posted
It's certainly not healthy to be gay as much as it is certainly not healthy to recieve (or give) blow jobs or go down on a woman.
People find ways to do these things anyway. I say, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do in a civilised society as long as they are not doing damage to their fellow humans and environment.
These sexual deviances certainly shouldn't be promoted in a healthy society. Children should be taught normal things (and it depends on society to determine what is normal, not some sinister control group) and allowed to deviate of their own accord in supportive environment.
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gayness is not something that is taught. I believe the acknowledgement herein that it transcends cultures, should be enough indication of that. It occurs in cultures that do not promote it, and in fact scorn it, anyway. The issue is not personal acceptance of the condition, but rather, acceptance of someone else's civil rights. If you are not gay, well then, good for you. You ought to not loose sleep over it. It is bizarre that some people do in fact loose sleep over it, and yet claim to be heterosexual.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I know what my words are, and I stand by them. What I don't stand by, is your clumsy effort at misconstruing them and taking them out of context.
Your post was replied to, because when you say Charlie is the only one making sense, which is highly questionable on logical grounds, you are tacitly implicating every other participant of this discussion. However, when your feet is held to fire to explain this judgment of your's, you cry. Crying is not a sign of strength.
You can say humans are attracted to many things, but that is not a substitute material for the unsubstantiated things you say about gays. You say it is evil, yet you offer no substance for this, other than your emotions. You accept that Jesus died for "all sins", yet you turn around and say he wouldn't fight for gay rights. You claim being gay is a "sin", yet have not offered any citation by Jesus himself saying so. You complain that others use the bible to make a point, but so do you. You are comparing pedofilia to gayness, which is just stupid, considering that the latter concerns two concentingadulthuman beings [note the emphasis]. You compare it to bestiality, which is even more absurd, as we are dealing with two human beings. The onus is on you to demonstrate why these comparisons you make between two vastly distinct entities is logical.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I was not trying to take your words out of context. If there is context to your words then you can post it. All I am saying is that "Gayness" is not something that people should be proclaiming as normal behavior.
How am I "Crying"?? I showed you that Homosexuality is about as known as pedofila and beastiality. What seperates gay lifestyle from those other perversions? Jesus is the measuring stick and he did not speak about Homosexuality, or pedofila, or beastility. What He DID speak on though is marriage, and he said that man will leave mother and father and cling to women and they twain shall be one flesh. So that should nullify gay marriage. To see what the Bible which is the Truth, is that you can read romans chap 1 to get a taste of what the NT says about men with men. If you know anything about the OT you would know that Homosexuality is considered an abomination and it is grouped in with other sexually perverse lifestyles.
You still have not given a valid reason why people should claim people afflicted with homosexuality should be considered normal and take it out of the lust for the flesh box it should always be in. What makes gayness more normal then pedofila or beastiality??
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are not trying to, you are taking my words out of context. When you say I said something, without also citing what it was replying to, and then manufacturing a meaning for it, that's taking stuff out of context.
You showed me nothing about why gays should not be given their civil rights. Emotionally ranting away is not substantiation or tantamount to making sense. Through all your rant, you still haven't explained why it is a "sin", "evil", or why it should be compared with totally distinct entities that you toss around with no substantive material backbone, namely bestiality or pedophilia. You haven't cited anything from Jesus claiming any such thing, yet you profess that he is willing to die for "gayness", but only as a "sin". LOL.
I am not obligated to explain to you why homosexuality should be considered "normal", as it has nothing to do with me other than a figment of your imagination. My position has been and is, that gay "civil right" should be defended. Do you know what "civil right" means, because your repeated puzzlement with this word, and almost anything else I say for that matter, suggests that you are not well acquainted with English? Where's your delivery of the list of things I've requested from you?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I showed you that Homosexuality is about as known as pedofila and beastiality. What seperates gay lifestyle from those other perversions?
I think it's dangerous to put homosexuality in the same box as pedofilia and/or beastiality. Being gay, is NOT a crime as far as it doesn't include rape. Pedofilia is not only a crime, but an extremely ugly one at that. Beastiality is wrong so far as it is in my opinion the abuse of animals but pedofilia is in its own league all by itself. It is the ugliest thing ever.
