NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes he can, and I understand Leviticus was a prophet, though I can't actually even go see what this book says as it isn't in my Bible. But I suppose I deserve this post when I try to make a joke towards someone who has some anger in him, not you Mur, H2.

Actually is Leviticus (the book) a protestant book that is included in the Bible or what?

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy.

It is pretty much in all of them I think. Was it really named after a man? We would need an old testament person.

if the practice is harmless, the lifestyle is not.
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex

Also, 82% of puppet trolls make up statistics on the spot.

I thought Leviticus was named after (or from) the Levite/the Hebrew tribe of Levi.

And no, homosexuality is not wrong.


That was my understanding too.

Also, 82% of puppet trolls make up statistics on the spot.

So do 77% of regular posters.

so do 77% of regular posters.

SOURCE BITCH!

Damn, NSG, why you gotta hate on the caps?

*snip

http://www.cmt.com/sitewide/assets/img/shows/dallas_cowboys_cheerleaders/season_three/cdc306/veterans_clapping-x600.jpg

According to Tvtropes.org's Foe Yay (open the Real Life folder) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FoeYay) section, Hitler and Stalin had a big thing going.

I tell you, if yaoi fangirls lived in the 1940's, Germany/Russia slash would be all the rage! :D

and then there's America/Britain *and* America/Russia.

Yeah, I'm crazy for shipping nations like that. Blame history homoeroticism (and Axis Powers Hetalia) for that. :D


Two words: God/Mankind.

God loves Mankind. God is considered Male. Do the math. :D

(btw, I'm male.)

Not only does he love mankind... He's gonna marry us too. Gay marriage is okay, so long as it's polygamous, and one of you lives on a cloud.

biologically homosexuals cannot produce offspring, so in terms of reproduction it is incorrect and would be deemed an evolutionary anomaly. sex initially is intended for reproduction and some would contend that being able to pass on genes is a driving force in humans, animals, and plants. as a homosexual you cannot pass on your genes. pleasure derived from sex is a benefit, and now often times the goal, but initially it was the making babies part. seeking pleasure and happiness is not wrong unless it infringes on other people. so homosexuality is not wrong, but you cannot reproduce. fitness is derived from how many offspring you produce. the most fit survive and produce the most offspring. if you don't produce offspring you are not fit. if you are not fit, you're genes do not survive. the purpose of life is often to reproduce if you don't or cannot do that then natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution are operating against you.

biologically homosexuals cannot produce offspring,


Yes they can.

sex initially is intended for reproduction and some would contend that being able to pass on genes is a driving force in humans, animals, and plants.


Some would argue that. Some would argue they were wrong.


as a homosexual you cannot pass on your genes.


Still not true, even the second time.


pleasure derived from sex is a benefit, and now often times the goal, but initially it was the making babies part. seeking pleasure and happiness is not wrong unless it infringes on other people. so homosexuality is not wrong, but you cannot reproduce.


Did it get true, the third time? Let me check... nope, still not true.


fitness is derived from how many offspring you produce.


That might be one measure. It's certainly fair from definitive.


the most fit survive and produce the most offspring.


Not necessarily, and - in fact - not even logically consistent. If you had a thousands babies, and 999 of them died - your friend with surviving twins is 'fitter'.


if you don't produce offspring you are not fit. if you are not fit, you're genes do not survive.


Maybe if you repeat this bit it will be true? No - because personal survival, and the survival of a genepool, are not the same thing.


the purpose of life is often to reproduce if you don't or cannot do that then natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution are operating against you.

That's what - four times you've argued that homosexuals can't reproduce?

And it's still not true.

Even worse, even if it WERE true, it would still be irrelevent, because you can (for example) further your familial genes by safeguarding the offspring of your brothers and sisters - which doesn't involve ANY personal reproduction - but IS favoured by natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution.

the most fit survive and produce the most offspring.

1. Education is positively correlated with the production of fewer offspring.

2. The "fit" are overproducing.

biologically homosexuals cannot produce offspring, so in terms of reproduction it is incorrect and would be deemed an evolutionary anomaly. sex initially is intended for reproduction and some would contend that being able to pass on genes is a driving force in humans, animals, and plants. as a homosexual you cannot pass on your genes. pleasure derived from sex is a benefit, and now often times the goal, but initially it was the making babies part. seeking pleasure and happiness is not wrong unless it infringes on other people. so homosexuality is not wrong, but you cannot reproduce. fitness is derived from how many offspring you produce. the most fit survive and produce the most offspring. if you don't produce offspring you are not fit. if you are not fit, you're genes do not survive. the purpose of life is often to reproduce if you don't or cannot do that then natural selection, survival of the fittest, and evolution are operating against you.

"I'll take Didn't Read the Damn Thread for $1000, Alex."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong, as shown several times within the thread. Homosexuality may actually be an evolutionary boon. It certainly is if overpopulation is a force for selection.

"I'll take Didn't Read the Damn Thread for $1000, Alex."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong, as shown several times within the thread. Homosexuality may actually be an evolutionary boon. It certainly is if overpopulation is a force for selection.

Was there a source showing that homosexuality is rising because the planet is getting over populated?

I would say we only hear more about because more and more areas and people are becoming more tolerant of having non-hetro people around.

According to Tvtropes.org's Foe Yay (open the Real Life folder) (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FoeYay) section, Hitler and Stalin had a big thing going.

I tell you, if yaoi fangirls lived in the 1940's, Germany/Russia slash would be all the rage! :D

and then there's America/Britain *and* America/Russia.

Yeah, I'm crazy for shipping nations like that. Blame history homoeroticism (and Axis Powers Hetalia) for that. :D


Two words: God/Mankind.

God loves Mankind. God is considered Male. Do the math. :D

(btw, I'm male.)

Consider this - Priests, monks, friars and nuns are supposed to be in exclusive relationships with God. In many cases (especially for the contemplative orders) the relationship is supposed to be an ecstatic relationship ( Definition of Religious ecstasy Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia - For related topics, see ecstasy (emotion) and ecstasy (philosophy). Religious ecstasy is an altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness which is frequently accompanied by visions and emotional/intuitive (and sometimes physical) euphoria. Although the experience is usually brief in physical time, there are records of such experiences lasting several days or even more, and of recurring experiences of ecstasy during one's lifetime. Subjective perception of time, space and/or self may strongly change or disappear during ecstasy). This ecstatic relationship may be characterized by erotic feelings.

So what it amounts to is God has a harem of men and women for his, and their, pleasure. This means he isn't gay, he's bi.

So, if God is bi, and we're made in the image of God, then we must all be bi, too.

It's only logical.

biologically homosexuals cannot produce offspring,

Thank you for a rather ignorant statement as it warned me not to bother reading the rest of your statement.

Biologically homosexuals can and do produce offspring.

Now to make your head explode. I know of a homosexual male who is helping a lesbian couple have a child.

Homosexuality is fine in my opinion, it doesn't effect anybody and anybody who takes a religious standpoint against it is simply a fucking idiot. In this over populated world there is less wrong with homo sexuality than ever.

Since you're new here, I'm not breaking out the big guns. I'm going to be nice and spell out exactly what you did wrong. Note the part in bold; highlighted for the purposes of this exercise so you can see what the actionable part of your post is. This is considered to be trolling.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) - here's some bedtime reading.

I suggest that ALL new posters take a look at the rules.

Now then, you're entitled to your opinion, and they are entitled to theirs. It doesn't matter how exceedingly uninformed or utterly asinine the opinion is, as long as it is within the rules, you're entitled to it.

biologically homosexuals cannot produce offspring
Really?

Somebody musta forgot to tell that to the pregnant lesbian down the hall from me. Perhaps you should get off the internet and spend your time reminding gay people that they are biologically incapable of reproduction, because a lot of them don't seem to know that.

Really?

Somebody musta forgot to tell that to the pregnant lesbian down the hall from me. Perhaps you should get off the internet and spend your time reminding gay people that they are biologically incapable of reproduction, because a lot of them don't seem to know that.

It's amazing what people can do when they don't know they can't...

I wish I had gotten into this thread early enough to make a joke answer about it obviously not being wrong. :(

It's amazing what people can do when they don't know they can't...
I totally call dibs on using this idea to write a kick-ass children's book.

Consider this - Priests, monks, friars and nuns are supposed to be in exclusive relationships with God. In many cases (especially for the contemplative orders) the relationship is supposed to be an ecstatic relationship ( Definition of Religious ecstasy Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia - For related topics, see ecstasy (emotion) and ecstasy (philosophy). Religious ecstasy is an altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness which is frequently accompanied by visions and emotional/intuitive (and sometimes physical) euphoria. Although the experience is usually brief in physical time, there are records of such experiences lasting several days or even more, and of recurring experiences of ecstasy during one's lifetime. Subjective perception of time, space and/or self may strongly change or disappear during ecstasy). This ecstatic relationship may be characterized by erotic feelings.

So what it amounts to is God has a harem of men and women for his, and their, pleasure. This means he isn't gay, he's bi.

So, if God is bi, and we're made in the image of God, then we must all be bi, too.

It's only logical.
Huh. The human race being bi...that's not exactly a new theory, but you'll never get the religious right to agree on that. :)

No, how can a thing you're born with and have no choice about be wrong? That's like saying someone's hair colour is wrong.

The proof for the ‘gay gene’ is dubious. There certainly is a genetic pre-disposition which makes it more likely that someone will become gay, but not certain; this is why, if one identical twin is gay, there is only a 52% chance that the other one will be too.

The proof for the ‘gay gene’ is dubious. There certainly is a genetic pre-disposition which makes it more likely that someone will become gay, but not certain; this is why, if one identical twin is gay, there is only a 52% chance that the other one will be too.
It would be pretty ridiculous if there were a single "gay gene." I mean, more than one gene is involved in hair color, fer crying out loud, so having a single gene responsible for the entire complex spectrum of human sexuality would be rather...surprising.

It would be pretty ridiculous if there were a single "gay gene." I mean, more than one gene is involved in hair color, fer crying out loud, so having a single gene responsible for the entire complex spectrum of human sexuality would be rather...surprising.

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences

Like pretty much 90% of human traits and behaviour.

Like pretty much 90% of human traits and behaviour.

Absolutely BUT it is silly to say they are born gay.

Consider this - Priests, monks, friars and nuns are supposed to be in exclusive relationships with God. In many cases (especially for the contemplative orders) the relationship is supposed to be an ecstatic relationship ( Definition of Religious ecstasy Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia - For related topics, see ecstasy (emotion) and ecstasy (philosophy). Religious ecstasy is an altered state of consciousness characterized by greatly reduced external awareness and expanded interior mental and spiritual awareness which is frequently accompanied by visions and emotional/intuitive (and sometimes physical) euphoria. Although the experience is usually brief in physical time, there are records of such experiences lasting several days or even more, and of recurring experiences of ecstasy during one's lifetime. Subjective perception of time, space and/or self may strongly change or disappear during ecstasy). This ecstatic relationship may be characterized by erotic feelings.

So what it amounts to is God has a harem of men and women for his, and their, pleasure. This means he isn't gay, he's bi.

So, if God is bi, and we're made in the image of God, then we must all be bi, too.

It's only logical.

That is the worst analogy I have ever heard. God does not have sex with humans, nor do angels if they want to keep their wings.

It has nothing to do with sex it is purely mental.

Absolutely BUT it is silly to say they are born gay.

I dunno, a lot of evidence indicates that the most important influences on human sexuality are pre-natal, so I'd say yes, you can say someone was born gay. Technically I suppose you may be more accurate saying that someone is born with a very strong predisposition towards homosexuality but in these kinds of discussions it's best to stay away from that due to the then pressuposition that means there's a way to prevent or cure it.

I dunno, a lot of evidence indicates that the most important influences on human sexuality are pre-natal, so I'd say yes, you can say someone was born gay. Technically I suppose you may be more accurate saying that someone is born with a very strong predisposition towards homosexuality but in these kinds of discussions it's best to stay away from that due to the then pressuposition that means there's a way to prevent or cure it.

No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. I think both play complex roles.

No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. I think both play complex roles.

I never said there was a simple cause, just that from what I have read several important factors are prenatal. However these factors may be genetic, environmental (maternal diet for example), hormonal (probably affected by maternal genetics and environment) and all probably do interact in a complex fashion.

However, I havne't yet seen any evidence of social factors having a significant causal role (eg upbringing, social group...), though if you have seen research on this area I'd love to see it. But that doesn't mean other environmental factors may not play a role (diet, exposure to various hormones, chemicals, nutrition etc). Remeber kids just because we talk about environmental factors it doesn't necessarily mean they are social/psychological in origin.

Quote: by lunatic goofballs
Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs View Post
Jesus was gay. How morally wrong could it be?

Reply by Virginia Cooper:Then how did he have a kid with Mary Magdalene?

My Reply: Listen you retard being gay doesn't make you physically unable of making a girl pregnant plenty of gay people who were in the closet had relationships before they came out where they had kids

Right and wrong is just a personal opinion. Just because someone says it is wrong or right doesn't make it either. Those are just words placed there to suit their own beliefs.
There are a lot of people that think cussing is wrong and sin, but how many people do you know that cuss? A lot and all cussing is are vibrations in the vocal chords.
Homosexuality is not wrong.

