What party to the homosexuals go to?

[Yossarian]

Democrats apparently.

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/borat.html

[NoMyths]

And y'all do know who Borat is, yes?

[sachmo71]

Probably the party that isn't try to pass a constitutional amendment to take away the rights of homosexuals? Just a guess here.

[airulf]

And Jews go to hell, at least according to this republican.

[Daimyo]

Did someone actually take that video seriously? Maybe you should google "Sacha Baron Cohen."

[PSUColonel]

Probably the party that isn't try to pass a constitutional amendment to take away the rights of homosexuals? Just a guess here.


There is no law making homosexual marriage legal, therefore there are no rights to take away. What the Rebublicans want to do is keep the status quo, and keep the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and woman - something I beleive the majority of the nation supports.

[Senator]

Log Cabin Republicans

[Huckleberry]

There is no law making homosexual marriage legal, therefore there are no rights to take away. What the Rebublicans want to do is keep the status quo, and keep the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and woman - something I beleive the majority of the nation supports.

That was really bad.

There is no law making homosexual marriage legal, therefore there are no rights to take away.

Is there a law making walking legal? This isn't what you were trying to say. Rights are rights specifically because you don't need a law specifying their legality.

What the Rebublicans want to do is keep the status quo, and keep the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and woman - something I beleive the majority of the nation supports.

You are correct that the majority of the nation supports that, including me but almost certainly for different reasons than you. However, this is not the status quo. If it were there wouldn't be a need for a Constitutional amendment (which I oppose because it's stupid) would there?

[Yossarian]

btw..

I dont know if anyone took the video seriously. Obviously its edited purely for comic effect and not 'fairness' or anything.

I heard of the response first:

http://www.jamesbroadwater.com/HBO.html

[Chief Rum]

Is there a law making walking legal? This isn't what you were trying to say. Rights are rights specifically because you don't need a law specifying their legality.

Not saying you are wrong in your general response, Huck, but this is just completely wrong.

History has shown that some of the rights we have in this country, like freedom of the press and religion and freedom to not be slaves and a bunch of other rights and freedoms DO need to be guaranteed by laws...or they are taken away. So your definition of what a "right" is (cue pun) is wrong.

CR

[Bee]

definition of "right"

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q167.htm

Read it any way you wish, like everything it can be interpreted a dozen different ways.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

The thing is, not to start this war over again, is that gay marriage is going to happen. I've seen polls of 25 and under's where it's 2 to 1 in favor of civil unions and 60-40 in favor of gay marriage.

[SFL Cat]

I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either.

I know a lot of black groups are deeply resentful of gay activists painting their cause as the equivalent of the African-American's fight for civil rights. I also know a lot of gay folks who are also resentful toward the more "activist" segments of their population. Most of them are well-to-do professionals who want to live quiet lives and who regard their sex-lives as a private matter that is no one else's business. They certainly don't want to be numbered among their more "radical" activist alter-egos.

Now, I have no problem with civil unions, because I guess gay folks who separate need to have legal protections and guidelines when they fight over splitting up property and money just like hetero married couples do. However, a gay union will never be the equivalent of a heterosexual union for one simple reason. One of the major functions of the traditional family is to procreate -- to bear and raise children. This is something that can never happen naturally in a homosexual union.

[Kodos]

I say, let gay people get married if they like. Them doing so doesn't hurt anybody. If heterosexuals are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, why do such a high percentage of them end in divorce? Civil unions are fine too. Just give gay people the same legal rights that heterosexuals have and call that union whatever makes you happiest.

We have more important things to worry about, like, oh, I don't know, terrorists trying to kill us all.

:)

[MrBug708]

If heterosexuals are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, why do such a high percentage of them end in divorce?

A lot of "Christians" who end up in divorce probably were nothing more than the Easter and Christmas "Christians"

[Dutch]

I say, let gay people get married if they like. Them doing so doesn't hurt anybody. If heterosexuals are so worried about the sanctity of marriage, why do such a high percentage of them end in divorce? Civil unions are fine too. Just give gay people the same legal rights that heterosexuals have and call that union whatever makes you happiest.

We have more important things to worry about, like, oh, I don't know, terrorists trying to kill us all.

:)

That's what President Bush and John Kerry and everybody has been saying all along, but no, the Gays don't want that, they want to embarrass the Religeous Right by destroying their values. That's gay. :)

[yabanci]

That's what President Bush and John Kerry and everybody has been saying all along, but no, the Gays don't want that, they want to embarrass the Religeous Right by destroying their values. That's gay. :)

those damn gays and their devious plots to destroy christianity. Christianity has been around for 2000 years, but it's all gonna come crashing down once two gays get married and all the christians get embarassed. Bahhahahahah.

[Tigercat]

The problem is, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state, yet governments within the US acknowledge the union between two people in religious contexts only.