King, grow up and understand that the whole world doesn't subscribe to your religion of Christianity.
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that's a fair assessment and rational approach to the subject. Its when one tries to inject emotionalism and give way to religious thinking, instead of a materialistic approach, that any logical discussion on matters like homosexuality dissipates, and hence, the ensuing intolerance to something that could otherwise be resolved, with little to no damage to parties on either isle of the discussion.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is my last post directed to you, you seem to be on the verge of breaking into your dumb it down posts and insults: I showed you where you can read where the Bible speaks about Homosexuality(Romans 1) I also showed you that Jesus said man leaves mother and Father and cling to WOMEN and they become one flesh(Nullifying Gay Marriage). I also TOLD YOU that Jesus did NOT speak on homosexuality, pedofila, or beastilaity so to claim that Jesus was "OKAY" with gayness simply because he did not speak on it is wrong thinking.
Also How is pedofila and beastiality distinct from homosexuality??? Do you know WHY people are attracted to Animals and Children?? You must know something that no one else knows because you claim gayness is seperate from them yet I told you in the Old Testament they grouped Gays with other devient lifestyles lust of the Flesh. What more do YOU know about people being attracted to Children and Animals.
Are you stating that science has found the answer to WHY there are people attracted to animals and Children more so then people being Gay?? If you know something no one else on Earth knows then you should share it with the forum so we all can read and learn about why people lust after same sex, animals and children.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trying to force Christianity on anyone at all. I just know that the Bible is the TRUTH. WHether people want to be gay is there own choice. What I don't condone is people who try to force on Christians the ideas that gays should be allowed to raise children and get married like heterosexual couples.
I'm not saying that we should attack ANY people for being Gay I just saying it's a sin and is not looked as normal, and when people try to force unto Christians that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality so hence gay is "okay" that is just wrong thinking we know the Bible speaks about homosexuality in Romans, Leviticus etc. When people try to twist the Word of God around to serve man, well then I will always have a problem with that.
NONE of the sexual perversion spoken about in the Bible is regarded as healthy or clean yet in our world we see people claiming one of the lust of the flesh is not only "Okay" but "Normal". Then they try and force this onto Christians trying to force preist to marry them and ignore what Gods words say in the Bible.
The Bible is Gods words to mankind and we are not supposed to bend the Bible and twist it to serve mans interests, We(Humans) are supposed to bend our life to serve God not the other way around.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trying to force Christianity on anyone at all. I just know that the Bible is the TRUTH.
You mean your truth.
quote:Originally posted by KING: What I don't condone is people who try to force on Christians the ideas that gays should be allowed to raise children and get married like heterosexual couples.
I also am of the opinion that gays should not be allowed to raise children (that are not biologically theirs) for the reason that I find their declared lifestyle to be harmful to healthy society but I don't see any reason they shouldn't get married if they wish to, why not?
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Lovin your responces no ego to quell or rampant insults.
Now what I said stands The Bible is THEE TRUTH that the world is trying to ignore. Gods words will always remain as Jesus says "Heaven and Earth may pass away, But my words will always remain"
Marriage is a Bond between God, Man and Woman. God blesses marriages in the Bible to show unity for women and men because women complete men. Man is incomplete without a Woman. Marriage has been totally wrecked by people promoting sexual deviency in marriage like cheating on your spouse(There is websites that promote that adultery is cool etc) Why I don't believe gays should marry is because marriage is for starting and maintaining a Family and having children. Whats the point of 2 men or 2 women getting married when they can't start a Family nor have children.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
''Why seperate homosexuality from pedofila and beastilaity when we know just as much as to why people are gay as we do with why people are pedofiles........which is not much at all. We have no clue as to what afflictions these people have and why they do the things they do yet you want people to claim Gay is "Normal"?? Thats just wrong thinking.''
Well King it isn't wrong thinking at all. Since we have no clue, then we do, according to you, which is the chemical imbalance you mentioned earlier above (which has already been noted by Explorer), then why wouldn't those you mentioned be normal within their frame of reference? You can't know what's normal to those you mentioned simply because you are normal from your frame of reference--which is chemically induced--I believe. So if the chemical balance makes you normal then how is it their imbalance make it abnormal? They see and experience what is normal to them, not you.