I never said there was a simple cause, just that from what I have read several important factors are prenatal. However these factors may be genetic, environmental (maternal diet for example), hormonal (probably affected by maternal genetics and environment) and all probably do interact in a complex fashion.

However, I havne't yet seen any evidence of social factors having a significant causal role (eg upbringing, social group...), though if you have seen research on this area I'd love to see it. But that doesn't mean other environmental factors may not play a role (diet, exposure to various hormones, chemicals, nutrition etc). Remeber kids just because we talk about environmental factors it doesn't necessarily mean they are social/psychological in origin.

Apparently living in a large city positively correlates to homosexuality! http://books.google.com/books?id=3RbyuQAYsdMC&pg=PA561&lpg=PA561&dq=%22large+cities%22+homosexual+rural+likely&source=web&ots=B4otWCYL4V&sig=A_pMiTNvnOM5BskQeOrIzRV6trQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA308,M1

EDIT: Would this count as a "social" factor? Or an environmental one?

Quote: by lunatic goofballs
Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs View Post
Jesus was gay. How morally wrong could it be?

Reply by Virginia Cooper:Then how did he have a kid with Mary Magdalene?

My Reply: Listen you retard being gay doesn't make you physically unable of making a girl pregnant plenty of gay people who were in the closet had relationships before they came out where they had kids

Jesus was neither gay nor did he have a child with Mary Magdalene.

Jesus was neither gay nor did he have a child with Mary Magdalene.

What reason do you have to think that he was not gay? I don't believe he ever said...

Apparently living in a large city positively correlates to homosexuality! http://books.google.com/books?id=3RbyuQAYsdMC&pg=PA561&lpg=PA561&dq=%22large+cities%22+homosexual+rural+likely&source=web&ots=B4otWCYL4V&sig=A_pMiTNvnOM5BskQeOrIzRV6trQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA308,M1

EDIT: Would this count as a "social" factor? Or an environmental one?

Sorry, I don't think I was very clear. Social is a subset of environmental, I try and make the distinction because a lot of people when you say 'environmental' factor they automatically think of things like upbringing, playing with dolls etc and other issues around the childs social interactions during upbringing, when environmental encompasses a lot more factors.

I'd say that's a correlation and thus doesn't imply causation - it's an interesting finding though, I hadn't heard of it before but it's not overly surprising - given arguably (as mentioned in the book) gays/lesbians may gravitate towards ubran environments. It could also imply a number of explanations also in terms of pre-natal (eg stress caused by living in urban environment may result in abnormal hormonal releases during pregnancy) as well as post natal development.

I dunno, a lot of evidence indicates that the most important influences on human sexuality are pre-natal, so I'd say yes, you can say someone was born gay. Technically I suppose you may be more accurate saying that someone is born with a very strong predisposition towards homosexuality but in these kinds of discussions it's best to stay away from that due to the then pressuposition that means there's a way to prevent or cure it.

If a boy's first word is "fabulous", well, some things are easy to spot.

Quote: by lunatic goofballs
Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs View Post
Jesus was gay. How morally wrong could it be?

Reply by Virginia Cooper:Then how did he have a kid with Mary Magdalene?

My Reply: Listen you retard being gay doesn't make you physically unable of making a girl pregnant plenty of gay people who were in the closet had relationships before they came out where they had kids

Really?

RIGHT after a Mod posts about trolling, with an example and a warning?

Really?

It's amazing what people can do when they don't know they can't...

I learned that from cartoons ages ago.


Absolutely BUT it is silly to say they are born gay.

Not completely silly. Most evidence suggests that environmental factors after birth have very little effect on sexuality. From what I've read, I would say it has more to do with genetic factors and in utero environmental ones than with anything that happens after birth.

Jesus was neither gay nor did he have a child with Mary Magdalene.

Why? Because it wasn't in the Bible? Neither was His childhood. Doesn't mean He didn't have one. Maybe the texts on Jesus' life which ended up being incorporated into the Bible along with a bunch of letters from some wacko named Paul avoided talking about Jesus' sex life one way or another deliberately so as to show that like His childhood, it held no relevance to His teachings.

Why? Because it wasn't in the Bible? Neither was His childhood. Doesn't mean He didn't have one. Maybe the texts on Jesus' life which ended up being incorporated into the Bible along with a bunch of letters from some wacko named Paul avoided talking about Jesus' sex life one way or another deliberately so as to show that like His childhood, it held no relevance to His teachings.

Bingo.

I mean, who wanted to read about Jesus' prom night or zits or teen angst, anyway?

Bingo.

I mean, who wanted to read about Jesus' prom night or zits or teen angst, anyway?

Judy Blume? ;)

No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. I think both play complex roles.

It's very unlikely that a "simple cause" for sexual orientation in humans will ever be conclusively demonstrated. It's most likely far too complicated for that.

But likely contributing factors have been identified, and other factors have been shown to have little contribution. For instance, from what I've read, upbringing and social environment seem to have little to no contribution (although they certainly contribute to how a person views his sexuality). Thus far, the vast majority of possible contributing factors have been pre-natal, regardless of whether they are genetic or environmental (environmental here referring to the in utero environment).

Apparently living in a large city positively correlates to homosexuality! http://books.google.com/books?id=3Rb...sult#PPA308,M1

EDIT: Would this count as a "social" factor? Or an environmental one?

Likely neither. Another thing that positively correlates to living in a city is a more permissive environment. It's quite likely that more homosexuals choose to live in a city because of this fact. Thus, rather than city life being a causal factor at all for homosexuality, being homosexual would be a causal factor in choosing city life.

Judy Blume? ;)

Are You There, Me? It's Me, Me.

Why? Because it wasn't in the Bible? Neither was His childhood. Doesn't mean He didn't have one. Maybe the texts on Jesus' life which ended up being incorporated into the Bible along with a bunch of letters from some wacko named Paul avoided talking about Jesus' sex life one way or another deliberately so as to show that like His childhood, it held no relevance to His teachings.

I guess it wasn't news worthy his childhood. They were essentially living in exile also likely in fear. You right that is really doesn't have any bearing on his teachings.

Paul was a respected Roman citizen. Now John on the otherhand, now he might have been. He dressed in Camel hair and ran around in the desert eating Locust and wild honey.

That is the worst analogy I have ever heard. God does not have sex with humans, nor do angels if they want to keep their wings.

It has nothing to do with sex it is purely mental.

Speaking as one who has had ecstactic experiences, it is possible to have them without sex or drugs. Just walking down the street and all of a sudden having a gift of god.

But you can also get there by using drugs and then having really wonderful sex with someone you really love. Speaking from experience, I would say that it would be foolish to deny a correlation between sex and religious ecstasy.

What reason do you have to think that he was not gay? I don't believe he ever said...

There is some Biblical support for Jesus being gay:

"There was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." John 13:23-25

I guess it wasn't news worthy his childhood. They were essentially living in exile also likely in fear. You right that is really doesn't have any bearing on his teachings.

Paul was a respected Roman citizen. Now John on the otherhand, now he might have been. He dressed in Camel hair and ran around in the desert eating Locust and wild honey.

They all wrote gospels long after Jesus' life was over, as well, but that's another issue. Why do you assume they were living in fear? They found a family that would take them in and he learned to be a carpenter. Seems to me that's not an Anne Frank kind of life.

Speaking as one who has had ecstactic experiences, it is possible to have them without sex or drugs. Just walking down the street and all of a sudden having a gift of god.

But you can also get there by using drugs and then having really wonderful sex with someone you really love. Speaking from experience, I would say that it would be foolish to deny a correlation between sex and religious ecstasy.



There is some Biblical support for Jesus being gay:

"There was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." John 13:23-25


That is not the same thing. Platonic love. Brotherly love. He care deeply for all his disciples that did not mean he wanted to do the nasty with them.

The man was too busy to have sex with anyone. Casting out demon, curing the sick, making fish and bread multiply, turning water into wine, walking on water. He had a very full schedule. Not to mention all the traveling and preaching.

Can you imagine what would have been said if Jesus had child out of wedlock? He would never of had a church, following or anything else. In his day he likely would have been stoned to death.

They all wrote gospels long after Jesus' life was over, as well, but that's another issue. Why do you assume they were living in fear? They found a family that would take them in and he learned to be a carpenter. Seems to me that's not an Anne Frank kind of life.

In his early life he was in danger of being killed by Herod. Any male child up to two years old. Hence the reason they were on the run. You also hear this in the story of the three wise men where they had to leave and take a different path home they were warned not to return to Herod. The angel came and told the Holy Family to head for the hills.

In his early life he was in danger of being killed by Herod. Any male child up to two years old. Hence the reason they were on the run. You also hear this in the story of the three wise men where they had to leave and take a different path home they were warned not to return to Herod. The angel came and told the Holy Family to head for the hills.

Uh...not exactly his teen years, is it? Also, that's the part we knew. What happened between Egypt and his return, that's the question.

Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Mat 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:


Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

I totally call dibs on using this idea to write a kick-ass children's book.

By all means. :) After all, the only thing that once stopped women from having the same job as men was being told they couldn't do.

Absolutely BUT it is silly to say they are born gay.

Just as it would be silly to say that people are born heterosexual.

Listen you retard being gay doesn't make you physically unable of making a girl pregnant plenty of gay people who were in the closet had relationships before they came out where they had kids

Really?

RIGHT after a Mod posts about trolling, with an example and a warning?

Really?

Seeing as how someone has shown it is VERY possible to read the thread and remember what was said, I won't go easy on Ninjatastic. I had indeed already issued a prior warning to another poster and informed them of the rules.

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc.)though it does to watch what you post IC as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.

Since it's obvious that someone failed to read the rules, I'll just show you the rule.

Ninjatastic, consider yourself warned for flaming.

Anyone else caught after this, regardless of your posting history will not be given mercy. I tried to be merciful for a new poster but it didn't make enough of an impact. I won't apply a new punishment to the other poster retroactively, but others will not be given mercy. I have linked to the rules and I have given examples. The majority is able to play nice. I won't punish them by closing the thread.

Uh...not exactly his teen years, is it? Also, that's the part we knew. What happened between Egypt and his return, that's the question.

Not news worthy I suppose. He was doing what any normal teen does. He growing, working, and studying.

We don't hear anything about him until his 30's when he began his ministry.


There is certainly no indication that he was gay. If he was and ever made a pass at anyone again likely he would be dead.

As for having a child, someone has been hitting the novels too heavy. Da Vinci code, maybe?

There is certainly no indication that he was gay. If he was and ever made a pass at anyone again likely he would be dead.

As for having a child, someone has been hitting the novels too heavy. Da Vinci code, maybe?

Surely the claim that he was an unmarried Jew in his 30s in that era is reason enough to ask some questions ? It was quite abnormal.

It's very unlikely that a "simple cause" for sexual orientation in humans will ever be conclusively demonstrated. It's most likely far too complicated for that.

But likely contributing factors have been identified, and other factors have been shown to have little contribution. For instance, from what I've read, upbringing and social environment seem to have little to no contribution (although they certainly contribute to how a person views his sexuality). Thus far, the vast majority of possible contributing factors have been pre-natal, regardless of whether they are genetic or environmental (environmental here referring to the in utero environment).



Likely neither. Another thing that positively correlates to living in a city is a more permissive environment. It's quite likely that more homosexuals choose to live in a city because of this fact. Thus, rather than city life being a causal factor at all for homosexuality, being homosexual would be a causal factor in choosing city life.
A major confounding factor, also, is that we don't really have any way to conclusively verify what somebody's "real" sexual orientation is.

I mean, straight men and women can engage in homosexual activity, and homosexual men and women can engage in heterosexual activity, and anybody can lie on a questionaire.

It's obviously possible for someone to feel many sexual attractions, desires, and impulses that they never act on. So...what is their "real" sexuality? Is it defined by how they feel, or by which feelings they act on?

I'm not sure the correct question was asked. The right or wrong decision is up to the individual.

In my opinion, the question should be, "Is it normal?" To that I say 'no.'
Homosexuality (if it is a genetic condition as widely claimed) is abnormal in the same way Down's Syndrome is abnormal.

A major confounding factor, also, is that we don't really have any way to conclusively verify what somebody's "real" sexual orientation is.

I mean, straight men and women can engage in homosexual activity, and homosexual men and women can engage in heterosexual activity, and anybody can lie on a questionaire.

It's obviously possible for someone to feel many sexual attractions, desires, and impulses that they never act on. So...what is their "real" sexuality? Is it defined by how they feel, or by which feelings they act on?

There's been some interesting work using implicit association tests which would seem to capture it - I would try and explain the concept but it's a bit of a long-winded one so instead I'll give you all the linky and you can try it out yourself=ves (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/). The basic concept is that it accessing individuals subconscious views or attitiudes without them being consciously aware - it has generally been used to assess racism or implicit baises, but using appropriate terms there has also been good validity with regards to sexuality.Eye movements is another assessment tool which seems to display good validity.

Ultimately sexuality is a psychological construct (at least when you are looking at it past simple sexual experiences which is not the best classification method) and thus assessment will never be 100%, but it can be very high - that combined with large sample sizes means you can usually get statistically significant and above all meaningful results despite issues of reliability.

A major confounding factor, also, is that we don't really have any way to conclusively verify what somebody's "real" sexual orientation is.

I mean, straight men and women can engage in homosexual activity, and homosexual men and women can engage in heterosexual activity, and anybody can lie on a questionaire.