We shouldn't be talking about marriage. The Government shouldn't even be involved in that, it should be a religious matter only. Governments should only acknowledge civil unions between two people for government purposes, and said unions should be available to all people regardless of religious creed.

Why is society so hung up on sex? Civil unions wouldn't even have to be a sex based thing. Perhaps two people would want to get one independent of a relationship (for example perhaps a couple of elderly Americans that would want to live together..)

The problem is we are all fucking held up on sex. Who cares if two people are or aren't doing something or nothing in their bedroom. Who's to say if two men or two women(or even a man and a woman) spend their lives together if they are having sex? Why are we even assuming so? You hear certain "social conservatives" say "I don't want to support their lifestyle." How would one know what their lifestyle is? Why are we assuming?

Bottom line, courts should have already abolished our governments recognizing a religious ceremony. One type of contract between two people(marriage as it is now, what may be called civil unions in the future) should not be kept away from other groups of people based on their sex. Its discrimination.

People have the right to be not discriminated on the basis of sex or gender.

[Kodos]

That's what President Bush and John Kerry and everybody has been saying all along, but no, the Gays don't want that, they want to embarrass the Religeous Right by destroying their values. That's gay. :)

If everyone would start worrying a little more about their own marriage and a little less about everyone else's marriage/civil union/whatever it might be called, the world would be a happier place.

[PSUColonel]

I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either.

I know a lot of black groups are deeply resentful of gay activists painting their cause as the equivalent of the African-American's fight for civil rights. I also know a lot of gay folks who are also resentful toward the more "activist" segments of their population. Most of them are well-to-do professionals who want to live quiet lives and who regard their sex-lives as a private matter that is no one else's business. They certainly don't want to be numbered among their more "radical" activist alter-egos.

Now, I have no problem with civil unions, because I guess gay folks who separate need to have legal protections and guidelines when they fight over splitting up property and money just like hetero married couples do. However, a gay union will never be the equivalent of a heterosexual union for one simple reason. One of the major functions of the traditional family is to procreate -- to bear and raise children. This is something that can never happen naturally in a homosexual union.



I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

[Dutch]

If everyone would start worrying a little more about their own marriage and a little less about everyone else's marriage/civil union/whatever it might be called, the world would be a happier place.

We could have called it a "civil union" last year and been done with it.

[Kodos]

If I joined a civil union with Fritz, would it be okay for me to call him my husband, or would that be embarrassing the religious right too? :p

[Kodos]

I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

I think if people would stop using religion to justify their own prejudices, then religion wouldn't be getting a bad name. But when people keep using the Bible or whatever religious text they happen to believe in to justify why they dislike gays/African Americans/Jews/circus freaks/midgets, etc., it tends to make you dislike the religion that person is associated with, unfortunately.

[Dutch]

If I joined a civil union with Fritz, would it be okay for me to call him my husband, or would that be embarrassing the religious right too? :p

I honestly don't care what you do. But since it makes no difference to you, call it a civil union.

[Tigercat]

I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

Ok I'm an idiot, you didnt quote my post, talk about quick on the trigger am I!

[nfg22]

A lot of "Christians" who end up in divorce probably were nothing more than the Easter and Christmas "Christians"

I know this is judgemental but I call them Creasters....There are two different kind of christians tho..."Born Again" and then the people who are just Chrsitians...Obvoisly anyone that is a true Christian has to be Born Again

[PSUColonel]

"I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either."


This was what I was commenting on. As to say it's just not the freaks and zealots who think this way, so therefore it must be a legitimate point or issue.

[NoMyths]

I must admit is becoming more and more amazing to me that the word religion or religious is taking on such a negative connotation. This is exactly what is wrong with the moral fiber of this nation. This was not the case 20, 30, or 40 years ago.You're absolutely right. This negativity towards the Islamic religion definitely raises questions about our moral fiber.

[PSUColonel]

It was just an observation Tiger, I actually agree wi the content of your original post.

[nfg22]

Seriously i think atheism is now the cool thing to be....

[PSUColonel]

You're absolutely right. This negativity towards the Islamic religion definitely raises questions about our moral fiber.


In case you were wondering, there is nothing wrong with Islam as a whole, it's the interpertation of radicals who are the problem. And if Islam does advocate the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it, then by all means, no one should practice this religion.

[NoMyths]

In case you were wondering, there is nothing wrong with Islam as a whole, it's the interpertation of radicals who are the problem. And if Islam does advocate the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it, then by all means, no one should practice this religion.By introducing doubt into the equation, one begins the process of disintegration. And though it's been happening for centuries, I believe your question is thus answered.

[Dutch]

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.

[Kodos]

In case you were wondering, there is nothing wrong with Islam as a whole, it's the interpertation of radicals who are the problem. And if Islam does advocate the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it, then by all means, no one should practice this religion.

I think just possibly that Christians have been guilty of "the violent destruction of others who don't embrace it" a time or two. Should people stop practicing Christianity too then?

