NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/20/bill-mahers-touching-tribute-to-jerry-falwell/

Hmm, he's on to something! Religionists like to accuse us homosexualists of wanting special rights, and seeing as religious people are so successful at getting special rights for themselves, perhaps it's time we beat them at their own game? Heaven knows we've beaten them at everything else...

Note: This thread is not about Jerry Falwell, so please keep that rotting douche outside of this.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/20/bill-mahers-touching-tribute-to-jerry-falwell/

Hmm, he's on to something! Religionists like to accuse us homosexualists of wanting special rights, and seeing as religious people are so successful at getting special rights for themselves, perhaps it's time we beat them at their own game? Heaven knows we've beaten them at everything else...

Note: This thread is not about Jerry Falwell, so please keep that rotting douche outside of this.

This is why agnosticism is the best policy.
You tend to be more willing to grant everyone rights.

You want a Church of Gay?

Dare I ask what you plan to worship?

You want a Church of Gay?

Dare I ask what you plan to worship?

Considering most churches are phallic symbols anyway... ;)

Religionists

Why the hell is everyone using that word? Is it even a word? Why can't peolpe just say religious people, or 'the religious'? Religionists sounds retarded.

This is why agnosticism is the best policy.
You tend to be more willing to grant everyone rights.

No, you just tend more out of meekness to cower from thinking your stances to their conclusion.

You want a Church of Gay?

Dare I ask what you plan to worship?Do you really need to ask??

http://cellar.org/2006/kana1.jpg

Why the hell is everyone using that word? Is it even a word? Why can't peolpe just say religious people, or 'the religious'? Religionists sounds retarded.Well, it fits what it designates then...

No, you just tend more out of meekness to cower from thinking your stances to their conclusion.

Agnosticism is a conclusion (the only one along with implicit atheism that doesn't create any sort of logical fallacy).

Why the hell is everyone using that word? Is it even a word? Why can't peolpe just say religious people, or 'the religious'? Religionists sounds retarded.

Of course it's a word. I just used it as one. That makes it a word. And FYI "religionist" gives away their political nature.

Of course it's a word. I just used it as one. That makes it a word. And FYI "religionist" gives away their political nature.

So it only applies to people who try to bring religion into politics or politics into religion?

Agnosticism is a conclusion (the only one along with implicit atheism that doesn't create any sort of logical fallasy).

Fallacy, sweety, but take your irrelevance elsewhere, please. This is not a thread about the intellectual wishy-washiness of agnosticism, but about the Church of Faggotry.

Why the hell is everyone using that word? Is it even a word? Why can't peolpe just say religious people, or 'the religious'? Religionists sounds retarded.

Well, If MW has it, then it must exist!! (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionist)

Of course it's a word. I just used it as one. That makes it a word. And FYI "religionist" gives away their political nature.

In what way?

Well, If MW has it, then it must exist!! (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionist)

Ok. Still doesn't sound right.

So it only applies to people who try to bring religion into politics or politics into religion?

That's one of the uses, but I also tend to use it for general proselytisers and zealots.

Fallacy, sweety

fixed

but take your irrelevance elsewhere, please.

fine

Considering most churches are phallic symbols anyway... ;)

Zing

Hmm. Though I'm not a supporter of religion (and I don't see why you'd want to join any religion Fass, though it is the Church of Gay)....

It's not about joining a religion. It's about starting one and co-opting the special rights that religions get. It worked for the Mormons...

Feh. Not much I can say about Gaytheism is there? :p

Commandment one: One mouth full is worth more than a thousand yapping, though not lapping.

Fallacy, sweety, but take your irrelevance elsewhere, please. This is not a thread about the intellectual wishy-washiness of agnosticism, but about the Church of Faggotry.

That's a phallusy!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Carry on.

No, you just tend more out of meekness to cower from thinking your stances to their conclusion.

Tell me, do you thrive on insulting all and sundry?

First, you accuse me of homophobia whilst on the Doctor Who thread, despite my deep-seated respect for you and the fact that I have no problem with homosexuals anyway.
Now you're accusing me of meekness and, in a way, a lack of intelligence.
I have seen you insulting Neesika on the 'Avatars' thread.
You have often insulted other people as well.

All I can ask is 'why?'.

And how can a stance of uncertainty not be considered a conclusion?
Please explain, because I certainly do not understand.

Not much I can say about Gaytheism is there? :p

but about the Church of Faggotry.

Hmmmm.

Gaytheism
Church of Faggotry.

Any more submissions?

Phalluslam? (although this would only cover the boys)

You want a Church of Gay?

It's the ultimate scheme our agendas have thus far lacked.

Dare I ask what you plan to worship?

The potency of man, and I suppose if the lesbians wanted in they could worship the slickness of women.

..

Phalluslam? (although this would only cover the boys)And? For gay boys gay girls don't exist anyways.

And how can a stance of uncertainty not be considered a conclusion?
Please explain, because I certainly do not understand.

start another thread so we can se Fass' stance on this.

That was a funny video. :p

Hmm, if that's what it takes for gays to have rights... Though I'm totally against religionists having special rights just becasue they are religious... but I'm totally for gays having rights, though not *special* rights....

Feh. Have fun with Gaytheism, I suppose...?

start another thread so we can se Fass' stance on this.

He'd likely flame it into oblivion.
Although since 'oblivion' is the state if being forgotten (or an extremely good theme park ride; your choice :)) that may not be appropriate.

Can't we just leave each other alone, and share the love...the gay love? Its still love right...everybody go ahead...and make love to whomever you find attractive

Your Gay god has spoken!...can I get an Amen Fassigen?

god...what would the Holy Wars be like?

And? For gay boys gay girls don't exist anyways.

hehe

Perhaps the girls could have Breastianity.

