Discussion: Gay Rights [Archive] - Page 20

chaseter

11-02-2006, 02:54 PM

Hey, here's an idea. If we're going to keep gays out of the Holy City then why don't we keep "the Holy" out of all the other cities?
Because most of those cities were started by people from the Holy city. You can never stop religion...it has been around for forever and it will continue to be. Now I am not against homosexuals...I just don't agree with it. It is like a group of pro marijuana supporters busting into an anti marijuana group rally. My second question is why they need parades anyways. You don't see hetero parades every year. That is great they are a proud people, but to force it onto others and display that is just stupid. They have a coming out week...why don't we have a hetero week? Overexposure is a bad thing and that is what they are going for. I really wouldn't want to be visiting the birthplace of my religion and see 40 floats with burly moustached men in leather chaps dancing on each other on top of a hello kitty float.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 02:56 PM

.....? All I'm saying is that if the gov't allows gay marriage then they have to allow polygamy. If they allow gay marriage but ban polygamy then they would be hypocrites. Actualy gays being married still only includes two (2) in the equation, so nope.

C-$

11-02-2006, 02:57 PM

Would you ever choose to be?

No. I like females way too much.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:00 PM

Because most of those cities were started by people from the Holy city. You can never stop religion...it has been around for forever and it will continue to be. Now I am not against homosexuals...I just don't agree with it. It is like a group of pro marijuana supporters busting into an anti marijuana group rally. My second question is why they need parades anyways. You don't see hetero parades every year. That is great they are a proud people, but to force it onto others and display that is just stupid. They have a coming out week...why don't we have a hetero week? Overexposure is a bad thing and that is what they are going for. I really wouldn't want to be visiting the birthplace of my religion and see 40 floats with burly moustached men in leather chaps dancing on each other on top of a hello kitty float. Heterosexuals were never burned alive at the stake for their sexual orientation. The gay community has come a long way. Do you really give a **** that they have a parade? I fail to see how it could possibly affect you. Also, yes religion will someday be non-existant. Advances in science (not to mention rationality) will make that possible.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:01 PM

Actualy gays being married still only includes two (2) in the equation, so nope.
What about a man and an animal? You know if they legalized that, someone would do it. Who is to say Polygamy is wrong as compared to saying homosexuality is wrong? If one is wrong, why is the other wrong? Compared to whose morals or standards? So making one right, has to make others right.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:01 PM

No. I like females way too much. Why do you like females instead of males?

C-$

11-02-2006, 03:02 PM

Actualy gays being married still only includes two (2) in the equation, so nope.

Actually yes. If the gov't can change the definition of marriage in order to allow gay people to get married then they shouldn't have a problem doing it for the polygamist. If you believe gay people should get married becuase they should have the same rights as heterosexual people then you should have the same compassion for the polygamist. Besides, we don't know that some people are born with the urge to marry more than one person. Maybe they can't help it.

C-$

11-02-2006, 03:05 PM

Why do you like females instead of males?

Boobs, ass, lips, sex legs, they give me hardons ect. .

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 03:05 PM

Actually yes. If the gov't can change the definition of marriage in order to allow gay people to get married then they shouldn't have a problem doing it for the polygamist. If you believe gay people should get married becuase they should have the same rights as heterosexual people then you should have the same compassion for the polygamist. Besides, we don't know that some people are born with the urge to marry more than one person. Maybe they can't help it.

first off, you're argument is employing zero logic. but second, what's the problem with polygamy?