[Kodos]

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.

I'm sorry, but the religious right does not respect those who are different. Those who are different are told that they are sinful and that they are going to hell to burn for all of eternity.

Gays are not trying to tell the religious right how to live their own lives. Gays are asking to be able to live their own lives however they like. Some want to get married.

Would you be happy if you were told your marriage was just a "civil union"?

[NoMyths]

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.You were doing okay until the final sentence. Ask yourself if the conservative right offers such consolations.

[PSUColonel]

I will be the first to agree that kind of behavior has no place in Chrisitanity. Just as it has no place in Muslim. Certaninly none of it is advocated by God, Allah, etc..

[PSUColonel]

I will be the first to agree that kind of behavior has no place in Chrisitanity. Just as it has no place in Muslim. Certaninly none of it is advocated by God, Allah, etc..

[SFL Cat]

I'm sorry, but the religious right does not respect those who are different. Those who are different are told that they are sinful and that they are going to hell to burn for all of eternity.

And if that is their religious belief, based on thousands of years of tradition and doctrine, what, you're saying they're supposed to trash their belief system because it offends a small segment of the population because they choose to live in this way? Who is forcing who's belief system on whom?

Personally, I find it immoral (and frankly the idea of a couple of guys humping makes me queasy), but as long as someone isn't throwing it my face, telling me I have to condone it, and teach my children to condone it, I say live and let live. Then it is a matter between consenting adults and their conscience. My belief system isn't going to change just because a group of people decide to live a certain way, but don't want others to think what they are doing is immoral. If it worries you, keep your business private.


Gays are not trying to tell the religious right how to live their own lives. Gays are asking to be able to live their own lives however they like. Some want to get married.
Yes they are. In this case, they are telling Christians that their belief system is wrong and has to be changed to accomodate and/or sanction their lifestyle. They are seeking social justification for what has traditionally been considered abberant behavior. If this wasn't the case, they would simply keep their sexual life private, or simply disregard or dismiss the opinion of those with whom they didn't agree.


Would you be happy if you were told your marriage was just a "civil union"? Wouldn't matter to me. The government can call it what it wants. What is more important to me is the vows I took before God and the woman I have spent the past 21 years with.

[PSUColonel]

well saif SFL

[Crapshoot]

No one is asking the Christians to change their beliefs- they have every right to it. What people are saying simply is that relegating an entire class of Americans to second-class citizens because what makes them horny is another member of the same sex is predujicial at best, and absolute zealotry in practice at worse- your right to your religion does not translate as your right to use your religious beliefs as the basis for law. Morality exists outside of relgion- and as long as the religous right is unwilling to accept the basic premise and tries to enforce law based on a flawed doctrine, I will have a problem with that wing.

Look, I dont support any idiocy like forcing churches to recognize gay marriage or to allow it to be performed in their locations- that is their belief system and I fully suport their right to just that. Primarily, the government has no business in marriage- its a civil institution, and not a religous one. The justifications for the amendment crap are fundementally based in religious doctrine, and have no place in a civil issue- should we start taking lines about the Bible tactic support for Slavery and legislate law based on that as well ?

[Crapshoot]

btw, would anyone like to take a guess at what the correlation between people who opposed the civil rights movement and who oppose gay marriage is ?

[PSUColonel]

"your right to your religion does not translate as your right to use your religious beliefs as the basis for law"

excuse me, but that was the very basis many secular groups came to America on. Eg, the Quakers!!???

[Kodos]

Gay people aren't trying to say that Christians can't get married. But Christians are trying to keep gays from getting married. Gay people are merely asking for their relationships to be given the same treatment as a heterosexual couple receives.

And gays don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight. Think about it. Could you force yourself to go against your nature to marry a man if that was society's accepted standard? Probably not. So why expect a gay person to go against their inborn nature?

[Crapshoot]

The one constant for peace in all societies through the years has been solidarity. To either be one way or to respect those who are different.

The liberal left is offering no such consolations into today's social battle against traditional values.

200 years ago Dutch, keeping slaves were traditional values- as was keeping a woman at home without education, and seeing her role as a childbearer and not much more. 100 years ago, treating minorities as second class citizens were traditional values. Are you in favor of these "traditional values" as well, or is the bigotry selective ? Face it - "traditional values" is a misnomer applied to anything with the arguement "well we've always done it this way", and can hardly be utilized as an arguement.

[Kodos]

Look, I dont support any idiocy like forcing churches to recognize gay marriage or to allow it to be performed in their locations- that is their belief system and I fully suport their right to just that.


Agreed.

[Crapshoot]

I think most people are okay with what others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. However, I think a growing number of people are growing increasingly sick and tired of gays getting in their faces demanding a certain status for their lifestyles and I don't think its just the "religious" folks either.