So where does this leave straight atheists?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/20/bill-mahers-touching-tribute-to-jerry-falwell/

Hmm, he's on to something! Religionists like to accuse us homosexualists of wanting special rights, and seeing as religious people are so successful at getting special rights for themselves, perhaps it's time we beat them at their own game? Heaven knows we've beaten them at everything else...

Note: This thread is not about Jerry Falwell, so please keep that rotting douche outside of this.

Homosexuals DO want, if not a whole bunch of special rights, then at least they want it outlawed for their "lifestyle" to be spoken of negatively or critically. They want the First Amendment (hereinafter "1A")curtailed to make an exception that "gays" and "lesbians" cannot be told that their lifestyle is a sin; they want to criminalize that.

We religious people, however, only want to preserve our 1A rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, AND THAT INCLUDES DISAPPROVING OF THE "GAY" LIFESTYLE AND TELLING "GAYS" AND "LESBIANS" THAT SUCH A LIFESTYLE IS A SIN.

Talking about gaydom and religion: 1 Samuel 20:35-42 ... veeery gay

So where does this leave straight atheists?

http://www.subgenius.com/

??

Hmmmm.

Gaytheism
Church of Faggotry.

Any more submissions?

Phalluslam? (although this would only cover the boys)

Church of Gay? (though this isn't my idea.).

I do like Gaytheism though. :D (okay, it was my idea... but still... you have to admit it's a good one :))

He'd likely flame it into oblivion.


Even if he does, does it really matter?

All I can ask is 'why?'.
He likes being a dick to people over the Internet, surely you've noticed?

There is a pun in here about the line "Go forth and be fruitful" and its relevance to Gaytheism, but somehow I just don't feel it tonight.

And? For gay boys gay girls don't exist anyways.

Commandment 2: Thou shalt not sleep with womankind as with mankind. Thou shalt only sleep with thine own genderkind, whilst respecting the other kind for what they bring to the holy sacrament of in vitro.

Even if he does, does it really matter?

Well, I don't want a thread with my name on it locked, nor do I really wish to have to endure his endless and yet strangely unjustified and content-devoid rants.
As I said, I once respected him. Quoth the teenager, "Nevermore."

Well, I don't want a thread with my name on it locked, nor do I really wish to have to endure his endless and yet strangely unjustified and content-devoid rants.
As I said, I once respected him. Quoth the teenager, "Nevermore."

Well i'm too lazy to start a thread.

:eek:Jesus was gay it all makes sense! (I think the 13 men who lived with him combined with the sandals are a big giveaway:p)

Well i'm too lazy to start a thread.

*grumbles*

Very well.

Commandment 2: Thou shalt not sleep with womankind as with mankind. Thou shalt only sleep with thine own genderkind, whilst respecting the other kind for what they bring to the holy sacrament of in vitro.What are you talking about? The gay men I know can only understand or even like straight women (since they like men too, and are still possible aims for reproduction), but they see lesbians basically as a waste of oxygen.

So where does this leave straight atheists?

We'd like to be inclusive and tolerant, but that's not what religions are, you see. So, I'm afraid unless they repent and learn to polish the sceptre of the Gaytheist Pope, blessed be his holy rectory, they'll just have to reconcile themselves with their fate of being reincarnated as a fag pet.

We'd like to be inclusive and tolerant, but that's not what religions are, you see. So, I'm afraid unless they repent and learn to polish the sceptre of the Gaytheist Pope, blessed be his holy rectory, they'll just have to reconcile themselves with their fate of being reincarnated as a fag pet.

In response to your first point: Buddhism?

Quoth the teenager, "Nevermore."

:confused:

What are you talking about? The gay men I know can only understand or even like straight women (since they like men too, and are still possible aims for reproduction), but they see lesbians basically as a waste of oxygen.

I never said this religion would be easy! We all have to make sacrifices, and one of those will for gay men just have to be having to face bad haircuts and a whole bunch of flannel for the greater good of gaykind.

We'd like to be inclusive and tolerant, but that's not what religions are, you see. So, I'm afraid unless they repent and learn to polish the sceptre of the Gaytheist Pope, blessed be his holy rectory, they'll just have to reconcile themselves with their fate of being reincarnated as a fag pet.I guess you really have to make two separate religions.One for the gay men. And one for the gay women. They can worship this Rosie woman then...

What are you talking about? The gay men I know can only understand or even like straight women (since they like men too, and are still possible aims for reproduction), but they see lesbians basically as a waste of oxygen.

but i like lesbians! im not one, but theyr so nice!

but i like lesbians! im not one, but theyr so nice!

get out now kid, get another hobby before you get addicted to this place and find yourself in the same argument you had a week ago with six diffirent people...

:confused:

Please tell me you get the reference...
It's official. Educational standards have been lowered massively recently.

It's a reference to 'The Raven'.

get out now kid, get another hobby before you get addicted to this place and find yourself in the same argument you had a week ago with six diffirent people...

wat nationstates? too late :headbang:

Please tell me you get the reference...
It's official. Educational standards have been lowered massively recently.

It's a reference to 'The Raven'.

Oh I got the reference! One has to be an idiot NOT to get it... :eek:

But "quoth the teenager"?

In response to your first point: Buddhism?

http://svt.se/content/1/c6/52/39/11/safran_3.ram

Oh I got the reference! One has to be an idiot NOT to get it... :eek:

But "quoth the teenager"?

I'm a teenager. Fifteen years and five months old, to be reasonably precise (if you want to know if that's accurate, I'll leave it up to you to find my birth record).
The point of that was to basically state that never again will I respect Fassigen. Recently I feel that his behaviour has 'gone to the bad', as you might say.

http://svt.se/content/1/c6/52/39/11/safran_3.ram

It had to be a RealPlayer file format, didn't it?
I don't have it installed; nor do I wish to install it.

I don't suppose there's another format?