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:05 PM

What about a man and an animal? You know if they legalized that, someone would do it. Who is to say Polygamy is wrong as compared to saying homosexuality is wrong? If one is wrong, why is the other wrong? Compared to whose morals or standards? So making one right, has to make others right. No they don't. The only difference between a gay couple getting married and a straight couple getting married is the number of penises/vaginas, but the end result always totals 2 sex organs and 2 people. Polygamy (which I have no problem with either) brings about a host of other problems when it comes to government issues (i.e. family tax credits, etc.). And comparing homosexuality to beastiality doesn't even deserve a response.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:07 PM

Boobs, ass, lips, sex legs, they give me hardons ect. . Yes, that's "attraction" and we've established that you are attracted to women, but "why" do those things cause you to get a hardon?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:08 PM

Heterosexuals were never burned alive at the stake for their sexual orientation. The gay community has come a long way. Do you really give a **** that they have a parade? I fail to see how it could possibly affect you. Also, yes religion will someday be non-existant. Advances in science (not to mention rationality) will make that possible.
Religion will never dissapear. You can never disprove religion just as you can never fully confirm it. It is a belief, it is an opinion, and those never die. It is wrong to punish that belief by killing. But yes, I care that they push their attitudes onto me. I am a Christian, no not a fanatic that throws my Bible at everyone, and I don't push my beliefs on anyone else. If they are happy to hear me, then I tell them. There are some homosexuals out there that live normal lives and are accepted. But for the flamboyant biker waving his flag at passerbyers as their 40 float parade passes is ridiculous. I believe homosexuality is not natural and should not be legalized or their agenda pushed on the casual citizen.

C-$

11-02-2006, 03:10 PM

first off, you're argument is employing zero logic. but second, what's the problem with polygamy?

How is my argument employing zero logic. I wasn't bashing polygamy, I was saying that if you allow gay marriage then you have to allow polygamy. It amazes me that some people on this thread would support gay marriage but not polygamy. That is so hypocritable.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 03:11 PM

What about a man and an animal? You know if they legalized that, someone would do it. Who is to say Polygamy is wrong as compared to saying homosexuality is wrong? If one is wrong, why is the other wrong? Compared to whose morals or standards? So making one right, has to make others right.

an animal can't consent. that's why the animal comparison doesn't really fit.
as for polygamy, your guess is as good as mine. most of it's a cultural and/or traditional choice. But there are ways to expand or reframe ones morals to allow for some things and not others. It doesnt have to be an all or nothing conversion.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:11 PM

No they don't. The only difference between a gay couple getting married and a straight couple getting married is the number of penises/vaginas, but the end result always totals 2 sex organs and 2 people. Polygamy (which I have no problem with either) brings about a host of other problems when it comes to government issues (i.e. family tax credits, etc.). And comparing homosexuality to beastiality doesn't even deserve a response.
To whose opinion? Some people believe beastiality, polygamy, incest, homosexuality, etc...is natural and right. For you to say homosexuality is right and beastiality is not is stupid. It is a slippery slope.

C-$

11-02-2006, 03:12 PM

Yes, that's "attraction" and we've established that you are attracted to women, but "why" do those things cause you to get a hardon?

Cause I was born that way. What do you want me to say?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:13 PM

an animal can't consent. that's why the animal comparison doesn't really fit.
as for polygamy, your guess is as good as mine. most of it's a cultural and/or traditional choice. But there are ways to expand or reframe ones morals to allow for some things and not others. It doesnt have to be an all or nothing conversion.
A woman married a cobra in India! I guess you could teach monkeys to consent with sign language. I just think that if one things is accepted being pushed by a group of people then what is their to stop other things being accepted...like a slippery slope. Whose ultimate decision is it to say what is right and what is wrong?

The Overlord

11-02-2006, 03:14 PM

To whose opinion? Some people believe beastiality, polygamy, incest, homosexuality, etc...is natural and right. For you to say homosexuality is right and beastiality is not is stupid. It is a slippery slope.

A gay man can consent to sex, an animal cannot not. Your comparsion of homosexusality to beastiality is illogical and offesnive.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 03:14 PM

To whose opinion? Some people believe beastiality, polygamy, incest, homosexuality, etc...is natural and right. For you to say homosexuality is right and beastiality is not is stupid. It is a slippery slope.

Homosexuality isnt a choice like beastiality/incest/polygamy. IT'S THEIR LIFESTYLE THAT THEY CANT CHANGE. It's not that hard to understand.