I know a lot of black groups are deeply resentful of gay activists painting their cause as the equivalent of the African-American's fight for civil rights. I also know a lot of gay folks who are also resentful toward the more "activist" segments of their population. Most of them are well-to-do professionals who want to live quiet lives and who regard their sex-lives as a private matter that is no one else's business. They certainly don't want to be numbered among their more "radical" activist alter-egos.

Now, I have no problem with civil unions, because I guess gay folks who separate need to have legal protections and guidelines when they fight over splitting up property and money just like hetero married couples do. However, a gay union will never be the equivalent of a heterosexual union for one simple reason. One of the major functions of the traditional family is to procreate -- to bear and raise children. This is something that can never happen naturally in a homosexual union.

that is the religous definition of a marriage, while the issue is the civil institution- two people who have committed to each other wish to seal their committment. Personally, I dont believe the government has any damn business in marriage - get rid of the seperate marriage tax laws, continue with the child credits- and voila- we have a system where marriage is defined by each couple as their own- not regulated by an inefficient and excessive bueracracy.

[Cringer]

time for another great flood to get rid of all this BS, hell it would probably even make the religious nuts happy....

[Pumpy Tudors]

I can't believe a Borat video started all of this. It's fucking BORAT.

[Kodos]

I didn't watch the video, if that makes you feel better. :)

[Crapshoot]

Hey- I love Ali G. that being said, the excuses being offered out here remind of the minister who Borat meant who wanted to "cure" homosexuality. At some point, I cannot see why this whole homosexuality weaken's marriage bit has any legitimacy to it anyway- no one is asking for a Christian marriage recognition, but rather a civil one.

[nfg22]

Gay people aren't trying to say that Christians can't get married. But Christians are trying to keep gays from getting married. Gay people are merely asking for their relationships to be given the same treatment as a heterosexual couple receives.

And gays don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight. Think about it. Could you force yourself to go against your nature to marry a man if that was society's accepted standard? Probably not. So why expect a gay person to go against their inborn nature?


Yeah and a schizoid doesnt choose to be that way....but you certainly dont condone the symptoms that they portray...

[sachmo71]

Yeah and a schizoid doesnt choose to be that way....but you certainly dont condone the symptoms that they portray...

Ummm...what?

[Crapshoot]

Yeah and a schizoid doesnt choose to be that way....but you certainly dont condone the symptoms that they portray...

Are you actually enough of an idiot to compare gay people to schizoids and treat it like a disease ?

[nfg22]

Ok Ill clarify...There are two stand points on homosexuality...One it is a choice and two that it is inborn...Well If it is a choice then yes I can be against someone for being gay because it was their choice.... But if it is inborn then I cant because it wasnt their choice...But if it is inborn then that means that something went wrong for the purpose of..

1. The natural inkling is to reproduce and im sorry but a homosexual couple cant.
2. Homosexuality is not natural thus somthing strayed from the normal lines.

So thus if it isnt natural then it must be a disorder or a chromosome messup...So is Schizophrenia but you dont condone the actions of a schizoid.

[nfg22]

Are you actually enough of an idiot to compare gay people to schizoids and treat it like a disease ?


I dont wanna treat it because itdoesnt affect me. If the person that is a homosexual wants to be treated then they are willing to do so. Most of em like it so let them be. But im not gunna condone it under any circumstances.

[Subby]

I dont wanna treat it because itdoesnt affect me. If the person that is a homosexual wants to be treated then they are willing to do so. Most of em like it so let them be. But im not gunna condone it under any circumstances.Fuck you.

[nfg22]

Ok buddy...I didnt even say anything offensive...and if ur offended that I would say that they can get treatment of they want, well actually a few of my friends have gotten help and it is also becoming more popular in the psychological field.

[heybrad]

I heart Subby.

[Raven Hawk]

From reading this thread one would think that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive. Seems to me that there are a few Christian Religions that have welcomed homosexuals into their churches. Being gay doesn't prevent one from being Christian and being Christian does not prevent one from being gay.

Also, to those of you who can't stomach the thought of two guys humping each other . . . do you harbor the same prejudices when you're watching your lesbian porn? Or, do we have a double standard there?

[nfg22]

From reading this thread one would think that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive. Seems to me that there are a few Christian Religions that have welcomed homosexuals into their churches. Being gay doesn't prevent one from being Christian and being Christian does not prevent one from being gay.

Also, to those of you who can't stomach the thought of two guys humping each other . . . do you harbor the same prejudices when you're watching your lesbian porn? Or, do we have a double standard there?


Well to comment to your first point...they can coinside but it is hard...but a gay person being a christian can happen, although being gay is against the bible Jesus didnt come to save just the straight people he came to save everyone and they are not excluded. But it is harder for one of them to accept a religion in which their lifestyle is looked at as a sin. Of course all sins seperate us from God so me lusting after a woman is the same...

