NationStates Jolt Archive

He asked to b taught to b strait, the 1st step would have been to unlearn the gay habbits.
If sexual orientation was a choice, like you pretend it is, such a therapy would be unneeded. And, in fact, really does not work: aversion therapy does not change anything. It can only repress and suppress.
A gay man being subjected to such a therapy would not emerge heterosexual: he would end up asexual, devoid of any desire.

Black Forrest if it's not too much trouble could you send me that list in a telegram?

Eh? What list?

Do you mean Sane Outcasts?

There you go, more contradiction from Wyvern.

First you say it doesn't hurt, it's real therapy, and now you say it does hurt.

Um there goes more of u reading things that rnt' there, i never said it didn hurt, i said it doesn't hurt u. U may have read sum1 else's post that said it hurt.

Luke 3:23 (continued in NIV version) "...Joseph, the son of Heli"

Take it compared to the other verse, and you can see the contradiction.



I see what you mean. But many people had two names they went by. Jacob(Not the one from Matthew) was also known as Israel. One possibility though I may be wrong.

Ok then y is he attraceted to the, and y does he fall in love with them?

No one can answer that question. We don't know why I am, we just know I am.

Eh? What list?

Do you mean Sane Outcasts?


That's what I meant sorry.

Ok then y is he attraceted to the, and y does he fall in love with them?
Human emotions suffer no rational explanation. Love first and foremost amongst all the emotions we can feel. You're the one trying to find a cause behind all this, not me.

Ok then y is he attraceted to the, and y does he fall in love with them?

What are you attracted to certain women?

A gay man has the same feelings and looks for certain qualities in a partner.

Electroshock will never change that.

It didn't work in the 50s and it won't work now.

Um there goes more of u reading things that rnt' there, i never said it didn hurt, i said it doesn't hurt u. U may have read sum1 else's post that said it hurt.

Your exact words were "No It causes physical harm". Jesus you're a fucking idiot.

If sexual orientation was a choice, like you pretend it is, such a therapy would be unneeded. And, in fact, really does not work: aversion therapy does not change anything. It can only repress and suppress.
A gay man being subjected to such a therapy would not emerge heterosexual: he would end up asexual, devoid of any desire.

Actually i said homo-sexuality was a choice i never said hetero sexuality was a choice. However Asexual would b the 1st step, as i already said the 1st step would b to unlearn or extingiuish the gay part.

No it causes no physical harm.
Look i said it causes no physical harm looks like ur seeing illusions.

I think the reason a lot of people don't like homosexuality is because they see it as only sexual. They see all gay men as whores. Which we're not. Yes, we're attracted physically to men, but we're also attracted emotionally to them.

Actually i said homo-sexuality was a choice i never said hetero sexuality was a choice. However Asexual would b the 1st step, as i already said the 1st step would b to unlearn or extingiuish the gay part.
No, that's retarded.

There is no way homosexuality can be a choice, and heterosexuality not being a choice at the same time.

Your exact words were "No It causes physical harm". Jesus you're a fucking idiot.

U call me an idiot when u can't fucking read. Lol ur pathetic, next time go back and read what i say b4 u try and make an argument. Lol i don't even know y i even reply to u, as u just make stuff up out of thin air.

Look i said it causes no physical harm looks like ur seeing illusions.
Ok I read it wrong.

I see what you mean. But many people had two names they went by. Jacob(Not the one from Matthew) was also known as Israel. One possibility though I may be wrong.

Follow the geneologies back a few generations and you'll see that the names do not match up. I put that up as an example, though, and I really don't want to start a thread hijack about the Bible. I'll send you the list by telegram, along with my own perspective, but I hope you don't mind waiting on it. I tend to put in more work than I mean to on these sort of things, so it may be some time nefore you recieve it.

U call me an idiot when u can't fucking read. Lol ur pathetic, next time go back and read what i say b4 u try and make an argument. Lol i don't even know y i even reply to u, as u just make stuff up out of thin air.

I read it wrong, it's a simple, honest mistake.

U call me an idiot when u can't fucking read. Lol ur pathetic, next time go back and read what i say b4 u try and make an argument. Lol i don't even know y i even reply to u, as u just make stuff up out of thin air.


You never do that, do you?

No, that's retarded.

There is no way homosexuality can be a choice, and heterosexuality not being a choice at the same time.

I said homosexuality was a choice i never said anything about heterosexuality.

I think the reason a lot of people don't like homosexuality is because they see it as only sexual. They see all gay men as whores. Which we're not. Yes, we're attracted physically to men, but we're also attracted emotionally to them.
Their see gay men that way because they refuse to see them as full human beings. If gay men are subhuman, abnormal creatures, then they certainly aren't capable of love.

That rationale is about as stupid and retarded than the ancient notion that blacks had no soul or were only 3/5 of a human being.

U call me an idiot when u can't fucking read. Lol ur pathetic, next time go back and read what i say b4 u try and make an argument. Lol i don't even know y i even reply to u, as u just make stuff up out of thin air.

If you don't want to be labeled an idiot, then learn the following:

U does not equal You
ur does not equal you are
b4 does not equal before

Follow the geneologies back a few generations and you'll see that the names do not match up. I put that up as an example, though, and I really don't want to start a thread hijack about the Bible. I'll send you the list by telegram, along with my own perspective, but I hope you don't mind waiting on it. I tend to put in more work than I mean to on these sort of things, so it may be some time nefore you recieve it.


That's ok and thanks for the list and your insight and such. Very good points and well thought out.

I said homosexuality was a choice i never said anything about heterosexuality.

Yes you did, and I double checked it this time.

You said "I said homosexuality was a choice, i never said heterosexuality was a choice."

If you don't want to be labeled an idiot, then learn the following:

U does not equal You
ur does not equal you are
b4 does not equal before

I don't care what im labeled.

That type of response to it in families doesn't happen as much as it used to, though it does sometimes.

Based on what you have said thus far, it would seem that you would support such reactions from families.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Matthew Shepard killed a couple years ago?

Indeed. But people are beaten up for their sexuality every day. Just the other day in the news, a drag queen was beaten severely.

so the feelings about the lifestyle are different.

Sexuality is not a lifestyle, any more than blue eyes or right-handedness are lifestyles. It is a trait. A person of any sexuality can choose any given lifestyle. They can be promiscuous, celibate, or monogamous. They can be thrifty or can spend like crazy. They can be honest or dishonest. And so on.

What they cannot do - what none of us can do - is choose who they are attracted to. That just comes naturally.

And a sane human would choose the lifestyle because that's what they wanted(my belief),

You think people want to be persecuted? You think they want to be looked down on? You think they want to be denied the right to live as one with their lover and have that union get legal protections?

or they would live that way because they had no choice(your belief).

You cannot "live that way" when it comes to sexuality. No one has a choice in who they are or not attracted to - and that attraction is all that sexuality describes.


But that is where u r wrong, it will change things. We don't care at all if u choose to do those things with a man we simply don't wan't to know about them.

You obviously do care what type of union two people enter into, since you wish to deny a homosexual union the legal protections afforded to heterosexual unions. You obviously care so much that you don't care that a man who has lived with his partner in a monogamous relationship for 50 years may not be able to visit his loved one in the hospital and may lose the house they both worked for if his partner dies. You may not care that a woman who has raised her partner's child as her own for 10 years may lose that child if her partner dies, simply because she cannot gain legal custody - severely effecting both the mother and child.

However it would change the very deffinition of marriage, which the majority hold as a sacred union between a man and a woman,

Nobody's "sacred" definition of marriage would be changed by changing the legal definition of marriage. Churches who do not wish to recongize homosexual unions will never be forced to do so - or to perform such unions, any more than Catholics are forced to remarry those who have divorced, even though such people can get legal marriages. Thus, no "sacred" marriage would change.

Meanwhile, the legal definition was once a way for a man to own a woman. Then it was a union between a man and woman of the same ethnicity. This change is no larger than the allowance of interracial marriage - another "change" that many said would destroy the sanctity of marriage.

homosexual marriages breaks that sacred union(to heterosexuals).

No, it doesn't. I am about to marry a man - a heterosexual union. I think that my union is degraded in that it is not allowed to homosexual couples. My union can only be strengthened by allowing it to all loving couples.

How exactly would any heterosexual union be broken or harmed by allowing homosexuals to gain equal protection under the law?

Honestly if u guys would just do the same thing but call it something else,

Separate but equal is never equal at all. Civil unions have been tried. They are never granted equal legal protection.

However i stand firm on my support of every anti-gay protest, rally or w/e there has ever been.

All of them, eh? So you support Fred Phelps, who goes to protest random soldier's funerals, yelling at their parents, wives, and children that they are going to hell for supporting a country that allows the existence of gays?

I don't care what im labeled.

Yes you do. Or you wouldn't have defended yourself like you did.

Yes you did, and I double checked it this time.

You said "I said homosexuality was a choice, i never said heterosexuality was a choice."

That is correct, i didn't say it wasn't a choice either did i?