The Overlord

11-02-2006, 03:16 PM

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:17 PM

Religion will never dissapear. You can never disprove religion just as you can never fully confirm it. It is a belief, it is an opinion, and those never die. It is wrong to punish that belief by killing. But yes, I care that they push their attitudes onto me. I am a Christian, no not a fanatic that throws my Bible at everyone, and I don't push my beliefs on anyone else. If they are happy to hear me, then I tell them. There are some homosexuals out there that live normal lives and are accepted. But for the flamboyant biker waving his flag at passerbyers as their 40 float parade passes is ridiculous. I believe homosexuality is not natural and should not be legalized or their agenda pushed on the casual citizen. They aren't pushing their beliefs on anyone either. They are having a parade to celebrate who they are, that's it. Are they trying to make out with you? Trying to make you and your kids gay? No. As for religion I guess we'll have to diagree as I believe that eventualy humanity will evolve to a point where we no longer have to rely on superstitions to survive.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 03:17 PM

How is my argument employing zero logic. I wasn't bashing polygamy, I was saying that if you allow gay marriage then you have to allow polygamy. It amazes me that some people on this thread would support gay marriage but not polygamy. That is so hypocritable.

because it's apples and oranges. look at it this way- i call it "the coke/pepsi challenge routine" in a blind-comparison, with their genders masked somehow (imagine everoyne wearing potatosakc or whatever) you're shown 100 couples.

you won't be able to pick out the gays formthe straights.

but now add poly-couples. boom, you got three or more potato sacks. easy to pick out amongst all the anonymous pairs. there you go. See, if you admit polygamy, a lot more would need to change then(tax laws, etc.). not so with gay marriage.

but for me, i just figure if two (or more) people love each other, and are reponsible adults, i'm not gonna stand in their way. I'm pretty secure in my feelings on marriage so nothing on that level, between consenting adults, is going to damage the institution for me.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:18 PM

Cause I was born that way. What do you want me to say? D I S C O :up:

The Overlord

11-02-2006, 03:21 PM

Religion will never dissapear. You can never disprove religion just as you can never fully confirm it. It is a belief, it is an opinion, and those never die. It is wrong to punish that belief by killing. But yes, I care that they push their attitudes onto me. I am a Christian, no not a fanatic that throws my Bible at everyone, and I don't push my beliefs on anyone else. If they are happy to hear me, then I tell them. There are some homosexuals out there that live normal lives and are accepted. But for the flamboyant biker waving his flag at passerbyers as their 40 float parade passes is ridiculous. I believe homosexuality is not natural and should not be legalized or their agenda pushed on the casual citizen.

Are you a conservative? If you are, how can you say you support small government and yet you want the state to have control over the personal lives of consenting adults?

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 03:22 PM

A woman married a cobra in India! I guess you could teach monkeys to consent with sign language. I just think that if one things is accepted being pushed by a group of people then what is their to stop other things being accepted...like a slippery slope. Whose ultimate decision is it to say what is right and what is wrong?

first of all, we're not in india we're in america, so we shouldn't be concerned with what they do there, right? Second, teaching sign language is more of a rote trick- in all the animal tests they've done so far, experts have not had satisfactory results getting animals top express anything beyond simple needs/wants (i want this food, this toy, etc.). Nothing onthe level of complex emotions.

I see it less as a slippery slope, and more as a slow but inevitable change. Ther are a lot of things now that we take as normal, moral, etc. but if you showed those thigns to a perosn who lived a few hundreds years ago (heck even 100 years ago), they'd probably be aghast.

Even the things accepted by the most prim and proper septuagenarian today would probably shock a more daring and openminded person form a few centuries back.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:25 PM

Are you a conservative? If you are, how can you say you support small government and yet you want the state to have control over the personal lives of consenting adults? It's from the book of Biggotus, 14:6:

- "though shalt always claim to love and adore absolute freedom whilst denying others the very same. Also, though shalt think Larry The Cable Guy is really, really funny. Git R' Done! Amen."

