NationStates Jolt Archive

And she's iranian?

And she's iranian?
Can I just check what part of the word sarcasm you don't understand?

And she's iranian?

Again...What?

I'll bring the Astroglide.

I'll bring the surgical gloves.

hey now, Mine acutally said what I said it did. It's old and made of paper. I can't cut and paste from it to show you. but alas, I cannot prove it.

Have a nice day all.

Then your Bible was translated by incompetents. The Hebrew word is "toevah"; it appears several times in Leviticus, in different contexts.

If fundamentalist Christians were serious about understanding the Old Testament, they would do what Jews have been doing for centuries - learn Hebrew. It would make these debates a whole lot easier.

Ah, I see where you are going wrong. other than everywhere, that is. Women are not inferior to men, thugh admittedly nor are they the same as them; i think the phrase is equal but different.

Yeah, yeah, women are "equal" to men, they're just different in that they are naturally weaker, dumber, and less moral than men. Also, they can't do math or lift heavy things. The point is that women are biologically designed to nurture children and clean up after men, while men are biologically designed to rule the world, have lots of sex, and do whatever they please.

Yeah, yeah, women are "equal" to men, they're just different in that they are naturally weaker, dumber, and less moral than men. Also, they can't do math or lift heavy things. The point is that women are biologically designed to nurture children and clean up after men, while men are biologically designed to rule the world, have lots of sex, and do whatever they please.
And destroy the world and themselves because of such prejudiced ignorance. But other than that.

Can I just check what part of the word sarcasm you don't understand?

Hope so

Couldn't refrain myself

Yeah, yeah, women are "equal" to men, they're just different in that they are naturally weaker, dumber, and less moral than men. Also, they can't do math or lift heavy things. The point is that women are biologically designed to nurture children and clean up after men, while men are biologically designed to rule the world, have lots of sex, and do whatever they please.
Don't forget to pick up my dirty socks.

Gays are only good for food plant and live targets.

I REST MY CASE:mp5:
this, this is ****ing stupid. A gay holocaust. nooooooo.
bad idea. I shoot you down you dumb-bums. The closest thing to a gay holocaust that you holocausters want is me shooting you down. BEW BEW BEW (those were lasers):sniper:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

On the off chance that either of these two would see this again, cut it out.

****
And Bottle dear, you're doing a lovely job putting down your own gender. Thanks for the giggles.

And Bottle dear, you're doing a lovely job putting down your own gender. Thanks for the giggles.
It's not a put down, I'm just pointing out the plain, honest fact that women are weaker and less rational than men. I know there are women who will try to "wear the pants," and will insist that women can do anything men can do, but those women are just bitter feminists who will never get a man. They're selfish shrews who love their careers and hate babies, and they're probably so fat that nobody will ever love them.

That's why real men look for relationships with decent, submissive women who recognize that women need men to support them and protect them from themselves. And that's also why homosexual marriage can never work; marriage requires an owner and an owned, and if two men marry they will never know which one of them is supposed to be the property of the other.

It's not a put down, I'm just pointing out the plain, honest fact that women are weaker and less rational than men. I know there are women who will try to "wear the pants," and will insist that women can do anything men can do, but those women are just bitter feminists who will never get a man. They're selfish shrews who love their careers and hate babies, and they're probably so fat that nobody will ever love them.

That's why real men look for relationships with decent, submissive women who recognize that women need men to support them and protect them from themselves. And that's also why homosexual marriage can never work; marriage requires an owner and an owned, and if two men marry they will never know which one of them is supposed to be the property of the other.

You are being serious about this?

I was thinking it was a joke

You are being serious about this?

I was thinking it was a joke
From other posts by her she is a) female and b) lesbian. Take a guess on its seriousness (though if it was misanthropy in the true sense of the word I wuldn't be sure :p)

You are being serious about this?

I was thinking it was a joke
No, no...joking. I just wanted to see what it's like to be a mysogenist homophobe. I'm done now :).

No, no...joking. I just wanted to see what it's like to be a mysogenist homophobe. I'm done now :).
So no its on to being a man-hating lesbian again?

No, no...joking. I'm done now :).

:D OK

Nice to know that, I was ready to trigger heavy armed feminist arguments right there

:D OK

Nice to know that, I was ready to trigger heavy armed feminist arguments right there
Hmm, that actually could be fun...usually I'm the one having to patiently explain to everybody that no, in fact, women are not biologically designed to be better at vaccuuming. Maybe I should argue the woman-hater side and let somebody else do all the hard work for once! :P

Nah, keep your line of thinking.

You'll have back up from now on, just ring if you need help.

What in Christs name are you idiots talking about. Do we even need to consider for a minute how homophobic this thread is? First of all, why would we 'need' one? Are you tossers worried that George Michael and co are going to rise up, overthrow the government and pass shed loads of 'anti-heterosexual' laws?

The amount of homophobia in this day and age is a disgrace and a monstrosity, and those that in any way condone such a farcical proposal are idiots and are scared of that which they do not understand.

What in Christs name are you idiots talking about. Do we even need to consider for a minute how homophobic this thread is? First of all, why would we 'need' one? Are you tossers worried that George Michael and co are going to rise up, overthrow the government and pass shed loads of 'anti-heterosexual' laws?

The amount of homophobia in this day and age is a disgrace and a monstrosity, and those that in any way condone such a farcical proposal are idiots and are scared of that which they do not understand.
No, worse. They understand it and hate it, and they hate it possibly because it is what they are.

The worst of it is there was a gay Holocaust, and it lasted for a long time. If a man is jailed for being gay, is this not part of it? If a man is put on various drugs to try to "cure" him of homosexuality is this not part of it? And if homosexuals were rounded up into concentration camps then put into "shower-rooms" then exposed to hydrogen cyanide producing zyklon B is that nt part of a Holocaust?

I think the fact that the US government all but turned a blind eye to the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s because it was merely a "fag disease" should count for something in this respect.

Reagan just didn't talk about it.

Federal spending on prevention and investigation of the disease increased throughout the Reagan years. I know, because they cut spending on the type cancer my mother died of to spend the money instead on AIDS.

People are just upset because he didn't go on TV every night and tell everyone to use condoms...

no, we dont need one

Reagan just didn't talk about it.

Federal spending on prevention and investigation of the disease increased throughout the Reagan years. I know, because they cut spending on the type cancer my mother died of to spend the money instead on AIDS.

People are just upset because he didn't go on TV every night and tell everyone to use condoms...
Reagan's presidency saw the advent of HIV-AIDS as a widespread epidemic in the United States. Although AIDS was first identified in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly for several more years. Critics of Reagan typically state that he did not do so until 1987, but this claim is false, as he discussed funding for AIDS research in a press conference in 1985.[3] The death from AIDS of his friend Rock Hudson helped motivate Reagan to support more active measures to contain the spread of AIDS, although in retrospect those measures are still seen by Reagan's critics as inadequate.

Possibly in deference to the views of the powerful religious right, which saw AIDS as a disease limited to the gay male community and spread by immoral behavior, Reagan prevented his Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, from speaking out about the epidemic. When in 1986 Reagan finally authorized Koop to issue a report on the epidemic, he expected it to be in line with conservative policies; instead, Koop's Surgeon General's Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome greatly emphasized the importance of a comprehensive AIDS education strategy, including widespread distribution of condoms, and rejected mandatory testing. This approach brought Koop into conflict with other administration officials such as Education Secretary William Bennett.

Social action groups such as ACT UP worked to raise awareness of the AIDS problem. In 1987, Reagan responded by appointing the Watkins Commission on AIDS, which was succeeded by a permanent advisory council, and subsequently (under the administration of President Clinton) by the "AIDS czar".

Many socially conservative commentators saw Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis as a common sense approach to a problem they believed was caused by social immorality. Members of the gay and lesbian communities, and other people who had AIDS or knew someone who did, saw his policies as anything from politically motivated willful blindness to outright contempt for groups affected by the disease.

Regardless of the aesthetic merits (or lack thereof) of the administration's approach to the disease, discretionary spending by the Federal government on AIDS research programs for both prevention and treatment increased steadily during Reagan's two terms in office, and afterwards
From Wiki. They criticise him for more than that and he deserves the criticism.

Why is it that everytime I see the forums here ... there is a GAY topic?

Almost tired of seeing it ... If your gay ... thats nice ... have fun ... be gay and enjoy ... just getting sick of all the GAY topics here on NS
*whoosh!*

OBVIOUSMAN to the rescue!

Ahem.

THEN DON'T READ THEM, and DON'T POST IN THEM!

OBVIOUSMAN, AWAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!

*whoosh!*

Reagan just didn't talk about it.

Federal spending on prevention and investigation of the disease increased throughout the Reagan years. I know, because they cut spending on the type cancer my mother died of to spend the money instead on AIDS.

People are just upset because he didn't go on TV every night and tell everyone to use condoms...

I think you need to re-examine Mr. Reagan's record on that disease. The amount of money spent on AIDS research under Mr. Reagan did not reach significant amounts until the last two years of his Presidency. The National Review has published a gross figure between 1982 and 1988 of 5.7 billion dollars, but the figure is misleading. Ronald Reagan did not have the courage or the foresight to do much of anything about AIDS, much less talk about it in public until he was forced by his wife, Nancy Reagan to face up to the problem. By this time (1987), AIDS was entrenched and all of the efforts at getting ahead of the disease that the National Center for Disease Control had proposed via the Task Force headed by Dr. Don Francis had been rebuffed.

I strongly recommend you read the actual book And the Band Played On by the late Randy Shilts, who was a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. It tells the story of the early days of the AIDS crisis through the end of the Reagan Administration. It is extraordinarily well sourced and well researched and Mr. Shilts interviewed every principal for his book that he could.

Institutionally, cancer funding for research has been the big bully on the block for 40+ years, averaging around 20-25 billion dollars in raw funding per annum between all sources. I am sorry you mother died of cancer, but any reduction in federal dollars on research is more than made up by the billions of dollars invested by the pharmaceutical corporations on cancer drugs and the billions raised in the private sector for research. Cancer is a big business.

