how perverse they may seem to others.

People wishing to enjoy state protection for division of assets etc. could enter into a contract, and have that union treated per any other business type law with regard to dividing assets should the contract be dissolved.

If you consider the entire verse instead of just the parts you want to see, that IS the only conclusion one could possibly reach!
Nope … considered the whole thing I get more of a “going against your nature” feel out of it
Guess god should have inspired more clarity in the text

Do you believe that homosexuals are "abomination to God"? Because if thats so(and I'm not saying it is) then those psycho kids who killed Matthew Shepherd were "cleansing" humanity.

Think about what i've posted before u (or anyone else) replies.


Remember what Christ said to the Pharisees when they wanted to stone an adultress? "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." Those kids had NO right to kill Matthew Shepard, no matter how sinful he was, because of their own depravity.

Nasty restroom graffiti is usually about gay men too but never mentions lesbians, at least in a harsh way. :)

Oh, I've seen one or two in my time ;)

but I somehow doubt that fundamentalist Christians would actually know so much detail... or such vocabulary, so I ascribe them to the average drunk wanker.

It doesn't matter what religion thinks about gay marriage.

You need a secular reason to ban something. Give me one good legal reason why Gays shouldn't marry.

Those are god's irrefutable commands? Funny how selective you people can become... so you don't eat pork (Lev 11.7)? And you will circumsise any male children you will have on the 8th day (Lev 12.3)? You would demand execution for adulterers (Lev 20.10)? You would stone people for interpreting Tarot cards (Lev 20.27)? All these commands are found in the same book that comdemns homosexual relations.
Btw, the bible only EVER refers to homosexual men, women aren't comdemned once for being with other women. So, I guess I can be bisexual all I want, huh?


I've already answered the issue of the old law being nailed to the cross several times, I'm not repeating myself....women are condemned in Romans 1 too.

It doesn't matter what religion thinks about gay marriage.

You need a secular reason to ban something. Give me one good legal reason why Gays shouldn't marry.
Let me guess … ummm

…. Ohhh

Well none
:p

You avoided my question, Neo Rogolia: Were those psycho kids doing the world a favor?

Someone made a good point earlier about how most Christians don't live according to Orthodox purity rules. So if you think about it most Christian " fundamentalists" are not really fundamentalists at all or they would follow the purity rules.

But hey I respect your opinion. I'm just saying: I don't think God hates gays.

I've already answered the issue of the old law being nailed to the cross several times, I'm not repeating myself....women are condemned in Romans 1 too.

The killing of adulterers is the next sentence in the same book, right after the bit about homosexuality. So, one sentence gets dropped, the next one remains valid? Sorry, but you have to explain the basis for that to me.

Let me guess … ummm

…. Ohhh

Well none
:p
See? That's my point.

There is no reasonable reason to ban Gay marriage except religious reasons. In a country that want freedom of religion, there is no reason to ban Gay marriage.

If you tell me that you can fight being in love, you've obviously never been. Beg to disagree. Also, Christians don't have problems with men loving each other or women loving each other, except if "love" is being used as a euphemism.

The killing of adulterers is the next sentence in the same book, right after the bit about homosexuality. So, one sentence gets dropped, the next one remains valid? Sorry, but you have to explain the basis for that to me.


It's politics. :)

Originally posted by:
Cabra West
The rule about killing adulterers is in that same book.

And if you'll remember there is a story in the Gospels where Jesus saves an adulterer from a stoning.

So did Jesus follow all the purity rules? Doesn't sound like it. The point we're all trying to make is that Leviticus was an older book for older times.

Actually, I've gone through stages in my life of agnosticism and doubting God's justice in denying homosexuals the right to copulate. So yes, I actually used to be opposed to this verse. But things have changed, God has shown me the Truth, and I now know that He knows best.

Funny, God has shown me the opposite.

Of course, I am open to the idea that I might have misinterpreted God's signals and you might be right.

You are clearly not open to that possibility yourself.

People screw up the message - it is a fact of life. Even receiving guidance from God, we will sometimes, in our fallibility, get the message wrong.

The killing of adulterers is the next sentence in the same book, right after the bit about homosexuality. So, one sentence gets dropped, the next one remains valid? Sorry, but you have to explain the basis for that to me.



I'm sorry, I don't see what you're trying to say. Elaborate.

Beg to disagree. Also, Christians don't have problems with men loving each other or women loving each other, except if "love" is being used as a euphemism.

Euphemism? :confused:
As in, talking about the love god has for us all and at the same time condemning some on behalf of their feelings for each other?

And if you'll remember there is a story in the Gospels where Jesus saves an adulterer from a stoning.

So did Jesus follow all the purity rules? Doesn't sound like it. The point we're all trying to make is that Leviticus was an older book for older times.


Yes, Christ specifically did away with the old law and replaced it with the new one. Notice how I've been mainly quoting Romans 1 as opposed to Leviticus?

If you consider the entire verse instead of just the parts you want to see, that IS the only conclusion one could possibly reach!

More arrogance!

You cannot keep saying "I am fallible, I'm just always right!"

Meanwhile, we could say the same thing to you. But I won't. Because I, unlike you, can admit my fallibility and the fact that someone else's interpretation just might be right.

Euphemism? :confused:
As in, talking about the love god has for us all and at the same time condemning some on behalf of their feelings for each other? No, no… I meant that the "act of love" is condemned, not them actually loving each other. That detail is important.

Ouch!

First of all, I'm prone to phases of agnosticism( and kindly don't use that to say all my points are screwed up.) In no way am I as arrogant as you're making me out to be.

Fundamentalist ideology could be right, but seeing as I don't have a time machine to go back and see whether Adam and Eve really existed, I'll never know who is right will I?

I believe in the God of Jesus Christ. The only difference between you and me is that I think there is far more to God than Old Testament scholars could ever have been able to write down on some scrolls.

If that sounded catty, I sincerely apologize. But I won't take it back

Euphemism?
As in, talking about the love god has for us all and at the same time condemning some on behalf of their feelings for each other?


Euphemism for sexual relations. We are to have love for everyone, regardless of gender, but in a non-sexual manner (excluding one's spouse).

I'm sorry, I don't see what you're trying to say. Elaborate.

The command to kill adulterers is in Lev 20.10, the command condemning homosexuals is Lev 20.13, the very next command. So, why would you argue that adulterers should no longer be killed, but homosexuality is still an abomination?

Ouch!

First of all, I'm prone to phases of agnosticism( and kindly don't use that to say all my points are screwed up.) In no way am I as arrogant as you're making me out to be.

Fundamentalist ideology could be right, but seeing as I don't have a time machine to go back and see whether Adam and Eve really existed, I'll never know who is right will I?

I believe in the God of Jesus Christ. The only difference between you and me is that I think there is far more to God than Old Testament scholars could ever have been able to write down on some scrolls.

If that sounded catty, I sincerely apologize. But I won't take it back


I know, we will never fully understand God but at least we can partially understand His will with the scriptures he has given us.

[QUOTE]Euphemism for sexual relations. We are to have love for everyone, regardless of gender, but in a non-sexual manner (excluding one's spouse).[QUOTE/]

Which is why repressing love for someone is a moot point (although it is perfectly possible).

The command to kill adulterers is in Lev 20.10, the command condemning homosexuals is Lev 20.13, the very next command. So, why would you argue that adutlerers should no longer be killed, but homosexuality is still an abomination?


Oh, I answered that a few posts prior to this one. Christ abolished the Old Law and established a New Covenant which was sealed when he died upon the cross.

I know, we will never fully understand God but at least we can partially understand His will with the scriptures he has given us.

How do you know that all have been preserved?
Considering that we still kep finding very early verions of the gosples that were not included in the bible and that these accounts vary from the 4 gosples just as much as the gosples themselves vary from each other, I would assume that god said a lot that was not handed down or got lost. And considering that he obviously wanted parts of the OT laws revoked through the gosples, how do you know he didn't want to revoke more but it is just not known today?

If u want to believe that homosexuals are all evil people, I won't try to stop you anymore. But in no way does that ideology give people the right to actively discriminate( and in Matthew Shpeherd's case kill ) gays. :mad:

Oh, I answered that a few posts prior to this one. Christ abolished the Old Law and established a New Covenant which was sealed when he died upon the cross.

So, what words of Jesus do you base your assumption that homosexuality is to be condemned on?

And I want the words of Jesus here, not that raving lunatic Paulus who never even met with Jesus....

How do you know that all have been preserved?
Considering that we still kep finding very early verions of the gosples that were not included in the bible and that these accounts vary from the 4 gosples just as much as the gosples themselves vary from each other, I would assume that god said a lot that was not handed down or got lost. And considering that he obviously wanted parts of the OT laws revoked through the gosples, how do you know he didn't want to revoke more but it is just not known today?



That's where faith that we are doing His will comes in. We work with what we have.

Cabra West:

You've seemed up a point in one post that i've been trying to get through Neo Rogolia's head since like forever ago.

Hes getting desperate you guys. ;) He completely dodged Cabra West's question.

And I want the words of Jesus here, not that raving lunatic Paulus who never even met with Jesus.... He did, on the road to Damascus.

Sorry about my annoying habit of drifting round the edges of debates like Nobby Nobbs.

So, what words of Jesus do you base your assumption that homosexuality is to be condemned on?

And I want the words of Jesus here, not that raving lunatic Paulus who never even met with Jesus....


Never met with Jesus eh? Have you read Acts 9? Paul spoke with Jesus himself.

That's where faith that we are doing His will comes in. We work with what we have.
And Depub has faith that her interpretation is the one god intended

You have to have faith as you say … she does so do you

What makes your faith better then hers?

:rolleyes: More than likely it was purposely written out by the Church. So I guess you could say it "got lost"

Hes getting desperate you guys. He completely dodged Cabra West's question.


Umm, no and I'm a she....

homo sexauls are a fuck up in the human evolutions in the mind it has no point period to exist just wasting space on this planet and wtf is up with you bible beaters out there we humans made the whole jesus christ and god thing up to be more mentally secure thats the whole purpose of the role of a god and or gods in the minds of us primitive sentient lifeforms i mean it too we humans better get our act together soon or its bye bye to everyone and everything which wouldnt be so bad my genius ass will be smoking pot the entire time the earth goes down the inevitibal void known as humans for we are truely the worst lot of lifeforms to exist on this planet

Cabra West:

You've seemed up a point in one post that i've been trying to get through Neo Rogolia's head since like forever ago.

No way. You can't convince these types, I had discussions like that so many times before. If somebody believes the sky to be green no amount of arguing will change their mind. I just enjoy discussion...

I apologize. I didn't catch that in any of the posts. Sorry again.

Though incidentally, when you don't know what gender someone is , according to grammar, you refer to them as a "he"

homo sexauls are a fuck up in the human evolutions in the mind it has no point period to exist just wasting space on this planet and wtf is up with you bible beaters out there we humans made the whole jesus christ and god thing up to be more mentally secure thats the whole purpose of the role of a god and or gods in the minds of us primitive sentient lifeforms i mean it too we human better get our act together soon or its bye bye to everyone and everything which wouldnt be so bad my genius ass will be smoking pot the entire time the earth goes down the inevitibal void known as humans I'm confused, people, is this one a troll or a spammer? Or someone with no punctuation buttons on his keyboard?

And Depub has faith that her interpretation is the one god intended

You have to have faith as you say … she does so do you

What makes your faith better then hers?


I never stated my faith was inherently better than hers (if I did, I apologize), but I do follow my own faith which teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

I'm confused, people, is this one a troll or a spammer? Or someone with no punctuation buttons on his keyboard?


A nice blend of all three :)

He did, on the road to Damascus.

Sorry about my annoying habit of drifting round the edges of debates like Nobby Nobbs.

Oh, yes, and I fell of my bike in front of McDonalds yesterday and Jesus appeared to teach me balance... in person, I meant. Anybody can claim apparitions. :rolleyes:

I never stated my faith was inherently better than hers (if I did, I apologize), but I do follow my own faith which teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

...and wish to enforce that viewpoint upon others through the law, even though you admit that your faith is not necessarily better than one who has a faith that teaches them otherwise.

...and wish to enforce that viewpoint upon others through the law, even though you admit that your faith is not necessarily better than one who has a faith that teaches them otherwise.


If I have faith and not the zeal to try and implement its teachings, then would I not be a hypocrite?

Neo Rogolia...
still waiting for what Jesus himself had to say about homosexuals....

Neo Rogolia...
still waiting for what Jesus himself had to say about homosexuals.... Homosexual acts were looked down on by the Jews of the time, though, so Jesus didn't need to say anything - just as he says nothing specific about murder.

Homosexual acts were looked down on by the Jews of the time, though, so Jesus didn't need to say anything - just as he says nothing specific about murder.

So, the old law is no longer valid, Jesus made no explicit statement about homosexuality, either way, where do you get the authority from to condemn them?

Oh, yes, and I fell of my bike in front of McDonalds yesterday and Jesus appeared to teach me balance... in person, I meant. Anybody can claim apparitions.


Well, apparently the Holy Spirit thought his "claim" was legitimate as He gave him the power to perform miracles....and the Lord apparently thought so too, what with the whole Acts 9:10-17 issue.

Homosexual acts were looked down on by the Jews of the time, though, so Jesus didn't need to say anything - just as he says nothing specific about murder.

So, the old law is no longer valid, Jesus made no explicit statement about homosexuality, either way, where do you get the authority from to condemn them?

I'd like to add to my former post: The generally accepted explanation for the current state of affairs regarding marriages in all of Scandinavia is women rights.
Yea, you read that right. Women's rights have send the girls off to long educations and long work hours. That's both why people marry later and why they get kids later. Advances in medicine also has some bearing on the latter.
Anyway, if you've ever seen or participated in higher education, you'll know it's all but impossible to find time for a lover. You'll also know that even though you live off oatmeal and imaginary roastbeef, you'll accumulate massive debt. To put it in another way: Children equals dropping your education.
Young people also tend to change jobs a lot in the first 5 years after finishing their educations. Again that's neither conductive to partners, families or anything else of the sort.
People also have a lot more partners now than 20 years ago. That means people won't marry the first guy/gal who they happen to fall in love with. It also means the statistics of children born out of wedlock is meaningless. Most of these children end up with married parents. Sometimes one of them will not be the biological parent, but most of the time both will.
In study invironments today, it's normal not to plan on having children before the age of 33-36. This is because the women who are gonna have the babies simply won't have time or means to support a child before that age. Needless to say, human nature often get's the better of these women. That's the reason #1 so many children are born outside of marriage.
Claiming people don't take marriage seriously because homo's & bi's have equal rights is inane. It's not something anyone cares about. Al all. It's not a topic for debate in Scandinavia, not anywhere. Not even inside the protestant churches.

The only real homo/bi issue that's left is nazi/immigrant hatecrimes. Those are on the rise in all major cities in Scandinavia. It can be a dangerous undertaking to hold hands on a dark night in the middle of a city these days.
Thankfully the peoples of Scandinavia are generally outraged over that kind of attacks, and really, most of the homo/bi related news in Scandinavia deals with how to make Nazis and ill adjusted immigrant kids (yea it's the religion again) realize they've gone way off the deep end. Usually it ends up with public demands for harsher punishments for hate crimes.

I suppose you'll have to take my word for it, but only a very very minute minority aren't sympathetic to homo's & bi's.

But perhaps Scandinavian tolerance has something to do with better average education, independent media, more open and tolerant church, more social equality and better opportunities in life. Most of them also have a very liberal attitude towards pornography, religion and politics.