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 03:29 PM

I believe homosexuality is not natural and should not be legalized or their agenda pushed on the casual citizen.

Homosexuality is legal. gay marriage is not (odd huh?)
oh, and explain this agenda? how does it affect you.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:30 PM

Homosexuality isnt a choice like beastiality/incest/polygamy. IT'S THEIR LIFESTYLE THAT THEY CANT CHANGE. It's not that hard to understand.
But who is to say polygamy isn't a choice? Besides there is no concrete proof that homosexuality is a DNA related phenomenon. It is a choice of lifestyle just like it is a choice to be a polygamist. Is it wrong to be gay, no. Is it wrong to be a polygamist or practice beastiality, who is to say? That is my point, I never said being gay is wrong and you will burn in hell, I am trying to prove that for someone to say being gay is ok, then who is to say being all of those other things is not ok?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:32 PM

OMG, your using a Stephen Colbert talking point, do you have any idea how silly that makes you seem?
I love the Colbert Report...I watch it everynight. Just because he makes a funny point doesn't mean it isn't true. A woman did really marry a cobra.

Machx72

11-02-2006, 03:33 PM

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 03:34 PM

But who is to say polygamy isn't a choice? Besides there is no concrete proof that homosexuality is a DNA related phenomenon. It is a choice of lifestyle just like it is a choice to be a polygamist. Is it wrong to be gay, no. Is it wrong to be a polygamist or practice beastiality, who is to say? That is my point, I never said being gay is wrong and you will burn in hell, I am trying to prove that for someone to say being gay is ok, then who is to say being all of those other things is not ok?

but it has been observed many times over in the animal kingdom.

There is no proof that it is a choice of lifestuyle eitehr.

there is more evidence of it being a natural phenomenon than it being a phenomenon of simple choice.

and for me the litmus test once again is :are hte peopel invovled consenting adults? and also: who is being hurt by this?

but you're right? who is to say? in other words: who are we to stop these people?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:35 PM

Homosexuality is legal. gay marriage is not (odd huh?)
oh, and explain this agenda? how does it affect you.
Some homosexuals act normal. There isn't a gene in people that make them dress in leather chaps and hump each other in a parade going down my street. If their agenda is approved, who is to say that other people's agendas are not to be approved? I have a gay cousin, he is probably the most flamboyant individual there ever was. He participates in parades, etc...I understand their struggle, but I agree why Congress can't give in to everything. There has to be a line drawn at sometime and who ultimately decides that line?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:39 PM

but it has been observed many times over in the animal kingdom.

There is no proof that it is a choice of lifestuyle eitehr.

there is more evidence of it being a natural phenomenon than it being a phenomenon of simple choice.

and for me the litmus test once again is :are hte peopel invovled consenting adults? and also: who is being hurt by this?

but you're right? who is to say? in other words: who are we to stop these people?
But it's not a defect or inherent trait, it is a choice. If being gay were a genome abnormality or mutation or trait associated with those individuals, it would be passed down to their offspring. According to Darwin, only the fittest survive. It is not fit for a group of animals to become attached to the same sex because they cannot reproduce. Being gay is ultimately a choice at sometime in their life. It is not a happened chance that you end up gay because they would be extinct within a century. It is a cultural phenomenon that is growing with their acceptance into society.

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 03:39 PM

Some homosexuals act normal. There isn't a gene in people that make them dress in leather chaps and hump each other in a parade going down my street. If their agenda is approved, who is to say that other people's agendas are not to be approved? I have a gay cousin, he is probably the most flamboyant individual there ever was. He participates in parades, etc...I understand their struggle, but I agree why Congress can't give in to everything. There has to be a line drawn at sometime and who ultimately decides that line?

again.

what is this AGENDA you keep talking about? how does it affect you.
you have to know what their agenda is (or at least have a vague idea) in order for you to call it an agenda.
oh, and quit the bs about leather chaps man, I've seen guys wear mullets women dress like strippers white guys in FUBU and such and they get to do it, no matter how ridiculous THEY look or how uncomfortable that makes ME, when you their apearence part of your argument you almost admit there is no argument to begin with

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 03:41 PM

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:41 PM

Yeah, don't ya just love those preachers who say God loves everyone?