I can say my mind likes two women together but I know its wrong and it does gross me out when I think about it in a non sexual way.

[rkmsuf]

If they are Christian lesbians I have to turn it off.

[heybrad]

Next time some of you have the hotline to Jesus ask him for a refresher course on Agency and the ability of people to decide for themselves if they want to break his laws as opposed to the ones you decide to force upon them.

[Bee]

Ok Ill clarify...There are two stand points on homosexuality...One it is a choice and two that it is inborn...Well If it is a choice then yes I can be against someone for being gay because it was their choice.... But if it is inborn then I cant because it wasnt their choice...But if it is inborn then that means that something went wrong for the purpose of..

1. The natural inkling is to reproduce and im sorry but a homosexual couple cant.
2. Homosexuality is not natural thus somthing strayed from the normal lines.

So thus if it isnt natural then it must be a disorder or a chromosome messup...So is Schizophrenia but you dont condone the actions of a schizoid.

Damn straight and I think we should also take away rights from all those people who were born left-handed! Just the idea of writing with you left hand makes me uncomfortable and I don't condone it! DOWN WITH THE LEFTIES!!!

[Crapshoot]

Ok buddy...I didnt even say anything offensive...and if ur offended that I would say that they can get treatment of they want, well actually a few of my friends have gotten help and it is also becoming more popular in the psychological field.

3rd grade is a hard time psychologically..

[Kodos]

and if ur offended that I would say that they can get treatment of they want, well actually a few of my friends have gotten help and it is also becoming more popular in the psychological field.

Getting treatment for being a homosexual? Good god. Maybe you should get treatment for being straight.

[Raven Hawk]

Well to comment to your first point...they can coinside but it is hard...but a gay person being a christian can happen, although being gay is against the bible Jesus didnt come to save just the straight people he came to save everyone and they are not excluded. But it is harder for one of them to accept a religion in which their lifestyle is looked at as a sin. Of course all sins seperate us from God so me lusting after a woman is the same...

I can say my mind likes two women together but I know its wrong and it does gross me out when I think about it in a non sexual way.
Is being gay against the Bible or is it against God's will? I can respect your devotion to the Bible, but personally I see the Bible as flawed since it was written by men. The only verses in the Bible that were forged by God himself were the Ten Commandments. Strangely enough, there aren't any commandments that proclaim, "Thou shalt not be gay," or "Thou shalt not have sexual intercourse with a person of like gender." The closest it comes is: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

So as long as you're not coveting somebody's manservant . . . or his ass, you should be OK, right? ;)

[rkmsuf]

Getting treatment for being a homosexual? Good god. Maybe you should get treatment for being straight.


I hear the Ladies Man specializes in these treatments.

[Kodos]

Damn straight and I think we should also take away rights from all those people who were born left-handed! Just the idea of writing with you left hand makes me uncomfortable and I don't condone it! DOWN WITH THE LEFTIES!!!

And don't even get me started on folks with green eyes. IT'S UNNATURAL!!! :eek:

[Jesse_Ewiak]

It's in Leviticus. Ya' know, right by the rules about selling your daughter in slavery.

[Bee]

And don't even get me started on folks with green eyes. IT'S UNNATURAL!!! :eek:

At least there is treatment for that with contact lenses, although I don't understand why it's not legally enforced...

[Kodos]

At least there is treatment for that with contact lenses, although I don't understand why it's not legally enforced...

Contacts are not good enough, because underneath, the eyes are STILL GREEN!!! The only acceptable solutions are:

1. Dyeing the eyes an acceptable color.
2. Jabbing the eyes out and replacing them with glass eyes of the appropriate color.

[Peregrine]

1. The natural inkling is to reproduce and im sorry but a homosexual couple cant.
2. Homosexuality is not natural thus somthing strayed from the normal lines.

What about couples who choose not to have children? Are they straying from the natural order too? They must be mentally ill as well.

[Dutch]

It is very possible that homosexuality is a hormonal imbalance of some sort, similar to an imbalance that makes certain people pedophiles.

It's all very much unexplained, but should we continue to persue treatments that may one day lead to the end of Pedophilia, perhaps we could also research treatments that will allow gays to be straight if they do so choose. Hell, even make straight people gay if that's what they want!

I don't care the motive, but there is a scientific answer to the question somewhere. We certainly aren't at a point in our civlization where one side can redicule the other about who's right and who's wrong.

[Crapshoot]

It's in Leviticus. Ya' know, right by the rules about selling your daughter in slavery.

Im always curious how this fact is usually brushed aside.

Look, fundementally, my impression is that the Bible is not meant to read perfectly literally-it is a man written manuscript, and not the so-called "word of god." Like any manuscript, it had undergone editing, revisions, etc for as long as its been around- do you honestly think the Bible of 1700 years ago is the Bible of today ?