I said homosexuality was a choice i never said anything about heterosexuality.
*sigh* This is the last self-evident truth I'm spelling out for you.


If heterosexuality is not a choice, then everyone is heterosexual. That means no one can logically choose to be gay, since they're heterosexual. If one is gay, then OBVIOUSLY that means that person either chose NOT to be heterosexual, which doesn't work because being heterosexual is not a choice, OR be both gay and heterosexual at the same time, which is impossible because both are mutually exclusive. At worst people would be bisexual.

Edit: Bear in mind I'm only writing this to humor you, since HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE AND HAS NEVER BEEN. I know I'm growing a heavy hand on capitals, but then again you seem awfully obtuse and unable to comprehend even the most basic facts.

I don't care what im labeled.

Your response:

U call me an idiot when u can't fucking read. Lol ur pathetic, next time go back and read what i say b4 u try and make an argument. Lol i don't even know y i even reply to u, as u just make stuff up out of thin air.


says you do.

Based on what you have said thus far, it would seem that you would support such reactions from families.
....................So you support Fred Phelps, who goes to protest random soldier's funerals, yelling at their parents, wives, and children that they are going to hell for supporting a country that allows the existence of gays?


However it came across I don't support that sort of reaction. And I do not support Fred Phelps or anyone remotely like him, he is wrong his beliefs are wrong, and whoever supports him is wrong.

That is correct, i didn't say it wasn't a choice either did i?

You inferred that it wasn't.

Yes you do. Or you wouldn't have defended yourself like you did.

When did i dfend myself, from what i was labeled, i have infact said many things that would label me things that most ppl would care about being labeled.
I have rarely dfended myself, i am usually dfending an argument i made.

You inferred that it wasn't.

Indeed maybe i did.

When did i dfend myself, from what i was labeled, i have infact said many things that would label me things that most ppl would care about being labeled.
I have rarely dfended myself, i am usually dfending an argument i made.

You defended yourself right then.

Lol i doubted a gay person would pray.

Why? People of all sexualities are religious.

And even so i have already considered the possiblity of gay children, and they would immeaditly b disowned, without hesistation,

That is truly disgusting. I very rarely wish any health problems on someone, but I truly hope you are sterile and never adopt. Anyone who would take this stance towards children should never be allowed to have any.

and guess what i wouldn't have a problem with disowning sum1 who chose a life of sin,

Sexuality is not, and never has been, a choice.

When did i dfend myself, from what i was labeled, i have infact said many things that would label me things that most ppl would care about being labeled.
I have rarely dfended myself, i am usually dfending an argument i made.

You are defending yourself now.

I have rarely dfended myself, i am usually dfending an argument i made.
I wouldn't call your empty rhetoric and dodging of evidence contrary of your point of you defending. But if it had to be seen as defending... then it would be a very poorly made defense.

*sigh* This is the last self-evident truth I'm spelling out for you.


If heterosexuality is not a choice, then everyone is heterosexual. That means no one can logically choose to be gay, since they're heterosexual. If one is gay, then OBVIOUSLY that means that person either chose NOT to be heterosexual, which doesn't work because being heterosexual is not a choice, OR be both gay and heterosexual at the same time, which is impossible because both are mutually exclusive. At worst people would be bisexual.

Edit: Bear in mind I'm only writing this to humor you, since HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE AND HAS NEVER BEEN. I know I'm growing a heavy hand on capitals, but then again you seem awfully obtuse and unable to comprehend even the most basic facts.

Let me spell it out for u who doesn't pay attention to what they read, i said homosexuality was a choice, and i pointed out the fact that i haven't said anything about heterosexuality, as of yet, i haven't said anything about it being a choice or not.

Let me spell it out for u who doesn't pay attention to what they read, i said homosexuality was a choice, and i pointed out the fact that i haven't said anything about heterosexuality, as of yet, i haven't said anything about it being a choice or not.

Then why don't you tell us if you think it is a choice or not? So that way we can settle this debate?

Why? People of all sexualities are religious.



That is truly disgusting. I very rarely wish any health problems on someone, but I truly hope you are sterile and never adopt. Anyone who would take this stance towards children should never be allowed to have any.



Sexuality is not, and never has been, a choice.

Yes however Homosexuality goes against most religions.

Wow ur so nice, and that stance wasn't taken toward children it was taken against gays, diffrence in there u may not understand.

Yes it is and always will b.

Let me spell it out for u who doesn't pay attention to what they read, i said homosexuality was a choice, and i pointed out the fact that i haven't said anything about heterosexuality, as of yet, i haven't said anything about it being a choice or not.
You admitted two or three posts ago that you inferred it was. Funny how you have NEVER responded to anything that literally tears your pathetic excuses for bigotry to shreds. I'm waiting for a reasonable explanation on how homosexuality could be choice after reading my previous post.


Can you actually use reason and think for yourself, or do you always mindlessly repeat the same idiotic statements, regardless of how false they are?

Yes however Homosexuality goes against most religions.

Wow ur so nice, and that stance wasn't taken toward children it was taken against gays, diffrence in there u may not understand.

Yes it is and always will b.

I believe he was talking about your stance toward your children.

Yes however Homosexuality goes against most religions.

Wow ur so nice, and that stance wasn't taken toward children it was taken against gays, diffrence in there u may not understand.

Yes it is and always will b.

You are a sad sad little man.

Do not EVER have children and do not EVER adopt any.

I believe he was talking about your stance toward your children.

Demp is a she. :)

Yes however Homosexuality goes against most religions.

Wow ur so nice, and that stance wasn't taken toward children it was taken against gays, diffrence in there u may not understand.

Yes it is and always will b.

But homosexuality doesn't go against ALL religions. It matters not how many it DOES go against, the fact that it doesn't go against ALL religions is enough to make the religious argument an invalid one.

Then why don't you tell us if you think it is a choice or not? So that way we can settle this debate?

Sexuality, via homo, bi, or hetero is a choice in all matters of regard. However the majority of stimuli in modern day enviornment tend to teach children the way of heterosexuals, and sometimes even bisexuals(usually women) Thru identification and introjection, of the majority of famlies the children usually grow up and become like there father or mother, which r of course heterosexual. However certain stimuli often send ppl toward homosexuality thru movies, friends, etc...

Yes however Homosexuality goes against most religions.

No it doesn't. YOUR religion is NOT MOST religions.


Wow ur so nice, and that stance wasn't taken toward children it was taken against gays, diffrence in there u may not understand.

Yes it is and always will b.
That stance is taken towards children if you subject your own children on the sole basis of their different orientation. Everyone here on this board seem disgusted at your narrow-mindedness, bigotry, hypocrisy and abirtrary hatred.

Disowning your child for something over which he has no control, such as sexual orientation, is as worse as stating that if your children is born with blue eyes, you will disown him.

Demp is a she. :)


Oops. Sorry. I didn't know so I assumed which we all what that does. But thatnks for correcting me.

You are a sad sad little man.

Do not EVER have children and do not EVER adopt any.

Yes the advice of a random person over the internet will cause me to sway personal decisions i have decided years ago.

This is my stance on the whole issue. I think it's the best.

We do away with legal marriage, for anyone. Than any two people who want can get a civil union, any two consenting adults. Then, if they wanna get married according to whatever religion they choose, that's fine.

Yes the advice of a random person over the internet will cause me to sway personal decisions i have decided years ago.

Years ago? What when you were 7?

No it doesn't. YOUR religion is NOT MOST religions.


That stance is taken towards children if you subject your own children on the sole basis of their different orientation. Everyone here on this board seem disgusted at your narrow-mindedness, bigotry, hypocrisy and abirtrary hatred.

Disowning your child for something over which he has no control, such as sexual orientation, is as worse as stating that if your children is born with blue eyes, you will disown him.


Even I'm disgusted and I agree with Wyvern that it's a choice but that's just what I believe.

Sexuality, via homo, bi, or hetero is a choice in all matters of regard. However the majority of stimuli in modern day enviornment tend to teach children the way of heterosexuals, and sometimes even bisexuals(usually women) Thru identification and introjection, of the majority of famlies the children usually grow up and become like there father or mother, which r of course heterosexual. However certain stimuli often send ppl toward homosexuality thru movies, friends, etc...

Never took biology and human reproduction did you?

But homosexuality doesn't go against ALL religions. It matters not how many it DOES go against, the fact that it doesn't go against ALL religions is enough to make the religious argument an invalid one.

Yes however it goes against most religions, so i sayed i found it unlikly a person who didn't follow most religions would pray. Hince the argument is still valid.

Sexuality, via homo, bi, or hetero is a choice in all matters of regard. However the majority of stimuli in modern day enviornment tend to teach children the way of heterosexuals, and sometimes even bisexuals(usually women) Thru identification and introjection, of the majority of famlies the children usually grow up and become like there father or mother, which r of course heterosexual. However certain stimuli often send ppl toward homosexuality thru movies, friends, etc...
This is bullshit. There not a shred of credible evidence of what you're speculating here. No major study has ever come up with the conclusion that homosexuality is a learned behavior.