Unless, of course, you're a man who sleeps with another man.

Hell, I've even been told by some religious "devouts" that interracial marriages were not only against their parents' wishes, but against the bible.

I hate organized religion. It's a sad excuse to control people and to turn us into a communist country.
Communism or fascism...you choose. A lot of religious devouts that make the news are crackpot fanatics. I always say God loves the people, not the sin. It is in the Bible that homesexuality is wrong, so I believe that. But to persecute those people for their beliefs is wrong. Racism is the only reason why people get frustrated for interacial marriage and they use the Bible as their false backup.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:42 PM

There has to be a line drawn at sometime and who ultimately decides that line? Oh! Oh! *raises hand* I know, is it God?!:wow: Let's just give him a call.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:43 PM

dude, are you kdding me?
There is no scientific evidence to prove 100% that being gay is built into their genes and they are born with that. Nature vs nurture.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:43 PM

Oh! Oh! *raises hand* I know, is it God?!:wow: Let's just give him a call.
His number isn't in the phone book anymore:csad: To many prank calls I imagine.

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 03:44 PM

There is no scientific evidence to prove 100% that being gay is built into their genes and they are born with that. Nature vs nurture.

dude, seriously, how do you explain homosexual behaviour all throughout the animal kingdom.
anyway....

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:49 PM

dude, seriously, how do you explain homosexual behaviour all throughout the animal kingdom.
anyway....
My dog, a boy, humps anything and everything that has fur, whether it be stuffed animals, my leg, or another boy dog. Do you think that they fall in love with the same sex or toy or do you think instincts just kick in and say procreate. Hell, I have even seen a dog hump a live rabbit.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 03:49 PM

But it's not a defect or inherent trait, it is a choice. If being gay were a genome abnormality or mutation or trait associated with those individuals, it would be passed down to their offspring. According to Darwin, only the fittest survive. It is not fit for a group of animals to become attached to the same sex because they cannot reproduce. Being gay is ultimately a choice at sometime in their life. It is not a happened chance that you end up gay because they would be extinct within a century. It is a cultural phenomenon that is growing with their acceptance into society.

Have you ever read any Richard Dawkins? I have Ancestors Tale at home, and also The Selfish Gene. one of the points Dawkins tries to stress over and over is how misunderstood (and misrepresented) alot of Darwin's theories are today. For instance IF homosexuality was a receissive gene, none of what you say would necessarily hold true.

to say "it is not fit" because of the issue of reproduction alone, and then to make the leap that the entire species would go 'extinct', OR that the homosexual population would 'go extinct', is an ill-formed argument which shows little regard for the complexities of genetics as we understand them thusfar.

Wilhelm-Scream

11-02-2006, 03:49 PM

Only the sinful animals would commit such an act and they will be condemned to Animal-Hell for it.

They're also expected to tithe 10% of their nuts, figs, berries, twigs, gazelle hind quarters, etc.

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 03:51 PM

My dog, a boy, humps anything and everything that has fur, whether it be stuffed animals, my leg, or another boy dog. Do you think that they fall in love with the same sex or toy or do you think instincts just kick in and say procreate. Hell, I have even seen a dog hump a live rabbit.

you're NOT getting it. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. not mere humping.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 03:52 PM

There is no scientific evidence to prove 100% that being gay is built into their genes and they are born with that. Nature vs nurture.

once again, there is also no scientific evidence to prove 100% that being gay is a choice. however there is ample EVIDENCE against it.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:55 PM

Have you ever read any Richard Dawkins? I have Ancestors Tale at home, and also The Selfish Gene. one of the points Dawkins tries to stress over and over is how misunderstood (and misrepresented) alot of Darwin's theories are today.