Mr. Reagan did not have to come out and say "use a condom," but the least he could have done is listen and acknowledge AIDS existed and try to get ahead of the problem. None of us know what would have come of this, but I do know that in the early stages of the spread of the virus, measures could have been taken that would have slowed the spread of the virus and given immunologists and virologists the upper hand in the fight. Instead we dawdled until the virus grew into an epidemic. Unforgivable.

It's not that I'm homophobic that implies a fear, im not scared of homosexuals you guys are actually quite amusing. I just don't like the choices you make. We are all way off topic here.

Basically homosexuality is bad by religious standards. Wether whatever bible you say you are quoting from has "onto the lord" or not. Marriage is a religious act that's why it's in a church. Why therefore should we allow gay marriages? Most fiercely religous people are going to oppose with all they have, and althought the homosexual numbers are growing you will not win.
I can't pinpoint on a messageboard what caused you to be gay, it'd be very easy for you to deny it. Something happened to you, Im sorry it did. Bottom line is If you want to have sex with a dude No one can stop you in today's society but you don't have to tread on something heterosexual religious people hold dear (marriage) just because you can. Be gay, be happy just don't be married.
Okay.

I was going to wait until the end of this thread to reply to you, but I can wait no longer in good conscience.

Ahem.

You CAN get married OUTSIDE of any church, you moron. What do you think civil unions exist for? HETEROSEXUAL couples who want to get married but don't want to have a farcical religious ceremony "blessing" it can and have simply gone to a JUDGE (or "justice of the peace") and signed the legal documents declaring them man and wife. RELIGION NEED NEVER ENTER THE PICTURE.

On top of that, you don't really even need a JUDGE! Go to Vegas and get married by someone dressed like ELVIS if you want.

I'm sick to the teeth of your blatant inaccuracy that you choose to justify with mere feelings and prejudices. You can't really rationalize your mindless hate, so you keep trying with all kinds of horseshit that keeps getting shot down left and right. Admit it -- you're outclassed, out-thought, and outmoded. You're done. Now just be a good hateful little boy and leave the logic and reason to the adults, okay?

Gays are only good for food plant and live targets.

I REST MY CASE:mp5:
You're an idiot.

*yawn* is right, from your own link
an extreme, irrational fear of a specific object or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder, since anxiety is the chief symptom experienced by the sufferer.
And you are CLEARLY anxious about gays. Otherwise you wouldn't post so much misinformation and inaccuracy about them.

<snip>On top of that, you don't really even need a JUDGE! Go to Vegas and get married by someone dressed like ELVIS if you want.


I've always wondered why the gay marriage effort wasn't concentrated in Nevada. The population is so small, that if a few million gays moved to Las Vegas, they could run the state.

Other states SHOULD have reciprocal recognition of marriages, so...

No, no...joking. I just wanted to see what it's like to be a mysogenist homophobe. I'm done now :).
BRAVA!

You did a marvelous job, Bottle. I am proud to know you. You reminded me of when I switched sides in a Forensics competition (subject was abortion) without telling my coach or my team. I got censured harshly by both my team and my coach, but I won the Argumentative division for the first time in three years of trying by putting the "mental" in fundamentalism.

*WILD APPLAUSE AND SHRIEKS OF APPRECIATION*

What in Christs name are you idiots talking about. Do we even need to consider for a minute how homophobic this thread is? First of all, why would we 'need' one? Are you tossers worried that George Michael and co are going to rise up, overthrow the government and pass shed loads of 'anti-heterosexual' laws?

The amount of homophobia in this day and age is a disgrace and a monstrosity, and those that in any way condone such a farcical proposal are idiots and are scared of that which they do not understand.
Sentiment appreciated.

Having not read (or even skimmed) the whole thread in order to realize the sentiment was unnecessary? Not so much.

Okay.

I was going to wait until the end of this thread to reply to you, but I can wait no longer in good conscience.

Ahem.

You CAN get married OUTSIDE of any church, you moron. What do you think civil unions exist for? HETEROSEXUAL couples who want to get married but don't want to have a farcical religious ceremony "blessing" it can and have simply gone to a JUDGE (or "justice of the peace") and signed the legal documents declaring them man and wife. RELIGION NEED NEVER ENTER THE PICTURE.

On top of that, you don't really even need a JUDGE! Go to Vegas and get married by someone dressed like ELVIS if you want.

I'm sick to the teeth of your blatant inaccuracy that you choose to justify with mere feelings and prejudices. You can't really rationalize your mindless hate, so you keep trying with all kinds of horseshit that keeps getting shot down left and right. Admit it -- you're outclassed, out-thought, and outmoded. You're done. Now just be a good hateful little boy and leave the logic and reason to the adults, okay?
Good post, all anger-induced ranting aside. Marriage as it exists in legal form has nothing to do with churches. It makes no sense then that such a legal contract that has no bearing on churches or religions is in violation of the definition of marriage as laid down by the Bible and other religious texts. The issue here is legal marriage, not religious marriage.

Good post, all anger-induced ranting aside. Marriage as it exists in legal form has nothing to do with churches. It makes no sense then that such a legal contract that has no bearing on churches or religions is in violation of the definition of marriage as laid down by the Bible and other religious texts. The issue here is legal marriage, not religious marriage.
Yeah, sorry about the anger/ranting part. I've read this whole thread and Xboxia's nauseating weaving around to avoid responsibility for his inaccuracies just got to me.

Bottle, thanks for switching over, you gave it a hell of a try.

I just love how this guy actually thinks Bottle was being serious.:D

We don't really need a gay holocaust, althought that would be nice. What we need is for gays to realize that it's a choice, regardless of what they or their supporters want us to believe. Having sex with anyone is a choice someone makes consciously. Be gay, just don't act on it. Normal heterosexuals have to have sex to reproduce that's a big difference.
Just because your perverted uncle decided to diddle you when you were 5 does not mean you get to openly have sex with men because you're all messed up in the head. Have your fantasies but control yourself and don't act on them.
Many years ago being openly gay was unheard of and looked down on as being immoral much like pedophilia is today. Is that all of the sudden going to be ok in 50 or 60 years?
Friggen hell, this is not the point I was trying to make! DO NOT Think that you are agreeing with me! The reason I posted the question was because I was wondering if some similer event is what would be needed for jackasses and bigots like you to finally be seen for the scum you are.

Originally Posted by Xboxica
Many years ago being openly gay was unheard of and looked down on as being immoral much like pedophilia is today. Is that all of the sudden going to be ok in 50 or 60 years?

Need I point out that quite a few years ago having interracial marriage was looked upon as being immoral... Just because people's views have changed (according to you) doesn't mean that interracial marriage is now ok. So is it?

Originally Posted by Xboxica
Many years ago being openly gay was unheard of and looked down on as being immoral much like pedophilia is today. Is that all of the sudden going to be ok in 50 or 60 years?

Need I point out that quite a few years ago having interracial marriage was looked upon as being immoral... Just because people's views have changed (according to you) doesn't mean that interracial marriage is now ok. So is it?

As far as I know there is only one species. Homo sapiens.

Skin color is irrelevant and only bears a relationship with where on this planet that person hails from. Human beings are adaptable, and that is why you have different skin color and different genetic adaptations in the species.

The converse now applies to you...Stics, tell me a NON-EMOTIONAL reason why interracial marriage is not acceptable.

As far as I know there is only one species. Homo sapiens.

Skin color is irrelevant and only bears a relationship with where on this planet that person hails from. Human beings are adaptable, and that is why you have different skin color and different genetic adaptations in the species.

The converse now applies to you...Stics, tell me a NON-EMOTIONAL reason why interracial marriage is not acceptable.
You know that what you just saw in Stics' post might - and I'm not saying that it did, but there still is the possibility! - have been actually part of something they call, oh I dunno, sarcasm?

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. the Holowcaust?

It does not make me feel guilty.

Does it make you feel guilty? Your problem not mine.

#1 I have nothing to do with it.. I was not alive.
#2 The Jews are better off than most minorities.. by far.
#3 Israel kills plenty of Palestineans all the time.

I just love how this guy actually thinks Bottle was being serious.:D

Sarcasm is lost on some!!

Friggen hell, this is not the point I was trying to make! DO NOT Think that you are agreeing with me! The reason I posted the question was because I was wondering if some similer event is what would be needed for jackasses and bigots like you to finally be seen for the scum you are.

Again with the insults, can you people stay focused for a minute without getting all emotional, I though this was a discussion/argument.

Then your Bible was translated by incompetents. The Hebrew word is "toevah"; it appears several times in Leviticus, in different contexts.

If fundamentalist Christians were serious about understanding the Old Testament, they would do what Jews have been doing for centuries - learn Hebrew. It would make these debates a whole lot easier.

Remember that Jesus came back afterwards to set things straight. All the stuff before, the Jew's stuff, must have apparently been very wrong since he had to come back. And they were so mad about it they crucified him.
Maybe whatever you are reading was done by incompetents because I don't see the son of god coming back to correct my bible.
AND YES SOME BIBLES ARE TRANSLATED ALL MESSED UP BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WITH YOUR DEGRADED MORALS have to make it fit your immoral lives because you cannot fit the bible's lifestyle.
Truth hurts, if it didn't you all wouldn't have your feathers all ruffled. I have nothing to prove to you, live how you want believe what you want. When we die and find out if there is a hell, I'll be glad I didn't take the chance you did. But I'll bring some marshmallows when I visit.

You know that what you just saw in Stics' post might - and I'm not saying that it did, but there still is the possibility! - have been actually part of something they call, oh I dunno, sarcasm?

'Tis possible ;) and if that is true then I tender my apologies for not seeing it.

Remember that Jesus came back afterwards to set things straight. All the stuff before, the Jew's stuff, must have apparently been very wrong since he had to come back. And they were so mad about it they crucified him.
Maybe whatever you are reading was done by incompetents because I don't see the son of god coming back to correct my bible.
AND YES SOME BIBLES ARE TRANSLATED ALL MESSED UP BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WITH YOUR DEGRADED MORALS have to make it fit your immoral lives because you cannot fit the bible's lifestyle.
Truth hurts, if it didn't you all wouldn't have your feathers all ruffled. I have nothing to prove to you, live how you want believe what you want. When we die and find out if there is a hell, I'll be glad I didn't take the chance you did. But I'll bring some marshmallows when I visit.
Jesus was crucified because the jews were mad that he was the mesiah? NO! They crucified him because they thought he was a false prophet!
And in the new testament God had a little talk with Paul, basically saying that the old laws, including the rules on what to and not to eat, and other things mentioned in leviticus, no longer applied. That's why you can eat seafood and fuck other men.