I'm a teenager. Fifteen years and five months old, to be reasonably precise (if you want to know if that's accurate, I'll leave it up to you to find my birth record).
The point of that was to basically state that never again will I respect Fassigen. Recently I feel that his behaviour has 'gone to the bad', as you might say.

Ohhh....

For some reson I though you were much older. Sorry. :fluffle:

I guess you really have to make two separate religions.One for the gay men. And one for the gay women. They can worship this Rosie woman then...

No, no. There will be a Gaytheist Pope and a Gaytheist Abbess. They shall be figure heads for the PR machinery to use in propaganda leaflets.

Ohhh....

For some reson I though you were much older. Sorry. :fluffle:

*wonders why*
Well... Thank you for the fluffle.
And I suppose thanks for what could be considered a compliment, or possibly an insult depending on the value of the 'much'...

:fluffle: right back at you.

It had to be a RealPlayer file format, didn't it?
I don't have it installed; nor do I wish to install it.

I don't suppose there's another format?

Its a video clip about Buddhism's stance on homosexuality as unnatural

Its a video clip about Buddhism's stance on homosexuality as unnatural

don't forget masturbation!

don't forget masturbation!

...that too...thank you for your oversight :D

It had to be a RealPlayer file format, didn't it?
I don't have it installed; nor do I wish to install it.

I don't suppose there's another format?

http://svt.se/content/1/c6/52/39/11/safran_3.asx

That's windows media. You might have to copy and paste it into the "Open Url" field of WMP for it to work if it doesn't work when you click it.

Its a video clip about Buddhism's stance on homosexuality as unnatural and immoral

Ah.
Thank you.

To be honest, I assumed it was going to be some sort of video clip claiming that Buddhism was a violent religion based upon historical records of things such as the sengoku jidai as opposed to today.

And though I still haven't been able to watch the video, I thought that this may be of interest:
The third of the five precepts refers to sexual behaviour. In the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, with which I am most familiar, the third precept is perhaps more precisely rendered as "I undertake the rule of training not to go the wrong way for sexual pleasure". What then would constitute "going the wrong way" and would this include homosexual acts? To determine this, we need to consider the criteria which Buddhists are advised to use in making ethical judgements. From the Buddha's discourses, there can be discerned three bases on which we can make judgements about our behaviour:-

* we should consider the consequences of our actions, their effects on ourselves and others
* we should consider how we would feel if others did the same thing to us
* we should consider whether the behaviour is instrumental to our goal of Nirvana.



Using these criteria, Buddhist commentators have usually construed sexual misconduct to include rape, sexual harassment, molestation of children, and unfaithfulness to one's spouse. Clearly, these manifestations of sexual misconduct can apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual behaviour. The third precept is not a blanket prohibition, nor a simplistic depiction of some behaviours as wrong and other behaviours as right.

In fact, Buddhist ethics have been described as utilitarian, in that they are concerned less with "good" and "evil" and more with whether an action is "skilful", ie conducive to a good end in relation to the criteria mentioned above and whether it is motivated by good intentions (based upon generosity, love and understanding) 2.

The sayings of the Buddha, as recorded in the Pali Canon, do not I believe include any explicit reference to homosexuality or to homosexual acts. This has been taken to mean that the Buddha did not consider that one's sexual orientation was relevant to his message, which was how to escape from suffering and achieve enlightenment. If it was not important enough to mention, homosexuality could not have been considered a barrier to one's moral and spiritual development.

On the other hand, the Buddha's teachings in no way exhort us to a life of hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise. While the Buddha did not deny the existence of enjoyment in this world, he pointed out that all worldly pleasure is bound up with suffering, and enslavement to our cravings will keep us spinning in a vortex of disappointment and satiation. The Buddhist's objective is not to eliminate sensual pleasures but to see them as they are through the systematic practice of mindfulness.

One feature of Buddhism which may interest gays and lesbians is that the teachings place no particular value on procreation. Marriage and the raising of children are seen as positive but are by no means compulsory. On the contrary, celibacy is in most traditions considered to be a requirement for those seeking higher levels of development as Buddhists. Monks and nuns take vows of strict celibacy, and even pious lay people undertake to be celibate at certain times in order to pursue their mental and spiritual development. This means that from the religious perspective there is no stigma which is necessarily attached to being unmarried and childless, although there may of course be social and cultural pressures which override this.

http://svt.se/content/1/c6/52/39/11/safran_3.asx

That's windows media. You might have to copy and paste it into the "Open Url" field of WMP for it to work if it doesn't work when you click it.

Thank you.

I shall watch it with interest, I am sure.

*wonders why*
Well... Thank you for the fluffle.
And I suppose thanks for what could be considered a compliment, or possibly an insult depending on the value of the 'much'...

:fluffle: right back at you.

:fluffle:

I'm not sure it was meant to be a compliment or insult.... I just thought you were out of your teens. I'm not sure why... :/

But still, :fluffle:

The point of that was to basically state that never again will I respect Fassigen.

Woe is I, for I shall surely defenestrate myself at once. While you're holding your breath for that for as long as you'll have to, though, please start being on topic for the thread.

Not being a blind follower of any religion, I suppose I can go and participate in the weekly orgies, or teach the "Knowing Carnal Knowledge" classes at Monday School (It can't be Sunday School, because no self-respecting gay man or woman would be caught awake before noon on Sunday).

But I refuse to polish the Pope's Phallic Scepter...unless he's cute, and free of diseases...and has a sense of humour...

JC

Not being a blind follower of any religion, I suppose I can go and participate in the weekly orgies, or teach the "Knowing Carnal Knowledge" classes at Monday School (It can't be Sunday School, because no self-respecting gay man or woman would be caught awake before noon on Sunday).

Mondays are club nights, so that will work splendidly.

But I refuse to polish the Pope's Phallic Scepter...unless he's cute, and free of diseases...and has a sense of humour...

It will be a popularity contest, so all of those will follow. Not that you will have to polish his sceptre directly - you will be free to do so through his myriads of representatives available at a seminary near you.