[PSUColonel]

It is very possible that homosexuality is a hormonal imbalance of some sort, similar to an imbalance that makes certain people pedophiles.

It's all very much unexplained, but should we continue to persue treatments that may one day lead to the end of Pedophilia, perhaps we could also research treatments that will allow gays to be straight if they do so choose. Hell, even make straight people gay if that's what they want!

I don't care the motive, but there is a scientific answer to the question somewhere. We certainly aren't at a point in our civlization where one side can redicule the other about who's right and who's wrong.


Actually there is a treatment that I think should be available in a court of law to pedophile offenders... the removal of one's genitals through surgery. May sound a bit barbaric, but it would certainly work, and perhaps then the convicted felon might be OK to walk the streets again someday. But as I stated, it should be optional, and left up to the offfender.

[Kodos]

I don't think comparing consenting adult gay couples with pedophiles is a valid thing to do.

By the way, my solution for pedophiles is simple. A conviction gets them life in jail with no chance of parole. Or fry them.

Edit: Actually, I should clarify. This is my view on molesters. Once you have violated a child, you should be forever separated from society with no chance to ever harm another child.

[rkmsuf]

I don't think comparing consenting adult gay couples with pedophiles is a valid thing to do.

By the way, my solution for pedophiles is simple. A conviction gets them life in jail with no chance of parole. Or fry them.

It's not valid at all. Let's treat the burgulars and murderers too.

[nfg22]

Is being gay against the Bible or is it against God's will? I can respect your devotion to the Bible, but personally I see the Bible as flawed since it was written by men. The only verses in the Bible that were forged by God himself were the Ten Commandments. Strangely enough, there aren't any commandments that proclaim, "Thou shalt not be gay," or "Thou shalt not have sexual intercourse with a person of like gender." The closest it comes is: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

So as long as you're not coveting somebody's manservant . . . or his ass, you should be OK, right? ;)


Well it is in leviticus but those were laws forthe Jews society...It is also in romans and that was wriiten by people that knew Jesus...Im not guna quote scripture at you because if you dont belive the bible then it isnt gunna do any good...But I belive in a perfect God and that perfect God is not going to have imperfect scripture.

[Raven Hawk]

Actually there is a treatment that I think should be available in a court of law to pedophile offenders... the removal of one's genitals through surgery. May sound a bit barbaric, but it would certainly work, and perhaps then the convicted felon might be OK to walk the streets again someday. But as I stated, it should be optional, and left up to the offfender.
I heard that this pedophile imbalance is a recessive trait passed down along the "Priest" gene.

[nfg22]

Actually there is a treatment that I think should be available in a court of law to pedophile offenders... the removal of one's genitals through surgery. May sound a bit barbaric, but it would certainly work, and perhaps then the convicted felon might be OK to walk the streets again someday. But as I stated, it should be optional, and left up to the offfender.


Agreed.

[Franklinnoble]

Gay people, well, gay people are EVIL, evil right down to their cold black hearts which pump not blood like yours or mine, but rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior. Do you understand?

[rkmsuf]

I heard that this pedophile imbalance is a recessive trait passed down along the "Priest" gene.

hehe, good one.

[nfg22]

Im always curious how this fact is usually brushed aside.

Look, fundementally, my impression is that the Bible is not meant to read perfectly literally-it is a man written manuscript, and not the so-called "word of god." Like any manuscript, it had undergone editing, revisions, etc for as long as its been around- do you honestly think the Bible of 1700 years ago is the Bible of today ?


Yeah actually the bible of 1700 years ago is the same except in english...what you dont realize is the revisions that take place arent off of the latest bible they come off the origional source...So they basically just translate the earliest documents available.

[Karlifornia]

I think Billy Joel should write a sequel to "We Didn't Start the Fire" based solely on the evils of Religion.


(Starting at the "Rock and Roller Cola Wars, I can't take it anymore!!!" part)


Boy-molesting Catholic Priests
PLEASE TURN OFF THAT PAX TV!

We didn't write the bible....
They've been killing people,
since they put up the steeple

[Raven Hawk]

Well it is in leviticus but those were laws forthe Jews society...It is also in romans and that was wriiten by people that knew Jesus...Im not guna quote scripture at you because if you dont belive the bible then it isnt gunna do any good...But I belive in a perfect God and that perfect God is not going to have imperfect scripture.
Actually, believe it or not, I agree with you on one aspect. I believe in a perfect God. However, the imperfect scripture was created by man who is inherently flawed and committed the first sin that got him kicked out of the Garden of Eden. God didn't proofread the Bible, nor did he do all the translations that brought it into its current form. Man interpreted the Bible and translated the languages, therefore it is imperfect.

[nfg22]

Actually, believe it or not, I agree with you on one aspect. I believe in a perfect God. However, the imperfect scripture was created by man who is inherently flawed and committed the first sin that got him kicked out of the Garden of Eden. God didn't proofread the Bible, nor did he do all the translations that brought it into its current form. Man interpreted the Bible and translated the languages, therefore it is imperfect.