to say "it is not fit" because of reproduction alone , and then to make the leap that the entire species would go 'extinct', OR that the homosexual population would 'go extinct', is an ill-formed argument which shows little regard for the complexities of genetics as we understand them thusfar.
We studied Darwin's theories and a lot of others including Dawkins in my advance Biology class. I am merely arguing that being gay is not a gene related incident. If it were, a lot of evolutionary theories would disprove it. Reproduction is the most important aspect of every life from on this planet. Without it, nothing would exist. With it, life gets stronger or weaker and becomes extinct. Homosexuality directly contradicts Darwin's theories as well as many other evolutionary models of dominant and recessive gene traits.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 03:56 PM

you're NOT getting it. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. not mere humping. Isn't humping all that homosexual behaviour is? That tasty, sinful, decadent act that we must all strike from our minds lest we be smote?:huh: Surely you aren't suggesting that they actualy have "feelings". These...homosexuals.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 03:57 PM

We studied Darwin's theories and a lot of others including Dawkins in my advance Biology class. I am merely arguing that being gay is not a gene related incident. If it were, a lot of evolutionary theories would disprove it. Reproduction is the most important aspect of every life from on this planet. Without it, nothing would exist. With it, life gets stronger or weaker and becomes extinct. Homosexuality directly contradicts Darwin's theories as well as many other evolutionary models of dominant and recessive gene traits.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/actors_films_images/jeff_goldblum.jpg

chaseter

11-02-2006, 03:57 PM

once again, there is also no scientific evidence to prove 100% that being gay is a choice. however there is ample EVIDENCE against it.
That is why I said I "think" it is a choice or culturally related. It is my opinion that it is a choice because there is no proof it isn't. You don't trust things until they are fact. I will believe in Bigfoot or the LochNess monster when they find it. Until then, I will remain a skeptic.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 03:59 PM

The Lizard

11-02-2006, 03:59 PM

you're NOT getting it. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. not mere humping.

Actually, you're kind of stating the difference right there. There is homosexual BEHAVIOR in the animal kingdom, but it is not like the homosexuality that exists in humans.

Two female Bonobo chimps grinding crotches at certain times does not make them "lesbians". The so-called gay penguins switched teams and mated to produce offspring.

Animals have different sex-drive levels like humans, but since there is no love involved and since various conditions will change this behavior, it isn't really accurate to call an animal "gay" in the same sense that humans are gay.

Animal behavior is a moot point, whether brought up by the conservatives or the liberals in this argument.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 04:00 PM

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 04:01 PM

Isn't humping all that homosexual behaviour is? That tasty, sinful, decadent act that we must all strike from our minds lest we be smote?:huh: Surely you aren't suggesting that they actualy have "feelings". These...homosexuals.

I seriously don't get all these people that ascribe these quasi-machiavellian motives to homosexuals.
"they have an agenda" "it's a choice" and so forth.
1.- what agenda? (chaseter is yet to adress this)
2.- who would "choose" to be attracted to his/her own sex.
( I don't find the idea appealing, maybe these people have stringer wills than me)

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 04:01 PM

I hope you have gay children. Me too. And I hope they're hawt!:o

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 04:03 PM

That is why I said I "think" it is a choice or culturally related. It is my opinion that it is a choice because there is no proof it isn't. You don't trust things until they are fact. I will believe in Bigfoot or the LochNess monster when they find it. Until then, I will remain a skeptic.

what is your burden of proof on this matter? if it were proven 99%, would you belive it then? or 90%? or 80%?

The fact is, there are many things in your life which you can't prove but which you accept as fact. If you stop for a moment i'm sure you can think of several. for instance, are you skeptical of the sun rising tomorrow? probably not.

So what is it that makes you choose to be skeptical of some things and not others?