But I refuse to polish the Pope's Phallic Scepter...unless he's cute, and free of diseases...and has a sense of humour...

JC

Oh he's all of those things, and he likes long walks on the beach, quiet nights at home with a bottle of merlot, and enjoys U2 concerts.

Woe is I, for I shall surely defenestrate myself at once. While you're holding your breath for that for as long as you'll have to, though, please start being on topic for the thread.

I counted perhaps 23 posts on this thread which were on topic, out of 66 as of the time that I checked.
Slightly over a third.

Not very good for on-topicness, is it?

And regarding that video: my word. You're judging an entire religion upon one person.
That person is admittedly its leader, and yet most of the Buddhists whom I know have no more problem with homosexuals than with plants. They live by the Buddha's precepts.
And did you read my quotation in a post a few posts back?

Oh he's all of those things, and he likes long walks on the beach, quiet nights at home with a bottle of merlot, and enjoys U2 concerts.

U2? More like 2 Unlimited (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UGwFUqNWG5s)... ;)

U2? More like 2 Unlimited (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UGwFUqNWG5s)... ;)

or them...:)

Not very good for on-topicness, is it?

You are one of those at fault for that, which is why I am telling you to get back on topic or leave.

U2? More like 2 Unlimited (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UGwFUqNWG5s)... ;)

Ahh, no more of that cheesy european techno crap!

You are one of those at fault for that, which is why I am telling you to get back on topic or leave.

I am not the only one, and yet I am the only one being told to get back on-topic.
I hereby declare you to be Ilaerphobic. Back, nasty Ilaerphobe. Back.

Just three things, Fassigen.

The first is that you have no authority over me. The moderators do, and that's about it as far as I'm concerned. I shall likely leave this thread entirely out of a desire to not be drawn into a flamewar, but nonetheless: you have no authority over me. Do not act as though you do. It makes you look decidedly arrogant.

The second is a question. What exactly is there to be on-topic about?
From your own posts and others which are on-topic, it appears to me to be nothing more than a kind of spam.

The third is a bit of advice. If you wish people to respect you and view you well enough to do as you say, try being nicer to them rather than being so unpleasant.

Good day to you.

Ahh, no more of that cheesy european techno crap!

the child inside me is calling out "confess your love for Anita Doth or die!"

Phallusy, sweety, but take your irrelevance elsewhere, please. This is not a thread about the intellectual wishy-washiness of agnosticism, but about the Church of Faggotry.

Fixed!

:p


EDIT: Fuck, Tsairene (Or however it's spelled) beat me to it.

SNIP

You sir, FAIL.

I shall likely leave this thread

Thank you.

If you wish people to respect you and view you well

I don't give a fuck. So, toodles.

EDIT: Fuck, Tsairene (Or however it's spelled) beat me to it.

Everyone beat you to it.

the child inside me is calling out "confess your love for Anita Doth or die!"

Anita Doth can be exchanged for Melanie Thornton of La Bouche (http://youtube.com/watch?v=U49g23F8zIw).

Oh, the memories of fourth grade class parties and longing for Anders, my cute desk mate... *sigh*

Bill Maher is the man.

You want a Church of Gay?

Dare I ask what you plan to worship?

hmm....there's a Church of Scientology, why not a Church of Gay?

hmm....there's a Church of Scientology, why not a Church of Gay?

Will you guys believe aliens created the world too?

Anita Doth can be exchanged for Melanie Thornton of La Bouche (http://youtube.com/watch?v=U49g23F8zIw).

should I be worried I didn't even need to click that link :eek:

*snip* Good day to you.

What is this, the end of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory?

Fass, just give him the everlasting Gobbstopper.

Just not like what you're thinking. :p

Fass, just give him the everlasting Gobbstopper.


Ilaer is a girl, IIRC, so that would be blasphemy.

Fallacy, sweety, but take your irrelevance elsewhere, please. This is not a thread about the intellectual wishy-washiness of agnosticism, but about the Church of Faggotry.

Read: Let me attack agnosticism, but don't you dare defend it.

should I be worried I didn't even need to click that link :eek:

Haha, it's comforting that I was not the only one damaged by the early 90s. :)

I swore that I wouldn't post on this thread again but, for the record, I'm male.

I swore that I wouldn't post on this thread again but, for the record, I'm male.

Your postings have a feminine air to them, so I just assumed.

Your postings have a feminine air to them, so I just assumed.

If you meant that as a compliment, then I thank you.
If you didn't then I thank you anyway.

I have always believed that I would have been better born as a female; I do not wish for a sex change, though.

If you meant that as a compliment, then I thank you.
If you didn't then I thank you anyway.

Why would I mean it as a compliment or as a disparagement? I don't view femininity as either positive or negative. It just is.

I have always believed that I would have been better born as a female; I do not wish for a sex change, though.

Perhaps you're genderqueer.

Why would I mean it as a compliment or as a disparagement? I don't view femininity as either positive or negative. It just is.



Perhaps you're genderqueer.

If you didn't mean it as a compliment then it does not by necessity follow that it was a disparagement, although I'll admit that I was ambiguous with that post.
What does 'genderqueer' mean?

What does 'genderqueer' mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

I would say that that is a good description of me in many particulars.
I thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer

That seems to be the product of a rather abstracted society. That being biologically a male or female is not enough to establish one's gender speaks poorly of us.

Tell me, do you thrive on insulting all and sundry?

First, you accuse me of homophobia whilst on the Doctor Who thread, despite my deep-seated respect for you and the fact that I have no problem with homosexuals anyway.
Now you're accusing me of meekness and, in a way, a lack of intelligence.
I have seen you insulting Neesika on the 'Avatars' thread.
You have often insulted other people as well.

All I can ask is 'why?'.