I guess you could say, the real difference is Scandinavia doesn't skrew their citizens. That kind of respect just breeds respect in turn.


Thank you for that, always nice when people have a good grasp of the misinformation and the facts.

So, the old law is no longer valid, Jesus made no explicit statement about homosexuality, either way, where do you get the authority from to condemn them?



From Paul, who was given authority by Christ Himself to convey Christ's will in such matters. We cannot deny the authority of the apostles, especially because their human fallability is nullified when they are possessed of the Holy Spirit.

If I have faith and not the zeal to try and implement its teachings, then would I not be a hypocrite?

No. God gave human beings free will. Why do you think you should take it away from them?

Your faith should be put into action by refraining, yourself, from doing that which you have faith is wrong. Note that Christ asked us to spread the Gospel, not force it down the throats of others. You can certainly try and convince someone that their lifestyle is wrong, but forcing them to change is couterproductive for more than one reason. First off, there is nowhere in scripture where it says "Go out and make sure everyone else lives like you." In fact, there are quite a few admonishments to simply not associate with those who do not follow Christ's teachings. On top of that, by attempting to force your own version of God's will upon people, you are, in fact, turning them away from God. I'm pretty sure Scripture had something to say about those who turn others away from God.

Homosexual acts were looked down on by the Jews of the time, though, so Jesus didn't need to say anything - just as he says nothing specific about murder.

Unless someone really, really wants to die, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is pretty clear on the murder part.

From Paul, who was given authority by Christ Himself to convey Christ's will in such matters. We cannot deny the authority of the apostles, especially because their human fallability is nullified when they are possessed of the Holy Spirit.

Well, if that's what you want to believe...
I believe the words of Jesus, nothing more and nothing less. He was a great man, who taught love and compassion. Paulus was a lunatic preaching discrimination, hate, fanatism and inhumanity. but choose for yourself, after all you choose what to believe from the old testamnet as well.

On top of that, by attempting to force your own version of God's will upon people, you are, in fact, turning them away from God. I'm pretty sure Scripture had something to say about those who turn others away from God.

Yup. She's been doing a very good job so far in turning me away from Christianity ;)

Well, if that's what you want to believe...
I believe the words of Jesus, nothing more and nothing less. He was a great man, who taught love and compassion. Paulus was a lunatic preaching discrimination, hate, fanatism and inhumanity. but choose for yourself, after all you choose what to believe from the old testamnet as well.


Jesus Himself told Paul that he was speaking with Christ's authority, thus what Paul says would be endorsed by Christ :)

No. God gave human beings free will. Why do you think you should take it away from them?

Your faith should be put into action by refraining, yourself, from doing that which you have faith is wrong. Note that Christ asked us to spread the Gospel, not force it down the throats of others. You can certainly try and convince someone that their lifestyle is wrong, but forcing them to change is couterproductive for more than one reason. First off, there is nowhere in scripture where it says "Go out and make sure everyone else lives like you." In fact, there are quite a few admonishments to simply not associate with those who do not follow Christ's teachings. On top of that, by attempting to force your own version of God's will upon people, you are, in fact, turning them away from God. I'm pretty sure Scripture had something to say about those who turn others away from God.



And I'm pretty sure Scripture had something to say about cowards and those who followed the wisdom of men and not that of God.

IF, they are happy, then your point is valid. IF taking narcotics and paint fumes makes the street bum 'happy' who are we to complain?

LOL :D Yeah, they're just a bunch of happy go luckies those self-medicated types are...


Fine, then what happened to their argument that they 'couldn't help it' or, 'who would choose this?' If they can be 'fixed,’ why would they fight it?

Perhaps there is more to it than that? Perhaps pride and choice really do come into the equation?

That's why I said I was just making a bad assumption that it is a choice, cause if by choice it makes them happy, then what's wrong with it.
But to answer your questions. If they can't help it, then so be it, whatever, they are being who they are, that's just how it is and why do we have to complain and fight them about it. If you can't help that you like wearing green, should I argue and fight and say you are evil because in my crazy religion the color green is satanic?
Assuming it can be fixed, what if they don't want to be fixed? If you are happy being a hetero who likes brunettes only, would you want someone to say "hey we can fix you so you'll like other girls too"? I don't want someone messing with my happiness, do you?

And I'm pretty sure Scripture had something to say about cowards and those who followed the wisdom of men and not that of God.

Yes, it did. Luckily, I am guilty of neither (at least that I know of).

One could argue, of course, that only a coward would feel the need to enforce their own religion upon others, despite the fact that nothing in their holy book asks them to. One could argue that only someone whose faith was so weak that they would fall into sin themself if someone around them did it would call for infringing upon the religious freedoms of others.

Jesus Himself told Paul that he was speaking with Christ's authority, thus what Paul says would be endorsed by Christ :)

Yes, and god himself spoke to Mohammed. That would give Islam a better claim, after all their prophet spoke with the big guy, not with his junior assistant, right? :rolleyes:

I believe in what Jesus taught because it is good for humans. If god loves humanity, he wants what's good for them. I don't believe that Jesus was anything but a prophet, and Paulus was a dellusional fanatic who hit his head on a rock when falling from his horse. End of story.

Yes, it did. Luckily, I am guilty of neither (at least that I know of).

One could argue, of course, that only a coward would feel the need to enforce their own religion upon others, despite the fact that nothing in their holy book asks them to. One could argue that only someone whose faith was so weak that they would fall into sin themself if someone around them did it would call for infringing upon the religious freedoms of others.


One could also argue that appeasing the people surrounding you instead of evangelizing as Christ commanded would be the act of a coward...Christianity is not a "Live and let live" religion. Christ commanded us to go out and convert. Also, the Bible frequently shows examples of how those who thought they were strong enough in their faith that they were immune to temptation were corrupted by their own confidence when they associated with heathen.

Yes, and god himself spoke to Mohammed. That would give Islam a better claim, after all their prophet spoke with the big guy, not with his junior assistant, right?

I believe in what Jesus taught because it is good for humans. If god loves humanity, he wants what's good for them. I don't believe that Jesus was anything but a prophet, and Paulus was a dellusional fanatic who hit his head on a rock when falling from his horse. End of story.


Did Muhammad perform miracles? Did the Lord appear to someone with whom Muhammad wasn't even familiar and tell them to be expecting him? Did the Holy Spirit impart its power upon Muhammad?

One could also argue that appeasing the people surrounding you instead of evangelizing as Christ commanded would be the act of a coward...Christianity is not a "Live and let live" religion. Christ commanded us to go out and convert.

Who said anything about appeasing the people around?

Do you honestly think that not forcing religion upon people is appeasing them?

At what point did I suggest that you stop evangelizing? Meanwhile, Christ commanded that you spread the Gospel, not that you convert. Conversions are up to the person involved. It isn't as if you can force a conversion (at least, not a true conversion).

You know, in many island nations, it was once a common practice for missionaries to force conversions. It was basically "convert or die." The tribes often did as they were told, at least until the missionary left. In many of those countries (now often predominantly Muslim), the words "Christian" and "missionary" have such poor connotations that those who would travel there cannot use them. Those who do minister to these people have to refer to themselves in a different way, such as "follower of Christ" to even get someone to talk to them. Seems that such missionaries didn't spread the Gospel much. In fact, they actively turned entire cultures away from Christ.

That is exactly what you do when you try to force, not I said force, not explain, your beliefs upon someone.

How exactly is it cowardice to explain your beliefs to someone, but leave them to make up their own mind on whether or not to follow God? Again, God gave human beings free will - thus human beings decide whether or not to follow. Or did God force you into following?

Edit: Meanwhile, I find it rather amusing that you state Christianity is not a "live and let live" religion, when that is essentially what Christ taught. He taught that we should live good lives ourselves, and convert others by example. He ate with the unclean and the criminals and lived by example. He even stated that, in most instances, passive resistance should be our answer, even in the face of violence.

Did Muhammad perform miracles? Did the Lord appear to someone with whom Muhammad wasn't even familiar and tell them to be expecting him? Did the Holy Spirit impart its power upon Muhammad?

The holy spirit didn't appear as Mohammed stated that believing in the trinity is idolatry. Everything else is claimed in the Qu'raan, miracles, apprations to others, healing, prophetical dreams, the whole show.

Here are a few little nuggets to feed the flames:

1. Marriage is a civil institution, no religion must be declared or represented. This goes along with The Bible pretty well, as God said that he would come to bless any marriage that was asked of him, yet did not make it a necessity: this got confused by The Catholics, whom Luther set straight with his neat little theses, somehow the protestants have already forgotten this (by and large).

2. God was gay. We learn in the story of Gideon that God had relations not only with him but also with Moses, Joshua, Jacob and a number of others (Moses was his favorite though). We also have word in The Bible of the homosexuality of King David (who was the very definition of adulterer, by the by), who remarks that his love with (not for) Jonathan was better than that of any woman. Watch this:

"When he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him away that day, and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan stripped himself of his robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his sword, and even his armor and bow and girdle. {Sam 18:1-4}

Go David! Get you some!

The scantiness of biblical evidence against homosexuality has already been extolled upon fairly well by myself as well as others, but that doesn't seem to matter to the believer.

Of course, there are some fairly unconfirmable arguments to be made that Jesus and James got a bit funky together, but about the David and Jonathan bit there can be no two ways, the scripture is very clear and goes on at great length about it.

Christians may not study the story of Gideon and therefore might evade the evidence that is Gods stories of locker-room glee with the various fathers of Israel, but it's there all the same.

If you just hate homosexuals, go ahead and say it. There's no need to couch your bigotry in a religion that really has very little to say about the subject, and a nearly equal amount to say good and bad.

You. Just. Don't. Like. Gays.

Well, I'll leave you to ponder why Islam gained so many more followers all over the world and who gave Christianity such a bad name.
I'm off to bed, folks :)

homo sexauls are a fuck up in the human evolutions in the mind it has no point period to exist just wasting space on this planet and wtf is up with you bible beaters out there we humans made the whole jesus christ and god thing up to be more mentally secure thats the whole purpose of the role of a god and or gods in the minds of us primitive sentient lifeforms i mean it too we humans better get our act together soon or its bye bye to everyone and everything which wouldnt be so bad my genius ass will be smoking pot the entire time the earth goes down the inevitibal void known as humans for we are truely the worst lot of lifeforms to exist on this planet

Did I miss the part of school where they taught us how to use "."s and basic sentence structure?

Who said anything about appeasing the people around?

Do you honestly think that not forcing religion upon people is appeasing them?

At what point did I suggest that you stop evangelizing? Meanwhile, Christ commanded that you spread the Gospel, not that you convert. Conversions are up to the person involved. It isn't as if you can force a conversion (at least, not a true conversion).

You know, in many island nations, it was once a common practice for missionaries to force conversions. It was basically "convert or die." The tribes often did as they were told, at least until the missionary left. In many of those countries (now often predominantly Muslim), the words "Christian" and "missionary" have such poor connotations that those who would travel there cannot use them. Those who do minister to these people have to refer to themselves in a different way, such as "follower of Christ" to even get someone to talk to them. Seems that such missionaries didn't spread the Gospel much. In fact, they actively turned entire cultures away from Christ.

That is exactly what you do when you try to force, not I said force, not explain, your beliefs upon someone.

How exactly is it cowardice to explain your beliefs to someone, but leave them to make up their own mind on whether or not to follow God? Again, God gave human beings free will - thus human beings decide whether or not to follow. Or did God force you into following?



Nice strawman you've posited, but I never claimed to believe in the whole "convert or die" thing. However, not furthering one's faith in the interest of preserving what one perceives as "tolerance" does fit the meaning of cowardice. We are a divisive religion, we are not out to appeal to the desires of the world...it may not be politically correct, but Christ never intended for His will to be popular and appealing to all.

Matthew 5:11-12 11"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

2. God was gay. We learn in the story of Gideon that God had relations not only with him but also with Moses, Joshua, Jacob and a number of others (Moses was his favorite though). We also have word in The Bible of the homosexuality of King David (who was the very definition of adulterer, by the by), who remarks that his love with (not for) Jonathan was better than that of any woman. Watch this:

"When he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him away that day, and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan stripped himself of his robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his sword, and even his armor and bow and girdle. {Sam 18:1-4}


This is all false. God's love for them was of the agape sense. As was David's love for Jonathan. Never is sex mentioned. Since when has an intimate, brotherly love entailed sexual relations?

Well, I'll leave you to ponder why Islam gained so many more followers all over the world and who gave Christianity such a bad name.
I'm off to bed, folks


Matthew 7:13-14 13"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

No, those statements aren't incompatible because God Himself stated his views on homosexuality. I may not have perfect knowledge, but at least I know that.

But we have already said "Because God said so" is NOT an adequate reason.

You can't even PROVE that this putative God even exists...much less that you have interpreted the words ascribed to him accurately.

ON EDIT: Let me try this a bit more gently. "Because God said so" may be adequate reason for YOU to feel as you do...but it is NOT adequate reason to deny other people their basic human rights, dignity, civil rights, and pursuit of happiness.

I'm sorry, Neo, if we who lead different lifestyles make YOU feel "icky." Sorry about that. But, you know, in our civil law and constitution...ther is no guarantee against being offended or feeling "icky" or having your sensibilities challenged or offended.

On the other hand it IS in our civil law and constitution that all should have equal standing in the eyes of the law.

Yet, you would deny us that equal standing, all because we make YOU feel "icky" and because YOUR putative God (whom you cannot prove even exists) said so.

We have already stated that that is NOT an adequate reason to deny others rights, freedoms and happiness that you take for granted.

What is the vested state interest in preventing gay marriage? What is the vested national interest in preventing this? The vested HUMAN interest in preventing this?

How does it, in any way, harm you or affect your ability...to believe as you do, feel as you do, and worship as you do...if John and Steve were allowed to get married?

How does it affect your church's ability to continue to preach as it does...to continue to refuse membership to anyone it desires...to refuse to perform ceremonies it considers objectionable...if John and Steve are allowed to get married...and have FULL LEGAL STANDING, as a couple, in the eyes of the civil law of the United States of America...with all rights and responsibities that go along with marriage?

Answer: It doesn't.

If you can make some reasoned, rational arguments and base them on the questions I have posed in this ON EDIT section, perhaps then you might actually get some respect and people listening to you, and not just dismissing you as a bigot or homophobe out of hand.

What we are asking you to do is to JUSTIFY your stance...and do it on something other than..."Because God says so" or "because it makes me uncomfortable" or..."because it makes me feel icky."

So far, you and your ilk have utterly failed to give any good reason.

And do not go on about survival of the human species! There are more than 6 billion of us on this planet right now...which is more than all the people who have been born and died since the time Christ walked the earth, combined!

We CURRENTLY have 6 billion plus humans walking around. The species is in no danger of extinction...with or without gay marriage.

so come up with a RATIONAL...REASONED argument...and do not insult others in your post. Then you might be taken a bit more seriously.

I doubt you can make such an argument, though. I doubt you have ever really even thought the issue through. You just have a knee-jerk reaction, your mind does an Ernest P. Worrell...EEEEEWWWWWWWW!!! and that is good enough for you to oppose us.

We have already told you that such an approach is not going to win you friends, allies, or respect...and it will not change the hearts and minds of anyone to your cause...except for other knee-jerk radical dominionist zealots like yourself.

But we have already said "Because God said so" is NOT an adequate reason.