Remember that Jesus came back afterwards to set things straight. All the stuff before, the Jew's stuff, must have apparently been very wrong since he had to come back. And they were so mad about it they crucified him.
Maybe whatever you are reading was done by incompetents because I don't see the son of god coming back to correct my bible.
AND YES SOME BIBLES ARE TRANSLATED ALL MESSED UP BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WITH YOUR DEGRADED MORALS have to make it fit your immoral lives because you cannot fit the bible's lifestyle.
Truth hurts, if it didn't you all wouldn't have your feathers all ruffled. I have nothing to prove to you, live how you want believe what you want. When we die and find out if there is a hell, I'll be glad I didn't take the chance you did. But I'll bring some marshmallows when I visit.

Oh, Gods above...just shut up.

You have no right to judge me or anybody else. I have no real objection to you being an ignoramus, just don't try to convince me of your righteousness, because it is clearly apparent that your insecurities are so crushing that you aren't comfortable with your own life thus you must go out and declare those of us who do not choose your particular style of worship as heathens and going to hell.

If you have no desire to learn or listen to other points of view, then you are hopelessly small minded and are in my not so humble opinion, a chucklehead.

Now go off and join the other wretched mouth-breathers and leave the discussion to those who actually have the intellectual capacity to bear it.

And in the new testament God had a little talk with Paul, basically saying that the old laws, including the rules on what to and not to eat, and other things mentioned in leviticus, no longer applied. That's why you can eat seafood and fuck other men.

I must have missed that "fuck other men" part. If you say leviticus no longer applies well that's the same one that says you cant have sex with your children, Is that really the point you want to make??
You can't just pick and choose!

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

The Homocaust is going to have to wait until the Muslim Holocaust is finished.

Now go off and join the other wretched mouth-breathers and leave the discussion to those who actually have the intellectual capacity to bear it.

Take a breath now and control yourself, you're getting a little emotional. Your little insults are amusing but they take away from your credibility. I think I'm the only one posting here on this side of the issue. If I leave the discussion is over and I think this is fun, that's why I came back. No one's mind is going to be changed by anything posted here. You're not really taking this personal are you?

I must have missed that "fuck other men" part. If you say leviticus no longer applies well that's the same one that says you cant have sex with your children, Is that really the point you want to make??
You can't just pick and choose!
did you really need leviticus to tell you that you shouldn't have sex with your children? Or have you stopped eating seafood yet?

did you really need leviticus to tell you that you shouldn't have sex with your children? Or have you stopped eating seafood yet?
while I have no intrest in any form of Holocaust ever occuring...

I do find this argument interesting.

And in the new testament God had a little talk with Paul, basically saying that the old laws, including the rules on what to and not to eat, and other things mentioned in leviticus, no longer applied. That's why you can eat seafood and fuck other men.

you did state that all of Leviticus's rules were invalidated. can you show me in the bible where this is done? I know the what to eat was abolished specifically, but you claim that all of those imposed religious laws and rules were abolished, can you say where?

and can you answer Xboxica's challange about the other rules such as incest and beastiaity?

did you really need leviticus to tell you that you shouldn't have sex with your children? Or have you stopped eating seafood yet?

No, I didn't. And Jesus handed out fish to feed the masses so I'm not sure what you meant by that, but for the sake of answering I still eat seafood.

But if I have to explain your own posts to you and go step by step on my reply to your posts we'll be here all night. Go back re-read what you wrote then what I wrote and repeat till you understand the point.

while I have no intrest in any form of Holocaust ever occuring...

Just for the record I agree!

No, I didn't. And Jesus handed out fish to feed the masses so I'm not sure what you meant by that, but for the sake of answering I still eat seafood.

That's shellfish. And it is pretty callous when everyone cites the ban on homosexuality in Leviticus as Biblical commandment to smite fags while they continue to snack on shrimp tempura, wear clothes made of polyfabric weave and touch menstruating women. All fine examples of Salad Bar Christianity.

That's shellfish. And it is pretty callous when everyone cites the ban on homosexuality in Leviticus as Biblical commandment to smite fags while they continue to snack on shrimp tempura, wear clothes made of polyfabric weave and touch menstruating women. All fine examples of Salad Bar Christianity.

Oh just to clarify, I cite the ban on bestiality, incest, kiddie sex, adultery, pre-marital sex and all their Leviticus friends as well. It's like crime you have felonies and misdemeanors, shrimp is a misdemeanor sin punishable by an asschewing from god. The others are Felonies.

That's shellfish. And it is pretty callous when everyone cites the ban on homosexuality in Leviticus as Biblical commandment to smite fags while they continue to snack on shrimp tempura, wear clothes made of polyfabric weave and touch menstruating women. All fine examples of Salad Bar Christianity.
execpt Jesus did specifically state that they could eat whatever they wanted and wear what they wanted. but nothing I've found about sleeping with anyone being ok.

When people look at anti-semitism and religious intolerance, they have the specter of the holocaust to demonstrate just how wrong such things are. When they look at rascism, They can look at the years of slavery, and then the subsequent years of persecution by the Ku Klux Klan. With gays, there is no one specific event that is similer. Does it take a holocaust like event to wake people up to the fact that members of certain groups are, in fact, human? or, being that gays were a secondary target by both the Nazis and the Klan, am I just talking out my ass?

There's no need for a Gay Holocaust. There's already a Gay Alamo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots).

execpt Jesus did specifically state that they could eat whatever they wanted and wear what they wanted. but nothing I've found about sleeping with anyone being ok.

Then you're not really reading the passages. In all those passages about the Pharises or Saduces talking to Jesus about some piece of Jewish law his response is never, "forget that law."

His response is always to the effect of, "that law is insignificant compared to respect for God, which can exist outside of adherence to religous law) and compassion towards fellow man." Jesus did not make a point of contradicting any particular law, it is always that someone else mentions a particular law and Jesus responds that goodness comes from the heart and the faith, not from a book. Even a book of scripture.

Oh just to clarify, I cite the ban on bestiality, incest, kiddie sex, adultery, pre-marital sex and all their Leviticus friends as well. It's like crime you have felonies and misdemeanors, shrimp is a misdemeanor sin punishable by an asschewing from god. The others are Felonies.

Who says? Why isn't homosexuality a misdemeanor?

Who says? Why isn't homosexuality a misdemeanor?

Because then they couldn't beat them up?

Who says? Why isn't homosexuality a misdemeanor?

God said! and for the same reason kiddie sex and bestiality are not.

God said! and for the same reason kiddie sex and bestiality are not.

Because they involve non-adults and/or non-sapient animals?

And my invisible friend says homosexuality is perfectly fine.

Because they involve non-adults and/or non-sapient animals?

And my invisible friend says homosexuality is perfectly fine.

I should have also added incest, same level as homosexuality and it can also involve consenting adults.

your last statement was pretty lame and detracts from your credibility. In adult conversations we try to stay away from saying things like that.

I should have also added incest, same level as homosexuality and it can also involve consenting adults.

your last statement was pretty lame and detracts from your credibility. In adult conversations we try to stay away from saying things like that.

Allow me to rephrase it then; According to my god, homosexuality is fine. So why should I be against it?

Then you're not really reading the passages. In all those passages about the Pharises or Saduces talking to Jesus about some piece of Jewish law his response is never, "forget that law."

His response is always to the effect of, "that law is insignificant compared to respect for God, which can exist outside of adherence to religous law) and compassion towards fellow man." Jesus did not make a point of contradicting any particular law, it is always that someone else mentions a particular law and Jesus responds that goodness comes from the heart and the faith, not from a book. Even a book of scripture.actually, Jesus never countered any law from the OT but challanged the Laws the religous leaders put down. hence I agree with your term "Religious Laws"

In Matthew and Luke, he did say do not worry about what you eat or wear, which can be taken as a dissmissal of the clothing and eating rules.

However, Jesus and God may not have removed the restrictions from Leviticus and Deuteronomy which is why I was so interested in Cyrian space's assertations that all the old laws were removed.

oh, and Xboxica, while being off topic, here's some studies (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/eatany.html)that you might be interested in.

God said! and for the same reason kiddie sex and bestiality are not.
I thought, with a few exeptions, all sins are equal in God's eye. can you point out where in the bible each one is ranked?

I thought, with a few exeptions, all sins are equal in God's eye. can you point out where in the bible each one is ranked?

No, I can't I'm just assuming. Based on the thought that someone that goes their whole life living exactly by the book (bible) and at some point towards the end strays and committs a sin say, tells a lie. I don't think they would be treated the same come judgement time as some other person whose only sin was something more evil as say murder. But still just an assumption.

Oh and thanks for the link, very informative.

No, I can't I'm just assuming. Based on the thought that someone that goes their whole life living exactly by the book (bible) and at some point towards the end strays and committs a sin say, tells a lie. I don't think they would be treated the same come judgement time as some other person whose only sin was something more evil as say murder. But still just an assumption.as far as I know, no sin is ok... or lesser in God's eyes.

however, with a few execptions, some being worshipping another God and suicide, all sins are forgiven if you ask for forgiveness and (from the Christian point of view) when you accept that Jesus died for our sins.

in an attempt to get this thread back on track...

while I do consider the act of Homosexuality a sin and thus should be avoided. I do not equate the sin with the person. Homosexuals are people to and deserve the same right to make choices concerning their happiness.

which means, while I will not stand in the way of Homosexual Rights, I will support their cause.

Oh and thanks for the link, very informative.
one of several sites I go to when I have trouble with some of the bible lessions. ;)

while I do consider the act of Homosexuality a sin and thus should be avoided. I do not equate the sin with the person. Homosexuals are people to and deserve the same right to make choices concerning their happiness.

But should we not try and stop people from sinning?

But should we not try and stop people from sinning?
we can try to stop them from sinning, but is creating a law against it the only way to stop them?

Remember, the Laws of Man and the Laws of God are two different sets of Laws.

we can try to stop them from sinning, but is creating a law against it the only way to stop them?