And how can a stance of uncertainty not be considered a conclusion?
Please explain, because I certainly do not understand.

Don't feed trolls, it just makes them come back for more.

Gaytheism wins word of the year.

I have seen you insulting Neesika on the 'Avatars' thread.
Then thou understandeth not what thou dost see with thine own hairy orbs...

Gaytheism wins word of the year.

I concur, very creative.

Gay people actually have their own country now near Australia called "Gay Kingdom" or something, I wish they would all go their instead of ruining other countries for everyone else with their attempts to get more rights.

Gay people actually have their own country now near Australia called "Gay Kingdom" or something, I wish they would all go their instead of ruining other countries for everyone else with their attempts to get more rights.

Don't be silly. Who'd stop at a couple of islands when one is well under way of having the world.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/20/bill-mahers-touching-tribute-to-jerry-falwell/

Hmm, he's on to something! Religionists like to accuse us homosexualists of wanting special rights, and seeing as religious people are so successful at getting special rights for themselves, perhaps it's time we beat them at their own game? Heaven knows we've beaten them at everything else...

I dunno about that. I mean could you really go toe-to-toe with the average sorority girl in a pole-smoking contest?
:D <-- this means I'm kidding. Yes, even if it's a bad joke.

Note: This thread is not about Jerry Falwell, so please keep that rotting douche outside of this.

Do douches really rot...:confused:


So I'm curious, what would your beliefs/values be? Other than, of course, expanded social equality for people of all sexual preferences?

Gay people actually have their own country now near Australia called "Gay Kingdom" or something, I wish they would all go their instead of ruining other countries for everyone else with their attempts to get more rights.
Good 'ol New Zealand.

Good 'ol New Zealand.

rofl

Well, it fits what it designates then...

Speaking up for the retarded, they would never say that.
As to the matter of a religion of homosexuality, I propose that a new religion is the last thing the world needs as nearly every organized religion has only served to segregate, disempower, and destroy humanity and the very principles espoused as doctrine. I think the proponents of organized religion should be made to perform 100 hours of community service in orange prison suits for every dollar they receive, alongside the law breaking general public.
I think every time they suggest that their religion is the only chosen, true religion that person should be made to make a list of their negative personality traits, sins, and faults, and make a published formal apology to their community.

That seems to be the product of a rather abstracted society. That being biologically a male or female is not enough to establish one's gender speaks poorly of us.

not really, considering that the definition of gender as being rigidly associated with the 'corresponding' genitals is a custom that is a rather recent development in the history of humanity and is by no means universal across the world even today. even iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran) recognises the concept.

not really, considering that the definition of gender as being rigidly associated with the 'corresponding' genitals is a custom that is a rather recent development in the history of humanity and is by no means universal across the world even today. even iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran) recognises the concept.

Yes, I was conflating gender and sex.

I was more or less speaking of the fact that there are so many strong ideas as to what social characteristics make you this gender or that.

It seems to me that there is really no good reason to consider oneself "genderqueer".

This is not a thread about the intellectual wishy-washiness of agnosticism, but about the Church of Faggotry.
I am a Christian.

and I often dont like what Fass has to say. Sometime I do.

On this occassion I am conflicted.

Because while I am bound as good baptist to be against such a suggestion...


just saying "Church of Faggotry" puts a big shit eating grin on my face.

Plus it sounds damned tough, doesnt sound 'faggity' at all.

So, I offcially say "Horrible Idea"... But damned if I wouldnt give old Right Rev Fass a nod and pinch for such a pleasant idea.

God forgive me.

Yes, I was conflating gender and sex.

I was more or less speaking of the fact that there are so many strong ideas as to what social characteristics make you this gender or that.

It seems to me that there is really no good reason to consider oneself "genderqueer".

ah, yeh, i get your meaning. it's just another one of those identity group things i guess. it's also perhaps necessary in some ways, when there is such a strong societal pressure to conform to one or other gender stereotype corresponding with one's genitals, to have a strong alternative group to belong to as a platform from which to confront and break down those stereotypes. sort of like: "i refuse to have my identity decided by what is between my legs!" ... "so what are you then?" ... "i'm genderqueer and there's more of us than you might ever imagine!". genderqueer actually disassociates identity from sexual characteristics, although some people take that to mean that it simply allows one to associate one's identity with sexual characteristics that one doesn't have. the truth is it does much more than that.

Forgive this...
What is genderqueer ?

I am a Christian.

and I often dont like what Fass has to say. Sometime I do.

On this occassion I am conflicted.

Because while I am bound as good baptist to be against such a suggestion...


just saying "Church of Faggotry" puts a big shit eating grin on my face.

Plus it sounds damned tough, doesnt sound 'faggity' at all.

So, I offcially say "Horrible Idea"... But damned if I wouldnt give old Right Rev Fass a nod and pinch for such a pleasant idea.

God forgive me.

Of course it's tough! Faggots are tough people. You don't go through adolescence being gay without toughening up, and you don't take it up the ass that first time by being a sissy. No, it takes a man's man to do it until you figure it out. When you do, though, then it's all smooth and fabulous sailing.

Forgive this...
What is genderqueer ?

from wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer) "Genderqueer is a gender identity. A genderqueer person is someone who identifies as a gender other than "man" or "woman", or someone who identifies as neither, both, or some combination thereof. In relation to the gender binary (the view that there are only two genders), genderqueer people generally identify as more "both/and" or "neither/nor", rather than "either/or"."

basically, it's men trapped in women's bodies and vice versa and all points in between. but not so crudely put.

Of course it's tough! Faggots are tough people. You don't go through adolescence being gay without toughening up, and you don't take it up the ass that first time by being a sissy. No, it takes a man's man to do it until you figure it out. When you do, though, then it's all smooth and fabulous sailing.