But do you limit the powers of God by the fact that his people could have more power over his scripture than He does? Your saying he would sit back and let a convuluded image of himself be presented that was supposed to be His word?

[Raven Hawk]

But do you limit the powers of God by the fact that his people could have more power over his scripture than He does? Your saying he would sit back and let a convuluded image of himself be presented that was supposed to be His word?
Free Will, man. It's a bitch. He should have just scrapped that idea from the get-go . . .

[nfg22]

Free Will, man. It's a bitch. He should have just scrapped that idea from the get-go . . .

That may be right but it doesnt fit that He would let people corrupt his scripture...Its free wil to do what you want with your life, but I dont belive that it is the same with His word. I believe God is all powerful and He has the power to have an uncorrupt scripture.

[rkmsuf]

That may be right but it doesnt fit that He would let people corrupt his scripture...Its free wil to do what you want with your life, but I dont belive that it is the same with His word. I believe God is all powerful and He has the power to have an uncorrupt scripture.

Someone start combing the text for a typo...

[nfg22]

Someone start combing the text for a typo...


sorry I am typing kind of fast because I am quite busy at the moment.

[rkmsuf]

sorry I am typing kind of fast because I am quite busy at the moment.

*sigh* not your text.

[nfg22]

*sigh* not your text.
ok...im lost...

[Crapshoot]

It is very possible that homosexuality is a hormonal imbalance of some sort, similar to an imbalance that makes certain people pedophiles.

It's all very much unexplained, but should we continue to persue treatments that may one day lead to the end of Pedophilia, perhaps we could also research treatments that will allow gays to be straight if they do so choose. Hell, even make straight people gay if that's what they want!

I don't care the motive, but there is a scientific answer to the question somewhere. We certainly aren't at a point in our civlization where one side can redicule the other about who's right and who's wrong.

that's a remarkably loaded statement- you're trying to equate homosexuality to pedophelia, which is a tried and tested routine of religous extrimists. That being said, I am waiting for a response from you regarding the "traditional values" point you made earlier.

[Raven Hawk]

That may be right but it doesnt fit that He would let people corrupt his scripture...Its free wil to do what you want with your life, but I dont belive that it is the same with His word. I believe God is all powerful and He has the power to have an uncorrupt scripture.
Is it not also free will to write something on a piece of paper and call it 'Scripture'? I believe that God is all powerful and he has the power to have an uncorrupt scripture, but I believe he chooses not to excercise that power because it interferes with his greatest gift to man: Free Will. By granting mankind free will, then taking it away for the purposes writing the Bible to convey his message would make him a hypocrite. If God is perfect, how can he be a hypocrite?

[rkmsuf]

ok...im lost...

If the Bible is perfect how can it contain a typo.

[nfg22]

Is it not also free will to write something on a piece of paper and call it 'Scripture'? I believe that God is all powerful and he has the power to have an uncorrupt scripture, but I believe he chooses not to excercise that power because it interferes with his greatest gift to man: Free Will. By granting mankind free will, then taking it away for the purposes writing the Bible to convey his message would make him a hypocrite. If God is perfect, how can he be a hypocrite?

Well that is looking at is as a book of human writings. I believe when God planned out all of this, He had the Bible in the plan and picked these people in the Bible because he knew this way it wouldnt be corrupt.

[nfg22]

If the Bible is perfect how can it contain a typo.

hah...I understand...

[Raven Hawk]

Well that is looking at is as a book of human writings. I believe when God planned out all of this, He had the Bible in the plan and picked these people in the Bible because he knew this way it wouldnt be corrupt.
Here is one of the anomalies that I find in my own beliefs. If God has a plan for everything, do we really have Free Will? These two beliefs seem to be mutually exclusive. I tend to favor the "God who has given his given Free Will to mankind to do what they might" argument over the "I have a plan for everything God."

[sachmo71]

ok...im lost...

Truer words were never spoken.

[nfg22]

Here is one of the anomalies that I find in my own beliefs. If God has a plan for everything, do we really have Free Will? These two beliefs seem to be mutually exclusive. I tend to favor the "God who has given his given Free Will to mankind to do what they might" argument over the "I have a plan for everything God."

I believe God has a plan but we stray from it with our free will..

[Franklinnoble]

I believe God has a plan but we stray from it with our free will..
It's a little more complicated than that.

We have free will, but God already knows what we're going to do with it, and the infinite chaos of the cause and effect of every decision that ever person on earth has ever made is all part of His plan.

[sachmo71]

It's stuff like this that makes people doubt the existance of god. Is that the intent?

[Raven Hawk]

I believe God has a plan but we stray from it with our free will..
So people who part of God's plan to create the scriptures could have strayed from God's plan, creating imperfect scripture?