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 04:03 PM

Animal behavior is a moot point, whether brought up by the conservatives or the liberals in this argument.

is it relevant if brought up by the green party?:csad:

The Lizard

11-02-2006, 04:05 PM

is it relevant if brought up by the green party?:csad:

Possibly -- that Ralph Nader is teh hawt.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 04:05 PM

I seriously don't get all these people that ascribe these quasi-machiavellian motives to homosexuals.
"they have an agenda" "it's a choice" and so forth.
1.- what agenda? (chaseter is yet to adress this)
2.- who would "choose" to be attracted to his/her own sex.
( I don't find the idea appealing, maybe these people have stringer wills than me) I think their agenda is that they're secretly demons trying to bring down the church and all of humanity by injecting gayety into world culture until it takes over and we all become extinct.

I was at a gay wedding a few weeks ago and I'm not entirely sure, but I believe I saw one of the grooms' eyes turn red during the ceremony and then he looked to the heavens, gave the middle finger and said "That's for Sodom and Gomorrah, *****." (with a really heavy stereotypical lisp).

Run for your life.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 04:06 PM

Actually, you're kind of stating the difference right there. There is homosexual BEHAVIOR in the animal kingdom, but it is not like the homosexuality that exists in humans.

Two female Bonobo chimps grinding crotches at certain times does not make them "lesbians". The so-called gay penguins switched teams and mated to produce offspring.

Animals have different sex-drive levels like humans, but since there is no love involved and since various conditions will change this behavior, it isn't really accurate to call an animal "gay" in the same sense that humans are gay.

Animal behavior is a moot point, whether brought up by the conservatives or the liberals in this argument.

but once again, you can't say there is no love in the animal kingdom- only that it's (as of yet) unobservable by science.

I don't think it's necessarily moot. It all depends what point is being made when it's brought up.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 04:07 PM

Possibly -- that Ralph Nader is teh hawt.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/maxwellsdemon123/myavatars/attaboy12.gif
NADER!

C-$

11-02-2006, 04:10 PM

D I S C O :up:

You got to be kidding me. :woot:

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 04:11 PM

and then he looked to the heavens, gave the middle finger and said "That's for Sodom and Gomorrah, *****." (with a really heavy stereotypical lisp).

Run for your life.

It must've been fabulous. :gaysatanwithgayagenda:

The Lizard

11-02-2006, 04:11 PM

but once again, you can't say there is no love in the animal kingdom- only that it's (as of yet) unobservable by science.

So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ;)

I don't think it's necessarily moot. It all depends what point is being made when it's brought up.

I find the points made by both the anti-gay rights side ("It's not natural! The species would die out!") and the pro-gay rights side ("Animals are gay in the wild and love each other just like we do!") to both be manipulative and oversimplified.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 04:14 PM

You got to be kidding me. :woot: Nope, it really is as simple as that. Are you trying to say that you can be born with a natural attraction to the opposite sex but someone can't be born with a natural attraction to the same sex? Because that would sound pretty absurd. But go ahead...I mean if you want to. You know, sound absurd. It really is up to you. I mean what've you got to lose really?

C-$

11-02-2006, 04:14 PM

because it's apples and oranges. look at it this way- i call it "the coke/pepsi challenge routine" in a blind-comparison, with their genders masked somehow (imagine everoyne wearing potatosakc or whatever) you're shown 100 couples.

you won't be able to pick out the gays formthe straights.

but now add poly-couples. boom, you got three or more potato sacks. easy to pick out amongst all the anonymous pairs. there you go. See, if you admit polygamy, a lot more would need to change then(tax laws, etc.). not so with gay marriage.

but for me, i just figure if two (or more) people love each other, and are reponsible adults, i'm not gonna stand in their way. I'm pretty secure in my feelings on marriage so nothing on that level, between consenting adults, is going to damage the institution for me.

First of all it's not apple and oranges. If I were to say to you that you can't compare regular marriage to gay marriage because it's apples and oranges, you would call me bigot.

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 04:14 PM

("Animals are gay in the wild and love each other just like we do!") to both be manipulative and oversimplified.

for the record I never said they "love" like us
they might love "differently" or in some cases not all.
merely that the behaviour is present in them, and since most animals live nowhere near chelsea the "nurture" thing seems odd to me.