Or a woman's woman. *nods*

Of course it's tough! Faggots are tough people. You don't go through adolescence being gay without toughening up, and you don't take it up the ass that first time by being a sissy. No, it takes a man's man to do it until you figure it out. When you do, though, then it's all smooth and fabulous sailing.

I know plenty of Fags and I call not thier fortitude to question...but the appearence and sound of fortitude is typically not there...but Church of Faggotry just sounds tough...and it still making smile...

And for the record homosexual males have not cornered the market on anal sex...thank you very much.

ah, yeh, i get your meaning. it's just another one of those identity group things i guess. it's also perhaps necessary in some ways, when there is such a strong societal pressure to conform to one or other gender stereotype corresponding with one's genitals, to have a strong alternative group to belong to as a platform from which to confront and break down those stereotypes. sort of like: "i refuse to have my identity decided by what is between my legs!" ... "so what are you then?" ... "i'm genderqueer and there's more of us than you might ever imagine!". genderqueer actually disassociates identity from sexual characteristics, although some people take that to mean that it simply allows one to associate one's identity with sexual characteristics that one doesn't have. the truth is it does much more than that.

Well, as a rebellion against traditional gender roles, I applaud it.

But I still think that it speaks bad of our society that it is considered necessary.

I know plenty of Fags and I call not thier fortitude to question...but the appearence and sound of fortitude is typically not there...but Church of Faggotry just sounds tough...and it still making smile...

And for the record homosexual males have not cornered the market on anal sex...thank you very much.

It takes a lot more toughness not to conform than it does to act straight. Pfft, act straight? That's something even straight men can do...

We may not have cornered it, but ours is most certainly the superior and most satisfying product.

Well, as a rebellion against traditional gender roles, I applaud it.

But I still think that it speaks bad of our society that it is considered necessary.

yup, i agree with you. unfortunately it is necessary, or at least it is an attempt at what is necessary.

It takes a lot more toughness not to conform than it does to act straight. Pfft, act straight? That's something even straight men can do...

We may not have cornered it, but ours is most certainly the superior and most satisfying product.

That almost sounded like a challenge...

It takes a lot more toughness not to conform than it does to act straight. Pfft, act straight? That's something even straight men can do...

We may not have cornered it, but ours is most certainly the superior and most satisfying product.
Well, I wouldnt call being Gay == to non-conformist. Most of the Fags I know are not puffs. The ones who are puffs tend to be all talk no walk.
Being Gay isnt daring, and by your description I see you believe it is indeed a choice to be homsexual. One isnt tough for being what they can not change...they simply are what they are. Tough is making a decision and sticking by it. Sexuality isnt tough, not in my book, it might occassionally be hard, but never tough.

As far as homosexual men having the most satisfying anal sex...I doubt that too. Equal certainly, but superior...hardly the case.

Church of Faggotry...I love that.

Well, I wouldnt call being Gay == to non-conformist. Most of the Fags I know are not puffs. The ones who are puffs tend to be all talk no walk.
Being Gay isnt daring, and by your description I see you believe it is indeed a choice to be homsexual. One isnt tough for being what they can not change...they simply are what they are. Tough is making a decision and sticking by it. Sexuality isnt tough, not in my book, it might occassionally be hard, but never tough.

As far as homosexual men having the most satisfying anal sex...I doubt that too. Equal certainly, but superior...hardly the case.

Church of Faggotry...I love that.

Yomi ould bomb the smeg out of that church (http://yomiwantsyou.ytmnd.com/) :sniper::cool:

Yomi ould bomb the smeg out of that church (http://yomiwantsyou.ytmnd.com/) :sniper::cool:

why Yomi appears to want to fight pedophiles and furries not homosexuals

Well, I wouldnt call being Gay == to non-conformist. Most of the Fags I know are not puffs. The ones who are puffs tend to be all talk no walk.
Being Gay isnt daring, and by your description I see you believe it is indeed a choice to be homsexual. One isnt tough for being what they can not change...they simply are what they are. Tough is making a decision and sticking by it. Sexuality isnt tough, not in my book, it might occassionally be hard, but never tough.

As far as homosexual men having the most satisfying anal sex...I doubt that too. Equal certainly, but superior...hardly the case.

Church of Faggotry...I love that.

I have been stabbed and sent to the hospital before for acting to "fag" with a friend of mine when walking home from a bar

I have been beat and stepped on, if you dont think it takes courage or daring to know it could happen again but yet be yourself then you may not realize what it takes some days

I have been stabbed and sent to the hospital before for acting to "fag" with a friend of mine when walking home from a bar

I have been beat and stepped on, if you dont think it takes courage or daring to know it could happen again but yet be yourself then you may not realize what it takes some daysMinnesota, huh? :rolleyes:

Oh he's all of those things, and he likes long walks on the beach, quiet nights at home with a bottle of merlot, and enjoys U2 concerts.

Oh goody! May I shag him rotten? We can take turns if he likes. I think I'm going to like this church.

Geoff Gosford

The High Pagan Deacon
Monday School Teacher
Keeper of the Holy Latex Boyfriend and HIS Lube

No, you just tend more out of meekness to cower from thinking your stances to their conclusion.

behold the mighty blathering ego!

Yay, another god to blaspheme against!


Wait, who is the god of gay?

Wait, who is the god of gay?

Dionysos ? Though, like most other Olympic gods, he was more of a god of bi...

Dionysos ? Though, like most other Olympic gods, he was more of a god of bi...

Yeah, the Olympians weren't exactly picky.

Yay, another god to blaspheme against!

Wait, who is the god of gay?Hermes/Mercurius.

Homosexuals DO want, if not a whole bunch of special rights, then at least they want it outlawed for their "lifestyle" to be spoken of negatively or critically. They want the First Amendment (hereinafter "1A")curtailed to make an exception that "gays" and "lesbians" cannot be told that their lifestyle is a sin; they want to criminalize that.