It's obviously possible for someone to feel many sexual attractions, desires, and impulses that they never act on. So...what is their "real" sexuality? Is it defined by how they feel, or by which feelings they act on?

That one is easy the ones they act on. Thoughts, desires, and impulses are in some cases just mental activity. You real sexuality is the one you act on.

The other areas can be confined in the realm of fantasy.

It is laughable that someone would try to justify homosexuality by making the point that, like homosexuals, the elderly and the toddlers cannot conceive. It is also sad that someone would make that argument and think they are making a good point. The fact is that homosexuals will never be able to birth a child, not because they are to young, to old or have a debilitating disease, but because it is anatomically impossible.

If people want to be Homosexuals that is their choice. I think it is wrong, on many different levels, but my thoughts won't change millions of peoples minds.

In my opinion, the question should be, "Is it normal?" To that I say 'no.'
Homosexuality (if it is a genetic condition as widely claimed) is abnormal in the same way Down's Syndrome is abnormal.

Or being a genius ;) Or , to refer to something else that was considered a horrible sin until only 50 years back: lefthandedness . We in fact still have negative associations with the Latin word "sinister" -which means left.

Or to rephrase it in simple terms: abnormal does not imply good or bad. 70% of the world is non-Christian - so being a Christian is abnormal. Does that make being a Christian bad ?

It is laughable that someone would try to justify homosexuality by making the point that, like homosexuals, the elderly and the toddlers cannot conceive. It is also sad that someone would make that argument and think they are making a good point. The fact is that homosexuals will never be able to birth a child, not because they are to young, to old or have a debilitating disease, but because it is anatomically impossible.

If people want to be Homosexuals that is their choice. I think it is wrong, on many different levels, but my thoughts won't change millions of peoples minds.

So it's not anatomically impossible for 90-year-olds, 2-year-olds, or people who are infertile to produce babies, but it is anatomically impossible for....people who've been known to produce babies...to produce babies...

And my argument is sad? Well, if you say so.

The fact is that homosexuals will never be able to birth a child, not because they are to young, to old or have a debilitating disease, but because it is anatomically impossible.


Second verse, same as the first... there is no anatomical reason that homosexuals can't have children. Sure a homosexual couple can't have children, at least not without outside intervention (various fertalisation treatments), but homosexuals themsevles are perfectly able to have kids and often do. Others choose to adopt instead, thus offering homes to kids who really really need them because their own, usually heterosexual, parents are unable or deemed unsafe to raise them. How is that bad again?

Second verse, same as the first... there is no anatomical reason that homosexuals can't have children. Sure a homosexual couple can't have children, at least not without outside intervention (various fertalisation treatments), but homosexuals themsevles are perfectly able to have kids and often do. Others choose to adopt instead, thus offering homes to kids who really really need them because their own, usually heterosexual, parents are unable or deemed unsafe to raise them. How is that bad again?

Because we are supposed to breed like bacteria of course.
Well, ok - not asexual like bacteria. Rabbits then ;)

Because we are supposed to breed like bacteria of course.
Well, ok - not asexual like bacteria. Rabbits then ;)

Well I know quite a few people who fuck like rabbits, is that close enough?

homosextuals are a plague to this earth and should be extermanted. Shipped of to a chamber and gassed and then raditated so they get superpowers.

the superpowers will eliminatate the gayness

homosextuals are a plague to this earth and should be extermanted. Shipped of to a chamber and gassed and then raditated so they get superpowers.

Cool notion :)
May I ask what forum you are all coming from ?

Snip.

So, you favor forbidding born-sterile people from marrying as well?

homosextuals are a plague to this earth and should be extermanted. Shipped of to a chamber and gassed and then raditated so they get superpowers.

the superpowers will eliminatate the gayness

So, they'd become the Fabulous Four?

My Reply: Listen you retard being gay doesn't make you physically unable of making a girl pregnant plenty of gay people who were in the closet had relationships before they came out where they had kids

I would say that this newbie may need to be sat down and explained a thing or two.

What reason do you have to think that he was not gay? I don't believe he ever said...

He ever said what? That he wasn't? Does thatmean everyone is gay until they say they aren't? Does that apply to people in the closet?

So it's not anatomically impossible for 90-year-olds, 2-year-olds, or people who are infertile to produce babies, but it is anatomically impossible for....people who've been known to produce babies...to produce babies...

And my argument is sad? Well, if you say so.

Quick question Poli.

How is it possible for two gay guys or two gay women to produce a child between each other without the help of medical science or anyone else? Because I believe when people say something like that, that is what they mean.

He ever said what? That he wasn't? Does thatmean everyone is gay until they say they aren't?

Well... if an extremely charming, popular and succesful guy who was raised in the belief that one should get married asap and personally does seem to think a family is the cornerstone of civilisation is still single when he has passed 30, and mostly hangs out with other single guys... one can wonder.

Does thatmean everyone is gay until they say they aren't?

I'm not gay, now get THAT out of THERE.

Quick question Poli.

How is it possible for two gay guys or two gay women to produce a child between each other without the help of medical science or anyone else? Because I believe when people say something like that, that is what they mean.

Of course that's what they mean, but it's silly, because we don't look at heterosexual couples and say that they somehow don't "count" as having children if they adopted or used IVF.

Well... if an extremely charming, popular and succesful guy who was raised in the belief that one should get married asap and personally does seem to think a family is the cornerstone of civilisation is still single when he has passed 30, and mostly hangs out with other single guys... one can wonder.

One can wonder it still fails to prove anything, it also does take into consideration that he may have just not wanted to marry either a choice or never could find the right girl.

I'm not gay, now get THAT out of THERE.

You know with all that shouting you sound like a republican who is lost in the closet. :p

Of course that's what they mean, but it's silly, because we don't look at heterosexual couples and say that they somehow don't "count" as having children if they adopted or used IVF.

Yes I know but in a way they are right when they say a homosexual couple can not produce a child.

Quick question Poli.

How is it possible for two gay guys or two gay women to produce a child between each other without the help of medical science or anyone else? Because I believe when people say something like that, that is what they mean.
(not Poli, but I'm gonna chime in anyway)

It's not possible biologically for same-sex couples to have children naturally. That's true. You need a man and a woman for that. Therefore, the solution would be to get those two couples together and get them to have babies together (Real-life sitcom, ahoy!). Either that or adopt infants. Well, that doesn't pass on the genes, but it does still allows the next generation to grow up.

Either that or wait until genetic engineering gets good enough to combine the genes of the couple into a baby.

Of course that's what they mean, but it's silly, because we don't look at heterosexual couples and say that they somehow don't "count" as having children if they adopted or used IVF.

Nor, I imagine, would those people stop using this mantra when science makes it possible for gay couples to actually have children of which they are the biological parents.

However, as mentioned many times already, believing that a couple *must* reproduce or else be "bad" is moronic. Especially in these times of overpopulation.

You know with all that shouting you sound like a republican who is lost in the closet. :p

What did I ever do to offend YOU? :p

Homosexuality is alright, but it is wrong when they have sex in a the Vatican city because the Pope has magical Jesus powers that he will use to convert them to subatomic particles.

homosextuals are a plague to this earth and should be extermanted. Shipped of to a chamber and gassed and then raditated so they get superpowers.

the superpowers will eliminatate the gayness

So you think... in truth all you will be doing is creating a SUPERGAY!

One can wonder it still fails to prove anything, it also does take into consideration that he may have just not wanted to marry either a choice or never could find the right girl.

True. Still, it is funny that many people are more than willing to believe a in a still single Jewish man in his 30s in the year 30 AD, who was able to magically turn water in wine, heal the sick, create food etc. -who was the son of God and able to cleanse humanity of all sin - but absolutely cannot accept the idea that he may have preferred a guy in his bed.

What did I ever do to offend YOU? :p

Sorry man, there is ragging and then there is just plain mean. I thinkI crossed the line :tongue:

Sorry man, there is ragging and then there is just plain mean. I thinkI crossed the line :tongue:

Okay, you're forgiven. Now come here, you sexy hunky sunnamabitch...

*Frenches*

Nor, I imagine, would those people stop using this mantra when science makes it possible for gay couples to actually have children of which they are the biological parents.

However, as mentioned many times already, believing that a couple *must* reproduce or else be "bad" is moronic. Especially in these times of overpopulation.

I will believe that when I see it.

However, I agree with your assertion that the argument one must conceive for it not to be wrong is a poor argument at best. And when people attempt to fight that argument by saying well homosexual couples can ave children it only gives that argument some credibility. Though regardless of over population or not the thing is the same the argument we should allow homosexuality because of over population is bull shit in itself.

Yes I know but in a way they are right when they say a homosexual couple can not produce a child.

No one disputes that homosexual intercourse does not cause conception. The thing is, no one disputes that 80-year-old intercourse does not cause conception, or that intercourse with someone who is infertile for whatever reason does not cause conception. If "does not cause conception" were actually the standard for what sex acts were immoral, you'd see people picketing outside retirement homes with "GOD HATES OLD PEOPLE" signs.

Okay, you're forgiven. Now come here, you sexy hunky sunnamabitch...

*Frenches*

So how you doing? :wink:


:tongue:

Just as it would be silly to say that people are born heterosexual.

Correct. fabulous we all agree. :D

No one disputes that homosexual intercourse does not cause conception. The thing is, no one disputes that 80-year-old intercourse does not cause conception, or that intercourse with someone who is infertile for whatever reason does not cause conception. If "does not cause conception" were actually the standard for what sex acts were immoral, you'd see people picketing outside retirement homes with "GOD HATES OLD PEOPLE" signs.

Which is why I think using the counter argument that they can have children is the wrong way to go about saying that because really what you should be arguing is that it doesn't matter if it brings about children or not it is still perfectly acceptable for people to engage in homo-sexual activities. I think it only gives some credibility to that argument because you prove that they can when really that argument should have no credibility.

I will believe that when I see it.

Some cloning techniques used on animals in fact use the genetic material of 2 females already. No male material needed.
Two males however indeed is a greater challenge, though not impossible when one perfects artificial wombs.

Though regardless of over population or not the thing is the same the argument we should allow homosexuality because of over population is bull shit in itself.

That depends on what one values greater - the continued existence of the human race, or individual freedoms.

So how you doing? :wink:


:tongue:

Aw... young love, it's so sweet :D

He ever said what? That he wasn't? Does thatmean everyone is gay until they say they aren't? Does that apply to people in the closet?

sorry. I was being unclear. I meant that Jesus never specified his sexual preference (to my recollections). So how can you be sure he was straight?

Some cloning techniques used on animals in fact use the genetic material of 2 females already. No male material needed.
Two males however indeed is a greater challenge, though not impossible when one perfects artificial wombs.

Yeah still

That depends on what one values greater - the continued existence of the human race, or individual freedoms.

So you are saying that if the world population was a quarter of what it is now you would be against homosexuals?

sorry. I was being unclear. I meant that Jesus never specified his sexual preference (to my recollections). So how can you be sure he was straight?

Which leads back to my question how can you be sure he wasn't? It hardly matters anyway. It is like saying how do you know there is a god? and someone replying how do you know there isn't?

Can you imagine what would have been said if Jesus had child out of wedlock? He would never of had a church, following or anything else. In his day he likely would have been stoned to death.

Yeah. Had Jesus been executed, he never would have been able to found a religion!

Yeah. Had Jesus been executed, he never would have been able to found a religion!

Except, you know, he was executed. :p

Which leads back to my question how can you be sure he wasn't? It hardly matters anyway. It is like saying how do you know there is a god? and someone replying how do you know there isn't?

You catergorically said that he was NOT gay, therefore I assumed that you had evidence that he was heterosexual.

I have not expressed an opinion over the question of Jesus's sexual preference yet.

From context clues and an understanding of society in the Middle East in the first century, Jesus was pretty obviously banging Mary Magdalene.

You catergorically said that he was NOT gay, therefore I assumed that you had evidence that he was heterosexual.

I have not expressed an opinion over the question of Jesus's sexual preference yet.

Did I? I'm not saying I didn't but a link to the post would be nice

No one disputes that homosexual intercourse does not cause conception. The thing is, no one disputes that 80-year-old intercourse does not cause conception, or that intercourse with someone who is infertile for whatever reason does not cause conception. If "does not cause conception" were actually the standard for what sex acts were immoral, you'd see people picketing outside retirement homes with "GOD HATES OLD PEOPLE" signs.

I would totally not be surprised to see Phelps do that.

Rule number 35 should be: ...and then Phelps will profess to hate it.

Did I? I'm not saying I didn't but a link to the post would be nice

aaah sorry. I was confusing you with "Truly Blessed".

aaah sorry. I was confusing you with "Truly Blessed".

Perfectly alright mate. :)

Except, you know, he was executed. :p

Don't Explain the Joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke) :tongue:

Don't Explain the Joke (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke) :tongue:

Sorry. :p

This is NSG. I can never tell if people are serious.

This thread IS attracting a lot of newbies.

This thread IS attracting a lot of newbies.

No doubt there is a forum linking here somewhere. Pity the "post and flee" people are always too cowardly to tell where they come from, or to actually read the replies.

This thread IS attracting a lot of newbies.