Psychiatrists and psychologists with years of experience and immense credibility have NEVER ever come up with the conclusions you try to portray as facts.

Sexuality, via homo, bi, or hetero is a choice in all matters of regard. However the majority of stimuli in modern day enviornment tend to teach children the way of heterosexuals, and sometimes even bisexuals(usually women) Thru identification and introjection, of the majority of famlies the children usually grow up and become like there father or mother, which r of course heterosexual. However certain stimuli often send ppl toward homosexuality thru movies, friends, etc...

I was never exposed to gays or gay things at all.

Yes the advice of a random person over the internet will cause me to sway personal decisions i have decided years ago.


You decided or your parents/teacher told you was right so you accepted it without thinking for yourself? The second seems more likely to me.

Years ago? What when you were 7?
Prolly 13-14 then revised to the current stance.

Yes however it goes against most religions, so i sayed i found it unlikly a person who didn't follow most religions would pray. Hince the argument is still valid.

The argument is not valid. My religion isn't against gays.

Yes the advice of a random person over the internet will cause me to sway personal decisions i have decided years ago.

No law against being a cretin.

I was never exposed to gays or gay things at all.

Hey it is merely my theory i don't exactly have a bunch of gays, to question in surveys in what not rite off hand, nor the prestigue of a university for them to wish to help in study.

The argument is not valid. My religion isn't against gays.


I'm only interested, you don't have to answer. But what religion are you?

Hey it is merely my theory i don't exactly have a bunch of gays, to question in surveys in what not rite off hand, nor the prestigue of a university for them to wish to help in study.

Don't pass your theories off as proof then.

No law against being a cretin.
There ought to be.

You decided or your parents/teacher told you was right so you accepted it without thinking for yourself? The second seems more likely to me.

Lol no not thinking for urself, would b stupid, infact most of my personal decision remain unkown to the majority of ppl i interact with because they need not the knowledge of such things.

Sorry to bring it back up again, but could the sexual orientation of someone, whatever it is, have been "chosen" for them because of events in their life that affected them to a point that they were changed because of it. This is kind of a you choose thing and a kind of you don't shooe it thing.

No, it isn't. Even if sexuality were determined purely by environment - something there is quite a bit of evidence against - it would not be a choice. In order for sexuality to be a choice, a person would have to have an actual decision to make - for which they could choose a variety of options.

Did i choose to b strait, no all those factors, Social, enviormental, cultural, psychological, and biological all pointed to being strait, y would i divert from a path that which has been layed out b4, me by evolution(for u non-religous ppl) from the beggining of time.

If you did not choose to be straight - if all of these mutliple factors led to you being heterosexual, why on earth would you think that homo-, bi-, or transsexuals chose their sexuality?

What in the world, would drive sum1 to b gay, is beyond me. If there was a gay gene as u would have to claim it would b if u didn't choose it. By the laws of evolution it would b immeadetly gone at the end of that generation as it has now adaptive purpose.

*Sigh*. Why is it always people without even the most basic understanding of biology?

First of all, no scientist (and no one who has actually researched the topic) has proposed a single "gay gene". In fact, such a proposal would not even make sense. Very few traits are determined by a single gene, especially not complex traits such as sexuality. There is also the fact that sexuality exists along a spectrum - further reason to believe that it would be affected by multiple genes. Another trait which exists along a spectrum is skin color - and it is controlled by no less than five genes, as well as exposure to sunlight, diet, exercise, age, etc. If more than one gene controls sexuality, then there is no reason at all to believe that any sexuality would "bred out", as two straight people could have a gay child, two gay persons could have a straight child, and so forth. There would be no way to "breed it out".

Second of all, there is an adaptive purpose to homosexuality. A person who has no children of their own, but helps rear their siblings and their nieces/nephews has passed on just as much of their genetic material as someone who raises their own children and grandchildren. As such, a homosexual person who does so can be just as "reproductively fit" as one who has their own children. In a social animal, you would actually expect non-breeding members of this sort to thrive, and to help the herd/pack/tribe/etc. thrive.

On top of that, there has been quite a bit of evidence for genetic factors contributing to homosexuality. Mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men tend to have more children than mothers and maternal aunts of heterosexual men, suggesting that some genetic factor which contributes to homosexuality in men actually contributes to fecundity in women. In other words, it is a reproductive advantage when expressed in women.

Twin studies have demonstrated that sexuality is most likely not 100% genetic, but the correlation is much higher than would be expected if no genetic factors whatsoever contributed. Another possible factor which has been examined in animals is the hormone balance in the womb. Increases or decreases in certain androgens in utero can change the occurrence of homosexuality in the animal.

The existence of the full range of sexuality among mammals and birds suggests very strongly that sexuality is not a choice.

When it comes right down to it, the evidence all points to the absence of any choice in the matter. Sexuality seems to be controlled by genetics and environment - environment meaning in utero environment and, perhaps, early childhood experiences. There is no evidence whatsoever that any experiences past the toddler stage influence sexuality.

I'm only interested, you don't have to answer. But what religion are you?

I'm agnostic. Technically not a religion.

Don't pass your theories off as proof then.

I didn't i was asked my oppinion and stated it, if u took it as proof then thats ur problem.

Lol no not thinking for urself, would b stupid, infact most of my personal decision remain unkown to the majority of ppl i interact with because they need not the knowledge of such things.

Well yes. You wouldn't have very many friends if they knew your thoughts.

That's why I put chosen in quotations. I meant that the things effected them so they didn't choose it.

I didn't i was asked my oppinion and stated it, if u took it as proof then thats ur problem.

No. You passed it off as proof.

Sexuality, via homo, bi, or hetero is a choice in all matters of regard. However the majority of stimuli in modern day enviornment tend to teach children the way of heterosexuals, and sometimes even bisexuals(usually women) Thru identification and introjection, of the majority of famlies the children usually grow up and become like there father or mother, which r of course heterosexual. However certain stimuli often send ppl toward homosexuality thru movies, friends, etc...

No where in there did you state it is only your theory.

I'm agnostic. Technically not a religion.

Yes, but it is a belief system so its pretty much the same thing.

I'm agnostic. Technically not a religion.
The United Church of Canada, which boasts over a million believers and is an offshoot of the the Roman Catholic Church performs same-sex marriage ceremonies happily.

The United Church of Canada, which boasts over a million believers and is an offshoot of the the Roman Catholic Church performs same-sex marriage ceremonies happily.

Good for you!

*sigh* we will probably get there in 50-100 years.

Yes, but it is a belief system so its pretty much the same thing.

Yeah, but I've had people tell me that agnosticism is not a religion.

No my fellow forum user u r the failure, u can trust 2billion christains, that will say u r an abomination to God, on this one.

So now you speak for all Christians, eh?

I can state pretty plainly that you don't speak for me, or for most of the Christians I know.

Well yes. You wouldn't have very many friends if they knew your thoughts.

Possibly however if they didn't want to b my friend do to a particular stance i have, then y should i wan't that friend?

Yeah, but I've had people tell me that agnosticism is not a religion.


I've heard that too.

So now you speak for all Christians, eh?

I can state pretty plainly that you don't speak for me, or for most of the Christians I know.

I can speak for the religion of Christanity which states it is an abomination. Y would sum1 b a christain and then not follow one of the main, ideas of it?

So now you speak for all Christians, eh?

I can state pretty plainly that you don't speak for me, or for most of the Christians I know.


He doesn't speak for me either.

I see your point with all those situations, but God's name was used to justify something that was completely wrong, the crusades were wrong, Jim Jones was crazy, and the Inquisition was wrong. In conclusion I believe that all of those things atrocities committed by people who used the name of God and the Church to do what they wanted to.

Interesting. I believe that all of the people who are trying to use their personal religious beliefs to deny equal legal protection to homosexuals are using the name of God and the Church to do what they want to do.

I can speak for the religion of Christanity which states it is an abomination. Y would sum1 b a christain and then not follow one of the main, ideas of it?

Obviously you can't speak for Christians, since there are plenty in here that think you're full of shit.

He doesn't speak for me either.
This is gonna b a long poll if we get all christians.

Interesting. I believe that all of the people who are trying to use their personal religious beliefs to deny equal legal protection to homosexuals are using the name of God and the Church to do what they want to do.

U have an interesting belief especially since that is only one of the things i have used aginst homo-sexuality.

Oh, and anti-gay-ness is not a main point of Christianity. It's only mentioned a few times in the Bible.

I see your point with all those situations, but God's name was used to justify something that was completely wrong, the crusades were wrong, Jim Jones was crazy, and the Inquisition was wrong. In conclusion I believe that all of those things atrocities committed by people who used the name of God and the Church to do what they wanted to.
The Crusades were not wrong. They were politically motivated by the Arab invasion of Jerusalem. What was wrong was justifying them in the name of God.

Interesting. I believe that all of the people who are trying to use their personal religious beliefs to deny equal legal protection to homosexuals are using the name of God and the Church to do what they want to do.


That's interesting and it makes sense. So are you saying that religion should not influenece government and vice versa?