We religious people, however, only want to preserve our 1A rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, AND THAT INCLUDES DISAPPROVING OF THE "GAY" LIFESTYLE AND TELLING "GAYS" AND "LESBIANS" THAT SUCH A LIFESTYLE IS A SIN.

Speak for yourself. I'm religious, but my faith doesn't condemn people for loving each other. In fact, my church has frequently performed homosexual weddings ceremonies. It's quite a pity the state still refuses to recognize them.

Yeah, the Olympians weren't exactly picky.

One thing I gleaned from the Metamorphoses is that they were pretty much all rapists or at least attempted rapists. The male ones, at least.

Homosexuals DO want, if not a whole bunch of special rights, then at least they want it outlawed for their "lifestyle" to be spoken of negatively or critically. They want the First Amendment (hereinafter "1A")curtailed to make an exception that "gays" and "lesbians" cannot be told that their lifestyle is a sin; they want to criminalize that.

Isn't lying considered a sin?

You're probably whining about "hate crimes" legislation, right? That's usually what clueless religious folk are crying about when they complain that the gays are trying to take away their God-given right to bash some fags.

Of course, the same hate crimes laws already apply to Christians, Jews, and other religious groups. Hmm. Yet the Godders frequently scream about the meannastyhateful things that are said about them. So it appears that hate crimes laws don't actually stop people from talking smack. Funny, that.

And by "funny" I mean "freaking obvious to anybody who actually took the time to learn what the crap they were talking about."


We religious people, however, only want to preserve our 1A rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, AND THAT INCLUDES DISAPPROVING OF THE "GAY" LIFESTYLE AND TELLING "GAYS" AND "LESBIANS" THAT SUCH A LIFESTYLE IS A SIN.
Nobody is trying to legally force you to grow up. Don't worry.

Your legal right to hate Teh Gay will be protected.

All that people are fighting for is laws that will require you to play by the same rules as everybody else. In other words, your personal homophobia is not justification for denying somebody a job. Your personal homophobia is not justification for refusing to serve somebody in a restaurant. Your personal homophobia is like the personal racism that a lot of people had to get the fuck over 50 years ago. They cried when black people were allowed to use the same bathrooms, too, and look how that worked out for them.

While you're at it, quit hiding behind your religion like a coward. You hate gays. That's great for you. But plenty of religious people don't. Religion doesn't make you a homophobe. If you happen to have a fixation on cooties and boy-touching then that's your business, but don't try to blame it on anybody else.

Since this a left wing forum I'll probably get smashed for this instead of reasoned with, but it would be fair to say the US is on the path for a civil war between whoever is pulling the strings of the US government which is supporting gay rights over all else no matter what the consequences are for society, and the Christian Right who are now increasingly pulling their children out of the public school systems, as they dont want their kids brainwashed by socialists using homosexuality as a normal behaviour etc.
I see a similar pattern with what will be in future known as the first American civil war, and the coming one.
The southern states suceeded to keep their lifestyle, Washington declared war to keep the US intact, slavery-civil rights etc was a side issue compared to the weakening effect of America divided into two nations.
Before Lincoln was assassinated by the freemasons, his plan was for blacks in America to be sent back to Africa after the wars finish.
Now we have a similar situation growing rapidly in America, only this time it will be a civil war between Christians who vastly outnumber gay rights activists and the US government.
Why are Christians being harrassed by the US government, because the US government is nothing but a puppet organisation run by the freemasons who hate Christianity.
Gays and their supporters, feminists, greenies, hippys, unionists, socialists etc are only tools of the freemasons to throw at their arch enemy Christianity.
It is hateful to attack someone over their sexuality, but when hate crimes go to the extent that a whole religon gets banned from being preached as its seen as hateful to minority groups, then you have a facist situation taking place.
Christians in the near future will be heavily persecuted if they bring their religon out in public, Christian churches that don't support gay rights no matter how offensive will soon be shut down by law, because they will be seen as vehicles of hatred towards a minority.
This is already starting to happen with churches starting to collapse or divide over the gay rights agenda amonst other things.
The freemasons of course planned this all along, with their partners the modern day Illuminati who are running Europe which is run by European Bankers and financers, notebly the Rothchilds family. Governments do not run our world in the west, corporations do, which are run by the Masons and whatever the Illuminati are calling themselves these days.
They have bankrolled every revolution in the west since 1788 in France and 1776 in America, they have set up both WW'S and are currently setting up the third one to kick off in the middle east with Israel Palestine, North and South Korea, China and Taiwan.. and of course one that will split the US in two metaphorically, Christians against Socialists.
You are pwned.

Church of Gay? Sounds a hell of a lot more fun than any other religion.

Minnesota, huh? :rolleyes:

It can happen anywhere there are homophobic assholes. Which happens to be everywhere.

Good 'ol New Zealand.

Damn. You caught all 4,000,000 of us out. Yeah, ouch. Pffft.


Anyway, Church of Gay sound good. What is the Church's stance on heterosexual involvement?

Of course it's tough! Faggots are tough people. You don't go through adolescence being gay without toughening up, and you don't take it up the ass that first time by being a sissy. No, it takes a man's man to do it until you figure it out. When you do, though, then it's all smooth and fabulous sailing.
Crazy Larry? Is that you?
Crazy Larry was the homosexual gangster in Layer Cake who says, "Fucking females is for poofs." In case you didn't know.

Since this a left wing forum I'll probably get smashed for this instead of reasoned with, but it would be fair to say the US is on the path for a civil war between whoever is pulling the strings of the US government which is supporting gay rights over all else no matter what the consequences are for society, and the Christian Right who are now increasingly pulling their children out of the public school systems, as they dont want their kids brainwashed by socialists using homosexuality as a normal behaviour etc.

*Sniff sniff*

What's that smell?


I see a similar pattern with what will be in future known as the first American civil war, and the coming one.
The southern states suceeded to keep their lifestyle, Washington declared war to keep the US intact, slavery-civil rights etc was a side issue compared to the weakening effect of America divided into two nations.
*Sniff* It's really getting strong...