Remember, the Laws of Man and the Laws of God are two different sets of Laws.

True to a point, most of man's law is based on god's law.

In helping someone sin by supporting their cause are you also not sinning alongside them.

Homosexual sex is a choice. True the feelings behind it might stem from something out of the control of the person but to have sex with a man (or woman if female) is a choice based on an impulse, impulse can be controlled.

I see an attractive 16 year old girl that looks 19. Althought I might have some impulse to do something, I know it's wrong and don't act on any impulse. Why can't homosexuals do the same? Sex for pleasure gay or hetero is not a necessity of life.

True to a point, most of man's law is based on god's law.

In helping someone sin by supporting their cause are you also not sinning alongside them.

Homosexual sex is a choice. True the feelings behind it might stem from something out of the control of the person but to have sex with a man (or woman if female) is a choice based on an impulse, impulse can be controlled.

I see an attractive 16 year old girl that looks 19. Althought I might have some impulse to do something, I know it's wrong and don't act on any impulse. Why can't homosexuals do the same? Sex for pleasure gay or hetero is not a necessity of life.If impulses could be so easily controled, 99% of the laws would be unenforced.

Yes, we must fight sin, and each person does so in their own way.

A "gay holocaust" would be ridiculously stupid. Homosexuality is something which arises from the mind, not strictly from genes. If one were to gather up every homosexual in the world and launch them in a rocket to the sun or something, there would still be homosexuality in later generations anyway. Body chemistry just produces offshoots like homosexuality sometimes. As soon as you get past that, you'll realize that such a venture would be inane.

Now, what we do need is an all-out human holocaust. Imagine it: countries firing upon other countries, civil uprisings, chemical warfare, nuclear warfare, environmental devastation, ruining the ozone layer. Man, it would be a blast! If all order just collapsed, humanity might stop being as idiotic as it is. Of course, there would be far fewer humans, but that's a plus.

Only a capitalist holocaust needs to occur.

Only a capitalist holocaust needs to occur.
That's ineffective, my friend. Before capitalism, there was no capitalism. Therefore, capitalism occurs spontaeneously. Only by eliminating humanity can your goal be reached.

Capitalism sucks man.

Capitalism sucks man.
and apparently Man like how Capitalism sucks and keeps feeding capitalism so that it can suck some more.

and apparently Man like how Capitalism sucks and keeps feeding capitalism so that it can suck some more.

right man, damned shit so hard to get rid of, keeps fukin u in the butt and never stops, doesnt even have the common courtesey to give you a reach around while its doin it.

That's ineffective, my friend. Before capitalism, there was no capitalism. Therefore, capitalism occurs spontaeneously. Only by eliminating humanity can your goal be reached.

Excellent.

prepares The Weapon.

True to a point, most of man's law is based on god's law.

In helping someone sin by supporting their cause are you also not sinning alongside them.

Homosexual sex is a choice. True the feelings behind it might stem from something out of the control of the person but to have sex with a man (or woman if female) is a choice based on an impulse, impulse can be controlled.

I see an attractive 16 year old girl that looks 19. Althought I might have some impulse to do something, I know it's wrong and don't act on any impulse. Why can't homosexuals do the same? Sex for pleasure gay or hetero is not a necessity of life.
I've got a question for you: Are morals subjective?

I think they are. Morals are formed on a vast variety of things. I, for instance, consider life to be incredibly valuable and thusly should never be terminated. As such, I am personally against the death penalty and abortion(except in case of rape and/or the mother's life in danger, etc.(And not the personally. I am absolutely pro-choice. It's not my place to tell a woman what she does with her body. One might assume that I also would support the death penalty, but the death penalty is a poor choice of punishment, for reasons I will not go into at this time.)) I formed this moral, however, NOT from any religious belief, but the lack of one. I am an athiest. As such, I recognize--from my point of view--that there is no afterlife or any such thing, and therefore, when you die, that's it: you're gone. So, life, therefore, becomes something to protect. You can see from just this example how a certain moral--killing is wrong--might arise independently from multiple ways.

Similarly, there are many morals that would not arise from a scientific, fair-minded viewpoint. For instance, I do not believe homosexualality is immoral in any way, as it has been scientifically proven that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore, homosexuality is natural, and thusly homosexual love and all aspects of it are natural as well.

Of course, you see differently, due to your religious beliefs. Again, I must ask you a question: Does one have the right to impose their moral beliefs on others? Allow me to explain what I mean. By forming a law--say, one that bans gay marriage--based on a religious/other moral belief that homosexuality is wrong, you are making a law that imposes your specific beliefs on others, others who might not share that belief. Few, if any, homosexuals believe that homosexuality is wrong. Thusly, by making such a law, you force them to accept your beliefs over their own. That, therefore, becomes a rock in the path of freedom. It prevents them from exercising something natural to them: the ability to celebrate their love in matrimony.

Now, I do not say this in an attempt to insult your beliefs. What I am saying is that you may hold what beliefs you wish, but you do not have the right to impose such beliefs on others, anymore than I would have the right to impose athiesm upon you.

In regards to gay marriage, I frankly suggest we remove the word marriage from the law entirely. Secularize it completely. Call all marriages in the legal sense of the word civil unions. Allow churches to have marriages if they wish, but this must be seperate from the legally binding civil union. (Of course, I have no idea what kind of terms we'd use for two people having a civil union. "Want to get civil unionized?" It's something I'm working on.) That way, churches and religious organizations may uphold whatever definition of marriage they wish, and all couples gain the legal status and all benefits thereto, which, if I am not mistaken, is one of the primary reasons homosexuals campaign for gay marriage.

I hope I've made my point clear to you, Xboxica. Hold the belief you wish, but do not impose it upon others.

Right, 'cause there is no way to solve the problem without millions dying. :rolleyes:

Let's see, perhaps there are some people who are just afraid of thinking for themselves. They want, and need, someone or something to subject themselves to: an authority they can point to and say: "He told me so" or "It says so rigth in the XXX."

They're not suited to viewing their experience of the world as an adventure. They are certainly not suited to the idea, for example, that "God" is still talking, to them, personally -- they are only comfortable with the idea that all "God" had to say was written long ago.

They will say "I believe in X" or "We are all lost if we believe in nothing at all."

BULLSHITE! What if there is a group of people who have a vested interest in you believing in their "brand" of reality? What if the "belief" you've been taught from childhood is no more than a particular system of wishful thinking?

Belief is incidental arrogance. I believe the bus driver is competent because it suits me not to bother to address the question of his ability each time I step on the bus. However, life without belief is not only possible, it's positively refreshing for me. Of course, I like rollercoaster rides and perhaps you don't.

The degeneration of belief, however, seems tragic. I'll stipulate that with belief there is some evidence, or at least a preponderance of evidence in favor of the opinion. Belief has at least some justification in terms of evidence ... although the evidence might be old, or irrelevant. But the specific degenerations of belief are "faith" (belief without any evidence at all) and "dogma" (belief despite a preponderance of evidence contrary.) The next step down the line is "delusional" and we hospitalize people for that, or at least adjust their medication.

Now, after all that background:

Who the fuck does your "God" think he is, and why should I give a damn about either your God or your opinion of what your God considers right or wrong?

And why are you and your "God" obsessed with homosexuality? I live in an officially queer neighborhood and I've made the acquaintance of a sizeable number of gay guys, and none of them spend more time thinking about male-male sex than Fred Phelps.

If you want to live in a Religious Dictatorship, then GO! Get the fuck out of America. We set up shop here just so we could be free of you religious nutcases! (eh, sarcasm)

So full of bulldust.

Fact is that the pilgrim fathers crossed the Pond to set up a religious dictatorship of their own - and not an atheist dictatorship.

If you like atheism, consider A] moving to the PRC or B] dropping dead.


PS: what's with the foul language?

So full of bulldust.

Fact is that the pilgrim fathers crossed the Pond to set up a religious dictatorship of their own - and not an atheist dictatorship.

Though they made it abundantly clear they did not wish to dictate which religion one should follow.

Though they made it abundantly clear they did not wish to dictate which religion one should follow.

*raised eyebrow*
Provided the one you followed was Anglo-Saxon Non-Conformist Protestant...

*raised eyebrow*
Provided the one you followed was Anglo-Saxon Non-Conformist Protestant...

Considering several founding fathers held different beliefs themselves I doubt that.

Considering several founding fathers held different beliefs themselves I doubt that.

*shrug*
Their diversity was strictly within one single class of beliefs.

If you want to live in a Religious Dictatorship, then GO! Get the fuck out of America. We set up shop here just so we could be free of you religious nutcases! (eh, sarcasm)

See?

Now it's been a while since I read my history books but I do remember the founding fathers or pilgrims before them left for america for religious freedom. not because they did not want religion but because they did not want the specific religion the king of england was forcing upon them.
This country was founded on religion, mostly protestant christian.
In god we trust in on our money, our laws are based on religion. Religion (at least christian, which our government was based on) makes homosexuality bad. I've not read every religious text but Im willing to bet most religions hold the same regard to homosexuality.
The Bible (which our founders came over here to pray and worship from) forbids it in same same way it forbids incest, child sex, bestiality, and adultery.

Now it's been a while since I read my history books

It shows. Start by looking up how long "in god we trust" has been the US motto. Then proceed to discover that almost everything you posted was inaccurate.

It shows. Start by looking up how long "in god we trust" has been the US motto.

In stating "in god we trust" I was refering to the fact that it is our motto. Religion is, has always been and will always be a part of our government. Here read and learn (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html)

True to a point, most of man's law is based on god's law.

In helping someone sin by supporting their cause are you also not sinning alongside them.

Homosexual sex is a choice. True the feelings behind it might stem from something out of the control of the person but to have sex with a man (or woman if female) is a choice based on an impulse, impulse can be controlled.

I see an attractive 16 year old girl that looks 19. Althought I might have some impulse to do something, I know it's wrong and don't act on any impulse. Why can't homosexuals do the same? Sex for pleasure gay or hetero is not a necessity of life.

So you'll give us marriage, just not sex? Tell all the hetero couples that and see how they respond ;) . (Since you did say in your last sentence that both gay and hetero sex is not necessary.)

It must be so traumatic to you, having that man pointing that gun at your head, forcing you to come back.