U have an interesting belief especially since that is only one of the things i have used aginst homo-sexuality.

And in case you haven't noticed, she ripped all of those to shreds too.

Oh, and anti-gay-ness is not a main point of Christianity. It's only mentioned a few times in the Bible.

So is the creation of the world, and the flood in Genesis whats ur point?

That's interesting and it makes sense. So are you saying that religion should not influenece government and vice versa?

I think that's what she's saying.

I believe that doctrine is called Seperation of Church and State.

So is the creation of the world, and the flood in Genesis whats ur point?

Actually the Creation of the World has a whole chapter or two devoted to it.

The Crusades were not wrong. They were politically motivated by the Arab invasion of Jerusalem. What was wrong was justifying them in the name of God.


That's what I meant sorry about the lack of clarity.

And in case you haven't noticed, she ripped all of those to shreds too.

Indeed she was quite good at it to, gonna have to come up with better revised ones.

Indeed she was quite good at it to, gonna have to come up with better revised ones.

Wait, so your opinions are ripped to shreds, and instead of getting new ones, you just revise the old ones, so that way you can come back and have them ripped to shreds again? That's very redundant.

I think that's what she's saying.

I believe that doctrine is called Seperation of Church and State.

That's not actually a law. The law is that congress can't make laws regarding institutions of religion or the free practice there of. Though it may be a good policy it is not a law.

Wait, so your opinions are ripped to shreds, and instead of getting new ones, you just revise the old ones, so that way you can come back and have them ripped to shreds again? That's very redundant.

Um thats what the scientists do thru the scientific method. And actually 2-3 of them weren't just they were with religion. The bio one will take some revising as she is very effective debator.

However it came across I don't support that sort of reaction.

That is good.

And I do not support Fred Phelps or anyone remotely like him, he is wrong his beliefs are wrong, and whoever supports him is wrong.

The part about Phelps was addressed to Wyvern, who said he supported all anti-gay rallies.

That is good.



The part about Phelps was addressed to Wyvern, who said he supported all anti-gay rallies.


Oh ok.

Yes however Homosexuality goes against most religions.

Does it? If we actually looked at *all* religions, it would actually be accepted by most religions, and rejected only by a few.

Wow ur so nice,

Well, your treatment of your children would not harm them any less than someone who regularly beats the crap out of their children - and I wouldn't want them to have children either.

and that stance wasn't taken toward children it was taken against gays, diffrence in there u may not understand.

It was taken towards your own children. You said you would disown any gay child that you had. Thus, it was taken towards children.

And it is logically no different from saying you would disown any child who didn't like the taste of grits.

Yes it is and always will b.

Then when did the sexuality fairy visit you and give you a choice between being attracted to men, women, or both?

Yeah, but I've had people tell me that agnosticism is not a religion.

Technically, agnosticism is not a religion in and of itself - it is a philosophical viewpoint that the existence or non-existence of deities cannot every be known with certainty. It is related to religion, but a person can be a member of any religion and still be agnostic.

It is entirely possible for a person to be agnostic and theist, or agnostic and atheist.

I can speak for the religion of Christanity which states it is an abomination.

No, you can speak for your own version of Christianity - nothing more.

Y would sum1 b a christain and then not follow one of the main, ideas of it?

Anti-homosexuality is hardly a "main idea" of Christianity. Christ himself never even mentioned homosexuality. If you really think that hating homosexuals is a "main idea of Christianity", then you have missed pretty much all of Christ's teachings.

U have an interesting belief especially since that is only one of the things i have used aginst homo-sexuality.

"My religion is against it" is the only thing you have "used against homo-sexuality" that has not been debunked time and time again. All of the other nonsense you have brought up was just that - nonsense.

That's interesting and it makes sense. So are you saying that religion should not influenece government and vice versa?

That is part of it. I also believe that those who would state that God is anti-homosexual are misusing God's name, as I believe no such thing. There is no clear admonition against homosexuality in the Bible - especially not when you get down to the issue of translation error and lack of understanding of the societies involved. On top of that, the portions of the Bible which have any such admnotions were written by fallible human beings, even if they were inspired. Christ is not recorded as every mentioning homosexuality. If it were so very important, don't you think it would have been mentioned?

Let's look at the first reference - the Levitical law. It is neatly nestled in between laws that declare that menstruation is sinful, that slavery is not only acceptable - but that you may sell your daughter into it, that a woman who does not bleed on her wedding night is not a definitely virgin (biologically inaccurate), that insects have four legs (biologically inaccurate), that rabbits chew the cud (biologically inaccurate), that a woman who is raped in a small town but is not heard crying out *must* have been consenting and should therefore be stoned along with her rapist, and so forth. It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that much of these laws were written by men who *thought* they did the bidding of God, unless of course God really does support the denigration of women, slavery, and that God doesn't actually have even an elementary grasp of biology.

On top of that, the law as it is generally read in English Bibles is only *one* possible translation. Other translations make it seem as if it is a prohibition against a man sleeping on a woman's bed (which, taken in the context of the times, would mean he could not sleep on the bed she slept on while menstruating).

Then we get to the Paulian references. Paul, a man who also supported the denigration of women - again, something I don't think came from God, but instead came from the society of the time. Even in Paul, we can never be sure that he is talking about homosexuality. In one instance, he makes up a word - arkensektoi (possibly misspelled) one that is not used in any other contemporary writings. Translators have often assumed that it means "homosexual", but there were already Greek words for homosexual sex acts. Why would he invent a new word? Many have suggested that the word actually refers to a common Roman practice in which a man would take a young boy as a prostitute.

In another reference, Paul is likely referring to another common practice of the time, in which heterosexuals would perform homosexual sex acts on temple priests to gain favor.

Nowhere is it at all clear that Paul refers to actual homosexuals - those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex. It may be possible that Paul, much like so many people today, thought that sexuality was a choice, despite the logical pitfalls of such an idea. And Paul, of course, would not have had access to the plethora of scientific data we now have access to.


Um thats what the scientists do thru the scientific method.

Not exactly, no. Scientists don't do much of anything with opinions. We draw hypotheses from observed data, then test those hypotheses. If they are disproven, we either throw them out completely or modify them.

However, they are based in the available data. Your "opinions" are not. You basically pulled an idea out of your rear end and now you are trying to support it, even though the original idea was based in nothing more than your whims.

That is part of it. I also believe that those who would state that God is anti-homosexual are misusing God's name, as I believe no such thing. There is no clear admonition against homosexuality in the Bible - especially not when you get down to the issue of translation error and lack of understanding of the societies involved. On top of that, the portions of the Bible which have any such admnotions were written by fallible human beings, even if they were inspired. Christ is not recorded as every mentioning homosexuality. If it were so very important, don't you think it would have been mentioned?

Let's look at the first reference - the Levitical law. It is neatly nestled in between laws that declare that menstruation is sinful, that slavery is not only acceptable - but that you may sell your daughter into it, that a woman who does not bleed on her wedding night is not a definitely virgin (biologically inaccurate), that insects have four legs (biologically inaccurate), that rabbits chew the cud (biologically inaccurate), that a woman who is raped in a small town but is not heard crying out *must* have been consenting and should therefore be stoned along with her rapist, and so forth. It seems overwhelmingly obvious to me that much of these laws were written by men who *thought* they did the bidding of God, unless of course God really does support the denigration of women, slavery, and that God doesn't actually have even an elementary grasp of biology.

On top of that, the law as it is generally read in English Bibles is only *one* possible translation. Other translations make it seem as if it is a prohibition against a man sleeping on a woman's bed (which, taken in the context of the times, would mean he could not sleep on the bed she slept on while menstruating).

Then we get to the Paulian references. Paul, a man who also supported the denigration of women - again, something I don't think came from God, but instead came from the society of the time. Even in Paul, we can never be sure that he is talking about homosexuality. In one instance, he makes up a word - arkensektoi (possibly misspelled) one that is not used in any other contemporary writings. Translators have often assumed that it means "homosexual", but there were already Greek words for homosexual sex acts. Why would he invent a new word? Many have suggested that the word actually refers to a common Roman practice in which a man would take a young boy as a prostitute.

In another reference, Paul is likely referring to another common practice of the time, in which heterosexuals would perform homosexual sex acts on temple priests to gain favor.

Nowhere is it at all clear that Paul refers to actual homosexuals - those who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex. It may be possible that Paul, much like so many people today, thought that sexuality was a choice, despite the logical pitfalls of such an idea. And Paul, of course, would not have had access to the plethora of scientific data we now have access to.



Yes translation errors could be it. But since the Bible was inspired by God do you believe that God would have let there be errors that change the meaning of it? Even through translation? And where ins this plethora of scientific data is there proof that sexual orientation is naturally passed down through a gene or anything else?

Yes translation errors could be it. But since the Bible was inspired by God do you believe that God would have let there be errors that change the meaning of it?

God quite obviously allowed errors, unless God doesn't understand biology or know the value of pi. God allowed contradictions, unless Jesus was born twice and Creation occurred twice in two different orders.