You can't even PROVE that this putative God even exists...much less that you have interpreted the words ascribed to him accurately.



The very fact that we and this universe exists is strong evidence of some extrinsic entity.

Intolerant has such a negative connotation with it... would you allow a poisonous spider to crawl up your arm untouched? You'd flick it away, wouldn't you? Would you be called intolerant for that? It WOULD be a type of intolerance, yes.
If you don't like the word that accurately describes you, than take a look in the mirror and re-evaluate your stance. First of all, arachnids are not human beings with feelings. Second, flicking a spider off my arm is much different than trying to get rid of all spiders in general (or just the poisonous kind).

There are times where intolerance is perfectly acceptable, and indeed, the more intelligent choice. Were we 'tolerant' of Nazi soldiers slaughtering Jews?
Comparing gays getting married to the Holocaust is incredibly insulting to anybody who went through that. How could you compare people being tortured and starved to death to same-sex marriage?!

No, I don't believe we were. Should all who fought back then be known as "intolerant Christians"?
Are you taking credit on behalf of your religion for the end of the Holocaust? If so, you are mistaken; it was the American army that showed up and freed them, not the church.

I am not intolerant in general, but like everybody, I do have intolerances for something completely rediculous and harmful for society. Unfortunately due to my religion this is blown up all out of proportion, and like gay 'marriage' itself, that fact sickens me.
Gay marriage is an IDEA that you don't like. The actual act does NOT affect you in ways other than forcing you to realize that you can't have your perfect Utopia of Christian values. It is NOT harmful to society; that is your OPINION. Just because there are other closed-minded bigots out there who agree with you does NOT make it so.

You are intolerant, because you don't want a class of people that you don't like to have rights which will make them happy. I noticed that you haven't addressed the possibility of the tables turning. How would you feel if there was a group of people out there (much worse, a big group of people) who wanted to take away your right to marry the person you love. Sure, you could hold your own ceremony, but legally speaking, you're just living together; nothing more. It would suck, wouldn't it?

This has been blown out of proportion, but not by the gay people wanting equal rights; if the homophobic bigots hadn't objected, this would all be over and people would be happily living their own lives.

People are not opposed to you because of your religion, they're opposed because you refuse to live and let live. That disclaimer at the top of my other post was for the Christians that I have respect for, and it's because they're keeping an open mind. If I ever come across a person of a different faith spouting anti-gay crap, or an atheist for that matter, I will give them the same treatment I am giving you. It just so happens that so far, every person I've heard/read argue against gay marriage has a religious reason.

Nothing I can do about it, but luckily ones who agree with me are in power. Therefore, i'm sorry you're not comfortable with THAT. But, thankfully, there's nothing you can do about it.
You did notice the fact that I am a girl, right? So you're saying that you think that the people in power are going to outlaw marriage for anybody who isn't a Christian? You do know that would be discrimination, right? Oh, wait; so is not allowing gays to marry. Well, it would also be establishing a religion, which is unconstitutional. Or do you have no problem with that, either?

As for not being comfortable with whether or not you are willing to acknowledge my marriage to my husband, I couldn't care less. We will still be legally married, and since I don't socialize with religious zealots like you, I won't have to worry about proving whether or not my marriage is "valid."

Yes, I read through your nice little passage and nothing seems relevant but the last paragraph. In that, I see "Gay marriage is rare in history" and I remind myself that it should be kept that way. Nothing more to say about that at all.
"Nothing seems relevant?"

The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

How is that "not relevant?!" You are claiming that marriage is a Christian invention, which is a major point in your argument about not letting homosexuals in on it. How is proving that you are wrong "not relevant?" Were you hoping no one else read it?

Yes, it does. It insults my religion, and my freedom to practice my religion without this sort of blatant public defiance toward certain aspects of it. I don't have a right not to be insulted, but I believe there is some "stuff" in there about me being able to choose my faith without having to worry about the basic principles of it, and it's leaders being infringed upon by the law.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is trying to force you to stop practicing your religion. However, many people are trying to use a religious justification for a law, which is dangerously close to establishing a religion, which is as I said before and proved just now, unconstitutional.

Also, I found some interesting facts about the pursuit of happiness:

Although the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is set forth in several state Constitutions. The state Constitutions, in their Declaration of Rights, provide that "all men are created equally free and independent; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I challenge you to look up your state's constitution (this goes for everybody). Here is a snippet of Colorado's:

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

Outlawing gay marriage on the basis of a religious belief would be giving preference to said religion! And it says nothing about your "right not worry" about principles of your religion. Gay marriage will not prevent you from going to church whenever you like, talking about your faith whenever you like, or doing anything pertaining to your faith that doesn't infringe on others' rights. You have no point! You will not be affected unless you choose to keep dwelling on things that you have no business dwelling on!

For most people, marriage would be considered "in the pursuit of happiness."The United States Supreme Court, in recognizing that marriage is a fundamental right, stated that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967). See also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 98 S. Ct. 673 (1978).

YOU are infringing on homosexuals' rights to pursue happiness, which is unconstitutional. If you can't see that, it's because you don't want to.

Note: If I were you, I'd stay away from bringing the constitution into this, since it explicitly forbids the establishment of religion, which is what you are essentially arguing for. You will not win an argument this way.

If and when the government makes any law that is directly against what my religion believes than it is going against many, many rights of free religion. Not to mention we are the majority, and it is especially rediculous to see the majority's rights INFRINGED upon by a minority.
Again, your rights are not being infringed upon. Allowing gay marriage will not in turn outlaw Christianity. They can co-exist.

Again with the slavery comparison. GAYS ARE NOT BEING BEATEN, ENSLAVED, TORTURED, FORCED TO WORK, OR CAPTURED BY ANYBODY. This arguement is flawed and apparently you aren't smart enough to see that. The day a gay is "lynched" by a mob and the police do nothing, this point will be valid, until then, I would submit that it is not relevant whatsoever.
Actually, the part you quoted me on there had nothing to do with slavery. Blacks weren't slaves anymore when it was an issue as to whether or not they could vote. So it's a simple comparison of discrimination. Just as there were (and still are, though not as many - I hope) racists who didn't want blacks to vote, there are fundamentalist Christians who don't want gays to marry. It is a valid point, since you brought up your belief that majority rules, regardless of how wrong it is.

Is that still your stance?

Does it infringe on your rights of free religion? No? Good. That's all.
No, and gay marriage doesn't keep you from practicing your religion freely (which is what freedom of religion is). So it's a simple case of what disgusts you, which is not a good enough reason to discriminate against others.


Blacks and women are not even comparable to gays. They are biologically ineffecient and are nature's way of thinning the population. THAT is fact.

You are so cold. You're not thinking of them as human beings with feelings, which is what they are. Where is your human compassion? These are real people with real contributions to society. Human beings are not breeding machines. That's what makes us different from animals.

>straight< Blacks and >straight< women can reproduce, raise their children, teach them what they know, do good for the genepool.
So can gays. Women can get artificial insemination, and men can either make arrangements with surrogate mothers, or adopt. Both can raise children and teach them what they know, which will be tolerance and love.

And since you brought the gene pool up, how many unplanned pregnancies do you think gay couples will have compared to unintelligent, irresponsible couples who don't use protection? I'm obviously not saying all accidental pregnancies are irresponsible or brought about by unintelligent people, but I'm sure all of you have been around at least one couple who SHOULDN'T be breeding, but ARE, because they don't plan ahead and take proper precautions.

Children had by gay parents are going to be brought about by careful planning and after lengthy preparations, resulting in more responsible parenting, which in turn results in better children.

My religious arguement aside, biologically there is no reason for any of this.

If you took away our human intelligence, we'd be like apes. Okay, so how often do you see apes (in the wild or otherwise) performing wedding ceremonies? Biologically, men should be having sex with as many women as he wants, while we stay at home in the cave, taking care of the babies.

Science AND Religion both back this up, and that's hard to come by. Yet you would pull reasons from society. Society changes, values change... 300 years ago to have this discussion would be laughable on your part. However, 300 years ago it was still unnacceptable by the Church AND by Science to even imagine it. You do see what I mean, don't you?
Religion IS society. Without people, there would be no religion. And religions evolve. Take the Mormons, for example. Heck, take your own religion! Religion is not immune to change, either. People keep bringing up blacks and women because they are prime examples of a class of society that USED to be discriminated against.

Yes, there were opponents who screamed bloody murder, but society as a whole is better for the changes. People are happier, and we get along better. If the government says being gay is acceptable, then less homosexuals will be beaten in the streets. How is that bad?

And as for "Science" backing you up; how do you mean? "Love" is a human emotion, unique to us. We don't get married out of biological necessity; we get married for love (religious extremists and gold-diggers excluded). We are not required to produce children, so your "reproduction" argument is irrelevant. Science is what it is; it's how you interpret the rules of science to dictate your life (if that's what you're doing; sounds silly to me) that makes the difference.

For example: Scientifically, it's true that two gay men can't reproduce. That only means something if you care whether or not a couple can reproduce.

There is a constant in my side of the arguement where yours just happened to come up in the past 10 years. Gays can attend school, they can get jobs, they can do everything that I can do do, but like anybody else, they cannot infringe on my religious freedoms.

Gays have been present throughout history, but the reason they're fighting for their rights now is because society has come a long way with accepting them. I'm sure years ago gay people would have risked getting beaten up or worse by standing up for themselves. I also think the media helps with "de-sensitizing" people to the concept, which I think is a good thing.

But, I digress.

You say that gays can "do anything you can do," but you are wrong. They can't get married to the person they love and cherish. You can. That is infringing on their right to pursue happiness (which we have established includes marriage).

And you're also right about them not being able to infringe on your religious freedoms, which are to practice whatever religion you please. This would not be affected by allowing gays to marry (remember, your church would not be forced to recognize their union; we're talking strictly in the eyes of the GOVERNMENT).

And yet they worked for thousands of years?
You didn't answer my question. I want a list of the "religious values" you are referring to, and how they "worked." You aren't backing up your claims, so I can't take them seriously until you do.

Perhaps there was an exploited minority at times, but we have gotten past that already. Blacks are equal, other religions we have tolerance for, witches aren't burned, women have rights... we have come a long way.
You know how we got past that? Abolishing radical religious laws! Yes, it's progress, but not the kind your "religious values" can take credit for.

And as for tolerating other religions, which practice things like worshipping false idols, why is that so different from tolerating homosexuals? Both are doing things you detest. Oh, maybe it's because you don't have to look at people worshipping in public, so it's easy to ignore. Have I hit the nail on the head?

Indeed, we are finished. The only problem now lies in minorities waiting to upset the order that was working for about half a century. All humans already have equal natural rights, blacks, asians, whites, women, men... they have them. Homosexuals, however, are not going to be infringing on my rights anytime soon with this disgusting practice.
Oh, so you've reached your perfect Utopia, and there's nothing anybody can do to ruin it for you. Homosexuals are people, too. They are not asking if they can have sex with you.

You know, straight men have sex with women up the butt at times, as well as receive blow jobs from straight women. Everybody does things in private that are viewed as "disgusting" by some. It's none of your business, so stop dwelling on it.

And, I'll say it for the bazillionth time: THEY ARE NOT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS!!!

I'm saying that the government, and society for that matter has always been the "final sayso" on any matter. When women were inferior, the government changed it's policy and so did society's interpretation of the bible. When blacks were inferior, same thing. These were good moves. However... as long as the government maintains it's current position on things society will come to believe as I do. If a a few generations grow up under these current laws it will just be a matter of time before my 'side' vastly outnumbers your side, because of the way society works. This, I am saying, is a good thing.
Well, many generations grew up under the laws that said slavery was okay, yet they used their own logic to ascertain that it was wrong. Despite how you may have been brought up, people are able to think for themselves. This will not go away.

Even if gay marriage is outlawed for now, people are not going to stop standing up for what is right, regardless of how many of them there are.

(And no, I'm not equating slavery to gay rights; I'm saying people can think for themselves. That is the point; don't miss it.)


Sarcasm. Great.
Yes. Sarcasm that proves a point. Care to comment on that point? (In case you missed it, I meant that nobody has suffered or sacrificed by "letting" gay people live among us. On the contrary, gay people have suffered from homophobic extremists.)

I believe i've already shown you how it 'affects my life' in that it violates certain religious freedoms, in my opinion. If we outlawed "leaving the house on sundays", there would be some angry christians... likewise, we have this situation.

Unfortunately for you, and for all of your side, we are the, I say again, majority. We are the ones who appoint our representatives, and therefore it is my side that decides the laws.
If leaving the house on Sundays was outlawed, it would actually change something in your life; you would have to stay at home. If gay people got married, you would still be able to go to church on Sunday or any other day you want.

In fact, if you went into a coma and woke up after gay marriage was legalized, the only way you would find out about it would be if somebody told you. If you didn't find out about it in the media or otherwise, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT. Your church would continue to function as it always has (as in not accepting gays, etc.), and your life would remain untouched.

You really don't think you're being selfish?!


I don't believe it's been 'tore apart' yet, but I applaud you for trying.
Then you obviously weren't fully understanding the other posts.

Fine then, let's say they're ten. The point wasn't to get technical and whine about how it would be damaging to engage in sexual activity, the point is to say that, you like all who aren't lying, don't think they should be able to get into a legal commitment. And there you have my point, if gays can have a 'marriage' than why can't they?
CHILDREN are not legally allowed to marry, for good reason. That kind of a relationship is damaging, which is WHY it is illegal. A gay union between two ADULTS (which is what is being discussed) is NOT harmful to either party.

You would cry about me discriminating and yet you would discriminate yourself based on age. It's because 'intolerance' CAN be used with a good reason at times, isn't it? Oh, why yes, it is. In both the 5 / 79 year old case and in the gay 'marriage' case, it is.
No, the child can get married when he/she is older, and of LEGAL age. True intolerance of children would be society treating them like garbage. As for the 79 yr-old's rights, he/she has none when it comes to being a pedophile. Again, that is illegal because it is VERY damaging to children, therefore infringing on their rights.

When it comes to protecting the rights of others, you're right. We will not tolerate damaging behaviors. But you are trying to say that gay marriage will damage your religion freedoms, which is just plain wrong. You can scream it until you are hoarse, but it won't make it so.

I'd rather not read about gay penguins, but that's just me. Yes, nature is doing what it can to control the out-of-control population spike that is occurring, now isn't it?
Yeah, that's essentially my theory, anyway. :)

Gays are biologically inefficient, some by choice, some by nature. Either way, it still stands that they don't perform the entire PURPOSE of life, that is, to reproduce. Completely biologically speaking, people are born to have sex, to pass on their genes, to increase the genepool, to better the chances of survival for the species. Do they do this? No.
Who gave you the say of what our purpose in life is? And even if you were right, this argument doesn't work. Like mentioned before, gay couples can have children. Even if they're not passing on their genes, they are still taking care of others' children, which still contributes. Someone needs to take care of the babies with no parents.

Yes they will still do it for awhile, but the outlawing of the gay marriage will be a huge victory for my side of things, and perhaps start us down a road that we should have been on in the first place.
Gay people are not going to go away. The sooner you get used to the idea, the happier you'll be.

History would prove you wrong on your second point. My "out-dated" views were the things that kept peace for hundreds of years in numerous situations, social order was established by these "out-dated" views,
Examples in history, please.

and you woud mess with them purely to serve your own selfish WANTS, not needs, WANTS.
And how would you describe your desire to not have to think about the fact that gay marriage is legalized? Will you die or become injured/ill if that happens? No. Yours is a want, also, so your point has no validity.