Further, if it is that chemical imbalance you will then be forced to eliminate choice from your argument which means you will be left to ponder why your suddenly useless apologetics will no longer work against this presumably predisposed position. Which also means you will be forced into yet more denial and apologetics from the teleological point of view because you will have to explain why homosexuality wasn't corrected at its inception. (You might want to look long and hard at that last sentence.)
Now I realize you didn't say it was a choice but I'm thinking you have to admit to it because you're a Christian. Having said that, all Christians and religious people aren't fundamentalists.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
You need to qualify your statements with context I think. Such as "A CHRISTIAN marriage is a bond between God, Man and Woman". Some people don't even beleive in God let alone Christianity. But they still want to make their relationship permanent and official (e.g. a civil partnership).
I actually share most of your opinions except I think your attachment of religious authority to your opinions makes them somewhat dangerous.
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting discussion, my opinion is Priest preachers Rabbis Imams, should not be forced to conduct marriages if they find objectionable but what two grown-up do with each other is non of my bees wax. and some times the Bible and other religious works makes excuses for actions considered questionable,
The Bible verses that discuss Lot's sex with his daughters is found in the book of Genesis:
"The sun was rising as Lot reached the village. Then the LORD rained down fire and burning sulfur from the heavens on Sodom and Gomorrah. He utterly destroyed them, along with the other cities and villages of the plain, eliminating all life—people, plants, and animals alike . . . Afterward Lot left Zoar because he was afraid of the people there, and he went to live in a cave in the mountains with his two daughters.
"One day the older daughter said to her sister, 'There isn't a man anywhere in this entire area for us to marry. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let’s get him drunk with wine, and then we will sleep with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father.' So that night they got him drunk, and the older daughter went in and slept with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again.
"The next morning the older daughter said to her younger sister, 'I slept with our father last night. Let’s get him drunk with wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him. That way our family line will be preserved.'
"So that night they got him drunk again, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. As before, he was unaware of her lying down or getting up again. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father." (Genesis 19:23-25, 30-36 , NLT)
Now how many believe that obviously B/S excuse from Lot about him being drunk without even as much as protest from the Lord r God who burnt an entire city full o fags..days earlier, Incest in my view between parent and offspring is one of the most sickening acts I can think of out side of beastiality..but because Lot was tight with God he and his daughters got a free pass.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
You are as intellectually challenged as you are in reading. This is not an insult, but an observation from the fact that you cannot follow up on my posts without totally mangling them up, or getting into redundancies [that you've been asked to substantiate]. You cannot attribute a homophobic claim to Jesus, because its your fairy tale.
You are in effect telling me you are too dense to know the difference between gayness and the other stuff -- bestiality, rape and pedophilia. Your own stupidity on this front is no cause to claim that no "else" knows the difference either. I've already schooled you on the common-sensical distinctions between these things. This has mentally paralyzed you into a broken record, begging me to tell you the difference between these things, and asking me to educate you on off-tangent claptrap about why people lust for animals or engage in pedophilia, matters which you yourself brought up as a distraction. Why don't you educate us on the latter. You have intellectually broken down completely, when you start repeating nonsense that is disengaged from the exchange. Yes, for your own sake, you better not take any more punishment for making claims you are not intellectually fit to defend.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
You are as intellectually challenged as you are in reading. This is not an insult, but an observation from the fact that you cannot follow up on my posts without totally mangling them up, or getting into redundancies [that you've been asked to substantiate]. You cannot attribute a homophobic claim to Jesus, because its your fairy tale.
You are in effect telling me you are too dense to know the difference between gayness and the other stuff -- bestiality, rape and pedophilia. Your own stupidity on this front is no cause to claim that no "else" knows the difference either. I've already schooled you on the common-sensical distinctions between these things. This has mentally paralyzed you into a broken record, begging me to tell you the difference between these things, and asking me to educate you on off-tangent claptrap about why people lust for animals or engage in pedophilia, matters which you yourself brought up as a distraction. Why don't you educate us on the latter. You have intellectually broken down completely, when you start repeating nonsense that is disengaged from the exchange. Yes, for your own sake, you better not take any more punishment for making claims you are not intellectually fit to defend.