I see no problem with God "allowing" errors, just as he allows every one of us to make errors. In these errors, we are to turn to God for guidance.

And where ins this plethora of scientific data is there proof that sexual orientation is naturally passed down through a gene or anything else?

Who said anything about "a" gene? I have already posted some of the evidence having to do with sexuality. The conclusion at this point seems to be that sexuality is controlled both by genetic factors, by in utero factors, and possibly by early childhood experience. Twin studies have shown a larger proportion of twins with the same sexuality than would be expected if there were no genetic factors. Mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men have more children than mothers and aunts of hetereosexual men - suggesting that a genetic trait which contributes to homosexuality in men contributes to fertility in women. Hormone balances in utero have been shown to contribute to sexuality in animals. Male homosexuality also bears a striking correlation to birth order, suggesting that changes in a woman's biochemistry from previous pregnancies may contribute to homosexuality in her son. I could go on and on and on.....

As for choice: Homosexual men respond to male pheremones in much the same way as women, while heterosexual men do not. Their brains are structured more like womens' than heterosexual males are. Homo-, bi-, and even transsexuality occurs througout the animal kingdom - especially in mammals and birds. Psychological studies have suggested that sexuality is pretty much set in stone by the time a person is a toddler, although it will not be actively expressed until puberty and may change slightly along the spectrum over time. Even the fact that sexuality exists along a spectrum is evidence that is not a choice. Suggesting it was would mean that a person would have to ask themselves, "Am I going to be 100% attracted to men, 100% attracted to women, 50/50 to either, 60/40 to either, etc, etc, etc?" When did you make that choice? Psychological studies long ago came to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a disorder or a choice - it is simply a trait that describes a person.

God quite obviously allowed errors, unless God doesn't understand biology or know the value of pi. God allowed contradictions, unless Jesus was born twice and Creation occurred twice in two different orders.

I see no problem with God "allowing" errors, just as he allows every one of us to make errors. In these errors, we are to turn to God for guidance.



Who said anything about "a" gene? I have already posted some of the evidence having to do with sexuality. The conclusion at this point seems to be that sexuality is controlled both by genetic factors, by in utero factors, and possibly by early childhood experience. Twin studies have shown a larger proportion of twins with the same sexuality than would be expected if there were no genetic factors. Mothers and maternal aunts of homosexual men have more children than mothers and aunts of hetereosexual men - suggesting that a genetic trait which contributes to homosexuality in men contributes to fertility in women. Hormone balances in utero have been shown to contribute to sexuality in animals. Male homosexuality also bears a striking correlation to birth order, suggesting that changes in a woman's biochemistry from previous pregnancies may contribute to homosexuality in her son. I could go on and on and on.....

As for choice: Homosexual men respond to male pheremones in much the same way as women, while heterosexual men do not. Their brains are structured more like womens' than heterosexual males are. Homo-, bi-, and even transsexuality occurs througout the animal kingdom - especially in mammals and birds. Psychological studies have suggested that sexuality is pretty much set in stone by the time a person is a toddler, although it will not be actively expressed until puberty and may change slightly along the spectrum over time. Even the fact that sexuality exists along a spectrum is evidence that is not a choice. Suggesting it was would mean that a person would have to ask themselves, "Am I going to be 100% attracted to men, 100% attracted to women, 50/50 to either, 60/40 to either, etc, etc, etc?" When did you make that choice? Psychological studies long ago came to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a disorder or a choice - it is simply a trait that describes a person.


I said errors that would change the meaning of the teachings, and if God allowed those kinds of errors then what we have probably isn't anything close to what it's supposed to be. And whats that stuff about Jesus being born twice and creation ocurring twice? And the proof it's very good. But there were ifs and not many definite results, but still lots of support.And I agree with the events in a persons life, which obviously has an effect on you, but the studies about aunts and children and families like that seems more like they had a few studies and decided thats what is true. And do you have information on how many people were included in the studies and such? Just wondering.

*snip*
Most enlightening stuff. Thanks.

I said errors that would change the meaning of the teachings,

I, for one, don't think that God is in favor of slavery. Do you? Do you not think that suggesting such would change the meaning of God's intentions?

I, for one, do not think that God is in favor of the denigration of women. Do you? Do you not think that suggesting such would change the meaning of God's intended teachings?

I, for one, do not think that God is in favor of genocide. Do you?

And so on...

and if God allowed those kinds of errors then what we have probably isn't anything close to what it's supposed to be.

Or maybe it is *exactly* what was "supposed to be". Maybe we aren't supposed to turn to the Bible as an absolute authority, as only God is the absolute authority.

And whats that stuff about Jesus being born twice and creation ocurring twice?

The Gospels record Jesus as being born in two different years, under two different kings. Either He was born twice, or one or both of them are wrong.

A careful reading of Genesis - especially (I am told) in the original Hebrew - reveals that there are two separate Creation stories in Genesis, not just one. Many state that the second story (the Yahwist story) occurs on the 6th day, trying to reconcile it with the first story (the Priestly story). However, this doesn't really work. The second account is clear that Adam was created before there were plants in the field and before the animals were created. In fact, the animals were created as possible helpers for Adam, but none was found among them (suggesting that God is not infallible, and can make mistakes). Eve, on the other hand, was created after the plants and animals. And God did not say to go forth and multiply until after Adam and Eve had existed in Eden for quite some time.

When you really look at it, they just don't add up as the same account.

And the proof it's very good. But there were ifs and not many definite results, but still lots of support.

Support is all that scientific research can ever provide. One cannot "prove" something with science - only support it. But, when it comes right down to it, every experiment thus far has pointed to the same conclusion, while none has provided evidence for the "choice" idea. The idea of sexuality being a "choice" is something that people hold to with no evidence whatsoever, except "I don't understand it."

And I agree with the events in a persons life, which obviously has an effect on you, but the studies about aunts and children and families like that seems more like they had a few studies and decided thats what is true.

Not, "decided thats what is true," but examined the evidence and came to a conclusion. The first study I can recall involving female fecundity is here:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(jlt2vj55rizt5jaukypak355)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,14;journal,42,224;linkingpublicationresults,1:102024,1

100 heterosexual men and 98 homosexual men, with the family members examined totaling over 4600. I don't have a ready link to the studies involving birth order, but a pubmed search should bring them up:

www.pubmed.org.

And the twinning studies are all over - they have been more common than the others.

As for the in utero effects:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16168471&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

I believe this was the study I read in rams:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10701766&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_DocSum
but I don't have access to the full text right now.

This article has a nice review on much, but not all, of the relevant literature:
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/145/2/475


I've read quite a bit on the subject, but I don't have ready links to all of it, and, unless you are on a college campus with access, you'll probably have to pay for most of the articles. =(

The Crusades were not wrong. They were politically motivated by the Arab invasion of Jerusalem. What was wrong was justifying them in the name of God.

Because it was more about lost revenue then saving the faith.

Declaring them in the name of God was used to get the poor dumb schmucks to go fight as the promise of heaven would be open to them if they did.

What is interesting is if you read about the first crusade, people of the time wrote life was better under the Turk as they brought law and order. Far less corruption.

1st) homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices; the acts that come of the desires are choices ... the desires are there, the acts are decided upon .. acts can be controlled, desires cannot

2nd) Most people think Soddom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality..

3rd) Joseph was known as Jesus father because on earth he was the man who married his mother and was raising him.

To say that a gay couple doesn't have the right to be happy and secure in their relationship is laughable. All that is wanted is to know that everything they have worked for and strived for as a couple be granted to the one left behind, to be able to have custody of children of the fallen partner (the same rights as a step parent in a male/female union).

Whether we agree or disagree with anyones lifestyle is beside the point, they have earned the right to the same priviledges as a "traditional couple"

Bashing the community? At what end? Do you honestly think that being nasty and trying to drive the points home will make homosexuals "change"? If you are so sure that your way of thinking (non-homosexual) is the correct way, then why not discuss the matter with respect and teach it? OR is it that you can only teach by religion (that there are thousands of types of) or name calling, or just plain cruelty?

The bottom line ... the right of freedom is supposed to be for all people, not just the ones who agree with you..

The biggest problem that the heterosexual community as a whole does not like.... homosexuals are challenging this "right of freedom is supposed to be for all people, not just the ones who agree with you"..

Homosexuals are people of the nation, same as Heterosexual
Homosexuals have feelings of Love, Loyalty, and Devotion, same as Heterosexual
Homosexuals find a partner and strive to make it a lifelong partnership, same as Heterosexuals

The difference is clear .... because the majority doesnt like the IDEA of Homosexuality then the same rights, legal too, are not afforded to them.

Oh and BTW those of you who have stated the word SIN in your chat ..

The Sin of one man is not the Sin of another .... even you should know that ... AND if you wanna quote the Bible here is one for ya ... Judge not lest ye be judged. For by whatever ye judge by so shall ye also be judged... and dont forget one sin broken, you have broken them all ...

So if you are gonna be telling people they are wrong make sure you are pure and you teach them why "the right way" because if you do it wrong you will be judged the same way.