Yes they certainly are coming out of the woodwork in the closet :p

Well... if an extremely charming, popular and succesful guy who was raised in the belief that one should get married asap and personally does seem to think a family is the cornerstone of civilisation is still single when he has passed 30, and mostly hangs out with other single guys... one can wonder.There is no reason to believe that Jesus was still single, or that any of the guys he hung out with were single either. In the case of Peter, we know he was married: but only because his mother-in-law and Jesus had to cure her. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no reason to mention Peter's marriage (Peter's wife is of course never named or mentioned directly). Such things were just taken for granted. Similarly in the Old Testament there is never a single mention that Samuel was married until all of a sudden his sons try to take over: we should not assume those sons were out of wedlock.

That is the worst analogy I have ever heard. God does not have sex with humans, nor do angels if they want to keep their wings.

It has nothing to do with sex it is purely mental.

So Mary was only pregnant in her mind?

And, of course, sexual and erotic feelings are only physical and the mind doesn't come into it at all?

Surely the claim that he was an unmarried Jew in his 30s in that era is reason enough to ask some questions ? It was quite abnormal.

I think he was quite aware he would make he a widow in very short order so I don't think it would be out of line. I think he would have wanted to spare any perspective wife the grief. I don't think Paul was married. I suppose it was uncommon but not unheard of.

There is no reason to believe that Jesus was still single, or that any of the guys he hung out with were single either. In the case of Peter, we know he was married: but only because his mother-in-law and Jesus had to cure her. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no reason to mention Peter's marriage (Peter's wife is of course never named or mentioned directly). Such things were just taken for granted. Similarly in the Old Testament there is never a single mention that Samuel was married until all of a sudden his sons try to take over: we should not assume those sons were out of wedlock.

You would think they would have mentioned Jesus getting married. You would think that would have been a big deal. Would that make you Grandson or Granddaughter of God?

I don't think John the Baptist was married either.

You would think they would have mentioned Jesus getting married. You would think that would have been a big deal.
There are many people who think the whole "water into wine" thing happened at his wedding.

So Mary was only pregnant in her mind?[QUOTE=Anti-Social Darwinism;14662468]

No but she was somewhat of a rarity. I would say unique among women.

[QUOTE=Anti-Social Darwinism;14662468]
And, of course, sexual and erotic feelings are only physical and the mind doesn't come into it at all?


Not in this area they don't. Most people do not have erotic feelings for God and vice versa is even more absurd.


Euphoria is not the same as Orgasm.

Where is my ruler.

People will say it's right and people will say it's wrong. No matter which side of the argument you are on there is only one thing that I beleive is wrong, and that is governments deciding whether it is right or wrong and dictating what a man or a woman can and can not do. In a free nation of the people two people of the same sex should have the freedom to get married just as a church should have the freedom to disallow the ceremony taking place inside a religous establishments. Personally, I couldn't care less if one is straight or gay. It's his or her prerogative.

You would think they would have mentioned Jesus getting married.
Why? Hardly anyone's marriage is mentioned. It is just taken for granted. It would have been more unusual, and therefore more likely to have been mentioned, if he were NOT married.
I don't think John the Baptist was married either.
No way to tell either way.

1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."

5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

6Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.[a]

7Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

8Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

Jesus Clears the Temple
12After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.
13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

17His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."[b]

18Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

23Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name.[c] 24But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

Doesn't say anywhere that he was the Groom. You think the would have mentioned that. Besides he would have planned ahead for his own wedding. What kind of wedding doesn't have enough wine?

You would think they would have mentioned Jesus getting married.

You'd think they'd mention Jesus outside of the Bible if he actually existed, as well.

I hate it when people raise the spurious notion that homosexuality is wrong because it does not produce offspring. It has been raised a few times in this topic already.

If sexual intercourse was only intended for creating children, then heterosexuals should be able to count how many times they have had intercourse by counting their children.
Or, if you see the fault in that argument, if heterosexuals had a child every time they had intercourse, then the world would have been swamped with dirty nappies/diapers many years ago and the population boom would be immense.

If anything was 'wrong' about homosexuality, it would be that I dont get enough of it.

If it was his wedding it would be standing room only. What with all the angels and heavenly choirs and such. Also that big throne carried by Cherubim for the Father of the Groom. Then there would be the dance at the end when the Father of the Groom gets to dance with the bride. All very tough in this situation.

Then there would be the fist fights for who gets to be the best man. Peter and Paul knocking each other out. Judas would be stealing the wedding gifts. Nope I think we would have heard.

If it was his wedding it would be standing room only. What with all the angels and heavenly choirs and such.
Naw, they all fit on a pinhead.

If it was his wedding it would be standing room only. What with all the angels and heavenly choirs and such. Also that big throne carried by Cherubim for the Father of the Groom. Then there would be the dance at the end when the Father of the Groom gets to dance with the bride. All very tough in this situation.

Then there would be the fist fights for who gets to be the best man. Peter and Paul knocking each other out. Judas would be stealing the wedding gifts. Nope I think we would have heard.

Um.....what?

Naw, they all fit on a pinhead.

http://www.michalak.org/fh/pinhead_profile.jpg (http://www.michalak.org/fh/pinhead_profile.jpg)

Pinhead?

People will say it's right and people will say it's wrong. No matter which side of the argument you are on there is only one thing that I beleive is wrong, and that is governments deciding whether it is right or wrong and dictating what a man or a woman can and can not do. In a free nation of the people two people of the same sex should have the freedom to get married just as a church should have the freedom to disallow the ceremony taking place inside a religous establishments. Personally, I couldn't care less if one is straight or gay. It's his or her prerogative.

*points at the post*

See new people ? This is an example of how YOUR first post could have been. Intelligent, objective and sensible - stating an opinion and a short outline of the reasoning behind it.

Take notes ;) And welcome PaxLibertasAmare. Don't forget to use the traditional gun smileys.

Then there would be the wedding planning. Do we invite Moses, how about Elijah? Well if we invite Elijah we pretty much have to invite Abraham. Then there is Adam and Eve parading around with no clothes on disrupting things. Buddha is definitely not coming to this one he drank all the wine last time.

They all have to rent a tux. Plus all the red carpets. Plus the have to break the glass, I believe but the temple had not been destroyed, yet I think.

Um.....what?

Sorry Imagination kicked in. Pretty soon I'm singing do do do looking out my backdoor.

The devil would be outside trying to get all the bridesmaids drunk.

Jesus was Bisexual :)

Jesus was Bisexual :)

...and a cross dresser

But he was a classy tranny :)

Doesn't say anywhere that he was the Groom. You think the would have mentioned that. Besides he would have planned ahead for his own wedding. What kind of wedding doesn't have enough wine?

That is saying he's the groom. It's the groom's duty to supply the wine.

That is saying he's the groom. It's the groom's duty to supply the wine.

Nah his mom came and got him and sweet talked him.

Jesus was Bisexual :)

I think he was above the pleasures of the flesh. He operated on a different level than us.

Talk about Bridezillas.

Bride: I am telling you this dress has to be perfect, I am marrying the Only Son of God. You know the Lamb of God, the Messiah. Trust me my credit is good. Money is no option.

Then there would be visiting the in-laws. The two families have to eat together. There would be Christmas alternating houses every other year. Plus you have to buy 2 presents. One for Christmas and one for his Birthday each wrapped in separate wrapping paper.

Nah his mom came and got him and sweet talked him.

Why would she talk to him if it wasn't his job?

Why would she talk to him if it wasn't his job?

Because he has "The Power". Cue the music. I don't know maybe the corner store was closed.

Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Mat 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:


Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Nice, but so what? It says nothing at all about his youth. He's an infant, blink, he's 30.

Not news worthy I suppose. He was doing what any normal teen does. He growing, working, and studying.

Yet later in this thread you confidently state that he knew his destiny as a pretext for why you think he was never married or even got busy.

We don't hear anything about him until his 30's when he began his ministry.

Which strikes me as very odd. You can say "not newsworthy" all you like, but that's your opinion. I mean, looking at all of the incredible detail in both the OT and NT, and yet 29-odd years of the main character's life is omitted?

There is certainly no indication that he was gay. If he was and ever made a pass at anyone again likely he would be dead.

What's your basis for this opinion? If there was such a prohibition of homosexuality at the time, why are the "rules" regarding heterosexuality some order or magnitude more numerous than those even mentioning (however obliquely) homosexuality? Seems to me the gayness was at least uncommon, but hardly rare.

As for having a child, someone has been hitting the novels too heavy. Da Vinci code, maybe?

Why is one fiction any less valid than another -- especially when the accepted masterwork is silent on the topic?

I'm not sure the correct question was asked. The right or wrong decision is up to the individual.

In my opinion, the question should be, "Is it normal?" To that I say 'no.'
Homosexuality (if it is a genetic condition as widely claimed) is abnormal in the same way Down's Syndrome is abnormal.

Or savantism, or Tay-Sachs Disease, or blue eyes. All genetic, all abnormal. Is there something wrong with not being normal?

It is laughable that someone would try to justify homosexuality by making the point that, like homosexuals, the elderly and the toddlers cannot conceive. It is also sad that someone would make that argument and think they are making a good point. The fact is that homosexuals will never be able to birth a child, not because they are to young, to old or have a debilitating disease, but because it is anatomically impossible.

It's anatomically impossible for a lesbian woman to be impregnated? Since when? You seem to be insisting -- in a world that has invented in-vitro fertilization, no less -- that there's just no way a couple could conceive a child if their plumbing is the same. You're just wrong. The only way you're even close to right is if all the couple does is have sex with each other. If they're trying to conceive that way, then they're too stupid to be parents, and I'd urge them to keep trying. However, I'm pretty sure that homosexuals understand that they need a womb (men) or sperm (women, for now) to do the job.

If people want to be Homosexuals that is their choice. I think it is wrong, on many different levels, but my thoughts won't change millions of peoples minds.

Wrong again. They won't change one mind. At least not into anything with which you'd agree -- not with arguments like that.

homosextuals are a plague to this earth and should be extermanted. Shipped of to a chamber and gassed and then raditated so they get superpowers.

the superpowers will eliminatate the gayness

Sweet! I'd trade sexual preference for super powers! If I could be Swamp Thing or Dr. Manhattan in exchange for takin' it up the pooper, I'd drop trou in a heartbeat.

Quick question Poli.

How is it possible for two gay guys or two gay women to produce a child between each other without the help of medical science or anyone else? Because I believe when people say something like that, that is what they mean.

You can believe that all you like, it still doesn't make a viable argument against homosexuality in an era that has multiple reproductive options.

So you are saying that if the world population was a quarter of what it is now you would be against homosexuals?

Seriously? You actually thought that and typed it? Bit of a loss of respect there, not that it matters to you.

In a world where population density was minimal and religions needed to breed to succeed, homosexuality was seen as a threat to the relilgion's survival. How do we as a species usually address threats to survival? Usually quite harshly. Were the population a quarter of what it is now, it'd still be about 2 billion. As a refutation of the overpopulation argument, that's pretty childish stuff. Overpopulation merely lends homosexuality a practical aspect it didn't have in the time of Jesus.

There is no reason to believe that Jesus was still single, or that any of the guys he hung out with were single either. In the case of Peter, we know he was married: but only because his mother-in-law and Jesus had to cure her. If that hadn't happened, there would have been no reason to mention Peter's marriage (Peter's wife is of course never named or mentioned directly). Such things were just taken for granted. Similarly in the Old Testament there is never a single mention that Samuel was married until all of a sudden his sons try to take over: we should not assume those sons were out of wedlock.

So wait, that means it's safe to assume Jesus was both married and a father.

I think he was quite aware he would make he a widow in very short order so I don't think it would be out of line. I think he would have wanted to spare any perspective wife the grief. I don't think Paul was married. I suppose it was uncommon but not unheard of.

You think? Uh-uh, sorry. I'm glad you have your own personal doxology, but show me in the infallible text where it says any of that.

Correct. fabulous we all agree. :D

Not quite the response I was expecting.

But, in either case, I see neither as fundamentally wrong.

I'd like to take this moment to use my soapbox to speak on the matter. This is of course, directed in general to the thread and not just Quacawa. :)

There is no rhyme or reason to barring homosexuals from marrying or adopting. It just doesn't make democratic sense to me. After all, they are no different from anyone else other than who they choose to have relations with. It is none of my business if two consenting individuals want to pursue relations beyond the non-marital stage. It doesn't harm me or anyone else.

I couldn't care less if it was a choice or a natural byproduct of nature or just plain old genetics. These are human beings, with the same natural rights as everyone else. Until they have actually caused harm to another, no one has a right to deprived these people of the rights that many of us have.

In a generation from now, people will look back and wonder why some people viewed homosexuals as a threat and sought to deny these people fundamental democratic rights. They will view this as we view anti-miscegenation laws.

Off topic, but still apropos: the Iowa Supreme Court just ruled that restricting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the equal protection clause in the Iowa State Constitution, and thus the marriage law must now be read to allow for same-sex couples.

The full ruling is downloadable, and a good read!

Who'd have thunk that IOWA would be the third US state to have gay marriage?!?!?!

Off topic, but still apropos: the Iowa Supreme Court just ruled that restricting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the equal protection clause in the Iowa State Constitution, and thus the marriage law must now be read to allow for same-sex couples.

The full ruling is downloadable, and a good read!

Who'd have thunk that IOWA would be the third US state to have gay marriage?!?!?!

No. They. Aren't.

Declaring void a ruling making something explicitly illegal does not make it suddenly legal. See the thread on this topic.

Absolutely BUT it is silly to say they are born gay.

Not as silly as saying they choose...