Beastiality, rape, homosexuality and pedophalia are all sexually aberrant behaviors and just because two guys screw up the anus consensually without "hurting any one else" doesn't change the fact that all are sexually aberrant behaviors that should not be accepted.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I showed you that Homosexuality is about as known as pedofila and beastiality. What seperates gay lifestyle from those other perversions?
I think it's dangerous to put homosexuality in the same box as pedofilia and/or beastiality. Being gay, is NOT a crime as far as it doesn't include rape. Pedofilia is not only a crime, but an extremely ugly one at that. Beastiality is wrong so far as it is in my opinion the abuse of animals but pedofilia is in its own league all by itself. It is the ugliest thing ever.
King, grow up and understand that the whole world doesn't subscribe to your religion of Christianity.
Homosexuality is in the same box as far as sexually abberant behavior and so called perverse attractions. Being attracted to the same sex is just as perverse and sexually aberrant as being attracted to children and animals, just because homosex is accepted as non-criminal doesn't mean its any less worse than and or more tolerable than the other sexually aberrant behaviors.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bass, you don't have to accept what gays do. I tried to batter this into your head more than once now. The issue at hand, is civil right of gay folks. To compare gayness to bestiality, rape, pedophilia, is the epitome of stupidity.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
just because homosex is accepted as non-criminal doesn't mean its any less worse than and or more tolerable than the other sexually aberrant behaviors.
It is non-criminal, because it isn't a crime. It's that simple. Phedophilia on the other hand, is. There goes your claim of a lack of distinction going up in smoke.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I showed you that Homosexuality is about as known as pedofila and beastiality. What seperates gay lifestyle from those other perversions?
I think it's dangerous to put homosexuality in the same box as pedofilia and/or beastiality. Being gay, is NOT a crime as far as it doesn't include rape. Pedofilia is not only a crime, but an extremely ugly one at that. Beastiality is wrong so far as it is in my opinion the abuse of animals but pedofilia is in its own league all by itself. It is the ugliest thing ever.
King, grow up and understand that the whole world doesn't subscribe to your religion of Christianity.
Homosexuality is in the same box as far as sexually abberant behavior and so called perverse attractions. Being attracted to the same sex is just as perverse and sexually aberrant as being attracted to children and animals, just because homosex is accepted as non-criminal doesn't mean its any less worse than and or more tolerable than the other sexually aberrant behaviors.
I really think it's very dangerous to put homosexuals in the same box as CRIMINALS. I read an article a while ago about homosexuals being hunted down and KILLED in Uganda because someone printed a "list".
The problem with "lists" like all blacklists is that people on them often cannot defend themselves. Imagine if it was you that is put on a "terrorist list" or some kind of employment blacklist. How would you feel if it was YOU in Uganda and you couldn't defend yourself from the mob?
I can't believe people are worrying over gays when in Congo men are raping women as if it's nothing. Rape (of women) is the most disgusting thing next to pedophilia, yet I don't see people as worried about it as about gay marriages. FFS let people "marry" if that's what rocks their boat. There are bigger issues in the world to worry about.
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Being attracted to the same sex is just as perverse and sexually aberrant as being attracted to children and animals,
Are you serious???
If being "wierd" is a crime then we should all be shot this instant.
I don't understand how you can confuse "wierdness" (which is an opinion based on a POV) with outright EVIL such as pedophilia.
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have to accept what gays do, because it has no bearing on my personal life. I also doubt that gays are asking heterosexuals to accept homosexuality, but rather, allow them to freely express their affection, that is between two *consenting* adults *and* human beings, without external infringement. They simply ask to be given fair treatment as any member of society, i.e. to choose the *human being* they have affection for, and be given the privilege to marry that significant other. By allowing them such, it is not going to do me or any other heterosexual harm, and it is not going to change anything that is already going on for or happening to me or other heterosexual; why should I therefore be frantically concerned about a gay guy being with another gay guy? I see no logic in that. Pedophilia or bestiality, on the other hand, are not consensual between the parties, or between two adult human beings. How's that for a distinction?!