To find the most accurate translation of the Bible you have to go back to the Grek and I don't know many who can read or understand the Greek language.. Man made the translations and unfortunately man is fallible...

Bottom line find your path, stick to your path and do all you can to make your path a clear and precise path.

But don't try and make others get on your chosen path ...after all ... that was your choice

Because it was more about lost revenue then saving the faith.

Declaring them in the name of God was used to get the poor dumb schmucks to go fight as the promise of heaven would be open to them if they did.

What is interesting is if you read about the first crusade, people of the time wrote life was better under the Turk as they brought law and order. Far less corruption.
Again, that does not make them wrong. Wars like this happened all the time. What distinguished them was the fact that they evoked religion as their driving fuel. To call out God's name and imply His intentions in such a way not only is against Christian teachings, but also is highly hypocritical.

I, for one, don't think that God is in favor of slavery. Do you? Do you not think that suggesting such would change the meaning of God's intentions?

I, for one, do not think that God is in favor of the denigration of women. Do you? Do you not think that suggesting such would change the meaning of God's intended teachings?

I, for one, do not think that God is in favor of genocide. Do you?

And so on...



Or maybe it is *exactly* what was "supposed to be". Maybe we aren't supposed to turn to the Bible as an absolute authority, as only God is the absolute authority.



The Gospels record Jesus as being born in two different years, under two different kings. Either He was born twice, or one or both of them are wrong.

A careful reading of Genesis - especially (I am told) in the original Hebrew - reveals that there are two separate Creation stories in Genesis, not just one. Many state that the second story (the Yahwist story) occurs on the 6th day, trying to reconcile it with the first story (the Priestly story). However, this doesn't really work. The second account is clear that Adam was created before there were plants in the field and before the animals were created. In fact, the animals were created as possible helpers for Adam, but none was found among them (suggesting that God is not infallible, and can make mistakes). Eve, on the other hand, was created after the plants and animals. And God did not say to go forth and multiply until after Adam and Eve had existed in Eden for quite some time.

When you really look at it, they just don't add up as the same account.



Support is all that scientific research can ever provide. One cannot "prove" something with science - only support it. But, when it comes right down to it, every experiment thus far has pointed to the same conclusion, while none has provided evidence for the "choice" idea. The idea of sexuality being a "choice" is something that people hold to with no evidence whatsoever, except "I don't understand it."



Not, "decided thats what is true," but examined the evidence and came to a conclusion. The first study I can recall involving female fecundity is here:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(jlt2vj55rizt5jaukypak355)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,14;journal,42,224;linkingpublicationresults,1:102024,1

100 heterosexual men and 98 homosexual men, with the family members examined totaling over 4600. I don't have a ready link to the studies involving birth order, but a pubmed search should bring them up:

www.pubmed.org.

And the twinning studies are all over - they have been more common than the others.

As for the in utero effects:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16168471&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

I believe this was the study I read in rams:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10701766&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_DocSum
but I don't have access to the full text right now.

This article has a nice review on much, but not all, of the relevant literature:
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/145/2/475


I've read quite a bit on the subject, but I don't have ready links to all of it, and, unless you are on a college campus with access, you'll probably have to pay for most of the articles. =(


God never said to have slaves or that slaves are a good thing or that it's ok. He said slaves shouldn't revolt or disrespect their masters, that they will be delivered out of slavery and they wouldnt have to do it themselves. God did not denigrate women, the society was patriarchal therefore the male was the dominate person in the family. And what are you referring to when you mention genocide? And the records of Jesus being born in two different years. If I'm not mistaken those years weren't very far apart and you do have to take into account the technology of the time so records weren't kept as well as they are now so a year or two off is a possible record keeping screw up. And the creation story, since I believe that God is in fact infallible then I can't accept that the animals were made so Adam could have a helper but none was found because God screwed up when He made them. Decided what is true on the basis of their studies(that's what I meant if it came across differently) and examined the evidence and came to a conclusion sound like the exact same thing but with different words. I would love to look at those studies but it is late and I have to work in the morning so I have to go to sleep but I will look at them tomorrow.

God never said to have slaves or that slaves are a good thing or that it's ok.

If you make laws specifically governing how to obtain and treat your slaves, then you are oking slavery. A government wouldn't make laws about how to murder people, would it? No. It would simply say, "Murder is illegal."

The OT is full of laws that supposedly came from God about whom to take as a slave, how much to pay for a slave, and what to do with that slave. One law even states that, if you kill your slave by accident, that is perfectly alright since your slave was your property. (Interstingly enough, if you did it on purpose, it was murder, as long as the slave died within the day). The laws detailed how much to sell your daughter for. It also detailed the fact that, even though you could only keep a male Hebrew slave for seven years, you could keep his wife and children when he left, unless he bought them from you.

God did not denigrate women, the society was patriarchal therefore the male was the dominate person in the family.

If you believe that God personally sent all of the laws in the OT, then the society has nothing to do with it. The minute you claim the society as a cause, you have admitted that God allowed "error" into the Bible. There are all sorts of laws in the OT that denigrate women. Menstruation is listed as sinful. A woman who is raped, but was neither married nor betrothed was wed to her rapist. A woman who was raped within a small town, but was not heard crying out, was to be stoned alongside her rapist, as she obviously was consenting. A woman who did not bleed on her wedding night was to be stoned, because she wasn't a virgin (even though this is not a true sign). A man could sell his daughter into slavery, and often did. A man could divorce a woman, but a woman could not divorce a man, and so on.

If you believe these came out of the society, and not from God, then you believe that the Bible itself is fallible due to human fallibility. Otherwise, every bit of that came straight from God.

And what are you referring to when you mention genocide?

In the OT, the ancient Hebrews were ordered to commit genocide - to kill every man, woman, and child of the Caananites. In fact, it states that they were punished for not doing so.

And the records of Jesus being born in two different years. If I'm not mistaken those years weren't very far apart and you do have to take into account the technology of the time so records weren't kept as well as they are now so a year or two off is a possible record keeping screw up.

They were under two different kings. Even if record keeping didn't work well for exact years, most records would be very well tied to the leader of the time.

And the creation story, since I believe that God is in fact infallible then I can't accept that the animals were made so Adam could have a helper but none was found because God screwed up when He made them.

Then you reject part of Genesis:

18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

This is clear that God meant to find a partner for Adam among the animals, but did not.

Decided what is true on the basis of their studies(that's what I meant if it came across differently) and examined the evidence and came to a conclusion sound like the exact same thing but with different words.

Science doesn't deal in "truths". It deals in plausible explanations that have not been disproven. A conclusion is not necessarily "true". But it is plausible, and it is consistent with available evidence.

Again, that does not make them wrong. Wars like this happened all the time. What distinguished them was the fact that they evoked religion as their driving fuel. To call out God's name and imply His intentions in such a way not only is against Christian teachings, but also is highly hypocritical.

Right and wrong is matter of interpretation.

I think it was wrong to use peoples faith for personal gain. Never mind the fact that the worst acts of inhumanity have been in the name of God.

It might be argued that using peoples faith the way they did and continued to do is why Europe is rather secular now.

I wonder how many people know that the Gospels were originally word of mouth and put to paper 60-80 years or so after the events?

Right and wrong is matter of interpretation.
That it is. I don't think the Crusades fell into either, from the perspective of a reactive war divorced its religious attachments. It was just the way things happened then. In that sense, they were no more wrong than any other war back then.

I think it was wrong to use peoples faith for personal gain. Never mind the fact that the worst acts of inhumanity have been in the name of God.

Here I agree. That they would use the word of God in such a way is clearly un-Christian and, like you said, exploitation of those who did the Church's bidding.

It might be argued that using peoples faith the way they did and continued to do is why Europe is rather secular now.
Perhaps that could be seen as a beneficial side-effect of the Crusades. They are by no means the sole reason that Europe is mostly secular, but they probably did contribute.

I'll try to explain in a simple and short way.(In a form of a Physics practical..hehe.)

Aim= To show how they de-moralise society.

Apparatus= (1.) Gays.
(2.) Media.

Method=(1.) Gays demand rights- Media Exposure.
(2.) Liberal Media supports them.
(3.) Gay rights granted.
(4.) People now began to acceot more absurd ideas and everything is nothing to them. People attack good values which go against these new "Ideas".
(5.) Culture in Decline because of lack of values and traditions.

Results= (1.) More Influence of Gays and the all powerful corrupt media,
(2.) De- Moralisation of Society.

Conclusion= It was found out that Gay marraige contributes to the ever-expanding problem of de-moralistion.

Yours,
James Farrugia

-Maypole Reaserch Centre -

Aim= To show how THEY commit murder and torture.

Apparatus= (1.) Catholics
(2.) Church

Method=(1.) Church declares certain people WRONG
(2.) Catholics support them
(3.) People are oppressed
(4.) Church decides that being oppressed is enough
(5.) Catholics begin to torture the WRONG people.
(3.) Church decides not enough people are repenting
(4.) Church decides 'Thou shalt not kill' does not apply to them
(5.) Catholics begin to kill the WRONG people in torturous and disgusting ways.