And God is perfect, but the execution of his plans are not, because mankind has free will? Reasonable enough for me to believe. But then, we can't assume that the Bible contains the exact message that he wants to send us.

Therefore, how do we know that somebody being gay is against God's will?

[nfg22]

So people who part of God's plan to create the scriptures could have strayed from God's plan, creating imperfect scripture?

And God is perfect, but the execution of his plans are not, because mankind has free will? Reasonable enough for me to believe. But then, we can't assume that the Bible contains the exact message that he wants to send us.

Therefore, how do we know that somebody being gay is against God's will?


Without faith in scripture I cannot prove it to you.

[Raven Hawk]

Without faith in scripture I cannot prove it to you.
Without faith in God I cannot disprove it to you.

[nfg22]

Without faith in God I cannot disprove it to you.

I have plenty of faith in God

[Raven Hawk]

But you have more faith in the scriptures?

[nfg22]

But you have more faith in the scriptures?
I believe the scriptures are from God so I have the same amount of faith in each...But the only faith that matters to me is the faith in Christ.

[Raven Hawk]

I believe the scriptures are from God so I have the same amount of faith in each...But the only faith that matters to me is the faith in Christ.
Well, I'm from the God=Jesus=HolySpirit faction, so I can see where you are coming from.

Let me put this test to you, and I want you to answer this from your heart, not from your scriptures.

Would a God who sacrificed his only Son for the sins of ALL be more likely to send which of the following messages:

A. Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they're gay.
B. Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they're Muslim.
C. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

[nfg22]

Well, I'm from the God=Jesus=HolySpirit faction, so I can see where you are coming from.

Let me put this test to you, and I want you to answer this from your heart, not from your scriptures.

Would a God who sacrificed his only Son for the sins of ALL be more likely to send which of the following messages:

A. Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they're gay.
B. Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they're Muslim.
C. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Obvoisly C...I said that earlier in this thread...Jesus didnt come to just save the Hetrosexuals or just the Jews. He came to save everyone.

[nfg22]

dola~ I know you said Love thy neighbor as thyself...I dont hate homosexuals and I definetly dont think they are worse that anyone else. But I dont condone the lifestyle.

[Raven Hawk]

Granted. That was a bit of a rhetorical question, but here is my point to you.

If you "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and you have the right to marry the person that you love. Why do they not have that same right. If you argue their right to marry who they want, why should you be allowed to marry who you want?

Loving thy neighbor as thyself is a tricky thing, because nobody wants to live up to the expectations that they set for their fellow man.

[Raven Hawk]

Dola,

I don't think that you hate homosexuals. I don't think that anybody that has a good faith in God does. I don't expect you to condone their lifestyle. I just expect that you'd treat them the same way that you'd want to be treated.

[nfg22]

Granted. That was a bit of a rhetorical question, but here is my point to you.

If you "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and you have the right to marry the person that you love. Why do they not have that same right. If you argue their right to marry who they want, why should you be allowed to marry who you want?

Loving thy neighbor as thyself is a tricky thing, because nobody wants to live up to the expectations that they set for their fellow man.



Marriage and Love are two different things. But to answer your question this takes me back to my scriptures, marriage in my scriptures is between a man and a woman. So I wouldnt be mad if it were to be a civil union and get all the legal rights...The government shouldnt see it as a religious issue.

[nfg22]

Dola,

I don't think that you hate homosexuals. I don't think that anybody that has a good faith in God does. I don't expect you to condone their lifestyle. I just expect that you'd treat them the same way that you'd want to be treated.


I do treat them the way i would like to be treated. But when I look at the issue at hand I think it isnt right so I am gunna be against it.

[Raven Hawk]

I do treat them the way i would like to be treated. But when I look at the issue at hand I think it isnt right so I am gunna be against it.
Would you care if they got married in a Non-Christian Church. Marriage is a sacred vow in Christianity, but it is not the only religion that performs marriages. Do you want them to not have the right to marry, or not to have the right to marry within your religion?

[nfg22]

Would you care if they got married in a Non-Christian Church. Marriage is a sacred vow in Christianity, but it is not the only religion that performs marriages. Do you want them to not have the right to marry, or not to have the right to marry within your religion?


The thing is marriage came outa judiasm and yes other religions have the same kind of thing but I just dont want that being associated with my kind of marriage. when somebody says the word marriage I dont want it to be a question of what sex.

[Raven Hawk]

The thing is marriage came outa judiasm and yes other religions have the same kind of thing but I just dont want that being associated with my kind of marriage. when somebody says the word marriage I dont want it to be a question of what sex.
I suppose that is a fair answer. Personally, I think that recognizing Civil Unions is an excellent step towards the future.

As long as we agree that two people have the right to love each other, regardless of sex, I'm fine by meeting on that ground.

[nfg22]

I love tons of males...just not sexually, yeah everyone has the right to love.