And before you scream religious rights, ALL PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY have a right to pursue happiness, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court to include marriage. Gays can be awarded that right without affecting you or your church's right to hate gay people, or refuse to marry them under God.

It is things like gay 'marriage' that contribute to the decay of society,
That is your opinion! A lot of us strive for a society that is tolerant of others, and which doesn't restrict the freedoms of people who are different. That we view as a GOOD thing. Not everybody strives for a world that is "good" in the eyes of YOUR God.

and you need to GET OVER the fact that some of us aren't willing to let this happen.
That's what you want us to do, isn't it? Nobody with a conscience is going to lie limp while religious fundamentalists like you try to trample those you don't like.

Things do change, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Sometimes we must change with it (black / women's rights) sometimes we must remain firm on where we stand because we see that without CONSTANTS in society, we are just a bunch of aimless liberals changing to every whim of every individual.
You have chosen the wrong constant. This is not a whim, this is a demand of equal rights, which is long overdue. The constants you speak of are things like outlawing murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, etc.... Without your religious reasoning, there is no reason why gays shouldn't be married.

Which brings me to....

I've dealt with both your claim that I have nothing but religion to back up my arguement, and the rest of that garbage up above.
Okay, well tell me what you told them. Do you have other reasons other than your warped view on the "purpose of life," which I suspect also has ties to religion?

And do you admit that your majority is abusing its power and oppressing the gay community?

As for what is wrong in the world... haha. Celebraties sexually abusing small boys,
How is this a result of a minority claiming oppression? Pedophilia is NOT legal. Michael Jackson (and almost every other pedophile) was abused as a child, along with other things that contributed to him not having a normal, healthy childhood. That, and I'm sure there is some faulty wiring in his brain.

And as far as his getting off, I believe he did because other greedy parents out there saw an opportunity to cash in on this, which planted "reasonable doubt." If it had been one trial at a time, maybe they could have weeded out the fake allegations from the real ones.

Are you trying to tell me that there is a movement of pedophiles that is claiming that we are trampling on their rights to have sex with young children? Even if there was, it wouldn't be taken seriously (because for reasons specified earlier, it's WRONG).

terrorist preying on convoys of female soldiers,
Are the terrorists claiming oppression? Is that why they're doing bad things? I thought it was because their religion says that we're evil, and that they need to wipe us out. Please clarify.

three dead boys being found in a trunk of a car in New Jersey,
Are murderers claiming oppression now? Are they lobbying for the right to kill people? How is this a result of a minority claiming oppression and not just a horrible person doing horrible things?

Kidnappings with dead bodies being found a week later in Florida, ...
So kidnappers want rights too, now? This is the first I've heard about this.

The list goes on.
You stated that "So much wrong in today's world and it's because of people, minorities, that claim oppression when there is simply none." Please back that up with actual examples that apply.

The fact is, if you DIDN'T see anything wrong in the world than you are the confused one.
I never said I didn't think there were bad things happening in the world. I asked you for examples of bad things happening as a result of minorities claiming oppression. So far you haven't convinced me.

Oh... perhaps that example was too deep for you. My apologies. Sometimes things are just plain OBVIOUS, like when men shouldn't walk into women's restrooms, that's what I was intending to say. Sorry you couldn't understand that... i'll simplify by comparisons in the future.
Okay, well the reason I didn't understand (along with others) is that it isn't a good comparison. Keeping gays from the right to marriage is NOT "obvious" to anybody outside of your way of thinking. In fact, it's the opposite. Why in the world would anybody care whether or not gays get married (other than gays themselves)? Whose business is it but theirs? To me, it's OBVIOUS to let them have that right, as it's not hurting anybody.


Sterile people at least have a certain correctness about them that gay people do not have. A sterile man marries a fertile woman, it is a tragic situation, however at least they are joined as nature, and as God intended it to be. A gay couple, again, is against both of these.
Where in the law books does it say that we have to strictly follow nature? Invetro fertilization isn't natural; do you think that should be outlawed? The COMPUTER your are typing on wasn't made in nature, so are you sure you should be using it?

And again, not everybody follows your God. You can do as "He" says, fine. But stop expecting others who couldn't care less about "Him" and his rules to do as "He" says. It's like me expecting all parents to raise their kids the way mine raised me. It's ridiculous.

In the forum, perhaps, I am the minority. However I do enjoy a good... discussion with anybody, and especially on something I believe so passionately about. However, my logic applies to society in general not neccessarily to a forum... and I would have assumed that you figured that out, but apparently not. So let's just have this little paragraph to clear that up, hm?
I like how you take every stab at my intelligence that you can. Does it make you feel better about yourself? Unfortunately, while doing so, you risk making yourself sound foolish, since everybody else understood that I was poking fun at you.

The very fact that we and this universe exists is strong evidence of some extrinsic entity.

You mean the very small part that we know about. The very fact that this universe exists proves nothing. We know so little about it that to claim its existance is proof of one belief is so arogant.

No, those statements aren't incompatible because God Himself stated his views on homosexuality. I may not have perfect knowledge, but at least I know that.

But we have already said "Because God said so" is NOT an adequate reason.

You can't even PROVE that this putative God even exists...much less that you have interpreted the words ascribed to him accurately.

ON EDIT: Let me try this a bit more gently. "Because God said so" may be adequate reason for YOU to feel as you do...but it is NOT adequate reason to deny other people their basic human rights, dignity, civil rights, and pursuit of happiness.

I'm sorry, Neo, if we who lead different lifestyles make YOU feel "icky." Sorry about that. But, you know, in our civil law and constitution...ther is no guarantee against being offended or feeling "icky" or having your sensibilities challenged or offended.

On the other hand it IS in our civil law and constitution that all should have equal standing in the eyes of the law.

Yet, you would deny us that equal standing, all because we make YOU feel "icky" and because YOUR putative God (whom you cannot prove even exists) said so.

We have already stated that that is NOT an adequate reason to deny others rights, freedoms and happiness that you take for granted.

What is the vested state interest in preventing gay marriage? What is the vested national interest in preventing this? The vested HUMAN interest in preventing this?

How does it, in any way, harm you or affect your ability...to believe as you do, feel as you do, and worship as you do...if John and Steve were allowed to get married?

How does it affect your church's ability to continue to preach as it does...to continue to refuse membership to anyone it desires...to refuse to perform ceremonies it considers objectionable...if John and Steve are allowed to get married...and have FULL LEGAL STANDING, as a couple, in the eyes of the civil law of the United States of America...with all rights and responsibities that go along with marriage?

Answer: It doesn't.

If you can make some reasoned, rational arguments and base them on the questions I have posed in this ON EDIT section, perhaps then you might actually get some respect and people listening to you, and not just dismissing you as a bigot or homophobe out of hand.

What we are asking you to do is to JUSTIFY your stance...and do it on something other than..."Because God says so" or "because it makes me uncomfortable" or..."because it makes me feel icky."

So far, you and your ilk have utterly failed to give any good reason.

And do not go on about survival of the human species! There are more than 6 billion of us on this planet right now...which is more than all the people who have been born and died since the time Christ walked the earth, combined!

We CURRENTLY have 6 billion plus humans walking around. The species is in no danger of extinction...with or without gay marriage.

so come up with a RATIONAL...REASONED argument...and do not insult others in your post. Then you might be taken a bit more seriously.

I doubt you can make such an argument, though. I doubt you have ever really even thought the issue through. You just have a knee-jerk reaction, your mind does an Ernest P. Worrell...EEEEEWWWWWWWW!!! and that is good enough for you to oppose us.

We have already told you that such an approach is not going to win you friends, allies, or respect...and it will not change the hearts and minds of anyone to your cause...except for other knee-jerk radical dominionist zealots like yourself.

Nice strawman you've posited, but I never claimed to believe in the whole "convert or die" thing.

You did claim, however, to believe that you would get somewhere by forcing religion upon people - which is exactly what the "convert or die" campaigns did.

However, not furthering one's faith in the interest of preserving what one perceives as "tolerance" does fit the meaning of cowardice.

I fail to see how you have to force religion upon people in order to further it. In fact, forcing religion upon people, as I have shown, does the exact opposite!

it may not be politically correct, but Christ never intended for His will to be popular and appealing to all.

Then why are you so intent on forcing it on other people instead of being secure that you and those you manage to convince are living correctly?

If he commands it in scripture, we can pretty much assume it's His will...

Really?

I believe, in Leviticus...that women are commanded to leave the village during their period of menstrual uncleanliness. May I ask you where YOU go once a month, Neo?

Surely the best way to defend marriage would be to ban divorce?

That just encourages Spouse-icide and rednecks.

*ducks*

I'm sorry, but who is the militant wacko again who advocates violence against Christians just so she can indulge in her own sinful acts? Did I ever suggest fighting homosexuals in a physical manner? By advocating violence, she pretty much lost all credibility she had.
Humour is lost on some. The sniper wasn't serious!

My best friends are (non-theocratic) Christians.

I'm a he! My location says so!

Really?

I believe, in Leviticus...that women are commanded to leave the village during their period of menstrual uncleanliness. May I ask you where YOU go once a month, Neo?


Stop. Before you dare to lay another finger on that keyboard....scroll back a few posts. I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS SUBJECT AT LEAST 5 TIMES AND I AM NOT REPEATING MYSELF AGAIN!!!! Please....before I go insane from repeating myself so much...just take the time to scroll back a bit and read one of the many responses to this very question I have made.

Humour is lost on some. The sniper wasn't serious!

My best friends are (non-theocratic) Christians.

I'm a he! My location says so!


Actually, I was talking about Lyric :D

If I have faith and not the zeal to try and implement its teachings, then would I not be a hypocrite?

No. You're a hypocrite if you point out the splinter in my eye, while ignoring the plank in your own.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

From Paul, who was given authority by Christ Himself to convey Christ's will in such matters. We cannot deny the authority of the apostles, especially because their human fallability is nullified when they are possessed of the Holy Spirit.

But we were NOT given Christ's will by Paul. We were given Christ's will as reflected through the opinions and words of Paul.

Christ never once said a thing about this subject.

If I have faith and not the zeal to try and implement its teachings, then would I not be a hypocrite?
No, you should talk to people about your faith, but not force it. Do you think that by outlawing homosexuality, that nobody will be gay? Which is why our prisons are empty, everyone obeys speed limits, and drugs are a thing of the past, right? :rolleyes:

One could also argue that appeasing the people surrounding you instead of evangelizing as Christ commanded would be the act of a coward.
Note how the word "evangelizing" is different from "enforce".

Well, I'll leave you to ponder why Islam gained so many more followers all over the world
Violent imperialism.

Are you SURE you want people to start talking about scientific facts on the subject? Aren't you afraid that someone is going to start throwing statistics that show chemically imbalanced persons who suffer from physical depression are more likely than other people to both attempt self-medication via narcotic drugs and try homosexuality lifestyles? In fact, couldn't the argument be made that suicidally depressed people are more likely to be Gay than the non-suicidal population? How many wouldn’t have tried homosexuality in the first place if they were never chemically proned to depression to begin with?

Sure you can say society's oppression of them causes the depression, but you can't prove that they're depression didn't itself cause the desire to try homosexual behaviors in an all out bid to TRY and find comfort in a world they perceive as cold and hard and they are afraid continuing in suicidal depression without trying anything and everything before killing oneself.

According to all the accreditted research I have read, there is no evidence supporting the theory that depression causes homosexuality. There is significant evidence that homosexuals experience higher rates of depression, which most studies link to the ill treatment that homosexuals experience, and the negative pressures put on homosexuals by our culture. If you have any factual support for your theory, I would like to read it...please share!


Who 'chooses' to use narcotic drugs, and sniffs paint and live a life of a street bum searching endlessly for their next 'fix' except those that also suffer from manic depression, or other clinically verifiable schizophrenia?

I have chosen to use narcotic drugs, and I have chosen to live "on the streets," at certain points in my life. I have never suffered from manic depression, nor have I ever had any reason to suspect I am schizophrenic. In my time on the streets, I encountered many individuals who abused drugs, who were homeless, or who were "bums," yet who did not suffer from manic depression or schizophrenia. If you would like to provide evidence for your theory, please do.


What percentage of the non-homosexual population regularly uses illicit drugs for recreational or self medication purposes? What percentage of the homosexual community does it? What percentage of the so-called 'normal’ population stops using illegal drugs at middle age or sooner ~ what percentage of the homosexual community does it as well? These are scientific questions you might not want answered, eh?

Just food for thought... Or logs for the fire, your choice :D
As I have said, I've studied such issues at length. Your hypothesis has not been supported by the research I have read, but if you have information I should be aware of then please present it. Otherwise, I think we will all have to conclude that your speculations are nothing more than...well, speculation.

Lyric...

It is rare to see someone who can post a commentary as well-thought out and intelligent as yours was.

Could you email me at vladimir_armbruster@hotmail.com?

I'd like to invite you to a board I spend a great deal of time at. Good people who would love to have another intelligent conversationalist in our midst.

The very fact that we and this universe exists is strong evidence of some extrinsic entity.

In what way?

And, even if it is...what's the proof that this extrinsic entity is YOUR extrinsic entity?

the fact that we, and this Universe are HERE...proves nothing other than that we are here, that we exist.

It proves NOTHING of how we came to be.

Nice try.

In what way?

And, even if it is...what's the proof that this extrinsic entity is YOUR extrinsic entity?

the fact that we, and this Universe are HERE...proves nothing other than that we are here, that we exist.

It proves NOTHING of how we came to be.

Nice try.


The fact that we are here would obviously state that events led up to us being here...and, as there is no effect without a cause, how do you explain the origin of matter necessary for the Big Bang? Hmm?

No. You're a hypocrite if you point out the splinter in my eye, while ignoring the plank in your own.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



I'm sorry, but I don't practice homosexuality so there is no plank in my eye on this issue.

No, you should talk to people about your faith, but not force it. Do you think that by outlawing homosexuality, that nobody will be gay? Which is why our prisons are empty, everyone obeys speed limits, and drugs are a thing of the past, right?


Oh, so we should remove all prisons, abolish the speed limit, and legalize drugs eh? Glad to know your position ;)

Lyric...

It is rare to see someone who can post a commentary as well-thought out and intelligent as yours was.

Could you email me at vladimir_armbruster@hotmail.com?

I'd like to invite you to a board I spend a great deal of time at. Good people who would love to have another intelligent conversationalist in our midst.



Bloodthirsty anti-Christian = intelligent? Wow :eek:

NWe are a divisive religion, we are not out to appeal to the desires of the world...it may not be politically correct
And yet you are enforcing political correctness!*

*a central tenet of PC being the imagined right to not be offended.

Oh, so we should remove all prisons, abolish the speed limit, and legalize drugs eh? Glad to know your position ;)
No on the first two counts, but yes on the third.

Originally posted by:
Neo Rogolia
Christianity is not a live and let live religion. Christ commanded us to go out and convert.

I can't refute that( I'm probably what you would call an "evangelical universalist" They believe that non-Christians aren't necessarily condemned, but that we should try to convert people anyway, because its so great being able to accept that Christ is your Savior)

However:
I'm definitely not down with the Church preaching the " oh your screwed, ha, ha stupid "expletive" By preaching that message when studies have shown that orientation is NOT a choice, the Church is actually driving gay Christians into depression( sometimes suicidal depression)

Calling all Christians: Don't hate appreciate!