You're welcome. One would think you'd have the willpower not to read things you don't like on your own, but here you are.

I don't read them ... I just see too many of them off to the side ... all the time. Just felt like pointing it out

Example: http://www.usradiox.com/images/threads.jpg

I don't read them ... I just see too many of them off to the side ... all the time. Just felt like pointing it out

Example: http://www.usradiox.com/images/threads.jpg

Again, if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you where cellular differentiation split you.

So you'll give us marriage, just not sex?

I never said, nor implied that. As per definition,
marriage noun: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Tell all the hetero couples that and see how they respond ;) . (Since you did say in your last sentence that both gay and hetero sex is not necessary.)

It isn't necessary no matter how much you want it to be. Hetero sex just isn't obsene

Pronunciation: äb-'sEn, &b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin obscenus, obscaenus
1 : disgusting to the senses : REPULSIVE
2 a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics> c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles.

so it's OK. Im not condoning extra-marital sex either, both are equally obscene and immoral.

You can be gay but choose not to act physically on it. Just like I can stay monogomus with my wife and chose not to have sex with other women.

and God Bless Texas
http://www.sodomy.org/laws/texas/sodomy.html

and God Bless Texas
http://www.sodomy.org/laws/texas/sodomy.html

http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. Pp. 17—18.

Owned, beyotch.

I never said, nor implied that. As per definition,
marriage noun: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
It isn't necessary no matter how much you want it to be. Hetero sex just isn't obsene
so it's OK. Im not condoning extra-marital sex either, both are equally obscene and immoral.

You can be gay but choose not to act physically on it. Just like I can stay monogomus with my wife and chose not to have sex with other women.

However you are still engaging in original sin!!! *GASP* How disgusting! BAN ALL SEX NOW! BAN MARRIAGE!

[/sarcasm]

Take a breath now and control yourself, you're getting a little emotional. Your little insults are amusing but they take away from your credibility. I think I'm the only one posting here on this side of the issue. If I leave the discussion is over and I think this is fun, that's why I came back. No one's mind is going to be changed by anything posted here. You're not really taking this personal are you?

I have no idea why I would take something so fundamentally antithetical as personal. I mean after all, I am a horrible monstrosity and I don't deserve to live, breathe and love. So I should sit here and take your arguments and other people's arguments that I am subhuman completely in stride and kiss your feet.

So your idea of fun is to treat other human beings incredibly shabbily, eh? Nice hobby.

Why shouldn't I take it personally? You tell me why, because I am waiting for a good reason not to be mad at you and the rest of the people who have no clue just how hurtful, hateful and nasty the whole anti-gay movement is.

Darknovae you lose, you broke the cardinal rule and resulted to insults. Go away now loser. Let the adults argue

I apologize for callign you an idiot, but you broke the cardinal rule too. It was midnight and I was tired.

By the way... you don't seem like an adult to me. How old are you?

Ah, if only that were true...

It is a putdown. For some people, they just use it as a word in their vocabulary even if they mean nothing bad by it(and indeed, most don't and probably don't understand that using it the way they are is insulting and degrading, just as if one were to call something n*****dly.) Others, however, mean it as a full and complete insult. To call something gay is to call it inferior and/or horrible, which is utterly despicable....


Thanks Kyronea, but I guess I still don't know why. I mean, what makes "gay" a put-down, and how do people know "this thing is the 'gay' kind of 'bad'", and not the 'hippie' kind of 'bad' or 'square' kind of 'bad' or a 'black' or 'white' or 'yellow' kind of 'bad' or any other kind?

I'm just not getting this. What's wrong with people?

PS - "niggardly" doesn't mean anything to do with race. It's conjectured to be from a Scandinavian word that describes a style of working in an excessively fiddly and petty way. A "niggard" (pronounce it carefully!) is a petty, stingy person that fusses over little things to do with money. Somebody who "nickels and dimes" everything and everyone.

I'm not trying to be stupid, but what makes 'gay'?

Okay guys, I saw a lot of anti- christian stuff on here, don't go knocking someone's religion just because of stupid people like Xboxica or suicdie bombers or whatever happens to Palestinians.

It's the people twisting their own religion.

And the fundamentalism was what made my parents stop goign to our old church, or any church around here for that matter. Too many fundies :headbang:

No, we don't

I have no idea why I would take something so fundamentally antithetical as personal. I mean after all, I am a horrible monstrosity and I don't deserve to live, breathe and love. So I should sit here and take your arguments and other people's arguments that I am subhuman completely in stride and kiss your feet.

So your idea of fun is to treat other human beings incredibly shabbily, eh? Nice hobby.

Why shouldn't I take it personally? You tell me why, because I am waiting for a good reason not to be mad at you and the rest of the people who have no clue just how hurtful, hateful and nasty the whole anti-gay movement is.

Ok as it seems that u r indeed gay, and im late in this argument i will post what may seem random but hey ill do it anyway.

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong. It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles. 1. Its a sin, 2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace. 3. It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays. 4. The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that. 5. The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.
U should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" Y this normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to b a sin, and thus u must hate the sinner, who has choosen sin.

And if u say something about, how i don't know anything about gays and blah blah. I have a several schoolmates who r gay, and even my own cousin has said he is gay, and i feel the same way towards all of them. And i believe they shouldn't b given the rite to b married, have public displays of affection, or any special days, protests, movements, marchers etc... or any gay movement for that matter.

"who have no clue just how hurtful, hateful and nasty the whole anti-gay movement is"
No duh its hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what level of religion, or atheist u r. It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.

Thanks Kyronea, but I guess I still don't know why. I mean, what makes "gay" a put-down, and how do people know "this thing is the 'gay' kind of 'bad'", and not the 'hippie' kind of 'bad' or 'square' kind of 'bad' or a 'black' or 'white' or 'yellow' kind of 'bad' or any other kind?

I'm just not getting this. What's wrong with people?

PS - "niggardly" doesn't mean anything to do with race. It's conjectured to be from a Scandinavian word that describes a style of working in an excessively fiddly and petty way. A "niggard" (pronounce it carefully!) is a petty, stingy person that fusses over little things to do with money. Somebody who "nickels and dimes" everything and everyone.

I'm not trying to be stupid, but what makes 'gay'?
Gay is the common word to use for such things nowadays, though I will occasionaly hear some assholes use Jewish instead. It's the common vernacular, whether the person intends the insult or not. Quite frankly, that is sad and horrible, but it is the way it is. It takes people like you and me to start changing it.

And you know exactly what I meant for the other one.

Xboxica, I noticed that you did not reply to my question regarding subjective moralities, nor did you reply to my question about imposing beliefs. Please do so, as I feel it is a necessary read.

Ok as it seems that u r indeed gay, and im late in this argument i will post what may seem random but hey ill do it anyway.

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong. It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles. 1. Its a sin, 2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace. 3. It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays. 4. The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that. 5. The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.
U should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" Y this normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to b a sin, and thus u must hate the sinner, who has choosen sin.

And if u say something about, how i don't know anything about gays and blah blah. I have a several schoolmates who r gay, and even my own cousin has said he is gay, and i feel the same way towards all of them. And i believe they shouldn't b given the rite to b married, have public displays of affection, or any special days, protests, movements, marchers etc... or any gay movement for that matter.

"who have no clue just how hurtful, hateful and nasty the whole anti-gay movement is"
No duh its hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what level of religion, or atheist u r. It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.
First, I must ask that you take care to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The type of language you use is acceptable in online games where speed is a necessity, but when you can take the time to think through your thoughts, you will reflect much better and have your argument sound much more powerful by using proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Now, I shall address your points individualy:

1. Your Point: 1. Its a sin
My answer: In religions, for those who choose to practice that religion, it can be, though even that is debated amongst Christians, progressive Muslims, and other religions. For those of us who do not describe to your religious viewpoint, this does not apply, and as such you should recognize that you have no right to be forcing your belief upon us, anymore than we have the right to force ours upon you.

2. Your Point: . Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace.
My answer: The populace of what? China? The U.S.? Great Britain? Iran? East Timor? Please, first, be specific as to which populace you speak of, and then provide sources to back up your claim. This may have been true in times past, but is most likely not true anymore, at least for a number of countries.

3. Your Point: It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays.
My answer: This statement shows a misunderstanding of how evolution and genetics work. We all know that straight parents can produce gay children. That is a fact. Homosexuality is genetic, either through a specific gene for homosexuality, or the gene that allows one to express sexual interest for a gender being activated and reflected in that same gender. (As an example, let's take the gene that causes men to be attracted to women. This gene could be active in lesbian women, which is why they like women only. This, however, is merely my own speculation, and should be taken as such accordingly.) Further, the homosexuality we see expressed in other animals is a clear sign that it is not an evolutionary disadvantage. We do not exactly know WHY it is genetic yet, but it is. The fact that it even exists proves you incorrect.

4 Your Point: The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that.
My answer: This is somewhat of a difficult stance to take a position on. On one hand, in regards to sexual activity for reproduction, you are correct. On the other, for sexual activity for the pleasure of it--which is common in a vast variety of animal species as well as humanity--then it is not. Indeed, for a man, anal sex can be incredibly pleasurable due to the direct stimulation of the prostate gland. You could concievably say the same about women having anal sex, and yet you do not choose to complain about it.

5 Your Point: The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.
My answer: Is it? Perhaps, to some, and right now. Marriage, however, has changed throughout history. It used to be that interracial marriages were considered an abomination. Women used to be considered automatically inferior when they were married. So, I ask you, why could it not change again? As I proposed previously, so I must propose again that we remove the word marriage from the law completely, and call all legal unions civil unions. Marriage can then be defined by churches to be whatever they wish, but if their marriage is to grant them the benefits under the law, they must also have a civil union. Would this not be a better choice, to make everyone happy?

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong.

Assuming you believe in God and accept His right to rule you on moral questions, "morally," "ethically," and "religiously" are all redundant.

Nothing is "biologically" wrong, since biology on its own is not capable of evaluating the "wrongness" of anything.

It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles.

Oh, really?

1. Its a sin,

According to whom?

2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace.

So was racial equality, once.

3. It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays.

Gays are capable of breeding, you know. And straight parents give birth to gay children all the time.