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Bass, you don't have to accept what gays do. I tried to batter this into your head more than once now. The issue at hand, is civil right of gay folks. To compare gayness to bestiality, rape, pedophilia, is the epitome of stupidity.
What "civil rights" are you speaking of? Gays have all the civil rights that straight people have, they just want special rights created for their sexually aberrant behavior. They have the right to marry, they just can't have a marriage thats specific to their sexually aberrant behavior.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I don't have to accept what gays do, because it has no bearing on my personal life. I also doubt that gays are asking heterosexuals to accept homosexuality, but rather, allow them to freely express their affection, that is between two *consenting* adults *and* human beings, without external infringement. They simply ask to be given fair treatment as any member of society, i.e. to choose the *human being* they have affection for, and be given the privilege to marry that significant other. By allowing them such, it is not going to do me or any other heterosexual harm, and it is not going to change anything that is already going on for or happening to me or other heterosexual; why should I therefore be frantically concerned about a gay guy being with another gay guy? I see no logic in that. Pedophilia or bestiality, on the other hand, are not consensual between the parties, or between two adult human beings. How's that for a distinction?!
This is total BS and you know it, this is a slippery slope srgument, look at this example of an incestuous father and daughter couple with the father being charged and his argument for why he's justified in doing so:
"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," he told ABCNews.com. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."
"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."
Based on this logic and your logic incest should be tolerated just as much as homosexual sex because any sex between two consenting adults is ok because its all about affection, the arguments of liberals who support homosexual sex and condemn other equally sexually aberrant behaviors are becoming weaker and weaker.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gays have all the civil rights that straight people have
Then what is all the fuss in the media about gays trying to get rights to marry? If gays had this right, then they'd be doing what the rest of us do; either complain about our marriage life, or get a divorce. That would be their next problem, like anyone else.
quote: , they just want special rights created for their sexually aberrant behavior.
...like those the rest of society doesn't have? If so, then I'm all against that. But I must ask first: what are these "special rights"?
quote: They have the right to marry, they just can't have a marriage thats specific to their sexually aberrant behavior.
What kind of marriage would that be? Public marriage?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is total BS and you know it, this is a slippery slope srgument
I don't know that it is total BS; I don't see a materially and logical counteraction from you. I see pointless emotional off-tangent distractions, totally unrelated to the subject, coming from you.
quote: , look at this example of an incestuous father and daughter couple with the father being charged and his argument for why he's justified in doing so:
[i]"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," he told ABCNews.com. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."
And so, to you sexual relations between a father and his daughter is consensual affection between to adults in a society that doesn't condone such behavior, and not a product of sexual abuse meted out to the child at an early childhood?
quote:
Based on this logic and your logic incest should be tolerated just as much as homosexual sex because any sex between two consenting adults is ok because its all about affection, the arguments of liberals who support homosexual sex and condemn other equally sexually aberrant behaviors are becoming weaker and weaker.
You don't know my logic. I suggest you re-read what I posted on these thread multiple times, so you get it, rather than manufacture it.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: ]Then what is all the fuss in the media about gays trying to get rights to marry? If gays had this right, then they'd be doing what the rest of us do; either complain about our marriage life, or get a divorce. That would be their next problem, like anyone else.
The fuss is that gays want homosexuality to be accepted as the equal of hetreosexuality, no more no less, you're arguing around in cricles without making any clear points.
quote: like those the rest of society doesn't have? If so, then I'm all against that. But I must ask first: what are these "special rights"?
They want a marriage specific to their sexual behavior and want to adopt children and be looked on as the same and equal as parents of children who have a mother and father. All of this is based upon forcing people to accept their sexually aberrant behavior since the only proof of homosexuality is homosexual behavior.
quote: What kind of marriage would that be? Public marriage? [/QB]
Now, you're trying to troll me with that ridiculous answer, they want a gay marriage, which is a specially marriage specific to their sexually aberrant behavior.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
This is total BS and you know it, this is a slippery slope srgument
I don't know that it is total BS; I don't see a materially and logical counteraction from you. I see pointless emotional off-tangent distractions, totally unrelated to the subject, coming from you.
quote: , look at this example of an incestuous father and daughter couple with the father being charged and his argument for why he's justified in doing so:
"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," he told ABCNews.com. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."