But we were NOT given Christ's will by Paul. We were given Christ's will as reflected through the opinions and words of Paul.

Christ never once said a thing about this subject.



15But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake."

17And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,[b] who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

19So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.



I think I'll refrain from one of your "put that in your pipe and smoke it!" ramblings and let the Scripture speak for itself ;)

Bloodthirsty anti-Christian = intelligent? Wow :eek:

Actually, in another thread, I believe Lyric revealed that she is, herself, Christian.

*shrug* But you go ahead and label anyone who disagrees with you as anti-Christian.

Stop. Before you dare to lay another finger on that keyboard....scroll back a few posts. I HAVE DEALT WITH THIS SUBJECT AT LEAST 5 TIMES AND I AM NOT REPEATING MYSELF AGAIN!!!! Please....before I go insane from repeating myself so much...just take the time to scroll back a bit and read one of the many responses to this very question I have made.

Ah, you don't like it when YOU are forced to repeat the same arguments over and over and over to people who refuse to read and "get it."

Incidentally, I've skimmed through every posting on this thread, and have not noticed you or anyone else address this particular question.

Nor did I actually want an answer. I was posing a rhetorical question of WHY it is that you seem to be picking and choosing which parts of Old Testament Scripture to follow...and which to discard. And WHY...conveniently enough, those parts you choose to retain do not, in any way inconvenience YOU...they only inconvenience OTHERS.

The parts you choose to discard, conveniently, again...are those parts that would cause YOU inconvenience.

Just pointing it out, that's all Neo.

I was not asking a serious question, or expecting a serious answer. My question was rhetorical in nature.

I think I'll refrain from one of your "put that in your pipe and smoke it!" ramblings and let the Scripture speak for itself ;)

Where in there does it say that Paul was rendered infallible?

The fact that we are here would obviously state that events led up to us being here...and, as there is no effect without a cause, how do you explain the origin of matter necessary for the Big Bang? Hmm?
Even making the assumption that their has to be a creator (which is somehow then not bound by the same logic that required us to arive at the creator hypothesis)

That in no way proves the christian god

I can't refute that( I'm probably what you would call an "evangelical universalist" They believe that non-Christians aren't necessarily condemned, but that we should try to convert people anyway, because its so great being able to accept that Christ is your Savior)

However:
I'm definitely not down with the Church preaching the " oh your screwed, ha, ha stupid "expletive" By preaching that message when studies have shown that orientation is NOT a choice, the Church is actually driving gay Christians into depression( sometimes suicidal depression)

Calling all Christians: Don't hate appreciate!



Would we be telling them they were going to Hell for the sheer joy of seeing them wallow in misery? No, they have the choice to deny themselves as Christ commanded and become celibant. It's not as if they're the only ones who have to sacrifice personal pleasure for Christ's sake.

Matthew 16:24 24Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.



This is out of true concern for their souls, not out of hatred. Many have yet to realize that we are motivated by love.

No, they have the choice to

Exactly.

So why are you so intent on enforcing your beliefs upon them again?

Where in there does it say that Paul was rendered infallible?



Would Jesus give His authority to those whom he deemed were not worthy of teaching His will? When Christ gives direct authority to someone, we must follow their teachings.

The fact that we are here would obviously state that events led up to us being here...and, as there is no effect without a cause, how do you explain the origin of matter necessary for the Big Bang? Hmm?
Simple! The Great Invisible Pink Unicorn, with a swish of it's horn created the universe.

Exactly.

So why are you so intent on enforcing your beliefs upon them again?



Oh, I don't know.....some silly reason like trying to save them from the wrath of God who will not allow sin in His presence. Who is justified: The one who sits idly by and allows sinners to hasten to their demise or those who teach them the error of their ways and show them the light that is Christ?

Actually, I was talking about Lyric :D
EXCUSE ME!!!

At what point did I EVER advocate violence against Christians?

I expect a fucking apology. NOW.

That or you show me EXACTLY where I advocated such things.

Would it interest you to know that my own mother, whom I love dearly...is a born-again Chriatian? And she isn't a nutjob, either. She accepts and loves me.

At any rate...you point specifically to the post where I advocated violence against Christians. And I don't mean QUOTE THE POST HERE...because I know...and so do you...that quotes can be fucked with, and make it look like someone said something they didn't.

I mean, you point to where MY ORIGINAL QUOTE is, where I advocated violence against Christians.

If you can't do it, I expect a motherfucking apology. Right the fuck now!

And, just as an example of how quotes can be fucked with...and make it appear someone said something they didn't...

this is an example of how someone can be falsely quoted...Neo Rogoloia in fact never actually posted this.

So, my point is...you find...and you post here...the exact page and post number in which I advocated violence against Christians.

If you cannot do this, I expect a motherfucking apology for saying that I advocated such behavior! And I expect it NOW. And you better have your fucking mouth stuffed full of crow next time I see you here.

Simple! The Great Invisible Pink Unicorn, with a swish of it's horn created the universe.



Sadly, that's actually more feasible than all theories presented trying to explain material origins.

Oh, I don't know.....some silly reason like trying to save them from the wrath of God who will not allow sin in His presence. Who is justified: The one who sits idly by and allows sinners to hasten to their demise or those who teach them the error of their ways and show them the light that is Christ?
I pity the monster your parents created in bringing you up this way.

Would Jesus give His authority to those whom he deemed were not worthy of teaching His will?

Does Scripture itself not point out that all human beings are fallible? That all human beings sin? That all fall short of the glory of the lord?

What makes Paul equal to Christ himself in infallibility?

Do you also think that all ordained ministers are infallible?

When Christ gives direct authority to someone, we must follow their teachings.

That is your personal belief. I think that Christ leads us all, if we ask. Others' teachings are useful, but it is the guidance of God that matters most.

Lyric...

It is rare to see someone who can post a commentary as well-thought out and intelligent as yours was.

Could you email me at vladimir_armbruster@hotmail.com?

I'd like to invite you to a board I spend a great deal of time at. Good people who would love to have another intelligent conversationalist in our midst.

sure, be happy to. Give me a few minutes, okay? Maybe later tonight. But I'll send ya something.

I'm sorry, but I don't practice homosexuality so there is no plank in my eye on this issue.

No, but you do engage in other sinful behavior. And you ignore THAT while pointing out mine. Let's not misconstrue what I was saying.

According to all the accreditted research I have read, there is no evidence supporting the theory that depression causes homosexuality. There is significant evidence that homosexuals experience higher rates of depression, which most studies link to the ill treatment that homosexuals experience, and the negative pressures put on homosexuals by our culture. If you have any factual support for your theory, I would like to read it...please share!

According to all of the same research you’ve already mentioned, the ‘depression’ before homosexual activity is assumed to cause by the supposed ‘repression’ of ones sexual identity. However, the exact same statistics could also be used to show how depression leads to homosexual experimentation along with illicit drug use. I don’t need to show new information, the same data can be interpreted in more than one way.


I have chosen to use narcotic drugs, and I have chosen to live "on the streets," at certain points in my life. I have never suffered from manic depression, nor have I ever had any reason to suspect I am schizophrenic. In my time on the streets, I encountered many individuals who abused drugs, who were homeless, or who were "bums," yet who did not suffer from manic depression or schizophrenia. If you would like to provide evidence for your theory, please do.

Okay, if you have some experience in this matter, than I can talk to you truthfully, and since I also have some experience in this matter, I will talk to you straight up. What do you think the percentage of drug users in the choose to be homeless society is? I would say that it is at or more than ninety percent, nearly all of the street bums I know are, or were, seriously damaged by hardcore paint sniffing, Listerine drinking, cough medicine drinking, any kind of drug you can get taking, smoke, eat inject, it just doesn’t matter (coupled with heavy drinking usually) and cold and loneliness and fear of losing what you have or protecting your corner, Don’t sit there and even pretend that they aren’t, as a group, ill and in need of help. The only street people that I know that aren’t on a constant and active search for their next fix are the psycho psychotic ones that are essentially crazy and talking gibberish. If you’ve lived on the streets you know I’m not lying and I’m not even exaggerating. Don’t pretend otherwise please, it’s a waste of time for you and me.


As I have said, I've studied such issues at length. Your hypothesis has not been supported by the research I have read, but if you have information I should be aware of then please present it. Otherwise, I think we will all have to conclude that your speculations are nothing more than...well, speculation.

My hypothesis is entirely supported by the research you already know. My statements were true, the percentage of depression and suicide and self-medication attempts in the gay community is astronomically higher than in the straight community, and I would say it’s epidemic in the straight city-dwelling community as it is now, the gay community is sunk in it.

Oh, I don't know.....some silly reason like trying to save them from the wrath of God who will not allow sin in His presence.

Do you really think that God can't tell the difference between someone who is forced into an action and one who does it of their own accord?

Who is justified: The one who sits idly by and allows sinners to hasten to their demise or those who teach them the error of their ways and show them the light that is Christ?

Teaching them, of course.

But teaching and enforcing are not the same thing.

Bloodthirsty anti-Christian = intelligent? Wow :eek:

Again...I demand a mothefucking apology!

Where have I posted anything bloodthirsty...or advocating violence against Christians.

You owe me a motherfucking apology goddamn it.

EXCUSE ME!!!

At what point did I EVER advocate violence against Christians?

I expect a fucking apology. NOW.

That or you show me EXACTLY where I advocated such things.

Would it interest you to know that my own mother, whom I love dearly...is a born-again Chriatian? And she isn't a nutjob, either. She accepts and loves me.

At any rate...you point specifically to the post where I advocated violence against Christians. And I don't mean QUOTE THE POST HERE...because I know...and so do you...that quotes can be fucked with, and make it look like someone said something they didn't.

I mean, you point to where MY ORIGINAL QUOTE is, where I advocated violence against Christians.

If you can't do it, I expect a motherfucking apology. Right the fuck now!

And, just as an example of how quotes can be fucked with...and make it appear someone said something they didn't...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia
this is an example of how someone can be falsely quoted...Neo Rogoloia in fact never actually posted this.



So, my point is...you find...and you post here...the exact page and post number in which I advocated violence against Christians.

If you cannot do this, I expect a motherfucking apology for saying that I advocated such behavior! And I expect it NOW. And you better have your fucking mouth stuffed full of crow next time I see you here.



Ah, I can see the brilliance brimming o'er the intellectual cup Faradawn so aptly described you possessing. Ok, I will now commence with searching through 50 or so pages...I'm sorry but it will take a while to find this, so I'm afraid I won't be able to find it "Right ****ing now".

Would Jesus give His authority to those whom he deemed were not worthy of teaching His will? When Christ gives direct authority to someone, we must follow their teachings.
So god took away their free will? because we "must follow" their teaching

Wow and here I thought free will was a big deal among christians

Ah, I can see the brilliance brimming o'er the intellectual cup Faradawn so aptly described you possessing. Ok, I will now commence with searching through 50 or so pages...I'm sorry but it will take a while to find this, so I'm afraid I won't be able to find it "Right ****ing now".

No, you won't find it at all, because I never advocated such stuff. So I am waiting for my fucking apology.

and I want it delivered through a mouthful of crow.

Do you really think that God can't tell the difference between someone who is forced into an action and one who does it of their own accord?


Forcing? Dear heavens, no! But persistence pays off. I know of many who have been converted and when asked why they say "because of the zeal you showed, I began to think you might have been on to something." The only thing I'm advocating "forcing" is keeping them from being able to degrade a legitimate institution through a travesty most deplorable. They can have their civil unions, but when they tread on religious territory, they'd better think twice before trying to >>FORCE<< their will upon us by having their marriage recognized. See? It's not just us who are trying to force things.

Wow and here I thought free will was a big deal among christians

Maybe she's a Calvinist - they only give lip service to free will.

But, then again, there would be no reason for a Calvinist to argue about converting people, as only those who are predestined to become Christians are even capable of following God's will according to Calvin.

So, never mind.

No, you won't find it at all, because I never advocated such stuff. So I am waiting for my fucking apology.

and I want it delivered through a mouthful of crow.

Calm down Lyric. This is probably an example of someone misinterpreting what was said.

So god took away their free will? because we "must follow" their teaching

Wow and here I thought free will was a big deal among christians



No, we can ignore their teachings at our eternal peril :)

The only thing I'm advocating "forcing" is keeping them from being able to degrade a legitimate institution through a travesty most deplorable. They can have their civil unions, but when they tread on religious territory, they'd better think twice before trying to >>FORCE<< their will upon us by having their marriage recognized. See? It's not just us who are trying to force things.

Civil unions is all they are asking for. Of course, civil unions = civil marriage.

No one is asking you to personally recognize their marriage. They are also not treading on religious ground at all, as they are not asking that any church recognize their marriage. Thus, they are not trying to force anything at all upon you or your religion. As has been pointed out numerous times, even if gay marriage were recognized by the state, your religion could continue to deny such ceremonies and could continue to state that such unions were not marriage.

How exactly does asking that the government provide them with equal protection under the law have anything at all to do with religion?

Your choice of words again highlights your bigotry and your homophobia.

Maybe...have you stoppped to consider...that homosexuals do not see their condition as a PROBLEM?? Maybe homosexuals do not see their condition as something that NEEDS to get FIXED??

But, see, you obviously DO see it as a PROBLEM that needs to be FIXED.

Your choice of words indicates to me that you are homophobic. That is to say, you have an irrational fear or hatred of homosexual people.

You know, I was reading through this thread, and I found that…

I know deaf couples that have children born with defective inner ears and they are thus deaf, but they can be cured via a relatively simple surgery. The deaf parent’s deaf community 'Wants" their child to stay deaf to continue the deaf community. And you know what? They, like the gay community, are wrong.

If you have a child with a cleft lip, or his balls don't drop, or he needs braces, or wears glasses, or needs a heart pacer, or asthma treatments, you FIX them. You don't sit there and say, oh, it's okay, lots of people live perfectly good lives with those defects...

Yes people DO live perfectly good lives with those defects, but if it's in your power to fix, YOU FIX IT! IMO It's child neglect to do otherwise, the child should be taken away from parents that don't put the child’s best care first and foremost.

IF it turns out that homosexual tendencies are cause in part or entirely by some sort of brain trauma/growth irregularity, or genetic defect (which neither has been proven to be the case) then they are physical ailments that are treatable. IF homosexual tendencies turn out to be developed by physical depression, then it is treatable, if chemically sensitive people (such as people who are likely to be chemical addicts) turn out to be a cause of homosexual experimentation, then it will be treatable.

If the deaf community, which is wonderful and aesthetically brilliant and beautiful in all it's own way, disappears because all the deaf children are cured by modern medicine, then AMEN. The community was nice, but curing illness is better.
In the end, if the gay community disappears like them because the children are treated BEFORE they grow up, what harm can you claim?

Ok, Lyric I apologize for appending this statement (Made by New Sans) to you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
Good to know that you are Christ himself, and thus infallible on matters of what is and is not Christianity.

Of course, Neo R. had already claimed that title. Now I'm confused.



There is only one way to settle this. You bring the Coliseum I'll bring the lions?



Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for getting the names mixed up?

No, we can ignore their teachings at our eternal peril :)
Thats not what you said though you said we or they must follow ... in thoes exact words "must follow"

Does Scripture itself not point out that all human beings are fallible? That all human beings sin? That all fall short of the glory of the lord?

What makes Paul equal to Christ himself in infallibility?