Results= (1.) Giving the Catholic Church any power to declare things results in murder and torture
(2.) De- Moralisation of Society.

Conclusion= It is found and is historically accurate that caving in to the demands of Catholics like Maypole results in murder and torture.


One of our conclusions has historical evidence to back it up and requires no leaps of logic nor assumptions. The other does not. I say we take the second one more seriously since it's the only one there is any evidence for.

All of society is being harmed, future generations, present society and past societies because we are offending their struggles for liberty and independence and using their ideas as shields and twisting them to satisfy us, lik what happened in Communism for exmaple under Stalin.Oh that reminds me we don't respect our forefathers anymore since they were close-minded and antiquated.

Hmmm... let's see... I can choose between the 'harm' of letting people do as they will provided they don't injure anyone in doing so. That's the current path. Or we could give the power back to the church and those that would steal rights from people. That worked out so well the first time.

Why is that a group that never harmed anyone in any fashion is considered so dangerous by a group that is provably responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history?

When I see the conquering of an entire people or a genocide or a burning at the stake or even the corruption of science at the hands of the evil gay agenda, then perhaps I'll begin to worry.

Thus far, the most damage I've seen is in giving in to those who would use God as an excuse to treat people as less than human with all the rights and priveleges that go with it.

God never said to have slaves or that slaves are a good thing or that it's ok. He said slaves shouldn't revolt or disrespect their masters, that they will be delivered out of slavery and they wouldnt have to do it themselves.

Hmmm... some people should really read the Bible. The whole Bible.

Leviticus 25:1 The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai,

...

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

D'oh!


God did not denigrate women, the society was patriarchal therefore the male was the dominate person in the family.

Leviticus 15:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,

...

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

The natural healthy menstual behavior of a woman makes her unclean and sinful so much so that animals must be sacrificed to cleanse her. Hmmmm.... yeah, nothing about that is a denigration.

D'oh!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maypole
I'll try to explain in a simple and short way.(In a form of a Physics practical..hehe.)

Aim= To show how they de-moralise society.

Apparatus= (1.) Gays.
(2.) Media.

Method=(1.) Gays demand rights- Media Exposure.
(2.) Liberal Media supports them.
(3.) Gay rights granted.
(4.) People now began to acceot more absurd ideas and everything is nothing to them. People attack good values which go against these new "Ideas".
(5.) Culture in Decline because of lack of values and traditions.

Results= (1.) More Influence of Gays and the all powerful corrupt media,
(2.) De- Moralisation of Society.

Conclusion= It was found out that Gay marraige contributes to the ever-expanding problem of de-moralistion.

Yours,
James Farrugia

-Maypole Reaserch Centre -

Problem in your argument is #4 -- matter of opinion (opinion cannot be used in a proof such as yours)

Hmmm... some people should really read the Bible. The whole Bible.

Leviticus 25:1 The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai,

...

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

D'oh!




Leviticus 15:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,

...

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

The natural healthy menstual behavior of a woman makes her unclean and sinful so much so that animals must be sacrificed to cleanse her. Hmmmm.... yeah, nothing about that is a denigration.

D'oh!!!


About the slaves. God gave men permission for divorce because they were stubborn. So He could have given the rules regarding slavery because He knew they would do it even if He said not to. The mestrual cycle thing. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit God said that women would have pain in giving birth, and the menstrual cycle makes a woman able to get pregnant. But the cycle is a consequence of the sin of Eve therefore it would be seen as unclean so there must be a way to cleanse the sin. So God isn't denigrating women He is giving them a way to atone for the sin of Eve.

If you make laws specifically governing how to obtain and treat your slaves, then you are oking slavery. A government wouldn't make laws about how to murder people, would it? No. It would simply say, "Murder is illegal."

The OT is full of laws that supposedly came from God about whom to take as a slave, how much to pay for a slave, and what to do with that slave. One law even states that, if you kill your slave by accident, that is perfectly alright since your slave was your property. (Interstingly enough, if you did it on purpose, it was murder, as long as the slave died within the day). The laws detailed how much to sell your daughter for. It also detailed the fact that, even though you could only keep a male Hebrew slave for seven years, you could keep his wife and children when he left, unless he bought them from you.



If you believe that God personally sent all of the laws in the OT, then the society has nothing to do with it. The minute you claim the society as a cause, you have admitted that God allowed "error" into the Bible. There are all sorts of laws in the OT that denigrate women. Menstruation is listed as sinful. A woman who is raped, but was neither married nor betrothed was wed to her rapist. A woman who was raped within a small town, but was not heard crying out, was to be stoned alongside her rapist, as she obviously was consenting. A woman who did not bleed on her wedding night was to be stoned, because she wasn't a virgin (even though this is not a true sign). A man could sell his daughter into slavery, and often did. A man could divorce a woman, but a woman could not divorce a man, and so on.

If you believe these came out of the society, and not from God, then you believe that the Bible itself is fallible due to human fallibility. Otherwise, every bit of that came straight from God.



In the OT, the ancient Hebrews were ordered to commit genocide - to kill every man, woman, and child of the Caananites. In fact, it states that they were punished for not doing so.



They were under two different kings. Even if record keeping didn't work well for exact years, most records would be very well tied to the leader of the time.



Then you reject part of Genesis:



This is clear that God meant to find a partner for Adam among the animals, but did not.



Science doesn't deal in "truths". It deals in plausible explanations that have not been disproven. A conclusion is not necessarily "true". But it is plausible, and it is consistent with available evidence.


I addressed slavery and denigration of women in the post right before this one. I think the verse in Genesis, the part about God not being able to find a partner for Adam in the animals because he screwed up, doesn't make sense to me, so it seems to be a perspective thing. By the way do you know which two kings it was with Jesus' birth years? The old testament could have been changed and screwed up by man. Yes I know that sounds like I'm going back on what I said about the errors and such, but as it was pointed out earlier the Hebrew tradition was orl not written. Which means that the origional story and such was almost definitely changed. Though I still believe that God would not allow errors that would hcange the meaning of the text. I never did say that God allowed no error at all just not enough to change the meaning, and if I did say that or it came out that way I'm sorry for the miscommunication. And the science thing, good point. But is the "plausible conclusion" not accepted as truth, at the very least, until something that seems more plausible come along. Yes God did tell them to kill all the Cannanites and punished them for not doing it, but as Psalm 47:4 says "He chose the Promised Land as our inheritence, the proud possession of Jacob's descendants, whom He loves." So God promised the land to Jacob and He wouldn't break a promise would He? And the Jews failed to follow His instructions time and time again so they had to do something to earn their promised land right? And killing people who didn't follow God was the task given to them to earn the land.

About the slaves. God gave men permission for divorce because they were stubborn. So He could have given the rules regarding slavery because He knew they would do it even if He said not to.

Bwahaha. Amusing. He told them they were allowed have people as property. He didn't just tell them how to go about it, but it actually says they can take people as property. I find this unbelievably funny. So God decided he can't get people to listen so he went ahead and gave them permission to be immoral?

The mestrual cycle thing. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit God said that women would have pain in giving birth, and the menstrual cycle makes a woman able to get pregnant. But the cycle is a consequence of the sin of Eve therefore it would be seen as unclean so there must be a way to cleanse the sin. So God isn't denigrating women He is giving them a way to atone for the sin of Eve.
God didn't do anything. The Bible, on the other hand, is denigrating women. Adam sinned too, friend.

So you don't think that saying that women need to pay for the sins of Eve when men do not is not denigrating women. Perhaps you don't know what denigrating means.

How about the rules that treat women as property? No problem there, huh?

God didn't do anything. The Bible, on the other hand, is denigrating women. Adam sinned too, friend.

So you don't think that saying that women need to pay for the sins of Eve when men do not is not denigrating women. Perhaps you don't know what denigrating means.

How about the rules that treat women as property? No problem there, huh?
Gosh, no! Women LIKE being property! The Bible says so! Women were made to be submissive FemBots who pleasure their man and wait on him hand and foot, and that's what all women secretly want to do! It's just that women have soft, emotional, female brains, and the poor little dears don't know what they want...which is why menfolk have to gently but firmly return women to their knees, where they belong.

So you don't think that saying that women need to pay for the sins of Eve when men do not is not denigrating women. Perhaps you don't know what denigrating means.

But men do pay for the sins of Eve. They have to put up with women ;)

And thats why God hates gay people. They found a loophole.

But men do pay for the sins of Eve. They have to put up with women ;)

And thats why God hates gay people. They found a loophole.
Yes, because there's no such thing as a gay woman. Women can't have sex with each other, because they don't have Little Soldiers.

I addressed slavery and denigration of women in the post right before this one.

Not fully, you didn't. If the laws regarding slaves were "just because they were going to do it anyways," they wouldn' tbe so cruel. God wouldn't say, "It's ok if you beat your slave to within an inch of his life and he dies tomorrow, because he is your property." God wouldn't give rules that essentially allow you to hold a slave who you should let free hostage by keeping his wife and children from him. And so on...