And so, to you sexual relations between a father and his daughter is consensual affection between to adults in a society that doesn't condone such behavior, and not a product of sexual abuse meted out to the child at an early childhood?
quote:
Based on this logic and your logic incest should be tolerated just as much as homosexual sex because any sex between two consenting adults is ok because its all about affection, the arguments of liberals who support homosexual sex and condemn other equally sexually aberrant behaviors are becoming weaker and weaker.
You don't know my logic. I suggest you re-read what I posted on these thread multiple times, so you get it, rather than manufacture it.
I'm getting tired of knocking down strawman arguments and non-sequitirs but, I know your logic buddy as you stated:
[i] allow them to freely express their affection, that is between two *consenting* adults *and* human beings, without external infringement. They simply ask to be given fair treatment as any member of society, i.e. to choose the *human being* they have affection for, and be given the privilege to marry that significant other.
Now by that same bankrupt logic two consenting adults who happen to be an incestuous couple should be allowed to express their "affection" and be married. The question is whether you support this equally sexual aberrant behavior, do you think incerstuous consenting adults are equally being denied "civil rights" like gays and can the argument of gays be equally applied to incestuous couples? You support one with your logic and not support the other by saying its different, thats hypocrisy and selective morality.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incestuous behavior is harmful as it causes birth defects and a whole host of other problems besides the yuch factor.. gay behavior men to men that is while carries a yuch factor for me personally is no more riskier than straight couples,gay adoption of straight kids..naaaw not having it.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are taking the quote out of context, just like your buddy king does, and then you accuse others of strawman; go figure. You know very well I'm not referring to incest above, which in societies that don't condone such behavior, is generally the outcome of parental abuse on the child. Do you, in your right mind, consider that behavior a "consensual" relationship between two adults. You ducked that question, and instead gave me the BS above.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Incestuous behavior is harmful as it causes birth defects and a whole host of other problems besides the yuch factor.. gay behavior men to men that is while carries a yuch factor for me personally is no more riskier than straight couples,gay adoption of straight kids..naaaw not having it.
Gay sex has health consequences
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Jari, If you have a problem with corporate welfare you need to deal with politicans, not wealthy people. Many of those politicans you complain about for handing out corporate welfare are in fact liberals. People get what they deserve in life for the most part. Most people who end up with money do so because they earned it. As for the unemployment bill, unemployment is not a federal issue, it is, and always has been a state issue. Not one penny of federal money should go to unemployment. These people need to go find a job of some kind.
Hammer Im not saying the Liberals are not taking payments from the Banks and Rich, but if you re implying Liberals take more than Conservative activists and politicians there is no point in talking bcause conservative are 20 times more bought by Corporations than Progressives are.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Incestuous behavior is harmful as it causes birth defects and a whole host of other problems besides the yuch factor.. gay behavior men to men that is while carries a yuch factor for me personally is no more riskier than straight couples,gay adoption of straight kids..naaaw not having it.
Gay sex has health consequences
So does straight sex...lol
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
I was not trying to take your words out of context. If there is context to your words then you can post it. All I am saying is that "Gayness" is not something that people should be proclaiming as normal behavior.
How am I "Crying"?? I showed you that Homosexuality is about as known as pedofila and beastiality. What seperates gay lifestyle from those other perversions? Jesus is the measuring stick and he did not speak about Homosexuality, or pedofila, or beastility. What He DID speak on though is marriage, and he said that man will leave mother and father and cling to women and they twain shall be one flesh. So that should nullify gay marriage. To see what the Bible which is the Truth, is that you can read romans chap 1 to get a taste of what the NT says about men with men. If you know anything about the OT you would know that Homosexuality is considered an abomination and it is grouped in with other sexually perverse lifestyles.
You still have not given a valid reason why people should claim people afflicted with homosexuality should be considered normal and take it out of the lust for the flesh box it should always be in. What makes gayness more normal then pedofila or beastiality??