Do you also think that all ordained ministers are infallible?


So, we should toss out text we don't like even though it was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit (usually, when God is transmitting his thoughts to their mind, you would rule out fallibility)? I suppose you could justify ANYTHING if you did that...

Ok, Lyric I apologize for appending this statement (Made by New Sans) to you.

Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for getting the names mixed up?

Actually, it looks like the statement was made to me (although you have it quoted to make it look as if I said it. If you just close off the quote tags and add a new for New Sans, that would be great).

Of course, that quote doesn't advocate violence against Christians really. It specifically (and sarcastically) advocates a contest between you and Esk to determine which is personally infallibly aware of the will of God.

Thats not what you said though you said we or they must follow ... in thoes exact words "must follow"


Yes....I said must follow.....and those who choose not to follow the commandments that God has said we must follow after having heard them can't exactly expect an afterlife of bliss and joy.

So, we should toss out text we don't like even though it was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit (usually, when God is transmitting his thoughts to their mind, you would rule out fallibility)? I suppose you could justify ANYTHING if you did that...
Then god better spend some more time revising it ... if I was a publisher and someone sent that confusing jumble to me I would laugh them out the door

So, we should toss out text we don't like even though it was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit (usually, when God is transmitting his thoughts to their mind, you would rule out fallibility)? I suppose you could justify ANYTHING if you did that...

No, what we like or don't like is irrelevant, just as what they liked or didn't like should have been irrelevant. However, when something in the text seems unclear, or seems incompatible with the teachings of Christ, or seems incompatible with an omnibenevolent God, we should pray for guidance on it. The guidance, and the "tossing out" if necessary, comes from God, not from our own wishes.

I believe in a personal relationship with God. If you do not, then the Scripture is all you have. That is your personal belief, and you are welcome to it. You may even be right. However, you are no more infallible than I am and thus may be wrong. These are admissions we must make to be honest people. And none of us can claim to know exactly how God wants us to live.

Edit: Meanwhile, no, I would not rule out fallibility because of inspiration by the Holy Spirit (which I believe we all have). I don't believe that human beings are fully capable of comprehending the will of God. We should try as best we can, but we can never expect to get there on our own. People are certainly inspired by the Spirit, but even then they can get the message wrong. Even then, their own biases will mold what they hear.

Actually, it looks like the statement was made to me (although you have it quoted to make it look as if I said it. If you just close off the quote tags and add a new for New Sans, that would be great).

Of course, that quote doesn't advocate violence against Christians really. It specifically (and sarcastically) advocates a contest between you and Esk to determine which is personally infallibly aware of the will of God.



Early Christians were often rounded up and sent into the coliseum in ancient Rome to provide the barbaric citizens and the lions with pleasure...having been to an atheist forum where people actually suggested that Christian be subjected to such atrocities again, I interpreted it as such.

According to all of the same research you’ve already mentioned, the ‘depression’ before homosexual activity is assumed to cause by the supposed ‘repression’ of ones sexual identity. However, the exact same statistics could also be used to show how depression leads to homosexual experimentation along with illicit drug use. I don’t need to show new information, the same data can be interpreted in more than one way.

Um, no, the research I have read cannot be interpretted the way you describe. If you have research that CAN be interpretted that way, please present it, but you probably shouldn't waste time telling me what I have and haven't read :).


Okay, if you have some experience in this matter, than I can talk to you truthfully, and since I also have some experience in this matter, I will talk to you straight up. What do you think the percentage of drug users in the choose to be homeless society is? I would say that it is at or more than ninety percent, nearly all of the street bums I know are, or were, seriously damaged by hardcore paint sniffing, Listerine drinking, cough medicine drinking, any kind of drug you can get taking, smoke, eat inject, it just doesn’t matter (coupled with heavy drinking usually) and cold and loneliness and fear of losing what you have or protecting your corner,

I would say that probably 30% of the people I encountered would fit that depiction. The other 70% would not.

Also, do remember that approximately 80% of Americans have used drugs at one time or another, and nothing close to 80% of Americans are homeless bums who drink Listerine. Nothing close to 80% of Americans identify as homosexual. Current estimates place roughly 40-55% of Americans as suffering from depression at one time or another in their life, and nowhere near that number are homeless bums. Likewise, nowhere near that number are homosexuals. If depression and drug use cause homosexuality, how do you explain these numbers?


Don’t sit there and even pretend that they aren’t, as a group, ill and in need of help.

Yes, I would agree that the homeless population is largely in need of help. To claim that they are all crazy drug users is deeply offensive and inaccurate, however.


The only street people that I know that aren’t on a constant and active search for their next fix are the psycho psychotic ones that are essentially crazy and talking gibberish. If you’ve lived on the streets you know I’m not lying and I’m not even exaggerating. Don’t pretend otherwise please, it’s a waste of time for you and me.

I'm sorry, but that has not been my experience. I cannot presume to speak for the homeless demographics throughout America, but I know that I encountered a far wider range of individuals than you describe. Some were heavy users or seriously mentally ill, but a great many (I would even venture to say the majority) were not.


My hypothesis is entirely supported by the research you already know. My statements were true, the percentage of depression and suicide and self-medication attempts in the gay community is astronomically higher than in the straight community, and I would say it’s epidemic in the straight city-dwelling community as it is now, the gay community is sunk in it.
As I explained, the research I am familiar with cannot be interpretted as you describe. Yes, gay individuals are more likely to suffer from depression, and gay individuals are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol (which is strongly suggested to be the result of the depression etc), but that is not what your hypothesis stated. You stated that depression and drug use cause people to become homosexuals. You have not provided any evidence to support your theory. If you cannot, then that's okay...you can just admit that you don't yet have anything to back up your claim. I'm not going to point and laugh if you admit this, so don't worry, I was honestly just curious to see if you had anything solid to substantiate what you were saying.

Yes....I said must follow.....and those who choose not to follow the commandments that God has said we must follow after having heard them can't exactly expect an afterlife of bliss and joy.
Thats fine I couldent bring myself around to believe in a god who bases our salvation on faith anyways

The christian god to me is too imoral for me to believe in

It is a risk I am willing to believe if the religous just stop to legislate their beliefs

Then god better spend some more time revising it ... if I was a publisher and someone sent that confusing jumble to me I would laugh them out the door

It's mostly confusing to those that don't want it to say what it says. :eek:

Actually no.. The problem is that there is no way to scientifically and unequivocally prove that any man ever was inspired by true divine providence. This being the case, we must now consider and acknowledge the fact that he could very well have been makin' stuff up.


In the end, if the gay community disappears like them because the children are treated BEFORE they grow up, what harm can you claim?


Problem: Even the need for 'religion' has been proven as a bio-chemical reaction in the minds of some people. Should we fix this too? Its no more right or wrong than the slight different in sexual orientation that this other bio-chemical link brings.

Oh.. And before you say it isn't a 'natural' occurence..

Two arguments for that:

1. Everything that occurs in nature is natural by definition.

2. EVERY SPECIES IN CREATION partakes in homosexual activity of one form or another (provided they are a two sexed species) for as many number of reasons. Therefore, it cannot, by definition, be said to be unnatural.

2. EVERY SPECIES IN CREATION partakes in homosexual activity of one form or another (provided they are a two sexed species) for as many number of reasons. Therefore, it cannot, by definition, be said to be unnatural.



While a select few creatures have been observed engaging in homosexual activities, would you say that's going a bit overboard? ;)

It's mostly confusing to those that don't want it to say what it says. :eek:
And magicaly clear to thoes who get what they want to hear out of it ...

All in all its not a very well written book for something god suposedly had a hand in

*snip*


To the homeless percentages you suggest:

There are three possibilities here. 1, you are not talking about the people that 'choose' to be homeless. 2, you have no idea what you are talking, or 3, you are lying.


Which is it?



As to the homosexual depression and drug usage etc...
EDIT: links
http://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/dysphoric.html
A central concern of the HNRC is the assessment of rates of psychiatric morbidity such as depression and anxiety. We have found that the levels of depression and anxiety in our homosexual subjects, whether HIV positive or HIV negative, are substantially higher than those found in representative general population samples. For example, our homosexual populations (HIV-positive and HIV-negative) had lifetime frequencies of major depression (diagnosed by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM- III of 31-32% (N = 135), compared to 9% in 22 HIV-negative heterosexual controls (Atkinson et al., 1989). Similar findings have been presented from other investigators of AIDS-related homosexual samples (Hays et al., 1990; Perry et al., 1990; Viney et al., 1991; Williams et at., 1991), although the finding is not universal.

http://www.psych.uncc.edu/vol13_locke.htm
Many in society are unaware that 25 to 40% of America’s homeless adolescents self-identify as gay or lesbian (Nelson, 1994). These young people prefer the potential hazards of the street to the very real dangers of home. Substance abuse is three times greater among homosexual than heterosexual youth, perhaps reflecting an attempt to cope with the pain of their perceived deficiency (Nelson, 1994). Higher rates of anxiety and other psychological disorders, as reported by Saewyc et. al. (1998) and Nelson (1994), should not be surprising considering that socialized exclusion and invalidation of gay/lesbian young people is a constant factor in their lives well before they reach adolescence. One recent study (Herrell, Goldberg, True, Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen, & Tsuang 1999) concluded that any time powerful external forces pressure nonheterosexual youth to conceal their sexual orientation while internal forces push them to reveal it, the resulting dissonance can be overwhelming. Nelson (1994) suggested that the internalization of this homophobia could lead to a higher incidence of self-hate and self-destructive behaviors.

Problem: Even the need for 'religion' has been proven as a bio-chemical reaction in the minds of some people. Should we fix this too? Its no more right or wrong than the slight different in sexual orientation that this other bio-chemical link brings.



Some scientists at Berkeley have a >>THEORY<< on that...and, as far as I know, they haven't published any irrefutable, conclusive findings. Also, correlation =/= actuality. When someone is having a religious thought, of course a certain area of the brain is going to be active. Same with all thoughts. Is correlation with religious thought and activity in a certain area of the brain proof that it's entirely mental, with no guidance from a supernatural Being? We haven't even figured out whether or not there is a soul yet! Scientists can't even explain consciousness! We are too unique a creature to possibly make any definitive statements concerning our mental nature.

And magicaly clear to thoes who get what they want to hear out of it ...

All in all its not a very well written book for something god suposedly had a hand in


It's actually pretty precise. You're just making it complex and fudging with the wording because you don't want it to say what it does.

Thats fine I couldent bring myself around to believe in a god who bases our salvation on faith anyways

The christian god to me is too imoral for me to believe in

It is a risk I am willing to believe if the religous just stop to legislate their beliefs


It's not just faith.....faith with works is more like it.

Actually no.. The problem is that there is no way to scientifically and unequivocally prove that any man ever was inspired by true divine providence. This being the case, we must now consider and acknowledge the fact that he could very well have been makin' stuff up.


Must everything be subject to scientific empericism? Could you not acknowledge the existence of the metaphysical dimension, not observable by us? Science is limited to the physical, so certainly it would be impossible to prove the divine and ethereal in a scientific sense.

While a select few creatures have been observed engaging in homosexual activities, would you say that's going a bit overboard? ;)

A select few? Would you like me to start a list???

Meanwhile, it was going a bit overboard. We have not observed homosexual behavior in all species with two sexes. We have observed it in nearly all of the mammals we have any in-depth observation of, and we have observed it a good percentage of bird species.

Interestingly enough, we have also observed transsexuals in at least one species - bighorn sheep.

Okay lets try this one more time. We are debating on wheter or not gays are allowed to marry (I assume in the USA). There are 2 main things we need to take into consideration. First off in the United States of America there is a seperation of church and state. Meaning that the US government doesnt make laws regarding religions and does not oppress the religious beliefs of its citizens. Second marriage that is being refered to is a civil institution which involves certain rights and does not pertain to a certain religion/church. So that basically stipulates that religious arguements dont have a place in this debate being that neither the government or a religion can dictate something to the other. So with that in mind what reasons do people in this thread feel that denying homosexuals the right to marry is justified/legal?

Some scientists at Berkeley have a >>THEORY<< on that..

You say theory as if it is a bad thing. In science, theory is as good as it gets.

and, as far as I know, they haven't published any irrefutable, conclusive findings.

If they haven't published, it isn't yet a theory.

It's actually pretty precise. You're just making it complex and fudging with the wording because you don't want it to say what it does.

Again with the arrogance...

It is good to know that you are all-knowing and always right Neo.

Meanwhile, have you read the original texts, in the original language?

to everyone who thinks gays are horrid people.. i cant wait till the day a gay person gives you a reason to hate. maybe they should blowup a church or fist f*ck your son then slit his throat.. maybe? stop saying theyre bad stop saying its wrong they didnt choose to be that way.i hope the next gay person you bash makes you suffer loss and pain. ;P

Must everything be subject to scientific empericism? Could you not acknowledge the existence of the metaphysical dimension, not observable by us? Science is limited to the physical, so certainly it would be impossible to prove the divine and ethereal in a scientific sense.

You can acknowledge these things, if you believe them to exist.

Many do not believe them to exist.

Again with the arrogance...

It is good to know that you are all-knowing and always right Neo.

Meanwhile, have you read the original texts, in the original language? :rolleyes:

LOL, :p the lasts gasps of desperation... LOL :D the standard, "Have you read the original manuscripts in their native language?" question.

What a crock. That surely gets used in this forum WAY too much.

If you learn a dead language, and you read it back, what have you learned? You've learned what your teacher taught you. So, depending on what treacher you have, you learn what they translate.

Therefore, logic dictates that you can read MORE translations by more people than you can learn languages by teachers.

Go read a good ten translations, it will be better than reading original manuscripts because 'we' dont' think in the ancient greek no matter how much schooling we have. Anyone saying thay can read the original so their interpretation is best and flawless is a cracked-pot.

Must everything be subject to scientific empericism? Could you not acknowledge the existence of the metaphysical dimension, not observable by us? Science is limited to the physical, so certainly it would be impossible to prove the divine and ethereal in a scientific sense.

But the problem comes in when you set up a belief system that has very real social and moral implications on something that you say is impossible to prove in a scientific sense. You base desicions on this that effect not only your life but the lives of many others. I dont think its unreasonable that if you want to believe in something that will have an impact on others there should be some tangible physical proof.

to everyone who thinks gays are horrid people.. i cant wait till the day a gay person gives you a reason to hate. maybe they should blowup a church or fist f*ck your son then slit his throat.. maybe? stop saying theyre bad stop saying its wrong they didnt choose to be that way.i hope the next gay person you bash makes you suffer loss and pain. ;P



And it's savage statements like this which detract from the credibility that decent people who advocate same-sex marriages have.

If you learn a dead language, and you read it back, what have you learned? You've learned what your teacher taught you. So, depending on what treacher you have, you learn what they translate.

Therefore, logic dictates that you can read MORE translations by more people than you can learn languages by teachers.

Go read a good ten translations, it will be better than reading original manuscripts because 'we' dont' think in the ancient greek no matter how much schooling we have. Anyone saying thay can read the original so their interpretation is best and flawless is a cracked-pot.

Wait, so all these people who learn dead languages and can only read back what their teacher taught them are somehow infallible in their translation and you should instead take what they say for granted. However, if you learn the language yourself, and examine the texts yourself, that is a bad thing?

Of course, you've made my point for me. None of us, not even the translators, can be absolutely sure what the texts say. They are written in a different language and a different grammar from those we use. Many words can be translated more than one way and those doing the translating just have to try and guess from context what it might say.