4. The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that.

Who knows what they are "meant for"? Who "meant" them for anything?

5. The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.

Whose definition? Yours?

U should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" Y this normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to b a sin, and thus u must hate the sinner, who has choosen sin.

How is it any more choosing sin than any other sin? Are you a Christian?

And if u say something about, how i don't know anything about gays and blah blah. I have a several schoolmates who r gay, and even my own cousin has said he is gay, and i feel the same way towards all of them.

So you're consistently bigoted. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

And i believe they shouldn't b given the rite to b married, have public displays of affection, or any special days, protests, movements, marchers etc... or any gay movement for that matter.

You're against free speech?

No duh its hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what level of religion, or atheist u r.

Explain to me how homosexuality is immoral without reference to religion.

It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin,

Isn't "sin" a religious concept?

and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.

Except gays aren't harming anyone.

Ok as it seems that u r indeed gay, and im late in this argument i will post what may seem random but hey ill do it anyway.

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong. It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles. 1. Its a sin, 2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace. 3. It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays. 4. The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that. 5. The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.
U should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" Y this normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to b a sin, and thus u must hate the sinner, who has choosen sin.

So many people, so few with brain cells. You need to say put in front of the start of this post that this is your opinion. I don't believe I am addressing a person who a.) Is too lazy to type a complete word and b.) lacks any ability in the forensics of debate.

I will address your numbered points, genius.

1. By your intepretation of the bible, it's a sin. Yours is not the only interpretation, oddly enough.

2. Wrong again, it is seen as "wrong and immoral" by a plurality of Americans, and lately your plurality has been losing ground.

3. No it doesn't. Homosexuals of all species continue in each new generation by approximately the same numbers as before. If homosexuality was to be factored out by evolution, it would have done so by now.

4. So you are a "missionary only" guy? What if your girlfriend wants you to put your penis in a place where conception is not possible? Is it improper for a woman to suck your penis? Sorry, kiddo...your argument is tepid and weak.

5. No kiddo, ONE of the definitions of marriage is that. Fortunately a lot of other nations and the State of Massachusetts beg to differ with your definition.


And if u say something about, how i don't know anything about gays and blah blah. I have a several schoolmates who r gay, and even my own cousin has said he is gay, and i feel the same way towards all of them. And i believe they shouldn't b given the rite to b married, have public displays of affection, or any special days, protests, movements, marchers etc... or any gay movement for that matter.

Then you are an evil young man. To forsake your family is one of the greatest sins in the Bible. Luckily, we don't need your permission to do anything.

You have the perfect right to live your life as you see fit. I cannot respect the path you have chosen, but you may certainly do as you please, but I want you to recall all of this just before you die, because indeed if there is an eternal judge of mankind, your unChristian actions doom you to the very same hellfire you say I'm doomed to.

You judge and condemn, and that is NOT YOUR PLACE. It is God's place. Get thee behind me, Satan.


No duh its hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what level of religion, or atheist u r. It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.

You, young man, are not a true Christian. You have ignored the message of love of your savior, Jesus Christ and are bloody ignorant to boot.

You judge and condemn, and that is NOT YOUR PLACE. It is God's place. Get thee behind me, Satan.
That is about the coolest thing I've heard all day. Hey, check this!

http://dreamrevolution.org/emmaworks/images/lukebrown/NAMESTE_HOLO_U.gif

Ok, consider this in the same vein as the whole "was stalin necessary" thing. and from watching recent politics, it does seem that a significant portion of the American voting public do not see gays as human beings.
The Holocaust didn't even convince the people of places like the Middle East and the US South not to be anti-Semitic. What makes you think that a gay holocaust will dispell their homophobia?

Fass, trust me: the day will come when that will never occur again except from radical hate groups that no one ever truly pays any attention to and is indeed often a subject of derison. I don't know when. I don't know how. But trust me, Fass. This injustice WILL be corrected.
Venceremos!

Liasia']Republican party...
I think that Kyronea is getting at the fact that homophobia will one day be as unacceptable in the Republican party, and other mainstream groups, as racism and anti-Semitism now are.

The gay holocaust? Didn't that occur from 1 AD to 2006 AD?
What happened in 1AD?

You're talking out your ass.

We don't need them playing victim to get more ammo for special rights. Blacks have carried their victimhood too far and too long. Jews, well, some made good with the rest of their lives, others, like George Sorros, Madeline Albright, and the like, well, ... I won't say it. I'd "offend" too many people.
Soros and Albright have not made successful lives for themselves? I see you only think people have rights if they agree with your politics.

No, we don't need another Holocaust, the gays are already making good progress...Remember, the Senate recently voted against the anti-gay-marriage bill...
Why are people so Amerocentric about gay-related issues? Gays still face serious oppression all over the world.

Nobody's forcing you to read them or come here. So, if you don't like it, tough titties. Get over it, or get outta here.
To be fair, you complained when your first encounter with homophobia for today was found on this forum. Just think, if you had not logged onto NS today you would have a day without homophobia.

i don't think we need any holocausts.
Your common sense is making my little head explode.

Be gay, just don't act on it. Normal heterosexuals have to have sex to reproduce that's a big difference.
Most heterosexuals don't have sex with the aim of reproduction.

Being gay is not really something you chose, it's chosen for you by whatever traumatic instance took place in the formative years to confuse one's sexual orientation, not always sexual abuse, neglect and physical also play a factor. The choice I refered to was the having sex choice.
Most gay people have no traumatic past, and it's unreasonable to expect people to live unfulfilled lives just because of a hypothetical incident in their childhood.

Would you be totally fine with a long-term, celibate homosexual relationship?


My morals are based on religion, Homosexuality is the only thing in the bible refered to as an obomination, read it, it's there. If God doesn't like homosexuals then I don't either.
God loves all people. Our sins just make Him sad and angry. God hates hypocrisy and self-righteous judgement of others.

Prove they have not!
The burden of proof is on you.

All the ones that repent, he sends the others to hell.
So you're judging them before they have even repented? Only God may judge.

My bad for that, I just got off a 10hr shift. I meant onto the lord. You can abominate yourself all you want.
So god merely advised against eating eels, while he commanded that you should not lie with a man?

It's not that I'm homophobic that implies a fear, im not scared of homosexuals you guys are actually quite amusing.
I'm perfectly fine calling you a bigot.

Most gay people have no traumatic past, and it's unreasonable to expect people to live unfulfilled lives just because of a hypothetical incident in their childhood.
Most certainly; the principal trauma comes after one gets a sense of one's homosexuality, based on the invidious behavior of intolerant and fearful bigots who have the comfort of their own cowardice and an uncanny need for some authority to tell them what to think, how to live, and what is right and wrong -- the abdication of ethical choice.

I don't feel any compelling need to accept prejudicial intolerance. I'm fine with lashing out at ethical bankruptcy -- a solid punch to the nose might actually be helpful to these folk.

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong.

Please explain gay animals. If being gay is so wrong, why are animals gay. If being gay is biologically wrong, why are animals gay?

That is about the coolest thing I've heard all day. Hey, check this!

http://dreamrevolution.org/emmaworks/images/lukebrown/NAMESTE_HOLO_U.gif

I thank you, sir. I love your name, very cool :)

Oh and that link is pretty darn spiffy too!

Please explain gay animals. If being gay is so wrong, why are animals gay. If being gay is biologically wrong, why are animals gay?

i think animals fuck anything when they're in the mood (not personal experience or anything... :D ) so they might not be gays but just can't get it anywhere else?

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong. Both morally and religiously depend on the religion. You probably don't understand the concept of ethics, and just threw it in because you thought it sounded nice. Until you come up with an ethical reason for why homosexuality is wrong, it is not ethically wrong. Once you do, you have to philosophically prove why this specific ethical theory is better than most others. Biologically wrong... That is a very vague condemnation. It is also biologically wrong to remain seated for extended periods of time.
It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles. 1. Its a sin,"Sin" only applies to those that adhere to that specific interpretation of that specific religious text.
2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace. Where? Not in Germany, most likely not in the US. Iran, Saudi Arabia, maybe. Not that it really matters. If slavery or segregation were supported by a majority, would that make them any more right or any more wrong in any way?
3. It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays. There are more than enough human beings around. A lack of "breeding" is definitely not a threat. And there isn't really much to back up the idea that homosexuality is genetic. If it were, wouldn't such genetic material eventually become extinct?
4. The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that. Says who?
5. The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.Says who?
U should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" Y this normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to b a sin, and thus u must hate the sinner, who has choosen sin. I've got news for you. Almost all "sin" is directly influenced by choice. You're just attempting to find excuses to justify your own bigotry here.

"who have no clue just how hurtful, hateful and nasty the whole anti-gay movement is"
No duh its hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what level of religion, or atheist u r. It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.You missed the more important parts of the bible. I pity you.

Note : I'm going to try and clean their crap spelling and grammar up, sorry if it's still wrong in some way.

Being gay is morally, ethically, religiously, and biologically wrong.
Morally - your morals may differ.
Ethically - your ethics are not my ethics.
Religiously - a paper thin excuse for prejudice.
Biologically - there is homosexuality in all species of animals.
It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles.
Only two, actually. Up the arse and in the mouth. 2 is not many.
1.It's a sin
According to your religion, and the interpretation of the text of your religion given by your own religious minister, maybe.
2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace.
No, it's seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of socially conservative members of the populace. They're more prevalent in some areas than others.
3. It goes against evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays.
Well which is it? For or against evolution?

And the world is pretty full, so I'm all for gay rights. We need about 6 billion less people on the planet, gay people are helping in that manner. Cheers, gay people of the world, for sorting out the current population crisis of the world.
4. The bodies of the people interacting in a way which is not meant for them.
Sexual experimentation - fun and legal!

Men have holes, women have fingers and tongues. People are intelligent creatures who use what is to hand. So what's meant for people is not what they'll do.

If God didn't want gay people to exist, women wouldn't have tongues or fingers, and men wouldn't have any holes at all.

Men'd get food from sunlight, and would need never excrete anything. Women would eat out of troughs which men would make for them.
5. The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
In your culture maybe. Practices of marriage vary. In Saudi Arabia, for example, a man can have up to five wives (I think, it's between four and six).