That is the worst analogy I have ever heard. God does not have sex with humans, nor do angels if they want to keep their wings.

It has nothing to do with sex it is purely mental.

Marriage isn't legitimate unless it's consummated. That means, if you're part of 'the body of the church', you're going to get literally fucked - because God can't lie.

Apparently living in a large city positively correlates to homosexuality! http://books.google.com/books?id=3RbyuQAYsdMC&pg=PA561&lpg=PA561&dq=%22large+cities%22+homosexual+rural+likely&source=web&ots=B4otWCYL4V&sig=A_pMiTNvnOM5BskQeOrIzRV6trQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA308,M1

EDIT: Would this count as a "social" factor? Or an environmental one?

Correlation =/= causation.

The most obvious interpretation would be that - gay people move away from little homophobic towns in the middle of nowhere, and go where they can find a more tolerant crowd.

Or... gay people like a selection, too - and thus migrate to wherever they can find a proportional concentration of their own gender choice.

Jesus was neither gay nor did he have a child with Mary Magdalene.

You must have access to scriptures no one else has.

Also... Jesus said he loved everyone, didn't he?

And he definitely kissed guys.

That is not the same thing. Platonic love. Brotherly love. He care deeply for all his disciples that did not mean he wanted to do the nasty with them.


But it also doesn't mean he didn't.


The man was too busy to have sex with anyone. Casting out demon, curing the sick, making fish and bread multiply, turning water into wine, walking on water. He had a very full schedule. Not to mention all the traveling and preaching.


That's a heap of bullshit. He was sufficiently un-busy that he could stop for a foot-massage, or go and sit by a well, when it suited his purposes. Or curse a plant. That kind of thing. Plenty of time.


Can you imagine what would have been said if Jesus had child out of wedlock? He would never of had a church, following or anything else. In his day he likely would have been stoned to death.

More bullshit, I'm afraid. Not only because you assume that Jesus never wed (a book written by Jews about a 'good Jewish boy' who is STILL unmarried in his thirties? Pur-lease), but because you then consturct awhole 'what would have happened' scenario that has no meaning.

Are you forgetting that the Jesus story STARTS with a bastard?

Not news worthy I suppose. He was doing what any normal teen does. He growing, working, and studying.


Masturbating, having experimental sex - possibly with other boys, taking drugs, getting drunk, some petty vandalism, maybe... joining a gang.

That one is easy the ones they act on. Thoughts, desires, and impulses are in some cases just mental activity. You real sexuality is the one you act on.

The other areas can be confined in the realm of fantasy.

Do you have sexual fantasies about your own gender?

You real sexuality is the one you act on.

This one slipped by me.

WHAT?!?

So a gay man acting straight in order not to get ostracized or beaten or even killed is actually straight? What's wrong with you?

EDIT: Roy Cohn enjoyed fucking young men but adamantly insisted he wasn't gay. You're saying he was. Which is it?

Quick question Poli.

How is it possible for two gay guys or two gay women to produce a child between each other without the help of medical science or anyone else? Because I believe when people say something like that, that is what they mean.

What they SAY is 'homosexuals can't have children'. Clearly they can. My lesbian friends, with the 18 year old son testify to that fact.

Where did they get the child? One of them gave birth.

WHat does it matter who the father is?

Being heterosexual, and in a couple, is no guarantee that the 'husband' is also the father. Why should it matter in gay couples?

Nice, but so what? It says nothing at all about his youth. He's an infant, blink, he's 30.

To say the Bible is an abridged version of things would be an understatement. We don't hear about too many people whole life, none that I am aware of in the Bible. First Moses was a child in the reeds next thing you know he is running away after killing a man. The Bible is not meant to be Jesus's autobiography nor his Diary, although I would like to read either.



Yet later in this thread you confidently state that he knew his destiny as a pretext for why you think he was never married or even got busy.

If you had incurable cancer would run out and marry the first woman you meet? Maybe some would but it appears he didn't.


Which strikes me as very odd. You can say "not newsworthy" all you like, but that's your opinion. I mean, looking at all of the incredible detail in both the OT and NT, and yet 29-odd years of the main character's life is omitted?


If they did that the Bible would orders of magnitude bigger than is already is. Not to mention someone would have to follow Jesus around from Day one recording everything he did. Not an easy thing to do back then. Nowadays we have Independent research for these things.

Day 4220: Jesus learns to ride a bike
Day 5110: Jesus shave for the first time
Day 6935: Jesus becomes a carpenter


What's your basis for this opinion? If there was such a prohibition of homosexuality at the time, why are the "rules" regarding heterosexuality some order or magnitude more numerous than those even mentioning (however obliquely) homosexuality? Seems to me the gayness was at least uncommon, but hardly rare.

Contrary to what was said he it pretty much was against the law and consider a sin. I think other have cited the scripture already.


Why is one fiction any less valid than another -- especially when the accepted masterwork is silent on the topic?

It unfortunately not silent on the topic. They may have not come and directly say Homosexuality but that is what they meant. They used words like effeminate:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God?"


And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

There is very little doubt to me what they are talking about.


There are several others but I am sure you have heard them before. I will not bore you. Does this mean I think Homosexuals should be stoned of course not but the stuff is in there. It makes it hard for Christians as we feel conflicted. Who do we listen to the church or you guys. Most of the congregation are just singing along it is the band that plays the tune. If you don't like the music that is okay but that doesn't change it.



You think? Uh-uh, sorry. I'm glad you have your own personal doxology, but show me in the infallible text where it says any of that.

Where it shows proof positive that Jesus was single and not gay? You got to be kidding? I think you and Grave -n- Idle should compare notes? As you have already mention other than the Bible there is hardly anything written on the man himself. Lots of guesses and theories. This is where all that nonsense about Da Vinci Code came from since no one can ever say 100% certainty that it didn't happen.

No one disputes that homosexual intercourse does not cause conception. The thing is, no one disputes that 80-year-old intercourse does not cause conception, or that intercourse with someone who is infertile for whatever reason does not cause conception. If "does not cause conception" were actually the standard for what sex acts were immoral, you'd see people picketing outside retirement homes with "GOD HATES OLD PEOPLE" signs.

If your girl just happens to like it in the butt, she's not going to get pregnant, either. Being young, (but old enough), fertile, hetero AND sexually active doesn't necessarily make you ANY more likely to reproduce.

It all depends which holes you count as goals.

I think he was quite aware he would make he a widow in very short order so I don't think it would be out of line.

And, how is THAT scriptural?

He had left his father and mother - his next step, biblically, was to find a wife and become one.

You would think they would have mentioned Jesus getting married.

A young Jewish guy getting married?

Did you see which of the newspapers today were leading with the story "Man Walks Down Street"?

That's right - NONE - because you don't have to make a big fuss out of something that everyone does, all the time.

If your girl just happens to like it in the butt, she's not going to get pregnant, either. Being young, (but old enough), fertile, hetero AND sexually active doesn't necessarily make you ANY more likely to reproduce.

It all depends which holes you count as goals.

I...wish I had the space to sig that.

I think he was above the pleasures of the flesh. He operated on a different level than us.

Then you missed the whole point of the Jesus story, I'm afraid.

If he never knew what it felt like to be human, the sacrifice is a sham.

And, how is THAT scriptural?

He had left his father and mother - his next step, biblically, was to find a wife and become one.

I suppose if you were a normal human. He was not and I think he knew what was expected of him beforehand.

To say the Bible is an abridged version of things would be an understatement. We don't hear about too many people whole life, none that I am aware of in the Bible. First Moses was a child in the reeds next thing you know he is running away after killing a man. The Bible is not meant to be Jesus's autobiography nor his Diary, although I would like to read either.

Nice apology, but if Jesus is so important, I'd have expected more than a 29-year gap. Son of God strikes me as pretty important.

If you had incurable cancer would run out and marry the first woman you meet? Maybe some would but it appears he didn't.

More conjecture. You just don't want to understand, do you? You can speculate all you like, but all it does is makes your guesses no more valid than mine or anyone elses. The difference is that I admit to possibility, while you wallow in false certainty. Which of us is deluded?

If they did that the Bible would orders of magnitude bigger than is already is. Not to mention someone would have to follow Jesus around from Day one recording everything he did. Not an easy thing to do back then. Nowadays we have Independent research for these things.

Day 4220: Jesus learns to ride a bike
Day 5110: Jesus shave for the first time
Day 6935: Jesus becomes a carpenter

:rolleyes:

So, no hints of the powers he possessed, no child-like experimentations with that power, no examples of him leading a Christ-like life when it would have been the hardest time of his life to do so? Boy, the scribes missed an opportunity there.

Contrary to what was said he it pretty much was against the law and consider a sin. I think other have cited the scripture already.

In Egypt? Got proof of that, or is this yet more conjecture? Remember, tribes all over the place, all following different laws.

It unfortunately not silent on the topic. They may have not come and directly say Homosexuality but that is what they meant. They used words like effeminate:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God?"

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

There is very little doubt to me what they are talking about.

To you. Hell, "abusers of themselves with mankind" could mean "rugby players". Funny how they left out murderers in your quote.

There are several others but I am sure you have heard them before. I will not bore you.

Pal, this stuff bored me a long time ago, but I appreciate your consideration.

Does this mean I think Homosexuals should be stoned of course not but the stuff is in there. It makes it hard for Christians as we feel conflicted. Who do we listen to the church or you guys. Most of the congregation are just singing along it is the band that plays the tune. If you don't like the music that is okay but that doesn't change it.

See, and this sounds SO sincere, but it's crap. How can you POSSIBLY be conflicted? All the words you've quoted are anyone's BUT Jesus' own words. Jesus' own words say nothing like any of that, and were written down years after his time on Earth anyway. Those writing can have had the Savior say whatever they wanted him to, and yet they didn't have him go to town on homosexuality NEARLY as self-righteously as some do today. Doesn't that strike you as odd? How can there be conflict between the words of mere mortals versus the words of the Savior? Surely the latter trumps the former.

Where it shows proof positive that Jesus was single and not gay? You got to be kidding? I think you and Grave -n- Idle should compare notes? As you have already mention other than the Bible there is hardly anything written on the man himself. Lots of guesses and theories. This is where all that nonsense about Da Vinci Code came from since no one can ever say 100% certainty that it didn't happen.

Then where does YOUR certainty come from? My question stands unanswered -- why is one fiction any more valid than another when the authoritative source remains silent on the point?

I suppose if you were a normal human. He was not and I think he knew what was expected of him beforehand.

He was a normal human until the 'spirit' descended upon him at his Baptism.

A young Jewish man would have been married. The idea that Jesus was a young Jewish man but NOT married... it would be a greater miracle to believe, than the feeding of the multitudes.

A young Jewish guy getting married?

Did you see which of the newspapers today were leading with the story "Man Walks Down Street"?

That's right - NONE - because you don't have to make a big fuss out of something that everyone does, all the time.


I think that would have made the papers. Son of God to marry news at 11:00PM.


Then he has to have bachelor party and who do get to do that? It not like it will actually stay in Vegas in his case.

Then you missed the whole point of the Jesus story, I'm afraid.

If he never knew what it felt like to be human, the sacrifice is a sham.

Just because you do not partake in something doesn't mean you don't understand it?

I suppose if you were a normal human. He was not and I think he knew what was expected of him beforehand.

"I think, I think, I think" -- again, terrific for you, but worthless as any kind of convincing argument. The point is, I can say "I think he had zits that squirted honey mustard" (pretty damned miraculous, if you ask me), and there's nothing to contradict me besides what YOU "think". You don't KNOW what he thought or what he knew between the ages of less than one and about thirty because nobody bothered to write anything down. You. Simply. Don't. Know. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

I think that would have made the papers. Son of God to marry news at 11:00PM.


Then he has to have bachelor party and who do get to do that? It not like it will actually stay in Vegas in his case.

Your faux-cute attempts to deflect aside, remember that not everyone would have believed he was the Son of God, and certainly less thought so before he started his ministry and doing miraculous things in public.

Just because you do not partake in something doesn't mean you don't understand it?

If you're not human, can you understand what it is to be human?

I think that would have made the papers. Son of God to marry news at 11:00PM.


Then he has to have bachelor party and who do get to do that? It not like it will actually stay in Vegas in his case.

Considering when he would have been married (age 14ish) the amount of people who would think he was the son of God was virtually non-existant.

Nice apology, but if Jesus is so important, I'd have expected more than a 29-year gap. Son of God strikes me as pretty important.

Agreed but so far that is all we have found.



More conjecture. You just don't want to understand, do you? You can speculate all you like, but all it does is makes your guesses no more valid than mine or anyone elses. The difference is that I admit to possibility, while you wallow in false certainty. Which of us is deluded?


Church, faith, scripture. I suppose he could have been married but he also could have working on his doctorate in Mathematics as well, with a minor in Astrophysics.


:rolleyes:

So, no hints of the powers he possessed, no child-like experimentations with that power, no examples of him leading a Christ-like life when it would have been the hardest time of his life to do so? Boy, the scribes missed an opportunity there.

I would love to hear stories like that as well. Not likely going to happen anytime soon. It would be a best seller.


In Egypt? Got proof of that, or is this yet more conjecture? Remember, tribes all over the place, all following different laws.

What the Holy Family in Egypt? Yes they publicized their arrival so Herod wouldn't have to bother looking for them. He would know where to find them.