Peace
King while I agree with you on Gay Marriage, I have problems with your arguments...
1) How Is gayness compariable to Pedophilia and Beasitality??
First off, Do You know any Homosexuals. Ive worked with plenty and while one or two were a little Odd and Effiminate, the others were cool. I doubt they were "Pedephiles"?? First off Pedophiles prey on innocent children who are too young to fight back, these Children are usually 2 to 10 yrs old, then suddenly these Monsters are not attracted to these innocent children. in almost all cases a pediephile is not longer attracted to his victim when they hit a certain age.
Homosexuals are two consenting adults. There really is no comparison, unless the Homosexual is a Pedephile.
Second Beastiality??
Also you say the OT calls homosexuality an abomination but it says the same about shrimp, and it says people were put to death for working on the Sabbath. So the question is do you all want to be held on the standards of the O.T Levitical laws???
Also you seem to be implying that Homosexuality is a Mental problem if so that defeats Charlie's argument that it a choice, so then the real question and one I struggle with is Why did God make people gay andif its a mental problem(as you imply) and God made them that way, don't they deserve a fair chance are salvation, esp considering the Heterosexuals are just as bad as any homosexual.??
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
''Now, you're trying to troll me with that ridiculous answer, they want a gay marriage, which is a specially marriage specific to their sexually aberrant behavior.''
Couldn't it be that it is more tailored to an emotional outlook rather than specific sex? With your reasoning heterosexual marriage is specifically tailored to sex alone rather than a multiplcity of factors, i.e., which attributes are they willing to live with to sustain a marriage to each's liking. And does this mean Charlie Bass, if married, chose his wife because of sex and nothing else?
But what if the heterosexual sex is aberrant behavior? For me I can't imagine as a heterosexual ever having anal sex with a woman; yet some do. What now? But of course the issue is males penetrating the same sex and that that alone makes it aberrant.
If a straight male and woman agree to rear penetration are they sexually deviant, in their own bedrooms...away from prying eyes? But of course the answer to this one according to Christianity will that heterosexuals all *know* what gays do and how they do it in the confines of their homes.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I don't have to accept what gays do, because it has no bearing on my personal life. I also doubt that gays are asking heterosexuals to accept homosexuality, but rather, allow them to freely express their affection, that is between two *consenting* adults *and* human beings, without external infringement. They simply ask to be given fair treatment as any member of society, i.e. to choose the *human being* they have affection for, and be given the privilege to marry that significant other. By allowing them such, it is not going to do me or any other heterosexual harm, and it is not going to change anything that is already going on for or happening to me or other heterosexual; why should I therefore be frantically concerned about a gay guy being with another gay guy? I see no logic in that. Pedophilia or bestiality, on the other hand, are not consensual between the parties, or between two adult human beings. How's that for a distinction?!
This is total BS and you know it, this is a slippery slope srgument, look at this example of an incestuous father and daughter couple with the father being charged and his argument for why he's justified in doing so:
"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," he told ABCNews.com. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."
"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."
Based on this logic and your logic incest should be tolerated just as much as homosexual sex because any sex between two consenting adults is ok because its all about affection, the arguments of liberals who support homosexual sex and condemn other equally sexually aberrant behaviors are becoming weaker and weaker.
I don't see how you or anyone should have the right to "tolerate" or "not tolerate" what two consenting adults presumably not harming anyone else are doing in their bedrooms. It really shouldn't be in your jurisdiction unless it happens to be your own private space.
Posts: 89 | From: no blood-pressure | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Credit you for keeping civil instead of making insults like some other poster whos name I will not mention.
the Truth is that we don't know WHY people are attracted to same sex, animals and children. Unless someone has a study stating that they have found reasons for why people are Gay, why should we take homosexuality out of the sexually deveient Lifestyles box it is in??
Like Charlie said in his posts, If we allow gays to think there behavior is "Normal" then what about incest? Is incest normal also because it's between 2 consenting adults? When do people draw the line and stand for Truth in stopping sexually perverse lifestyles from being compared to normal straight behavior.