In Holland, a man and another man or a woman and another woman can get married (IIRC).

Marriage rites vary from place to place. Your views are no more correct than those of the Saudi Arabians or the Dutch.
You should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" - This normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to be a sin, and thus you must hate the sinner, who has chosen sin.
That's wrong, because people are born either heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual, and must find out in due course what their sexual leaning is.

They cannot change this, it's a biological occurance, in which organisms are attracted to the sexual hormones of their own gender, those of the other gender, or partially to both.

So whereas you might not like homosexuality, the people involved can't be blamed for it.

Saying otherwise is very small minded.
And if you say something about how I don't know anything about gays and blah blah, I have a several schoolmates who are gay, and even my own cousin has said that he is gay, and I feel the same way towards all of them. And I believe they shouldn't be given the right to be married, have public displays of affection, or any special days, protests, movements, marchers etc...
That's very, very prejudiced. Not letting people have their rights is a terrible thing. As you are, presumably, a US citizen (I am a bit prejudiced, it might turn out that you're not, but from your talk of sin and immorality, I reckon you're a US citizen) then you should know that all rights are to be viewed importantly.

Homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals in anything they choose to do, because we're all human.
or any gay movement for that matter.
What, the dance called The Bump? That's the only gay movement I know of.
No, duh, it's hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what religious tradition you conform to, or even if you're an atheist.
Wrong again!

Atheists can think anything they want to think, other faiths can and do disagree with you, and there are even Christian movements which promote tolerance of gay rights.
It will be hateful because it is a movement made up of people who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't be tolerated, anymore then people who constantly break the law.
Your views of 'sin' are different to my views of what is right and wrong.

"Sin" also doesn't apply to atheists. At all.

And crimes are tolerated in different measures by society.

I see where you're coming from but I don't think a holocaust is the answer. Most people in this modern world are coming round to the fact that gay people have just as right to be happy as anyone else. Holocausts are bad, two wrongs don't make a right.

i think animals fuck anything when they're in the mood (not personal experience or anything... :D ) so they might not be gays but just can't get it anywhere else?
You'd be wrong in that assumption. Most animal species do not "fuck anything" when they are in the mood, because wasting energy on activities that do not enhance their fitness would result in their being less likely to be reproductively successful.

The reality is that homosexual activity INCREASES reproductive fitness in numerous species, including (but not limitted to): kangaroos, penguins, bottle-nose dolphins, mountain goats, numerous songbird species, and bonobo chimpanzees.

Ok as it seems that u r indeed gay, and im late in this argument i will post what may seem random but hey ill do it anyway.

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong. It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles. 1. Its a sin, 2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace. 3. It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays. 4. The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that. 5. The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.
U should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" Y this normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to b a sin, and thus u must hate the sinner, who has choosen sin.

And if u say something about, how i don't know anything about gays and blah blah. I have a several schoolmates who r gay, and even my own cousin has said he is gay, and i feel the same way towards all of them. And i believe they shouldn't b given the rite to b married, have public displays of affection, or any special days, protests, movements, marchers etc... or any gay movement for that matter.

"who have no clue just how hurtful, hateful and nasty the whole anti-gay movement is"
No duh its hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what level of religion, or atheist u r. It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.

Your first and second arguments are flawed because what has been defined as a sin (which is generally done by the populace) has changed over the centuries and this topic shows signs of changing as well. Slavery is in fact not a sin according to the bible, however none here (I would hope) would engage in slavery.

Your third argument is flawed because if it truly worked for evolution then it would have been wiped out by now, because as you correctly state if gays marry eachother then their traits would not be passed on, however if gay people keep recurring (from straight parents nonetheless) then it implies that nature keeps producing them by some *natural* process, but not by genes.

Your fourth and fifth argument are flawed because again, they are a matter of opinion. You may believe this, however in several years what you believe may be considered to be intolerant.

You then go on to make a hypoctritical statement; (in essence) You should not hate me for the sins I do, however for the sins that I will never do feel free to hate those sinners.

While you do know gays, do you actually know any of them? How much your intollerance hurt them? What it felt like to come out in that type of environment, people hating you just because of who you were? What if your religion became second class citizen all of the sudden. Would you then think that persecution of various groups because of a certain characteristic is wrong. In fact, persecution of a religon is kinder than this type of persecution because you can change your religion, however it is impossible to change your sexual orientation.

You agree that the anti gay movement is hateful? Then why dont we examine the definition of prejudice: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. Notice the hatred? is this not prejudice? If you say because being gay is a sin, then I ask you what if your religion said being black was a sin? Would you hate them too? Would you denounce black remembrance days?

Lastly I do not "live a life full of sin" my sexual orientation is only a small part of who I am, and just because of this one sin you hate me even though you have most definately commited sins of your own? Sounds irrational to me (see prejudice definition).

i think animals fuck anything when they're in the mood (not personal experience or anything... :D ) so they might not be gays but just can't get it anywhere else?

Actually in mice homosexuality has been observed as a response to overpopulation and overcrowding, so in fact being gay might be natures response to the dangerously-fast-growing human population.

Actually in mice homosexuality has been observed as a response to overpopulation and overcrowding,

As I understand it, it's not "homosexuality," so much as it is inappropriate mounting/receptive behaviors when the animals are in extremely high-stress conditions. This isn't homosexuality, it's animals who literally will mount anything and everything because they're totally spazzing out.


so in fact being gay might be natures response to the dangerously-fast-growing human population.
I don't believe there's any evidence to support this theory, but if you've got some I'd be happy to hear it.

As I understand it, it's not "homosexuality," so much as it is inappropriate mounting/receptive behaviors when the animals are in extremely high-stress conditions. This isn't homosexuality, it's animals who literally will mount anything and everything because they're totally spazzing out.

According to my bio teacher when mice are placed in spaces where the population is such that there is no space to support another baby, the (in normal conditions straight) males only engage in homosexuality.

I don't believe there's any evidence to support this theory, but if you've got some I'd be happy to hear it.

No, just me surmising. :)

According to my bio teacher when mice are placed in spaces where the population is such that there is no space to support another baby, the (in normal conditions straight) males only engage in homosexuality.

Your bio teacher needs to actually work with rodents before he tells you this stuff. Male mice who are under extreme stress will either fail to show any mating responses, or they will sometimes show indiscriminate mating behaviors in which they mount other males, receptive females, non-receptive females, and inanimate objects. You can't take a "heterosexual" male mouse, stick him in an over-crowded co-ed cage, and get him to "turn gay."


No, just me surmising. :)
I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of how biological selection works. The kind of reproductive altruism you are describing is simply not found in nature, anywhere, except possibly in human beings who use our delightful frontal cortex to over-rule some of our "biological programming". Organisms do not alter their mating behavior based on what will be best on a species level; rather, behaviors are selected for based on how well they benefit the individual animal.

You'd be wrong in that assumption. Most animal species do not "fuck anything" when they are in the mood, because wasting energy on activities that do not enhance their fitness would result in their being less likely to be reproductively successful.

The reality is that homosexual activity INCREASES reproductive fitness in numerous species, including (but not limitted to): kangaroos, penguins, bottle-nose dolphins, mountain goats, numerous songbird species, and bonobo chimpanzees.

yeah right

Actually in mice homosexuality has been observed as a response to overpopulation and overcrowding, so in fact being gay might be natures response to the dangerously-fast-growing human population.

mice are gay because of the fast growing human population? :eek:

yeah right
Is that a, "Yes, you are correct" or a "Yeah, right, you're totally full of it"?

Is that a, "Yes, you are correct" or a "Yeah, right, you're totally full of it"?

errrrr... the first one

I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of how biological selection works. The kind of reproductive altruism you are describing is simply not found in nature, anywhere, except possibly in human beings who use our delightful frontal cortex to over-rule some of our "biological programming". Organisms do not alter their mating behavior based on what will be best on a species level; rather, behaviors are selected for based on how well they benefit the individual animal.

However, biological selection is not the only thing that can affect offspring. Other environmental factors (such as population/lack of food due to overcrowding) can cause modifications in the offspring and/or mating frequency.

Is that a, "Yes, you are correct" or a "Yeah, right, you're totally full of it"?

I don't think he would have replied to your post if he didn't mean the second meaning.

However, biological selection is not the only thing that can affect offspring. Other environmental factors (such as population/lack of food due to overcrowding) can cause modifications in the offspring and/or mating frequency.
The factors you are describing are all a part of biological selection.

I don't think he would have replied to your post if he didn't mean the second meaning.
Meh, he said it was the first. I'll take his word for it.

In 1211, pope Innocent III issued that all homosexuals be burned at the stake.
Until the 18th century, men have suffered this fate. Does this constitute a holocaust to you?

In 1211, pope Innocent III issued that all homosexuals be burned at the stake.
Until the 18th century, men have suffered this fate. Does this constitute a holocaust to you?
Meh. For thousands of years, women have been murdered for uncovering their faces, for speaking in public, for daring to suggest that they are actual human beings. Hating on fags is just a johnny-come-lately form of bigotry.

Meh. For thousands of years, women have been murdered for uncovering their faces, for speaking in public, for daring to suggest that they are actual human beings. Hating on fags is just a johnny-come-lately form of bigotry.

how can you say that?

how can you say that?
Like this:

"Meh. For thousands of years, women have been murdered for uncovering their faces, for speaking in public, for daring to suggest that they are actual human beings. Hating on fags is just a johnny-come-lately form of bigotry."

I tend to say it with a really pretentious attempt at a British accent.

I tend to say it with a really pretentious attempt at a British accent.

Why?

Why does it seem that the majority of the anti-gay/lesbian bigotry on here gets expressed by illiterates? Seriously, if you're going to participate in a written forum, you should at least use some kind of grammar- and spell-checker, if you aren't equipped to proofread for yourself. An occasional typo or a missing bit of punctuation is one thing, but by submitting posts wherein you can't demonstrate a basic grasp of language, you only make yourself look stupid (or stupider, as the case may be). It might sound like snobbery, but at some point "u gayz r immaral" stops being a mere coincidence and becomes telling-- of a lack of education, or an more severe inability to learn. Maybe you have some kind of cognitive retardation.