Before Lincoln was assassinated by the freemasons,

EAU DE TROLL! I KNEW IT!!

insults the last refuge of the cowardly.:D

You are pwned.

lol, how??

that's a bigger load of crap than a dan brown book, and they're shocking. good comedy though, you should go on the stage and preach that, you'd get a hell of a laugh.

insults the last refuge of the cowardly.:D
Dude, if you want to be able to troll effectively then you have to make your material at least marginally believable. I mean...Lincoln was assassinated by the Free Masons? C'mon.

You were on a roll with the whole "homosexual agenda is being pushed by socialists" thing. I might have been able to overlook your claim that the South won anything by enduring a crushing defeat during the Civil War. But when you start getting into Free Masons crap, you might as well start talking about how the aliens staged Elvis' suicide.

lol, how??

if you smoke marijuana then I suggest you clear your mind and come back in a few days time and read it again. Because its pretty damn obvious.

that's a bigger load of crap than a dan brown book, and they're shocking. good comedy though, you should go on the stage and preach that, you'd get a hell of a laugh.

Dan Brown is part of it too, only fools would laugh at what is blindingly obvious, look at world history since the late eighteenth Century, and follow the chain of events, the wars, the assassinations etc, these things just dont happen for no reason they are thought out before hand, planned well, then when the right time comes put into action.
Your view of history is only the sequence of events, you have limited intelligence to their causes.
Like most people your pwned into believing the real leaders are the ones out their on the stage of world events, when it fact it is the super rich bankers controlling the world economy.
One day you really should try to think, about why their is so much misery in the world, and why the incredibly rich are doing so little about it.

The southern states suceeded to keep their lifestyle, Washington declared war to keep the US intact, slavery-civil rights etc was a side issue compared to the weakening effect of America divided into two nations.

Washington declared war on the southern states after they succeeded (or, rather, "suceeded")?

I mean, I've read some revisionist history in my time, but don't you think this is stretching things a bit far?

Washington declared war on the southern states after they succeeded (or, rather, "suceeded")?

I mean, I've read some revisionist history in my time, but don't you think this is stretching things a bit far?


Spelling seceded as succeeded is a common mistake, although I haven't the slightest idea why. Perhaps there is a dialect where they sound the same or something.

Minnesota, huh? :rolleyes:

Yeah Minnesota, though it is a college town god knows where they came from

Spelling seceded as succeeded is a common mistake, although I haven't the slightest idea why. Perhaps there is a dialect where they sound the same or something.

Well, to be honest, I was more surprised at the thought of Washington declaring war on the southern states than anything else.

Dude, if you want to be able to troll effectively then you have to make your material at least marginally believable. I mean...Lincoln was assassinated by the Free Masons? C'mon.

you are masonic lodge pinup material.
Ever wondered why so many US prez's have been assassinated?
Why ones have died in office of supposedly natural causes, your first president was a mason, your capital is designed by masons, their stamp is all over its important buildings and streets, for you to see this as irelevant shows little intelligence.
The masons set up America, they took control, thats what your great American revolution was really all about, have a look at your great seal, your money, its all covered with masonic symbols, the masons own America, and American interests.

You were on a roll with the whole "homosexual agenda is being pushed by socialists" thing.

well even you should be able to see socialism is behind all the civil rights movements, etc I am not by any means condemning gays or blacks or women for this, I am trying to show you and others that its all a smoke screen for whats really going on.
These events arent leading to some utopia where everyone has equality like the socialists would have you believe, your being led into a trap.
The NWO will have no place for socialism or the rights it bought to western society, which were intended only to implode it from within, so the Masons could start afresh with them as the leading power everywhere in the west, you are all being pwned by them, feminism is owned by them even, who do think set NOW up, who let those prominent women into power, who gives them so much in Washington, the Masons of course, their being used to weaken western society, the womens rights is just sadly the carrot before the donkey.
Believe me I am saddened and disgusted by the deceit carried out over the last three centurys or so by these incredibly greedy men.
Did you know the Masons have helped set up societys in Universitys, whos sole purpose is a special brotherhood from which women are strictly denied access too, these societys such as Skull and Bones, might be dismissed as Boys clubs to you, but these societys have produced a number of American Presidents and other leading figures.
You might think this is impossible, why would men do this, how can it be done with so much secrecy for so long, its called power and greed.


I might have been able to overlook your claim that the South won anything by enduring a crushing defeat during the Civil War.

Not the South, the masonic run Union did by not seperating from the south, the South won nothing, and is still recovering from its loss.


But when you start getting into Free Masons crap, you might as well start talking about how the aliens staged Elvis' suicide.

I suggest you do some research on freemasonary, you might scoff at some of the sources, but to wonder why the mainstream media dont uncover the truth is quite ridiculous as the masons, modern day illuminati in Europe own the media and have for a long time.
The reason why they own the media is one wealth of course, but also to control what people hear about, what they see and most importantly to protect themselves.
How do they keep people who uncover them quiet?
Well to stay rich and powerful Bottle its simply a matter of killing to protect it.
Greed is their business and business is good.
Killing is why evil triumphs, in this world anyway.

Washington declared war on the southern states after they succeeded (or, rather, "suceeded")?
I mean, I've read some revisionist history in my time, but don't you think this is stretching things a bit far?

By Washington I meant the capital of the Union, just a way of saying the North declared war on the South, sorry I should have made that clearer.
I didnt mean the actual president.

Sprinkles fairy dust on the thread jacker and *poof* he is suddenly fabulous and craving some hot man to man action!

"Go forth and be...fruitful...my son."

Geoff Gosford
High Pagan Deacon
Monday School Teacher
Keeper of the Holy Latex Boyfriend and HIS Lube
Occasional Distributor of Fairy Dust