To you. Hell, "abusers of themselves with mankind" could mean "rugby players". Funny how they left out murderers in your quote.

Someone who reads Hebrew would have to help me out.

Question: In Jesus's time was the word Homosexual in play? Did they have a similar word or better word than what was written?


Pal, this stuff bored me a long time ago, but I appreciate your consideration.


Really I am trying not to be judgmental. Personally I think people should worry about the beam in their own more than the splinter in someone elses.


See, and this sounds SO sincere, but it's crap. How can you POSSIBLY be conflicted? All the words you've quoted are anyone's BUT Jesus' own words. Jesus' own words say nothing like any of that, and were written down years after his time on Earth anyway. Those writing can have had the Savior say whatever they wanted him to, and yet they didn't have him go to town on homosexuality NEARLY as self-righteously as some do today. Doesn't that strike you as odd? How can there be conflict between the words of mere mortals versus the words of the Savior? Surely the latter trumps the former.

Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, why would he? It was already understood it was against the law.


Then where does YOUR certainty come from? My question stands unanswered -- why is one fiction any more valid than another when the authoritative source remains silent on the point?[/QUOTE]

Church, faith, scripture.

I think that would have made the papers. Son of God to marry news at 11:00PM.


You really need to actually do some study. The debate WITHIN 'the church' about whether Jesus was all mortal, all spirit, or something else lasted long after his death.

The idea that anyone was attributing anything to him as 'the son of god' - much less, before he even began his ministry, is just laughable.

I realise you're trying to use parody to try to defeat an argument that you know damn well you can't actually argue against - but this is just... weak.

Just because you do not partake in something doesn't mean you don't understand it?

Errr... yeah?

Do you understand the Goth culture of the English Midlands, at the turn of the millenium?

Absolutely not

He was a normal human until the 'spirit' descended upon him at his Baptism.

A young Jewish man would have been married. The idea that Jesus was a young Jewish man but NOT married... it would be a greater miracle to believe, than the feeding of the multitudes.

Nothing about him was ordinary. He was exceptional. The spirit was a cool effect but I think that was for us. Remember the loud voice from above this is my son and with him I am pleased.

Something to that affect. That is "bam" when he got "The Power". That signaled the beginning. Before that he was still exceptional in his understanding of the law. This is have heard from outside Biblical sources, unconfirmed.

Church, faith, scripture. I suppose he could have been married but he also could have working on his doctorate in Mathematics as well, with a minor in Astrophysics.

That would be funny except it isnt even a valid counter arguement. It wasnt a centuries old tradition for Hebrew males to have a PhD by age 18. It was a centuries old tradition for Hebrew males to be married by age 18.

Agreed but so far that is all we have found.

"Found"? How about "allowed in".

Church, faith, scripture. I suppose he could have been married but he also could have working on his doctorate in Mathematics as well, with a minor in Astrophysics.


:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you like, you know it's true. Faith I will always allow for, but Church? Whatever. If you voluntarily sign up for deception, that's your lookout. The scriptures, as has been said, are silent on the point.

I would love to hear stories like that as well. Not likely going to happen anytime soon. It would be a best seller.

That it would.

What the Holy Family in Egypt? Yes they publicized their arrival so Herod wouldn't have to bother looking for them. He would know where to find them.

Wow, you TOtally missed the point there. The Holy Family fled to Egypt -- were the same laws in effect there with regard to homosexuality? In short, was the OT law everywhere, even Egypt? I have a hard time believing that it was, considering how much fighting there was over idolatry.

Someone who reads Hebrew would have to help me out.

While they're at it, look into the Hebrew word for "maiden", which was mistranslated to "parthena" or "virgin" in Greek. Kinda important distinction for the whole of the story.

Question: In Jesus's time was the word Homosexual in play? Did they have a similar word or better word than what was written?

Does it matter?

Really I am trying not to be judgmental. Personally I think people should worry about the beam in their own more than the splinter in someone elses.

And yet here you are....

Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, why would he? It was already understood it was against the law.

Then why all the fuss about it? Why did ANYone speak about it, then?

Church, faith, scripture.

I've dealt with those already.

Nothing about him was ordinary. He was exceptional. The spirit was a cool effect but I think that was for us. Remember the loud voice from above this is my son and with him I am pleased.

Something to that affect. That is "bam" when he got "The Power". That signaled the beginning. Before that he was still exceptional in his understanding of the law. This is have heard from outside Biblical sources, unconfirmed.

Self-invalidating arguments. Neat invention!

Errr... yeah?

Do you understand the Goth culture of the English Midlands, at the turn of the millenium?

No but I do know about marriage from watching people around me and listening and talking and so forth. Not to mention I am also married but I also know about single people because I once was but I am not now.

He probably knew where the pyramids were too even if he never saw them.

No but I do know about marriage from watching people around me and listening and talking and so forth. Not to mention I am also married but I also know about single people because I once was but I am not now.

He probably knew where the pyramids were too even if he never saw them.

So, being married, how does a homosexual marriage in any way affect your marriage? I've always wanted to know, and nobody ever seems to want to answer that question.

Church, faith, scripture. I suppose he could have been married but he also could have working on his doctorate in Mathematics as well, with a minor in Astrophysics.


An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

But it raises a valid point - we don't know if Jesus would have been able to write or not, read or not. We can't be sure what languages he would have spoken. We don't know what he looked like, or even what colour his skin was.

We can assume those things, though - from his environment. As we can for his marital status as a Jewish man at 34.


Someone who reads Hebrew would have to help me out.


Greek.


Question: In Jesus's time was the word Homosexual in play? Did they have a similar word or better word than what was written?


Yes. The words that are used do not mean what WE would understand to strictly mean 'homosexual' today.


Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, why would he? It was already understood it was against the law.


A poor answer - he spoke about many things that had already been decided by the Law.

But, again - you seem to lack knowledge relevant to the environment. Jesus was preaching to Hellenic Jews.


Church,


Usless as evidence. None of your church were there.


faith,


Useless as evidence.


scripture.

Doesn't support your arguments.

I think you missed the point of the question you were asked.

Here's my opinion on homosexuality:

If you're gay, whatever. You don't choose your sexuality.

If you have gay sex, I'm not interested, I think it's wrong, but if you do that, who cares. Not my problem.

Civil unions, not actual marriage, sure, go for it.

Gay marriage, against, but if it were to be passed, my world wouldn't come tumbling down.

Nothing about him was ordinary. He was exceptional. The spirit was a cool effect but I think that was for us. Remember the loud voice from above this is my son and with him I am pleased.

Something to that affect. That is "bam" when he got "The Power". That signaled the beginning. Before that he was still exceptional in his understanding of the law. This is have heard from outside Biblical sources, unconfirmed.

My daughter had a long running debate with the local preacher about Cain and Abel... when she was 5.

That doesn't mean that she is imbued with some magical spirit, that she is half-god, or that she can do miracles.

The canonised texts make it quite clear that Jesus' ministry and miracles didn't start until he became ensouled. He would have already been married more than a decade, by then.

So, being married, how does a homosexual marriage in any way affect your marriage? I've always wanted to know, and nobody ever seems to want to answer that question.

Ruffy once made a very helpful diagram showing how gay relationships create a kind of radiation that destroys heterosexual relationships.

Here's my opinion on homosexuality:

If you're gay, whatever. You don't choose your sexuality.

If you have gay sex, I'm not interested, I think it's wrong, but if you do that, who cares. Not my problem.

Civil unions, not actual marriage, sure, go for it.

Gay marriage, against, but if it were to be passed, my world wouldn't come tumbling down.

Then why against?

Then why against?

I just think marriage is between a man and a woman. If it were to be passed, I still wouldn't agree with it, but there would be more important things for me to care about, like the economy and the war, you know, important things that directly affect me.

You really need to actually do some study. The debate WITHIN 'the church' about whether Jesus was all mortal, all spirit, or something else lasted long after his death.

The idea that anyone was attributing anything to him as 'the son of god' - much less, before he even began his ministry, is just laughable.

I realise you're trying to use parody to try to defeat an argument that you know damn well you can't actually argue against - but this is just... weak.

You begin to see how ridiculous it sounds. Very good. People treat it like is a foregone conclusion that he was married.

Nothing says so if he was. I find it highly unlikely that he was.

Not to mention your quip about Man walks down the street. He was mortal already. We have been down there no going back.


It waters down the the whole process if you ask me, not that anyone did. I see stuff and I just go off.

Jesus was gay? Not likely
Jesus was married? Not likely?

But who really know for sure, there are you all satisfied?

No but I do know about marriage from watching people around me and listening and talking and so forth. Not to mention I am also married but I also know about single people because I once was but I am not now.


You only know about being single - because you've been it.

You had NO idea about marriage, until you were married... even what other people told you doesn't reflect on the actuality of existence.

Do you know how it feels to be a frog? No - they sit there, all day, talking about it - but it makes no sense to your ears, because you don't even really have the same language - their primitive symbols are incapable of conveying a message that you could ever really comprehend.

If you've never been a frog, you'll never REALLY know what it means to be a frog. If Jesus was never human, he'd never know what it means to be human.

I just think marriage is between a man and a woman.

I dont know why people think this was ever a compelling arguement.

You begin to see how ridiculous it sounds. Very good. People treat it like is a foregone conclusion that he was married.

Nothing says so if he was. I find it highly unlikely that he was.

Not to mention your quip about Man walks down the street. He was mortal already. We have been down there no going back.


It waters down the the whole process if you ask me, not that anyone did. I see stuff and I just go off.

Jesus was gay? Not likely
Jesus was married? Not likely?

But who really know for sure, there are you all satisfied?

I have no idea how you can read GnI's post as if he was agreeing with you.

I dont know why people think this was ever a compelling arguement.

Presumably it convinced them.

I think he was above the pleasures of the flesh. He operated on a different level than us.


Jesus was a prude.

You begin to see how ridiculous it sounds.


Yes. Denying something based on what you WANT to believe is ridiculous.


Jesus was gay? Not likely
Jesus was married? Not likely?

But who really know for sure, there are you all satisfied?

Jesus probably didn't exist. If he existed, he'd have been married - because that was the norm, and sufficiently strong a tradition, that NOT being married would have been a huge deal - and that WOULD have been mentioned in a book that mentions him getting pissed off at a bush.

Whether or not he was gay - well, he'd have to be to understand the full realm of human existence. If we were made in His image, and some of us are gay, then he must be too.

There are several good arguments for Jesus being gay - not least being the fact that he doesn't seem at all surprised, shocked... or displeased, when Judas slips him the tongue.

I just think marriage is between a man and a woman.

It's not.

You're welcome. Next time, I'll charge.

I dont know why people think this was ever a compelling arguement.

It's just what my faith says (I'm Catholic). But I'm not gonna go apeshit if someone were to let gays marry. They just allowed it in Iowa, which I live about 10 miles from (I live in Omaha, NE) I am not going to rush over there and give a shit.

Yeah, you'll say, "What right do you have to use your faith to judge others?"

I say, "What right do you then have to use your opinions to consider mine to be automatically false? Your opinions are of equal value to mine."

I can't prove why I think gay marriage is wrong, I just believe it because it's a part of my faith. Doesn't make me stupid, doesn't make me a bad person, doesn't make me a bigot. Just means I got a different belief.

You only know about being single - because you've been it.

You had NO idea about marriage, until you were married... even what other people told you doesn't reflect on the actuality of existence.

Do you know how it feels to be a frog? No - they sit there, all day, talking about it - but it makes no sense to your ears, because you don't even really have the same language - their primitive symbols are incapable of conveying a message that you could ever really comprehend.

If you've never been a frog, you'll never REALLY know what it means to be a frog. If Jesus was never human, he'd never know what it means to be human.


What does that have to do with marriage? He was human. He had to be married to be human? I don't think that follows.

It's not.

You're welcome. Next time, I'll charge.

Prove it. Where in history does it say gays can marry?

Who says it's right for you to say I'm wrong?

Your statement is not a fact, it is an opinion, just like mine.

What does that have to do with marriage? He was human. He had to be married to be human? I don't think that follows.

He was a jewish male human in a certain time period. For him not to be married would be a big fucking deal, and books about him would have mentioned it. It'd be like a history book not mentioning that Obama was black.

Prove it. Where in history does it say gays can marry?

Who says it's right for you to say I'm wrong?

Your statement is not a fact, it is an opinion, just like mine.

Many cultures have had marriages that didn't require a male/female one-to-one ratio.

There are cultures and places NOW that don't.

Thus - not only is your 'argument' an opinion, it's clearly not true.

Mine, on the other hand - IS fact.

Yes and no, it's no wrong because people have the right to choise what they want to do. But it is wrong in the manner that to many og them force the beliefs on people or try to make people change there life for them. How about do your own thing and leave everyone else out of it. Maybe you all remember something on the news some months back about a 3rd grader being killed in school because he said he was gay and anothing student dident like it, the childs parents were gay 'adopted' and forced him to think that way.

Prove it. Where in history does it say gays can marry?

See: Thread Re:Iowan ban on gay marriage being struck down

What does that have to do with marriage? He was human. He had to be married to be human? I don't think that follows.

Was he human?

If he was human - he was party to the sins of the flesh.

If he wasn't party to the sins of the flesh - he wasn't human.


Now - according to the Bible story, we KNOW he was human, and we also know that the 'without sin' claim is metaphorical. We KNOW he sinned, because humans sin - and his crucifixion would have been the comedy event of the year if he was without sin.