Ok as it seems that u r indeed gay, and im late in this argument i will post what may seem random but hey ill do it anyway.

Being gay is morally, eithically, religoulsy, and biologically wrong. It is easy to attack such a abonomation from many angles. 1. Its a sin, 2. Its seen as wrong and immoral by the majority of the populace. 3. It goes against Evolution, or for it, by breeding out the gays. 4. The bodies of the people interacting in such a way r not ment for that. 5. The definition of marraige is a union between a man and a woman.
U should take it personally. "Hate the sin not the sinner" Y this normally applies for the majority of sins however, being gay, is choosing to b a sin, and thus u must hate the sinner, who has choosen sin.

And if u say something about, how i don't know anything about gays and blah blah. I have a several schoolmates who r gay, and even my own cousin has said he is gay, and i feel the same way towards all of them. And i believe they shouldn't b given the rite to b married, have public displays of affection, or any special days, protests, movements, marchers etc... or any gay movement for that matter.

"who have no clue just how hurtful, hateful and nasty the whole anti-gay movement is"
No duh its hurtful, hateful, and nasty. Homosexuality is an abomination, no matter what level of religion, or atheist u r. It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.

Why does it seem that the majority of the anti-gay/lesbian bigotry on here gets expressed by illiterates?

Have you ever noticed that a lot of literature is either written by homosexuals, or is about homosexuals, or contains references to people who are homosexual? Well, it's a widely-believed fact that reading about homosexuals (or being forced to acknowledge they exist in any way) will turn you gay. Hence, people who are really serious about retaining their heterosexuality must avoid reading, lest their hetero eyeballs graze across a series of words that involve Teh Gayz.


Seriously, if you're going to participate in a written forum, you should at least use some kind of grammar- and spell-checker, if you aren't equipped to proofread for yourself. An occasional typo or a missing bit of punctuation is one thing, but by submitting posts wherein you can't demonstrate a basic grasp of language, you only make yourself look stupid (or stupider, as the case may be).

Just throwing this thought out there, but I'm guessing that people who feel confident making assertions like "being gay goes against evolution" aren't really worried about looking stupid. In fact, they appear to be going out of their way to appear as stupid as humanly possible. Maybe because book-learning is gay, and they don't want anybody thinking they're a fag.


It might sound like snobbery, but at some point "u gayz r immaral" stops being a mere coincidence and becomes telling-- of a lack of education, or an more severe inability to learn. Maybe you have some kind of cognitive retardation.
Haven't you heard? Education is the enemy of Truth. If people learn things, they may begin to question Truths (like that women are inferior to men, black people commit most crimes, gay people are diseased and promiscuous, etc). Learning is only for elitest liberals who want to force us all to join in their gay orgies and baby-killing parties.

Please tell me that after 26 pages, someone has pointed out that gays were in fact targets of the Holocaust as well...

Please tell me that after 26 pages, someone has pointed out that gays were in fact targets of the Holocaust as well...
Yes, in fact on the very first page, IIRC.

Yes, in fact on the very first page, IIRC.
Excellent. It didn't seem to have much of a forestalling impact unfortunately.

Excellent. It didn't seem to have much of a forestalling impact unfortunately.
Nope. Then again, it was not all too clearly phrased: Liasia"] No, because gay people hold positions of power. Besides, other countries have adapted to the whole gay thing much better than the USA. The idea of 'needing' a holocaust for any reason is still a bit silly, especailly beings as there already was one under the Nazis.

But eh, who am I kidding? Wouldn't have made an iota of difference either way.

do we realy need an other holocaust?l
i guess if it is gay,then why not?
man i like to kill those threads:gundge:


gimme more.

DO WE NEED ANOTHER HELL NO YOU GOT TO BE SICK TO START ANOTHER WE DONT ANOTHER DIP**** HITLER THE GERMAN BA*****:mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mad:

DO WE NEED ANOTHER HELL NO YOU GOT TO BE SICK TO START ANOTHER WE DONT ANOTHER DIP**** HITLER THE GERMAN BA*****:mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mad:

Who's turn is it to be sick anyway?

For some reason, killing and imprisoning millions of innocent people in gruesome and methodical fashion just doesn't seem to be the right way to achieve gay equality...I think the cure is a thousand times worse than the disease.

Homosexuals were part of the WW2 Holocaust already. Gays had to endure societal bullshit throughout the centuries (imprisonment, discrimination, death sentence, etc)... you can say thats as worse as a holocaust.

DO WE NEED ANOTHER HELL NO YOU GOT TO BE SICK TO START ANOTHER WE DONT ANOTHER DIP**** HITLER THE GERMAN BA*****:mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mad:

Wasn't Hitler Austrian?

45 revolutions, playing on your stereo
Not one revolution on the street
Final solutions, as many as you want
Not one solution on the street ~ The Blitz.

We don't need no Holocausts. We don't need no Lebensraum. What we need, is mutual respect for eachother's right to live free from fear & oppression.

The very idea of this topic sickens me. What will you do, when the evil little deviants aren't allowed to live in peace after your first little 'cleansing'?

What about the poor & the handicapped & all the other marginalised, oppressed & abused peoples in our societies?

For some reason, killing and imprisoning millions of innocent people in gruesome and methodical fashion just doesn't seem to be the right way to achieve gay equality...I think the cure is a thousand times worse than the disease.
Yeah, it would be like nuking your city in order exterminate the rats in your basement.

For some reason, killing and imprisoning millions of innocent people in gruesome and methodical fashion just doesn't seem to be the right way to achieve gay equality...I think the cure is a thousand times worse than the disease.
As I understand it, the question was not, "Would it be a good idea to have a holocaust that specifically targets gays?" I think the question was, "Will it take a holocaust targetted at gays to get people to give a shit about what is being done to homosexuals?"

As I understand it, the question was not, "Would it be a good idea to have a holocaust that specifically targets gays?" I think the question was, "Will it take a holocaust targetted at gays to get people to give a shit about what is being done to homosexuals?"

Meanwhile, some of us prefer to dwell on other questions...
"When the fundies try it, will we be suitably prepared to repel their polgroms and kill their death-squads?"
"How many of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters will be willing to take up arms to protect themselves and each other from being murdered, and will they mobilise quickly enough or will they get caught unprepared? Will I?"
"What kind of ammo would I need to penetrate typical kevlar armour, where would I get it, and what would it cost?"
"Will my right-leaning boyfriend have come around by then and sorted out his priorities, or will I have to shoot him as a potential traitor and threat to the survival of my resistence cell?" (self-loathing heterosexist sympathisers, beware-- they'd still line you up against the wall if you had no valuable intel to offer them, and some of us would smoke you ourselves in the interests of our own survival.)
"Where's a good place to set up a safehouse, and what would that cost?"
"How many gestapo pig bastards will I be called on to eliminate? Would I hesitate to take lives in self-defense?"
"In the course of repelling an enemy with superior resources, bent on my extermination, will I have to resort to targeting non-military assets, and if so can it be justified?"
"When they come for us, should we flock to-- and subsequently fortify-- the big cities' gay 'ghettos' and seek strength in numbers, or would they go so far as to drop bombs in the hearts of their own cities if we were that concentrated in one place?"
"What would be the pecking order for assassinating facists? Do you cut off the military or the governmental head of the dragon first?"

:sniper:

So many questions just begging for consideration :P We really ought to at least have some conjectural answers prepared in case it all hits the fan and they actually do come right out in the open with their hatred and start rounding us up to be shipped off to death camps. And don't for one moment place it beyond the realm of possibility, because there are whackjobs in these very forums who prove that such irrational, relentless hatred exists and would happily deprive us of our freedom, our rights, and our very lives if they could. The Jews didn't think it could happen to them in the 30's-- many didn't even believe it after it had begun, they couldn't accept that anyone could actually go through with perpetrating such an atrocity. Don't ever put it beyond people! There are sick, deranged, blood-thirsty mobs out there just waiting, and you owe it to them to have a round chambered when they come to break in your door. If they do come, we should be ready to make them pay for the evil that they would do, and pay dearly. Don't think that pacifism will save your life, because if they hate you they'll kill you whether you put up a fight or not.

"What kind of ammo would I need to penetrate typical kevlar armour, where would I get it, and what would it cost?"

The military doesn't wear kevlar armor anymore - that's so 1990s. They wear IBA, or Interceptor Body Armor, which includes special inserts that are proof against rifle fire.

There isn't anything you could buy and carry around that will penetrate the armor.

It will b hateful because its ppl who choose to live a life full of sin, and that can't b tolerated, anymore then ppl who constantly break the law.

Its pretty idiotic to put feeling love/attraction for a member of the same sex next to murder...Is it just me?

Its pretty idiotic to put feeling love/attraction for a member of the same sex next to murder...Is it just me?
Love = murder. Sex = killing. Makes perfect sense.

The military doesn't wear kevlar armor anymore - that's so 1990s. They wear IBA, or Interceptor Body Armor, which includes special inserts that are proof against rifle fire.

There isn't anything you could buy and carry around that will penetrate the armor.

Damnation! What about fire? Are they fireproof? I imagine you could still stop a bulletproof stormtrooper by setting him on fire. And I scarcely know a gay man who doesn't own hairspray and a lighter :D {giggles} And the irony of turning those who would harm gay people into 'flamers'... I love it ;)

I also love the idea of the POW camps we could run, capturing some of those rugged young-ish military type guys... and since gay people don't constitute a nation or country as yet, we could be like "oh, the Geneva Convention? I thought that only applied to countries at war?" Rectum? Damn near KILLED 'em! muahaha!

Gay Street Militia>> Haha, sounds like someone has listened to Homomilitia a *little* too long ;)

Great sentiment though, the fresh queer jihad is right around the corner!

Damnation! What about fire? Are they fireproof? I imagine you could still stop a bulletproof stormtrooper by setting him on fire. And I scarcely know a gay man who doesn't own hairspray and a lighter :D {giggles} And the irony of turning those who would harm gay people into 'flamers'... I love it ;)

I KNEW IT! I knew nobody could possibly have a benign use for that much hairspray!!!! It's a plot, I tells ya, a plot to take over the world! And all those soothing earth-tones they use to decorate with are really a part of their camouflage strategy to conceal their sinister Gay Headquarters!