And you didn't address things like God making laws that would force a woman to marry her rapist, detailing exactly how to sell your daughter into slavery, a woman being stoned to death if she did not bleed on her wedding night (even though all virgins do not bleed), a woman being unclean for twice as long after the birth of a female rather than a male, and so on...

I think the verse in Genesis, the part about God not being able to find a partner for Adam in the animals because he screwed up, doesn't make sense to me, so it seems to be a perspective thing.

And you don't think portraying an infallible GOd as fallible changes the meaning of things?

By the way do you know which two kings it was with Jesus' birth years?

I'd have to go back and check. It's been a while.

The old testament could have been changed and screwed up by man.

But the New couldn't?

Yes I know that sounds like I'm going back on what I said about the errors and such, but as it was pointed out earlier the Hebrew tradition was orl not written.

The New Testament accounts - the Gospel accounts - were passed on by word-of-mouth for at least a generation before they were written.

Meanwhile, if the OT laws could have been man-inspired instead of God-inspired, how do you know they were right about homosexuality?

Though I still believe that God would not allow errors that would hcange the meaning of the text.

Most of the errors we have discussed change the meaning of the text. You said you thought that God would not have made mistakes. Thus, every time God does so in the Bible, the meaning of the story has been changed. An infallible GOd has been transformed into a fallible one.

Yes God did tell them to kill all the Cannanites and punished them for not doing it,

In other words, God punished them for not committing genocide - a decidedly evil act. So you really think God told them to do evil?

but as Psalm 47:4 says "He chose the Promised Land as our inheritence, the proud possession of Jacob's descendants, whom He loves." So God promised the land to Jacob and He wouldn't break a promise would He?

God could have delivered on that promise without forcing the Israelites to do something evil.

And killing people who didn't follow God was the task given to them to earn the land.

I see. So you *do* think that God is in favor of genocide.

But men do pay for the sins of Eve. They have to put up with women ;)

And thats why God hates gay people. They found a loophole.
ROTFL


This has to be the single funniest explanation for the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Kudos for enlightening me.

Yes, because there's no such thing as a gay woman. Women can't have sex with each other, because they don't have Little Soldiers.
Oh, come on, Bottle. Admit you want a Little Soldier. They're just so much fun to play it. We know all of you secretly wish they were men. :p

Oh, come on, Bottle. Admit you want a Little Soldier. They're just so much fun to play it. We know all of you secretly wish they were men. :p
Why wish for a shotgun, when I've got a semi-automatic?

Remember, only women possess a body part that is exclusively dedicated to sexual pleasure. :)

Why wish for a shotgun, when I've got a semi-automatic?

Why, because shotguns are so much more manly. And phallus-shaped, too! ^^



Remember, only women possess a body part that is exclusively dedicated to sexual pleasure. :)
And what do you make of our prostate, exactly? ;) You poor females do not know the joy that the prostate can bring! I pity you :p

And what do you make of our prostate, exactly? ;) You poor females do not know the joy that the prostate can bring! I pity you :p

Ah, but you men do not know the joys of the clitoris. =)

Gosh, no! Women LIKE being property! The Bible says so! Women were made to be submissive FemBots who pleasure their man and wait on him hand and foot, and that's what all women secretly want to do! It's just that women have soft, emotional, female brains, and the poor little dears don't know what they want...which is why menfolk have to gently but firmly return women to their knees, where they belong.

My wife and I had an evening like that the past weekend. :)

Ah, but you men do not know the joys of the clitoris. =)
Touché, my friend.

Still, if given the choice to change... I would still keep all my manly appendages anyday.

What can I say: I love my penis, and my penis loves me back. Enough said.

Why, because shotguns are so much more manly. And phallus-shaped, too! ^^

And messier. Don't forget the mess.


And what do you make of our prostate, exactly? ;) You poor females do not know the joy that the prostate can bring! I pity you :p
You're right, we totally get screwed over. We only are capable of multiple orgasms, while y'all can enjoy the tremendous pleasure of having something shoved up your bum. I'm deeply, deeply jealous.

;)

And messier. Don't forget the mess.

Why, cleaning up the mess afterwards is half the fun! ^^



You're right, we totally get screwed over. We only are capable of multiple orgasms, while y'all can enjoy the tremendous pleasure of having something shoved up your bum. I'm deeply, deeply jealous.

;)
Capable of multiple orgasms, perhaps, but not nearly as perverted as we men are. Granted, it might take me 10 minutes to recover after an orgasm, but that doesn't stop me from being able to have more after a brief rest and a glass of water.

Plus, don't forget women can also get something shoved up their bum: it's just not as tremendously fun for them as it is for us! :p

Ah, but you men do not know the joys of the clitoris. =)

Oh, but we do. I'm actually kind of glad that no one can control my body the way a man who knows how to play that instrument like Jimi Hendrix with the guitar can control a woman for a few minutes. If you do it right you could make a woman sign over her firstborn during that few moments.

Now, of course, some men would sign over their firstborn at the mere prospect of such an event, but, hey, some men are stupid.

I hate the way gays talk. They have horrible accents and use goofy words. It seems that they use their speech as a signal to let other gayboys know that they are gay. They sound like stupid people from LA.

I hate the way gays talk. They have horrible accents and use goofy words. It seems that they use their speech as a signal to let other gayboys know that they are gay. They sound like stupid people from LA.

...

Bigotry and attacks on those from LA. A new forum record is broken!

I hate the way gays talk. They have horrible accents and use goofy words. It seems that they use their speech as a signal to let other gayboys know that they are gay. They sound like stupid people from LA.

Wow you watch too much tv.

You might be surprised only a few gay men are flamboyant. You might be surprised that many gay men don't care for the flamboyant types.

Here is the kicker; you might be surprised you associate with a few gays.

Oh, but we do. I'm actually kind of glad that no one can control my body the way a man who knows how to play that instrument like Jimi Hendrix with the guitar can control a woman for a few minutes. If you do it right you could make a woman sign over her firstborn during that few moments.

I guess some women are just easily impressed. Personally, I've never settled for a sub-Hendrix-quality lover, so it takes much more than that for me to even consider having a first born. ;)


Now, of course, some men would sign over their firstborn at the mere prospect of such an event, but, hey, some men are stupid.
Then again, since producing a first born requires essentially no effort on the part of a man, it doesn't really mean much for him to sign one over.

There are some bright folks from LA but then there are those who talk like gayboys. Hearing people use that dialect gives me headaches and is only slightly less cannoying than the sound of a squeaky chalkboard.

There are some bright folks from LA but then there are those who talk like gayboys. Hearing people use that dialect gives me headaches and is only slightly less cannoying than the sound of a squeaky chalkboard.

Dont worry, the feeling is mutual.

Yeah if i was a gayboy i would be pretty annoyed at the flamboyant ones. If there were less flamers out there, the gays would have more support. I still do not think that people would support them enough to allow them to get married, but there would be less stigma associated with being gay. It seems like in some cultures, it is the norm for gays to be toughguys. I wonder why we think of gays as sissies but in other cultures like the ghurkas, feudal japan, and ancient greece, the gays are tough-as-nails baddies?

Yeah if i was a gayboy i would be pretty annoyed at the flamboyant ones. If there were less flamers out there, the gays would have more support. I still do not think that people would support them enough to allow them to get married, but there would be less stigma associated with being gay. It seems like in some cultures, it is the norm for gays to be toughguys. I wonder why we think of gays as sissies but in other cultures like the ghurkas, feudal japan, and ancient greece, the gays are tough-as-nails baddies?

Well, you still have not really explained what it has to do with you. Just the fact that a (small) minority of the gays are flamboyant, does not have anything to do with you, does it? I do not hold it against you personally either that there are men who think it is appropriate to wear orange t-shirts, even though that hurts my poor eyes.
Also, I do not hold it against you (as a straight person) that there are straight people with bad musical taste. First of all, only a minority of straight people has a bad musical taste (not so sure about that, but oh well), but more importantly: it has NOTHING to do with me!

Live and let live and stop getting annoyed about other people's INNOCENT behaviour. Worry about people's harmful behaviour, such as youths that go fagbashing: that is harmful behaviour!

I hate the way gays talk. They have horrible accents and use goofy words. It seems that they use their speech as a signal to let other gayboys know that they are gay. They sound like stupid people from LA.

As opposed to that post :rolleyes:

Yeah if i was a gayboy i would be pretty annoyed at the flamboyant ones. If there were less flamers out there, the gays would have more support. I still do not think that people would support them enough to allow them to get married, but there would be less stigma associated with being gay. It seems like in some cultures, it is the norm for gays to be toughguys. I wonder why we think of gays as sissies but in other cultures like the ghurkas, feudal japan, and ancient greece, the gays are tough-as-nails baddies?

Here's a novel idea, perhaps we could just expect them to be individual people and stop acting like the action of one gay person has any bearing on the actions of another. More importantly maybe we could act like, you know, rights are rights and that you nor anybody else has any reason to infringe upon said rights regardless of whether or not you like their accent or they enjoy your ignorance.