Yes. Denying something based on what you WANT to believe is ridiculous.



Jesus probably didn't exist. If he existed, he'd have been married - because that was the norm, and sufficiently strong a tradition, that NOT being married would have been a huge deal - and that WOULD have been mentioned in a book that mentions him getting pissed off at a bush.

Whether or not he was gay - well, he'd have to be to understand the full realm of human existence. If we were made in His image, and some of us are gay, then he must be too.

There are several good arguments for Jesus being gay - not least being the fact that he doesn't seem at all surprised, shocked... or displeased, when Judas slips him the tongue.

^This^. This was what I was waiting for. Jesus probably didn't exist.

In your book I guess he could be King of Siam then and had whole troop of Space Monkeys. What does it matter then? He is all just a figment of our collective imaginations.


Any way, on that happy note I will let you return to agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back. I have to escape up North again. Happy Trails to all.

Many cultures have had marriages that didn't require a male/female one-to-one ratio.

There are cultures and places NOW that don't.

Thus - not only is your 'argument' an opinion, it's clearly not true.

Mine, on the other hand - IS fact.

Just because it is allowed, is it necessarily right?

That's not fact, that's opinion.

This is an example of fact: The sky appears blue during the day if there are no clouds or other irregularities in the air.

This is an opinion: I believe x is wrong.

Even beliefs on murder are opinions. The most commonly held opinion is that murder is wrong, but some people think it's right.

Yes and no, it's no wrong because people have the right to choise what they want to do. But it is wrong in the manner that to many og them force the beliefs on people or try to make people change there life for them. How about do your own thing and leave everyone else out of it.
What gay people force anything on you? What are you on about?
Maybe you all remember something on the news some months back about a 3rd grader being killed in school because he said he was gay and anothing student dident like it, the childs parents were gay 'adopted' and forced him to think that way.
Wait, your arguement is that it was the parents fault that a few kids beat this kid do death based on their own issues?

What the fuck kind of arguement is that?

And his crucifixion would have been the comedy event of the year if he was without sin.

You assume that all people that are executed are guilty. Not true.

I say, "What right do you then have to use your opinions to consider mine to be automatically false? Your opinions are of equal value to mine."


And this is where you are wrong.

My 'opinion' is the Constitution, which says all men are born equal, and endowed with the same sacred rights.

I don't care where your opinion comes from. If your opinion contradicts the Constitution, you might want to think which kingdom you really belong to.

I just think marriage is between a man and a woman. If it were to be passed, I still wouldn't agree with it, but there would be more important things for me to care about, like the economy and the war, you know, important things that directly affect me.

That doesn't answer my question, and actually makes my point for me. If it makes no difference to you, there's no good reason to oppose, is there?

*snip*

Nothing says so if he was. I find it highly unlikely that he was [married].

Based on nothing. Got it. I find it highly likely that he was, based on the same nothing.

Jesus was gay? Not likely
Jesus was married? Not likely?

Again, based on nothing.

But nobody [edit & emphasis mine] really knows for sure, there are you all satisfied?

I am now.

Yes. Denying something based on what you WANT to believe is ridiculous.



Jesus probably didn't exist. If he existed, he'd have been married - because that was the norm, and sufficiently strong a tradition, that NOT being married would have been a huge deal - and that WOULD have been mentioned in a book that mentions him getting pissed off at a bush.

Whether or not he was gay - well, he'd have to be to understand the full realm of human existence. If we were made in His image, and some of us are gay, then he must be too.

There are several good arguments for Jesus being gay - not least being the fact that he doesn't seem at all surprised, shocked... or displeased, when Judas slips him the tongue.

Brilliant. Come with me to Iowa, I have a surprise for you, baby.

It's just what my faith says (I'm Catholic). But I'm not gonna go apeshit if someone were to let gays marry. They just allowed it in Iowa, which I live about 10 miles from (I live in Omaha, NE) I am not going to rush over there and give a shit.

Yeah, you'll say, "What right do you have to use your faith to judge others?"

I say, "What right do you then have to use your opinions to consider mine to be automatically false? Your opinions are of equal value to mine."

I can't prove why I think gay marriage is wrong, I just believe it because it's a part of my faith. Doesn't make me stupid, doesn't make me a bad person, doesn't make me a bigot. Just means I got a different belief.

Actually, saying that it doesn't matter to you and yet still opposing it because someone else put the idea into your head -- well, I don't mean to flame, but that sounds kinda stupid to me.

Just because it is allowed, is it necessarily right?

You ask where in history it said gays could marry. Very recent history in Iowa, among other places.

You assume that all people that are executed are guilty. Not true.

I didn't assume that, at all.

The only asumption I made was that I was debating with people who had ever actually READ a bible.

If Jesus was without sin, his crucifixion would have been a comedy because he'd have just hung there. See Romans 6:23.

And this is where you are wrong.

My 'opinion' is the Constitution, which says all men are born equal, and endowed with the same sacred rights.

I don't care where your opinion comes from. If your opinion contradicts the Constitution, you might want to think which kingdom you really belong to.

Is the Constitution necessarily fact? Was it not created by men who used their opinions to create it?

You cannot prove that the Constitution is fact. I believe in the Constitution, which is why I wouldn't care if gay marriage is allowed. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be allowed nonetheless.

Take for example, the Westboro Baptist Church. I assume you disagree with them, yes? They still have the right to say what they say. Just because they exist does not mean you must agree with them.

^This^. This was what I was waiting for. Jesus probably didn't exist.


I'm glad you agree. Although I'm a little concerned at the amount of time you wasted.

Yes and no, it's no wrong because people have the right to choise what they want to do. But it is wrong in the manner that to many og them force the beliefs on people or try to make people change there life for them. How about do your own thing and leave everyone else out of it. Maybe you all remember something on the news some months back about a 3rd grader being killed in school because he said he was gay and anothing student dident like it, the childs parents were gay 'adopted' and forced him to think that way.

Whose lives are being changed by gay marriage? Certainly the gay couple's lives, but who else's? And what does your anecdote have to do with....well, anything? If you'd read the Iowa thread, you'd see that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that churches can marry or not marry WHOEVER THEY LIKE. They've drawn a line between state and church marriages -- a line that was already there, but apparently needed re-striping.

Actually, saying that it doesn't matter to you and yet still opposing it because someone else put the idea into your head -- well, I don't mean to flame, but that sounds kinda stupid to me.

Fair enough. I mean that I wouldn't care about it so much as to actually fight against it or even vote on the matter.

Is the Constitution necessarily fact? Was it not created by men who used their opinions to create it?

You cannot prove that the Constitution is fact. I believe in the Constitution, which is why I wouldn't care if gay marriage is allowed. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be allowed nonetheless.

Take for example, the Westboro Baptist Church. I assume you disagree with them, yes? They still have the right to say what they say. Just because they exist does not mean you must agree with them.

Uh...what now?

Fair enough. I mean that I wouldn't care about it so much as to actually fight against it or even vote on the matter.

Then that means you don't oppose it. That means you're neutral, you don't care to either support or oppose. Probably the most reasonable stance for religiously indoctrinated folks, if you ask me.

Just because it is allowed, is it necessarily right?

That's not fact, that's opinion.

This is an example of fact: The sky appears blue during the day if there are no clouds or other irregularities in the air.

This is an opinion: I believe x is wrong.

Even beliefs on murder are opinions. The most commonly held opinion is that murder is wrong, but some people think it's right.

You said "marriage is between a man and a woman".

I said it's not.

I can show you examples of it not being between a man and a woman.

Thus - your 'argument' is mere opinion, and my argument is fact.

Then that means you don't oppose it. That means you're neutral, you don't care to either support or oppose. Probably the most reasonable stance for religiously indoctrinated folks, if you ask me.

It's just something I just don't really see as an important issue in modern times. Much bigger fish to fry.

Is the Constitution necessarily fact? Was it not created by men who used their opinions to create it?

You cannot prove that the Constitution is fact. I believe in the Constitution, which is why I wouldn't care if gay marriage is allowed. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be allowed nonetheless.

Take for example, the Westboro Baptist Church. I assume you disagree with them, yes? They still have the right to say what they say. Just because they exist does not mean you must agree with them.

er... Say what now?

Brilliant. Come with me to Iowa, I have a surprise for you, baby.


:D

Unless they've also decided to overturn polygamy laws, my wife might be a problem. :)

You said "marriage is between a man and a woman".

I said it's not.

I can show you examples of it not being between a man and a woman.

Thus - your 'argument' is mere opinion, and my argument is fact.

Alright, that's fine, but does that make gay marriage right? Is something automatically morally right if it is allowed by law?

Is existence inclusive to being morally right?

Is the Constitution necessarily fact? Was it not created by men who used their opinions to create it?

You cannot prove that the Constitution is fact. I believe in the Constitution, which is why I wouldn't care if gay marriage is allowed. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be allowed nonetheless.

Take for example, the Westboro Baptist Church. I assume you disagree with them, yes? They still have the right to say what they say. Just because they exist does not mean you must agree with them.

Is the Constitution 'fact'? Yes.

Next question.

:D

Unless they've also decided to overturn polygamy laws, my wife might be a problem. :)

Problem? Or sweet, sexy opportunity? I'll be the bit on the side. I can take it.

er... Say what now?

What is that you question? My belief that the beliefs outlined in the Constitution are just beliefs, not fact? True, the Constitution is in accordance with my beliefs, but does that make it fact?

Alright, that's fine, but does that make gay marriage right? Is something automatically morally right if it is allowed by law?

Is existence inclusive to being morally right?

This is a different argument to the one you originally presented.

Shifting goalposts when your argument is shot down (in flames, I might add) is a little intellectually dishonest, isn't it?

But sure - let's entertain your diversion:

Is gay marriage right? If it is in accordance to the laws of the land, why wouldn't it be 'right'?

Are you arguing our laws are wrong? That we should be ruled, termporally, by some theologically derived ordinance?

Problem? Or sweet, sexy opportunity? I'll be the bit on the side. I can take it.

If you're just the bit of rough, isn't Iowa somewhat out of the way? :)

What is that you question? My belief that the beliefs outlined in the Constitution are just beliefs, not fact? True, the Constitution is in accordance with my beliefs, but does that make it fact?

The constitution isn't about beliefs. It's about forming a country and setting out the powers of its government.

Is the Constitution 'fact'? Yes.

Next question.

Prove it is a fact. How is it scientifically proven to be fact?

You can't prove the beliefs outlined in the Constitution to be fact. You can agree with those beliefs, I agree with those beliefs, but that doesn't make them inherently true. I'm not arguing the validity of the Constitution, I'm arguing whether or not it is a scientific fact that all men are created equal, as much as we know the Earth goes around the sun once every 365.25 days.

What is that you question? My belief that the beliefs outlined in the Constitution are just beliefs, not fact? True, the Constitution is in accordance with my beliefs, but does that make it fact?

No, it's material, verifiable existence makes it a fact.

Prove it is a fact. How is it scientifically proven to be fact?

You can't prove the beliefs outlined in the Constitution to be fact. You can agree with those beliefs, I agree with those beliefs, but that doesn't make them inherently true. I'm not arguing the validity of the Constitution, I'm arguing whether or not it is a scientific fact that all men are created equal, as much as we know the Earth goes around the sun once every 365.25 days.

The constitution doesn't set out beliefs. It formed a country and set out the powers of its government. I intend to repeat this until you appear to understand or I get bored.

So, being married, how does a homosexual marriage in any way affect your marriage? I've always wanted to know, and nobody ever seems to want to answer that question.

And the streak continues.

If you're just the bit of rough, isn't Iowa somewhat out of the way? :)

You underestimate my need.

One is only as old as one feels...and I haven't been felt in a while.

Thanks for the sigging, btw. :fluffle:

No. They. Aren't.

Declaring void a ruling making something explicitly illegal does not make it suddenly legal. See the thread on this topic.

Eh - read the ruling. The ISC explicitly ruled that the marriage laws have to be opened up to same sex couples.

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage.

The ruling DOES make gay marriage legal.

This is a different argument to the one you originally presented.

Shifting goalposts when your argument is shot down (in flames, I might add) is a little intellectually dishonest, isn't it?

But sure - let's entertain your diversion:

Is gay marriage right? If it is in accordance to the laws of the land, why wouldn't it be 'right'?

Are you arguing our laws are wrong? That we should be ruled, termporally, by some theologically derived ordinance?

If it is in accordance with the laws of the land, it may be legally right, yes, but is it morally right?

No, I am not arguing we must be ruled by a theologically derived ordinance. I am arguing that you cannot prove laws to be a physical truth.

For example, slavery was once a legal right, but was it not morally wrong?(Note I am not comparing slavery to gay marriage, that is a false analogy. I am saying it is possible for the law to be morally wrong.)

What about the current drug laws of the U.S.? Do you consider them morally right? By your definition of "right", if something is illegal, it is considered morally wrong. So do you believe smoking marijuana is a wrong?

Prove it is a fact. How is it scientifically proven to be fact?

Ummm, all you have to do is go to the National Archives and you can see it for yourself.

National Archives and Records Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. U.S.A.

Prove it is a fact. How is it scientifically proven to be fact?



We can scientifically prove 'the Constitution' to be a fact by several methods. Easiest would probably be to weigh it.

The Constitution exist - and it defines the parameters of the nation.