And yet you and Neo claim that it is all perfectly clear just from the text - no divine guidance required.

LOL

Meanwhile, I never said that someone saying their interpretation was best and flawless made any sense. In fact, that is exactly what I have been telling Neo is, in your terms, crack-pot.

And it's savage statements like this which detract from the credibility that decent people who advocate same-sex marriages have.

And it's savage statements and actions (like those against Matthew Sheppard) that detract from the credibility that people who are against same-sex marriages have.

Perhaps we should all look at individual arguments on their own merits, as there are zealots on both sides?

It's not just faith.....faith with works is more like it.
Works are optional (repentance) ... they are smiled on but not nessisary

Faith alone is the key factor

To me basing someones eternal soul on if they believe in EXACTLY the right god in this confusing and twisted world we are in is not just
I can not have faith that a deity that requires that is loving nor just
Nor would I choose to worship a being that "feels wrong" to my every fiber
If that gets me hell so be it but it is my life

Works are optional (repentance) ... they are smiled on but not nessisary

Faith alone is the key factor

To me basing someones eternal soul on if they believe in EXACTLY the right god in this confusing and twisted world we are in is not just
I can not have faith that a deity that requires that is loving nor just
Nor would I choose to worship a being that "feels wrong" to my every fiber
If that gets me hell so be it but it is my life


That's not true. Faith without works is a Lutheran doctrine. Christ specifically mentions that works are necessary to enter heaven as well.

Works are optional (repentance) ... they are smiled on but not nessisary

Faith alone is the key factor

Perhaps true faith leads to works?

Those who intentionally sin and then just claim they can get repentance are not truly repenting.

Wait, so all these people who learn dead languages and can only read back what their teacher taught them are somehow infallible in their translation and you should instead take what they say for granted. However, if you learn the language yourself, and examine the texts yourself, that is a bad thing?

Of course, you've made my point for me. None of us, not even the translators, can be absolutely sure what the texts say. They are written in a different language and a different grammar from those we use. Many words can be translated more than one way and those doing the translating just have to try and guess from context what it might say.

And yet you and Neo claim that it is all perfectly clear just from the text - no divine guidance required.

LOL

Meanwhile, I never said that someone saying their interpretation was best and flawless made any sense. In fact, that is exactly what I have been telling Neo is, in your terms, crack-pot.

What are you talking about, you already said you dismissed the book as wrong, that you don't trust it, that your 'spirit' tells you whats right or wrong, and THEN you go and tell people that their translations are wrong.

I think you have some issues to work out my dear... You're stumbling around saying everyone else is arrogant, including the scripture, but you and your spirit have some sort of insider information.

Perhaps it's time to go ask your 'guiding' spirit why it doesn't want you to read the scripture, and when you do, why it wants you to change it...

So far, I've yet to hear an argument on this thread that is not religious-based.
Anyone care to give a reason that can be construed by the government to be valid?

So far, I've yet to hear an argument on this thread that is not religious-based.
Anyone care to give a reason that can be construed by the government to be valid?
I pointed this out a while ago. But that no one could think of one, so it sort of got dropped.

I pointed this out a while ago. But that no one could think of one, so it sort of got dropped.

And I just pointed it out a page ago but no one cared about that. :p

So far, I've yet to hear an argument on this thread that is not religious-based.
Anyone care to give a reason that can be construed by the government to be valid?

In his decision Taylor said the federal government has a legitimate interest in not recognizing "gay marriage."

"The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor, who sits on the U.S. federal court for the Central District of California, wrote. "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest."
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21013

What are you talking about, you already said you dismissed the book as wrong, that you don't trust it, that your 'spirit' tells you whats right or wrong, and THEN you go and tell people that their translations are wrong.

I think you have some issues to work out my dear... You're stumbling around saying everyone else is arrogant, including the scripture, but you and your spirit have some sort of insider information.

Perhaps it's time to go ask your 'guiding' spirit why it doesn't want you to read the scripture, and when you do, why it wants you to change it...

What I said was that I use the Scripture as a starting point, and God gives me guidance on it. I never even suggested that God doesn't want me to read Scripture. I never suggested that I think all Scripture is "wrong". And I never claimed that any given translation was "wrong". I'm sure you enjoy your little strawmen, but do try to keep up with the actual discussion.

Is God, soley "my" spirit?

And I just pointed it out a page ago but no one cared about that. :p
And I pointed it five or so pages ago.

But I though it was such a big fact that it bore repeating. :)

I figure that if we repeat it enough some people might get wize to our point.

What I said was that I use the Scripture as a starting point, and God gives me guidance on it. I never even suggested that God doesn't want me to read Scripture. I never suggested that I think all Scripture is "wrong". And I never claimed that any given translation was "wrong". I'm sure you enjoy your little strawmen, but do try to keep up with the actual discussion.

Is God, soley "my" spirit?

Your spirit runs around telling you what scriptures you don't have to pay attention to, perhaps your spirit and the spirit that wrote the book are not the same? :eek:

In his decision Taylor said the federal government has a legitimate interest in not recognizing "gay marriage."

"The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor, who sits on the U.S. federal court for the Central District of California, wrote. "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest."
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21013

That is fine, so long as the government does not recognize any marriage which cannot produce children. Thus, sterile people, older people, and those who choose not to have children cannot marry. Also, those who adopt can't marry either, since the decision stipulates biological parents.

Your spirit runs around telling you what scriptures you don't have to pay attention to, perhaps your spirit and the spirit that wrote the book are not the same? :eek:

Are you claiming that God personally penned the Scriptures and sent them down from heaven?

And here I was thinking that it was human beings who wrote them down!

In his decision Taylor said the federal government has a legitimate interest in not recognizing "gay marriage."

"The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor, who sits on the U.S. federal court for the Central District of California, wrote. "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest."
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21013
You know, with so many people up for adoption, it kinda falls flat as an argument. Have you hard evidence that a gay couple has trouble raising a child?

And I pointed it five or so pages ago.

But I though it was such a big fact that it bore repeating. :)

I figure that if we repeat it enough some people might get wize to our point.

If only there was a way to make people pay attention to it :rolleyes:

If only there was a way to make people pay attention to it :rolleyes:

GIANT YELLOW LETTERS!


obv.

In his decision Taylor said the federal government has a legitimate interest in not recognizing "gay marriage."

"The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor, who sits on the U.S. federal court for the Central District of California, wrote. "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest."
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21013
Which should then change the law to "any fertile male and fertile female may marry each other", which then rules out all women after their menopause, all men and women who are sterile by other causes and anyone who doesn't plan on having children together. What a stupid ruling.

And I pointed it five or so pages ago.

But I though it was such a big fact that it bore repeating. :)

I figure that if we repeat it enough some people might get wize to our point.
Well, could you repeat it once more please? I like being convinced.

Forcing? Dear heavens, no! But persistence pays off. I know of many who have been converted and when asked why they say "because of the zeal you showed, I began to think you might have been on to something." The only thing I'm advocating "forcing" is keeping them from being able to degrade a legitimate institution through a travesty most deplorable. They can have their civil unions, but when they tread on religious territory, they'd better think twice before trying to >>FORCE<< their will upon us by having their marriage recognized. See? It's not just us who are trying to force things.

Just for the sake of argument, what about in my case? My Mom used to be very very very christian (she still is but because she has chosen, and for her it has been a choice because she was never gay before, but because of this choice she can't find decent churches anymore). Anyway, my Mom made me go to church all the time, tried to get me involved (like trying to join the church band or doing the slide shows, etc etc.). I hated it, every minute of it. As soon as I was old enough to say "meh, I ain't going" I stopped. I've gone to church with friends before, I have people trying to lead me to God all the time, trying to get me to accept Christ and blah blah. We have a horrible anti-gay group right here in town that is now traveling across California with their supposed "truth trucks" disrupting the general order our community once had, boycotting businesses and causing more harm than anything. After all of this stuff that I see, I'm more turned off by the thought of being of any religion, ever. I've actually denounced God now. If there is a God, he's on the biggest vacation of any supreme being ever, and that to me is just being lazy. So being persistent may work sometimes, but it also probably makes people less inclined to accept religion, as is my case.

Forcing? Dear heavens, no! But persistence pays off. I know of many who have been converted and when asked why they say "because of the zeal you showed, I began to think you might have been on to something." The only thing I'm advocating "forcing" is keeping them from being able to degrade a legitimate institution through a travesty most deplorable. They can have their civil unions, but when they tread on religious territory, they'd better think twice before trying to >>FORCE<< their will upon us by having their marriage recognized. See? It's not just us who are trying to force things.
Deleuze made a great point about that a few dozen pages ago, which you chose to ignore, or maybe just haven't read.
When you allow homosexual couples to get married, it doesn't mean you have to marry someone of your own gender too! You may still choose to marry someone of the opposite gender, oppose gay marriage and even throw homosexuals out of your church! Isn't that wonderfull? Nothing for you changes!
The only thing that does change, is that a whole lot of people would be very happy with it. Now what can possibly be against that?

Maybe she's a Calvinist - they only give lip service to free will.

But, then again, there would be no reason for a Calvinist to argue about converting people, as only those who are predestined to become Christians are even capable of following God's will according to Calvin.

So, never mind.

She probably is a Calvinist. Most zealots and dominionists are Calvinists. And they don't really care to convert anyone, really. they just seek to control others thoughts, behaviors, actions. They wish to make everyone else at least APPEAR to be the reflection of how they see themselves.

Of course, we know that they aren't the simon-pure folk they claim to be...

See, to a calvinist...sin is okay...as long as it isn't VISIBLE sin. Any kind of sin that can be swept under the rug and ignored is perfectly fine, but my brand of "sin" that is, leading an alternative lifestyle...is SIN of the highest degree to those people...because my "sin" is VISIBLE.

It matters not that they sin thousands of times a day...because they hide their sins under the rug, and it's okay.

Thus, they have come to the conclusion that there is a hierarchy of sin. The more VISIBLE the sin is...the worse the sin is.

It's okay, to a Calvinist, if a fellow Calvinist is boinking his secretary on the side...as long as it doesn't become public knowledge. Because it can be ignored, and is not VISIBLE.

Perfect example of this is when my brother (God help me) married a Calvinist. Her family wanted to have two seperate receptions...one at the church (alcohol-free) and then one later at their house, because they couldn't let their minister know that they drank!

And they came out and SAID that, too!!

Calvinists are the absolute foulest of all hypocrites.

There are many reasons why i don't believe that gay marriage is right, but primarly because it destroys a few thousand year old HUMAN tradition of which will crush the immage of the family and turn it into something that insted of producing children, our future world. It has a chance of creating nice friendly things like AIDS, or HIVs. Thats one reason, another to is because i feel that marriage will become to the point of commercialization where people will be able to marry what ever they please wheather it be there pet cat or there computer. I mean, 30 years ago no one around here would of thought about 2 gays getting married, and right now no one would think about a guy and a dog getting married. This kind of blows the idea of "if they love eachother, why shouldent they get married?!" out of the water. The slippery slope effect chances are WILL occur, and if we don't stop it now, why know what kind screwed up stuff us humans "and maybe even animals" may be doing with each other.

Calm down Lyric. This is probably an example of someone misinterpreting what was said.

No way! I am NOT going to calm down when someone levels a false charge like that at me!!

No damn way. I will NOT be accused of advocating violence against anyone, not even christians. She made the false accusation, and she expects me to sit there and take that lying down?? I don't think so.

I want a motherfucking apology...I want it NOW...and I want it delivered through a mouthful of crow!

I'll be good and god-DAMNED if I am going to be accused of such things!!

Ok, Lyric I apologize for appending this statement (Made by New Sans) to you. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for getting the names mixed up?

Its called reading the thread. Try it sometime, you may like it. :rolleyes:

You know, I was reading through this thread, and I found that…

I know deaf couples that have children born with defective inner ears and they are thus deaf, but they can be cured via a relatively simple surgery. The deaf parent’s deaf community 'Wants" their child to stay deaf to continue the deaf community. And you know what? They, like the gay community, are wrong.

If you have a child with a cleft lip, or his balls don't drop, or he needs braces, or wears glasses, or needs a heart pacer, or asthma treatments, you FIX them. You don't sit there and say, oh, it's okay, lots of people live perfectly good lives with those defects...

Yes people DO live perfectly good lives with those defects, but if it's in your power to fix, YOU FIX IT! IMO It's child neglect to do otherwise, the child should be taken away from parents that don't put the child’s best care first and foremost.

IF it turns out that homosexual tendencies are cause in part or entirely by some sort of brain trauma/growth irregularity, or genetic defect (which neither has been proven to be the case) then they are physical ailments that are treatable. IF homosexual tendencies turn out to be developed by physical depression, then it is treatable, if chemically sensitive people (such as people who are likely to be chemical addicts) turn out to be a cause of homosexual experimentation, then it will be treatable.

If the deaf community, which is wonderful and aesthetically brilliant and beautiful in all it's own way, disappears because all the deaf children are cured by modern medicine, then AMEN. The community was nice, but curing illness is better.
In the end, if the gay community disappears like them because the children are treated BEFORE they grow up, what harm can you claim?


Nice try. Good strawman. Homosexuality is not a disease. The DSM stopped even listing homosexuality as a psychosis in 1974. So, not only is homosexuality not a physical disease, or ailment...it is also not a mental disease either.

Nice red herring. Thanks for trying.

YOU see it as a problem FOR YOU. Great. Maybe the homosexual person doesn't see it that way. Maybe they are perfectly happy being gay, and do not see their sexual orientation as something that NEEDS fixing...nor do they desire it fixed!

You know, when I was a kid...I kept my own tendencies well-hidden. For a couple of reasons. Firstly, I didn't feel like getting my ass kicked every day after school. Secondly, I did not want my parents dragging me off to psychotherapists trying to "fix" me, because I didn't WANT to be fixed. I didn't feel I NEEDED to be fixed.

I felt there were some elements of society that really needed a compassion transplant, though.

No way! I am NOT going to calm down when someone levels a false charge like that at me!!

No damn way. I will NOT be accused of advocating violence against anyone, not even christians. She made the false accusation, and she expects me to sit there and take that lying down?? I don't think so.

I want a motherfucking apology...I want it NOW...and I want it delivered through a mouthful of crow!

I'll be good and god-DAMNED if I am going to be accused of such things!!



.....I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're blind.

Its called reading the thread. Try it sometime, you may like it.


Yes, because Lord knows you've never made a mistake in your life :rolleyes:

Ok, Lyric I apologize for appending this statement (Made by New Sans) to you.






Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for getting the names mixed up?

That depends. Can YOU find it in your heart to stop trying to fuck up our happiness by denying us equal civil rights?

Do you really MEAN your apology?

I'm not sure I saw quite enough crow feathers flying out of your mouth.

I'd like to see a few renditions of "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea MOXIMA culpa!!" and then I just might consider it.

There are many reasons why i don't believe that gay marriage is right, but primarly because it destroys a few thousand year old HUMAN tradition of which will crush the immage of the family and turn it into something that insted of producing children, our future world. It has a chance of creating nice friendly things like AIDS, or HIVs.

Tradition is all good and nice, but when it starts to interfere with peoples rights then perhaps it's time to look at it. It's not like Gay parents won't give as much love and care to the children they take care of as the next parents.

Thats one reason, another to is because i feel that marriage will become to the point of commercialization where people will be able to marry what ever they please wheather it be there pet cat or there computer.