Also like I told the unnamed poster, We see in the NT also verses speaking about men sleeping with men:
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." —Romans 1:26-27
What can be said is that we must acknowledge that people are free to do whatever they want to in the privacy of there home. BUT when they now want to marry and want people to say what they are doing is "Good" then thats where it crosses the line. The Bible states "Woah to those who call Good evil and evil good". The blurring of the line is something God warned us about.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not one of those goody guy down home christians blinded by the bible, but geesh what good can come from the social promoting of homosexuality? That's exactly what society would be doing (and does do in some cases)if policies and gays actions were taught to be openly acceptable amongst the masses. I don't want to drift too deep into this already because I deal with gays everyday in the workplace and they are human just like anyone else but it still doesn't mean I approve of their lifestyle.
The real reason behind me touching this subject was because of the bible being mentioned. Yes a lot of us despise it true! Some for the very wrong reasons. I think it's important for christians to understand, there are those of us that truly want to live our lives in connection with God & existence but without the following of a dogmatic religion. Personally, I feel it's rather hard to get this point across to most christians because right off the bat they seem to generalize your position as if they were God themselves! No, I do not plan on becoming toxic to society, engaging in unmoral acts etc, but to simply express my own need for personal diety. With so much hypocrisy and contradition and even the way the bible was used to categorize our ancestors, I tend to feed my spirituality through prayer, the good deeds that I do and research. Truthfully, this path I seek has done more for my life than any pastor or church home could ever do, I even think many churches put more emphasis on religion than God himself.
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
King what about what I posted earlier about Lot and his daughters,why did they get a pass for incest without so much as an AHEM!!!from the big one up stairs after destroying two cities and everything in between.
Hammer some of our ancestors were amongst the first Christians,others were forced into it still others joined on their accord just like any other Abrahamic faith and any other people in the world that's how some of us became Christians and stayed Christians.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Peregrine, So christians have trid to force you to accept their faith? Has someone tried to force you into going bo church?
Well so you know I was brought up as a christian, my entire family consist of nothing but christians, I believe in the same God as christians... and here's where we collide I don't agree with a lot of the christian theology and how they use the current doctrines as the undisputed 100% written work of God. Also, it seems a large part of christians just joke through their cookie cutter christian lives with no real sense of urgency to explore more than what they digest on sunday morning. It bewilders me of the fact that you can have believers of something that offers a gift as delicate as afterlife, but yet seemingly put the source behind that gift on a back burner in their daily lives. To answer your question no christians don't force anything on me, I refuse to let them do so and let them know up front we may believe in the same structure of God but are nontheless seperate entities.
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your reply just sounds like arrogance to me. What you are really saying is that you think christians are stupid while you are smart. Do you want to change their minds? If you do not agree with them do not go to their church, it is as simple as that. My aunt is a democrat, i am not. I love my aunt and simply do not care who she votes for. I do not require that she agree with me.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Romans 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful,and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do these things which are not covenient.
Is God showing displeasure because he's having a tough time coming to grips with his creation. The recurring theme in those 4 verses is God had something to do with it. I'm sure there is a ''simple'' explanation for those verses. Can anyone here explain what they mean? And is this the God of the universe as interpreted by the Biblical writer?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Credit you for keeping civil instead of making insults like some other poster whos name I will not mention.
...which is good, because as it turns out, that person is you. Who said everyone else other than the person he dogmatically agrees with didn't make any sense, without specifying what it is that supposedly doesn't make sense? You. Who keeps asking people to make distinctions between homosexuality and the other stuff -- bestiality, incest, and pedophilia, even though he was already clued in on the fundamental distinctions? You. Who made a claim about a certain biological situation as the reason homosexuals are the way they are, and yet goes onto ask someone else who requests for proof thereof to tell him the reason [which he claimed to have already known] anyway? You, of course. Who calls this abysmal self-conduct "civil"? You, of course!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, now you know what my name is. That's good. As for you questions, go read the previous exchange between us. While at it, deliver answers to my requests.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
is that people on them often cannot defend themselves. Imagine if it was you that is put on a "terrorist list" or some kind of employment blacklist. How would you feel if it was YOU in Uganda and you couldn't defend yourself from the mob?
Printer-friendly view of this topic