That's fact. It's beyond argument. If we're talking about something that is within the confines of the US borders, there should be no power higher than the Constitution on which to rest your argument - because - if there IS - then you are arguing contravention of the Constitution, and do not have any legitimate claim to the parameters defined by it.


You can't prove the beliefs outlined in the Constitution to be fact. You can agree with those beliefs, I agree with those beliefs, but that doesn't make them inherently true. I'm not arguing the validity of the Constitution, I'm arguing whether or not it is a scientific fact that all men are created equal, as much as we know the Earth goes around the sun once every 365.25 days.

Is it a scientific fact that all men are created equal.

Clearly, that doesn't mean 'do they all weigh the same', or 'can they run equally fast'. No - it refers to the genesis - what is inherent.

Can the inherent quality be decalered equal, scientifically? Sure - at least until a man is created UN-equal - in which case you'd have to PROVE that such a man didn't qualify as 'a man'l

All that says Dyakovo is that the paper on which the Constitution is written exists. It doesn't mean what the words say is a verified truth.

I am arguing that you can't define a belief to be true. To say gay marriage is acceptable does not mean it is fact. It is your belief that it is acceptable.

Is it a scientific fact that all men are created equal.

Clearly, that doesn't mean 'do they all weigh the same', or 'can they run equally fast'. No - it refers to the genesis - what is inherent.

Can the inherent quality be decalered equal, scientifically? Sure - at least until a man is created UN-equal - in which case you'd have to PROVE that such a man didn't qualify as 'a man'l

Now that you have given me proof, I admit defeat. Your argument won in that you showed me where I am wrong, and why I am wrong.

Fair enough, gay marriage may be acceptable according to U.S. law. I disagree with the law on that, but if it will be, then it will be.

You underestimate my need.

One is only as old as one feels...and I haven't been felt in a while.


:D


Thanks for the sigging, btw. :fluffle:

I had to do it. It was awesome-centred awesomess, in a smooth awesome coating. It had to be done.

All that says Dyakovo is that the paper on which the Constitution is written exists. It doesn't mean what the words say is a verified truth.

I am arguing that you can't define a belief to be true. To say gay marriage is acceptable does not mean it is fact. It is your belief that it is acceptable.

And the constitution isn't a set of beliefs it is a document that sets the foundation of a nation.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the Federal Government of the United States. It provides the framework for the organization of the United States Government. The document defines the three main branches of the government: The legislative branch with a bicameral Congress, an executive branch led by the President, and a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution carefully outlines which powers each branch may exercise. It also reserves numerous rights for the individual states, thereby establishing the United States' federal system of government. It is the shortest and oldest written constitution of any major sovereign state.

So, being married, how does a homosexual marriage in any way affect your marriage? I've always wanted to know, and nobody ever seems to want to answer that question.

I will answer. I'm married and it doesn't affect my marriage in any way shape or form. :D I have satisfactorily answered the question and proven that gay marriage does not affect marriage in any way shape or form.

It's just what my faith says (I'm Catholic). But I'm not gonna go apeshit if someone were to let gays marry. They just allowed it in Iowa, which I live about 10 miles from (I live in Omaha, NE) I am not going to rush over there and give a shit.

Yeah, you'll say, "What right do you have to use your faith to judge others?"

I say, "What right do you then have to use your opinions to consider mine to be automatically false? Your opinions are of equal value to mine."

I can't prove why I think gay marriage is wrong, I just believe it because it's a part of my faith. Doesn't make me stupid, doesn't make me a bad person, doesn't make me a bigot. Just means I got a different belief.

I can't prove why I think black suffrage is wrong, I just believe it because it's a part of my faith. Doesn't make me stupid, doesn't make me a bad person, doesn't make me a bigot. Just means I have a different belief.

Do you accept that? If somebody believes that black people should not be allowed to vote, is it "just a different belief" or is that person bigoted?

Is the Constitution necessarily fact? Was it not created by men who used their opinions to create it?

You cannot prove that the Constitution is fact. I believe in the Constitution, which is why I wouldn't care if gay marriage is allowed. I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be allowed nonetheless.

Take for example, the Westboro Baptist Church. I assume you disagree with them, yes? They still have the right to say what they say. Just because they exist does not mean you must agree with them.

Prove it is a fact. How is it scientifically proven to be fact?

You can't prove the beliefs outlined in the Constitution to be fact. You can agree with those beliefs, I agree with those beliefs, but that doesn't make them inherently true. I'm not arguing the validity of the Constitution, I'm arguing whether or not it is a scientific fact that all men are created equal, as much as we know the Earth goes around the sun once every 365.25 days.
I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that you actually do not realize how stupid this question is.

How can the Constitution be scientifically proven to be fact? Seriously?

How can we prove that the handbook that dictates which branch of government is in charge of what stuff and how many have to be present in Congress to have a qorum is a scientific fact?

Let me try to answer that question by posing another: How can you prove that the contents of the manual that tells you how to use your microwave oven is fact?

The male homosexual sex act itself is kinda repulsive to hetero people,but if you can get past that,who really cares what adult people do. As long as its not pushed on schoolchildren as some kind of 'alternative' lifestyle,why not let civil partnerships occur?

You mean hetero male, no hetero people

You mean hetero male, no hetero people

And it isn't universally true of them.

And it isn't universally true of them.

What, are you claiming it's possible to not be repulsed by something if you're not attracted to it? Crazy talk.

Well, on a bit of a side note, that I think would fit in this thread (Im not sure if it merits its own or not)

Me and a few friends were debating whether Homosexuality is more on the Nature side or the Nurture side of the "Nature vs Nurture" spectrum...

One friend says that its more upbringing, and therefore "Nurture"

and another says its entirely Genetic and therefore "Nature"...

I say trying to separate the two is pointless, and that you will have people that fall on both sides of the spectrum...

what do you think?

Well, on a bit of a side note, that I think would fit in this thread (Im not sure if it merits its own or not)

Me and a few friends were debating whether Homosexuality is more on the Nature side or the Nurture side of the "Nature vs Nurture" spectrum...

One friend says that its more upbringing, and therefore "Nurture"

and another says its entirely Genetic and therefore "Nature"...

I say trying to separate the two is pointless, and that you will have people that fall on both sides of the spectrum...

what do you think?

I think that the wealth of evidence suggests it's nature, rather than nurture - although there could (obviously) be more to it than that.

Eh - read the ruling. The ISC explicitly ruled that the marriage laws have to be opened up to same sex couples.

The ruling DOES make gay marriage legal.

Not really. It makes the banning of it by the means delilberated upon in the lawsuit illegal. That means it was technically legal all along but not at all in practice. So we're both kinda right.

I will answer. I'm married and it doesn't affect my marriage in any way shape or form. :D I have satisfactorily answered the question and proven that gay marriage does not affect marriage in any way shape or form.

Ha-le-frickin'-looyuh! Thank you Kz!

Well, on a bit of a side note, that I think would fit in this thread (Im not sure if it merits its own or not)

Me and a few friends were debating whether Homosexuality is more on the Nature side or the Nurture side of the "Nature vs Nurture" spectrum...

One friend says that its more upbringing, and therefore "Nurture"

and another says its entirely Genetic and therefore "Nature"...

I say trying to separate the two is pointless, and that you will have people that fall on both sides of the spectrum...

what do you think?

It's nature as it exists in the Animal world.

You can believe that all you like, it still doesn't make a viable argument against homosexuality in an era that has multiple reproductive options.

It is not a belief mate it is fact unless you can show me otherwise. Oh and nice way of taking a question and using it to make some bullshit response to an argument that I am not even trying to push. Trying reading it in context first before jumping off the handle next time.

Seriously? You actually thought that and typed it? Bit of a loss of respect there, not that it matters to you.

In a world where population density was minimal and religions needed to breed to succeed, homosexuality was seen as a threat to the relilgion's survival. How do we as a species usually address threats to survival? Usually quite harshly. Were the population a quarter of what it is now, it'd still be about 2 billion. As a refutation of the overpopulation argument, that's pretty childish stuff. Overpopulation merely lends homosexuality a practical aspect it didn't have in the time of Jesus.

No man I don't realy give a shit what you think because you take a question I ask another poster and try and turn it around not to mention going on some tangent about religion to my actual discussion. I might as well ask you the same question based on your above post. Would you be against homosexuality and think that being gay is wrong if the world population was a quarter of what it is now?

Personally, I don't really care what the world population is being a homosexual is never wrong and they should be allowed to perform homosexual acts if they so choose without people labeling them immoral and what they do wrong.

What they SAY is 'homosexuals can't have children'. Clearly they can. My lesbian friends, with the 18 year old son testify to that fact.

I was saying sometimes when they say that I think they mean in the sense that I described, unless of course you mean your lesbian friends managed to conceive with just each other. That would be some crazy shit happening.

Where did they get the child? One of them gave birth.

WHat does it matter who the father is?

Being heterosexual, and in a couple, is no guarantee that the 'husband' is also the father. Why should it matter in gay couples?

Preaching to the choir, dude. You must have made the same mistake as Intangelon hinking that I was pushing this argument as a means to prove that homosexuals are wrong.

Dingle,if you think homosexuality is wrong, is it only between two guys? 'Cos surly you've watched lesbian porn. Am I right?

Well, on a bit of a side note, that I think would fit in this thread (Im not sure if it merits its own or not)

Me and a few friends were debating whether Homosexuality is more on the Nature side or the Nurture side of the "Nature vs Nurture" spectrum...

One friend says that its more upbringing, and therefore "Nurture"

and another says its entirely Genetic and therefore "Nature"...

I say trying to separate the two is pointless, and that you will have people that fall on both sides of the spectrum...

what do you think?
I say nature because I don't believe sexuality is a learned behavior.

However, expression of sexuality can be a learned or conditioned behavior, i.e. nurture.

So I think sexuality is innate, but sexual expression is subject to social conditioning.

I also think that innate sexuality is not a matter of strictly defined and delineated categories, but rather a highly variable spectrum of responses and impulses.

This thread is still alive?

This saddens me to think people actually had to debate over this...

This thread is still alive?

This saddens me to think people actually had to debate over this...
The problem with bigotry is that it does not go away. It's like herpes that way. You would think that, after all these years of this issue, the same old tired bigoted arguments that have been debunked over and over again would have disappeared. But they keep coming back. And they cannot be ignored because there are people out there who have contracted bigotry who will be only too eager to glom onto them as gospel truth. So we have to go around this issue, debunking the same arguments over and over again. If we don't, we'll be doing it in the courts and legislatures rather than in bars and on the net.

Example: In this very thread, the same bigotries have been repeated by different posters, debunked every time, and then raised again later by yet another poster. It's like a disease. You don't get rid of it by treating just one victim. You have to treat every single victim, individually, even though they are all the same.

It's like medicine. We play doctor on NSG. ;)

The problem with bigotry is that it does not go away. It's like herpes that way. You would think that, after all these years of this issue, the same old tired bigoted arguments that have been debunked over and over again would have disappeared. But they keep coming back. And they cannot be ignored because there are people out there who have contracted bigotry who will be only too eager to glom onto them as gospel truth. So we have to go around this issue, debunking the same arguments over and over again. If we don't, we'll be doing it in the courts and legislatures rather than in bars and on the net.

Example: In this very thread, the same bigotries have been repeated by different posters, debunked every time, and then raised again later by yet another poster. It's like a disease. You don't get rid of it by treating just one victim. You have to treat every single victim, individually, even though they are all the same.

It's like medicine. We play doctor on NSG. ;)

Its still sad that people can hold on to those kind of stupid ideals. usually because a book said so in my experience.

Its still sad that people can hold on to those kind of stupid ideals. usually because a book said so in my experience.
Nah, not because a book says so, because the book actually does not say so.

They hold those views because some guy at a pulpit, maybe even on tv, said so -- between pitches for donations.

And that's even sadder.

But then I am on record as saying that all bigotry, and bigotry that attacks civil rights in particular, is all about ego-tripping. It's all about the bigots setting themselves up as superior over someone else and demonstrating it by kicking that someone else around for no reason. Things that feed weak, hungry egos are the most addictive drugs in the world. We will be fighting this war for as long as humans get born with a lust for attention and superiority over others.

As a dyed in the wool egotist myself, with a strong, stable sense of my own relative superiority in any given situation, I have zero patience for the sniveling little egos of bigots. You look at this thread and calll it sad. I say it's just time to slap these little whiners back into line. People need to learn their place.

Nah, not because a book says so, because the book actually does not say so.

They hold those views because some guy at a pulpit, maybe even on tv, said so -- between pitches for donations.

And that's even sadder.

But then I am on record as saying that all bigotry, and bigotry that attacks civil rights in particular, is all about ego-tripping. It's all about the bigots setting themselves up as superior over someone else and demonstrating it by kicking that someone else around for no reason. Things that feed weak, hungry egos are the most addictive drugs in the world. We will be fighting this war for as long as humans get born with a lust for attention and superiority over others.

As a dyed in the wool egotist myself, with a strong, stable sense of my own relative superiority in any given situation, I have zero patience for the sniveling little egos of bigots. You look at this thread and calll it sad. I say it's just time to slap these little whiners back into line. People need to learn their place.

By all means enjoy your slapping.

I was just wondering how people felt towards homosexuality, and also towards civil partnerships.


It is wrong by Biblical standards, however the Lord Jesus will still forgive
you for it. :)