I have three words for you, "Viva las Vegas". If 24 hour chapels/shotgun weddings haven't given a bit of a bad taste for you then I don't know what will.

I mean, 30 years ago no one around here would of thought about 2 gays getting married, and right now no one would think about a guy and a dog getting married. This kind of blows the idea of "if they love eachother, why shouldent they get married?!" out of the water. The slippery slope effect chances are WILL occur, and if we don't stop it now, why know what kind screwed up stuff us humans "and maybe even animals" may be doing with each other.

Yes, because humans as we know it are complete freaking nutjobs. :rolleyes: If you think that because gays marry people are going to start to think, "hmmm maybe I should marry my Cat." you need to take a step back and look at that. I mean there is world hunger/genocides/drug related crimes and all the other things in the world and you know what we really need to be worried about is them queers marrying each other....That is nuts.

Yes, because Lord knows you've never made a mistake in your life :rolleyes:

No I havent. I'm perfect :p

Ok, Lyric I apologize for appending this statement (Made by New Sans) to you. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for getting the names mixed up?

Why must sarcasm be lost upon so many people...

There are many reasons why i don't believe that gay marriage is right, but primarly because it destroys a few thousand year old HUMAN tradition of which will crush the immage of the family and turn it into something that insted of producing children, our future world. It has a chance of creating nice friendly things like AIDS, or HIVs. Thats one reason, another to is because i feel that marriage will become to the point of commercialization where people will be able to marry what ever they please wheather it be there pet cat or there computer. I mean, 30 years ago no one around here would of thought about 2 gays getting married, and right now no one would think about a guy and a dog getting married. This kind of blows the idea of "if they love eachother, why shouldent they get married?!" out of the water. The slippery slope effect chances are WILL occur, and if we don't stop it now, why know what kind screwed up stuff us humans "and maybe even animals" may be doing with each other.
Marriage is never legal when one of the parties doesn't consent to it. So, until the day we can hear a dog say "I do", that won't be the case, don't worry.
As for destroying tradition: slavery was a tradition, but I don't think we should have upheld it. Another one of those fine traditions is whale hunting, which should be stopped as soon as possible too. If the tradition is bad, get rid of it.
Do you honestly think that gay marriage will help spread AIDS more rapidly? Because if homosexuals are allowed to get married, don't you think they would rather become more faithfull than less? Plus, homosexual sex is already legal, so it doesn't really make any difference.

Yes....I said must follow.....and those who choose not to follow the commandments that God has said we must follow after having heard them can't exactly expect an afterlife of bliss and joy.

So were supposed to have a life here on earth full of misery, despair, and anguish...so as to be "rewarded" with a promised afterlife that we don't even REALLY know we will get?

And, quite frankly, if this "afterlife of bliss and joy" has anything to do with sharing the same airspace with zealots like yourself...and Eskertania...and Fred Phelps, and don Wildmon, and Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson...you know, I just might take door number 2 willingly...rather than spend eternity with the likes of you and your ilk.

What on earth....no! I'm not Calvinist! Sheesh!

So were supposed to have a life here on earth full of misery, despair, and anguish...so as to be "rewarded" with a promised afterlife that we don't even REALLY know we will get?

And, quite frankly, if this "afterlife of bliss and joy" has anything to do with sharing the same airspace with zealots like yourself...and Eskertania...and Fred Phelps, and don Wildmon, and Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson...you know, I just might take door number 2 willingly...rather than spend eternity with the likes of you and your ilk.

I tell you what, you bring some food, I'll bring the jams. :p

It's actually pretty precise. You're just making it complex and fudging with the wording because you don't want it to say what it does.

No, you and your ilk take Scripture out of context in order to make it appear to say that which suits your agenda.

And other groups engage in this sort of behavior, too.

the fact is, the Bible is VERY MUCH open to interpretation, it was NOT made very clear.

So were supposed to have a life here on earth full of misery, despair, and anguish...so as to be "rewarded" with a promised afterlife that we don't even REALLY know we will get?

And, quite frankly, if this "afterlife of bliss and joy" has anything to do with sharing the same airspace with zealots like yourself...and Eskertania...and Fred Phelps, and don Wildmon, and Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson...you know, I just might take door number 2 willingly...rather than spend eternity with the likes of you and your ilk.



Yeah, way to generalize.....seriously, if all you can do is group me with the hatred clan and insult me, then maybe you should spend more time learning how debate involves abstaining from ad hominem attacks. Emotion, which you are exhibiting no lack of, has no place in discussions like this. If you still feel like flaming me, then I'm just going to start ignoring you.

Yeah, way to generalize.....seriously, if all you can do is group me with the hatred clan and insult me, then maybe you should spend more time learning how debate involves abstaining from ad hominem attacks. Emotion, which you are exhibiting no lack of, has no place in discussions like this. If you still feel like flaming me, then I'm just going to start ignoring you.

Funny thats just like God and religion dont have a place in the debate on gay marriage. :rolleyes:

Must everything be subject to scientific empericism? Could you not acknowledge the existence of the metaphysical dimension, not observable by us? Science is limited to the physical, so certainly it would be impossible to prove the divine and ethereal in a scientific sense.

Must you have your way...and the ability to impose YOUR view on others who do not necessarily share that view...based uppon something that cannot be proven empirically?

You can't prove the existence of your God...or of any God...and yet you use your BELIEF (yes, belief...not KNOWLEDGE) to deny others their rights and their ability to pursue happiness, and what pleases THEM...just because it is displeasing to YOU???

and we're supposed to just be okay with this?

This amounts to the same old..."Because I said so" arguments which I already have told you are not going to wash.

"Because I said so." is how a three-year old argues. Or how a parent settles a dispute with their three-year old child. Well, we, as adults here, do not much appreciate being treated like three year old children, and we do NOT subscribe to the idea that you, and you alone....know what is best for the rest of us.

You need to get over yourself, Neo. Fast.

to everyone who thinks gays are horrid people.. i cant wait till the day a gay person gives you a reason to hate. maybe they should blowup a church or fist f*ck your son then slit his throat.. maybe? stop saying theyre bad stop saying its wrong they didnt choose to be that way.i hope the next gay person you bash makes you suffer loss and pain. ;P

And why don't you go ahead and attribute THIS quote to me, too, Neo...while you're at it, since I am so obviously such an evil horrible person!!

I'm really seriously offended by having that quote that I did not make attributed to me Neo.

And, for the record...I think the person who DID actually post this little gem is a despicable excuse for a human being. I can understand the anger, the pain, and the grief that the original poster must have suffered, in order to make hium feel this way. believe me, I understand it. but to actually advocate it and wish it on another?? No, sorry, Bleenie, YOU are out of line, here.

and this is just the sort of comment that is not going to help our cause.

No, you and your ilk take Scripture out of context in order to make it appear to say that which suits your agenda.

And other groups engage in this sort of behavior, too.

the fact is, the Bible is VERY MUCH open to interpretation, it was NOT made very clear.


HAH! That's a laugh! Who is the one trying to change the very wording of the Bible to suit them? Hmm? Who is the one trying to deny the absolute authority Jesus Christ, the Son of God, gave to Paul? Who is the one who actively participates in an activity that God considers abominable? Who is the one who openly sins with no shame!? That would be YOU! Don't you EVER try to twist the Scriptures to fit your own perverted view of morality! And don't you EVER accuse me of sins when you have NO knowledge of my personal life!...and finally....NEVER PLACE ME IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS FRED PHELPS!!!! I BELIEVE IN LOVE, NOT HATRED!

Funny thats just like God and religion dont have a place in the debate on gay marriage


Did you think before you said that? Because, if you did, it certainly isn't showing. This very thread is proof that gay marriage is a serious issue for Christians!

In his decision Taylor said the federal government has a legitimate interest in not recognizing "gay marriage."

"The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents," Taylor, who sits on the U.S. federal court for the Central District of California, wrote. "Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest."
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=21013

with SIX BILLION humans on this planet already, I hardly think the perpetuation of mankind is under any REAL threat by allowing gay marriage.

Nice try.

ON EDIT: and notice the sourcing on this one?? SBC BAPTIST PRESS....
More religious mumbo-jumbo, dressed up and dolled up to look like it's legitimate, and not just pure hatred, venom, and discrimination.

The same sort of arguments were used against interracial marriages before Loving vs. Virginia too, you know.

Did you think before you said that? Because, if you did, it certainly isn't showing. This very thread is proof that gay marriage is a serious issue for Christians!

Okay lets try this one more time. We are debating on wheter or not gays are allowed to marry (I assume in the USA). There are 2 main things we need to take into consideration. First off in the United States of America there is a seperation of church and state. Meaning that the US government doesnt make laws regarding religions and does not oppress the religious beliefs of its citizens. Second marriage that is being refered to is a civil institution which involves certain rights and does not pertain to a certain religion/church. So that basically stipulates that religious arguements dont have a place in this debate being that neither the government or a religion can dictate something to the other. So with that in mind what reasons do people in this thread feel that denying homosexuals the right to marry is justified/legal?

I'd like to take seperation of Church and state for 100 Alex.

I'd like to take seperation of Church and state for 100 Alex.

And it looks like it's the daily double.

I'd like to take seperation of Church and state for 100 Alex.



Seperation of Church and state amounts to us not being able to establish our religion as the state religion. That does not mean, however, that we are prohibited from pushing our agenda through congress. We have every right to do that, much as you obviously have every right to push a secular agenda.

ON EDIT: and notice the sourcing on this one?? SBC BAPTIST PRESS....
More religious mumbo-jumbo, dressed up and dolled up to look like it's legitimate, and not just pure hatred, venom, and discrimination.

The same sort of arguments were used against interracial marriages before Loving vs. Virginia too, you know.


Yes Lyric, everyone knows that all who disagree with you are hateful bigots :rolleyes: and people say >>I<< need to get over myself :rolleyes:

Yes Lyric, everyone knows that all who disagree with you are hateful bigots :rolleyes: and people say >>I<< need to get over myself :rolleyes:

Frankly we all need to get over ourselves. Then we can all realize that we were better off before. :p

Seperation of Church and state amounts to us not being able to establish our religion as the state religion. That does not mean, however, that we are prohibited from pushing our agenda through congress. We have every right to do that, much as you obviously have every right to push a secular agenda.

And how is basing laws on what the christian god says is right and wrong not tanamount to having a state religion? If we start forcing people to abide by the laws of one religion its the same effect as forcing them to participate in it.

Anyway, there is always a way to get married if you are gay.
http://www.gaykrant.nl/index.php?id=222

There are many reasons why i don't believe that gay marriage is right, but primarly because it destroys a few thousand year old HUMAN tradition of which will crush the immage of the family and turn it into something that insted of producing children, our future world. It has a chance of creating nice friendly things like AIDS, or HIVs. Thats one reason, another to is because i feel that marriage will become to the point of commercialization where people will be able to marry what ever they please wheather it be there pet cat or there computer. I mean, 30 years ago no one around here would of thought about 2 gays getting married, and right now no one would think about a guy and a dog getting married. This kind of blows the idea of "if they love eachother, why shouldent they get married?!" out of the water. The slippery slope effect chances are WILL occur, and if we don't stop it now, why know what kind screwed up stuff us humans "and maybe even animals" may be doing with each other.

How many times must I beat my head against a brick wall with this same old tired AIDS argument?

HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS!!!

PROMISCUITY PUTS ONE AT GREATER RISK OF GETTING AIDS, HETERO OR HOMO-SEXUAL PROMISCUITY.

AIDS IS CAUSED BY A VIRUS...SOME BEHAVIORS PUT ONE AT GREATER RISK OF CONTRACTING SAID VIRUS. AND THE SPECIFIC ACTIVITY WHICH PUTS PEOPLE AT GREATER RISK IS PROMISCUITY...NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.

So, gay marriage actually would be a good thing, it would encourage more monogamy.

And how is basing laws on what the christian god says is right and wrong not tanamount to having a state religion? If we start forcing people to abide by the laws of one religion its the same effect as forcing them to participate in it.


So, we just disregard what the majority of the nation wants? Super.

.....I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're blind.


no. I posted it before I saw your half-assed apology.

After what you accused me of, you ought to be prostrate at my feet BEGGING my forgiveness!!!

HOW DARE YOU LEVEL A CHARGE LIKE YOU DID AGAINST ME?!!?!?

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU???

And to expect a small little "I'm sorry" to make it all better again. No, I want more than that.

When I said I wanted a "motherfucking apology" I meant I wanted a MOTHERFUCKING APOLOGY.

The difference....

An apology: "I'm sorry."

A motherfucking apology: "I WAS HORRIBLY WRONG, AND IT WAS UNFORGIVABLE FOR ME TO LEVEL SUCH AN ACCUSATION AT YOU....I HUMBLY BEG FOR YOUR FORGIVENESS! MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MOXIMA CULPA!!"

THAT is what I want for you Neo. You insulted the literal FUCK out of me, levelling such an accusation at me, and I DEMAND more that just a meek, mumbled, "I'm sorry."

I want a motherfucking apology.

So, we just disregard what the majority of the nation wants? Super.

Yea, why not I mean it's not like those in the majority aren't trying to force their will on others who don't want it.... oh wai. Minority or majority people should still have equal rights, justifying the denial of some because the majority doesn't want them to have them is bullshit.

First off: Damn this thread grew big in the time I wasgone.

Secondly : homosexual animals (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm)

Third: I'll be posting more once I read through teh 30 pages that have appeared

no. I posted it before I saw your half-assed apology.

After what you accused me of, you ought to be prostrate at my feet BEGGING my forgiveness!!!

HOW DARE YOU LEVEL A CHARGE LIKE YOU DID AGAINST ME?!!?!?

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU???

And to expect a small little "I'm sorry" to make it all better again. No, I want more than that.

When I said I wanted a "motherfucking apology" I meant I wanted a MOTHERFUCKING APOLOGY.

The difference....

An apology: "I'm sorry."

A motherfucking apology: "I WAS HORRIBLY WRONG, AND IT WAS UNFORGIVABLE FOR ME TO LEVEL SUCH AN ACCUSATION AT YOU....I HUMBLY BEG FOR YOUR FORGIVENESS! MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA, MEA MOXIMA CULPA!!"

THAT is what I want for you Neo. You insulted the literal FUCK out of me, levelling such an accusation at me, and I DEMAND more that just a meek, mumbled, "I'm sorry."

I want a motherfucking apology.

Calmn down, it's best to just ignore her(sorry if this is wrong) instead of rampant flaming. Frankly it's probably best for the both of you to cool down and take some time off this thread since constructive conversations aren't seeming to be made.

Yeah, way to generalize.....seriously, if all you can do is group me with the hatred clan and insult me, then maybe you should spend more time learning how debate involves abstaining from ad hominem attacks. Emotion, which you are exhibiting no lack of, has no place in discussions like this. If you still feel like flaming me, then I'm just going to start ignoring you.

Pot meet kettle!! Who the hell started flinging ad hominem attacks first??

I certainly never accused YOU of advocating violence against any group of people when you did no such thing.

but you sure as shit levelled that charge at ME...didn't you?? DIDN'T YOU?? DIDN'T YOU?? DIDN'T YOU??

So, we just disregard what the majority of the nation wants? Super.

If the majority of the nation is wrong sure why the hell not.

So, we just disregard what the majority of the nation wants? Super.
If it requires denying people equality absolutly

Pot meet kettle!! Who the hell started flinging ad hominem attacks first??


Lol, you actually.