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 04:16 PM

It must've been fabulous. :gaysatanwithgayagenda: It was awesome until they grew giant red wings out of their backs and flew away while dropping large, flaming bits of feces onto the wedding guests. That was a mess. Otherwise it was great. The DJ played a lot of good house music.

C-$

11-02-2006, 04:16 PM

Nope, it really is as simple as that. Are you trying to say that you can be born with a natural attraction to the opposite sex but someone can't be born with a natural attraction to the same sex? Because that would sound pretty absurd. But go ahead...I mean if you want to. You know, sound absurd. It really is up to you. I mean what've you got to lose really?

Yes, I am saying that because nobody is born gay. Homosexuality is a choice, if it wasn't then people wouldn't be able to change from that lifestyle. But of course you're going to give me the "they were never gay in the first place b.s".

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 04:18 PM

First of all it's not apple and oranges. If I were to say to you that you can't compare regular marriage to gay marriage because it's apples and oranges, you would call me bigot. But only because you'd be biggoted.:meow:

The Lizard

11-02-2006, 04:19 PM

for the record I never said they "love" like us
they might love "differently" or in some cases not all.
merely that the behaviour is present in them, and since most animals live nowhere near chelsea the "nurture" thing seems odd to me.

Yeah, I know you never mentioned love.
I was the one who brought it up just to illustrate how occasional homosexual behavior in animals is nothing like the gay love that humans can feel, that's all.

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 04:19 PM

It was awesome until they grew giant red wings out of their backs and flew away while dropping large, flaming bits of feces onto the wedding guests. That was a mess. Otherwise it was great. The DJ played a lot of good house music.

House music is soooo gay :csad:
oh well, I guess it was to be expected.

The Lizard

11-02-2006, 04:20 PM

But only because you'd be biggoted.:meow:
TSOG? That you? :confused:

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 04:20 PM

Yeah, I know you never mentioned love.
I was the one who brought it up just to illustrate how occasional homosexual behavior in animals is nothing like the gay love that humans can feel, that's all.

you oversimplifiying liberal you :cmad: Doctors are always liberals!!!!!!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

The Lizard

11-02-2006, 04:22 PM

you oversimplifiying liberal you :cmad: Doctors are always liberals!!!!!!:cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad::cmad:

Ah, but reptilian herpetologists are cold-blooded, and therefore make good conservatives. ;)

Oh, Kandahar!

11-02-2006, 04:23 PM

Yes, I am saying that because nobody is born gay. Homosexuality is a choice, if it wasn't then people wouldn't be able to change from that lifestyle. But of course you're going to give me the "they were never gay in the first place b.s". So...heterosexuality is a choice too then?:huh: Because for all the people that go from gay to straight, there are also a great number that go from straight to gay. How do you know that you weren't born gay and just made the decision to be a heterosexual? Since you seem to think that you can be born heterosexual and choose to be gay. It's one or the other. You are either born with a certain sexual orientation, whether it be straight or gay, or you are not and you choose to either be straight or gay. Either way, it doesn't make being gay wrong and it doesn't prove that they should have any fewer rights.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 04:58 PM

So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ;)

I find the points made by both the anti-gay rights side ("It's not natural! The species would die out!") and the pro-gay rights side ("Animals are gay in the wild and love each other just like we do!") to both be manipulative and oversimplified.

Again, it depends on the point being made. I never once stated that they "love each other just like we do".

PS-FSM is a free-stanidng entity as opposed to emotions which are an exhibited behavior in observable entities and i hate that winking smiley!:cmad:

:heart:

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 05:00 PM

edit

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 05:02 PM

First of all it's not apple and oranges. If I were to say to you that you can't compare regular marriage to gay marriage because it's apples and oranges, you would call me bigot.

actually....see if you can wrap your head around this...your argument is apples and oranges to my argument.

The Lizard

11-02-2006, 05:03 PM

Duly noted. Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster's love is indeed all around us, you jaded cynic. http://www.smiliemania.de/smilie132/00000298.gif

Now show me some gay animals in love!

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 05:07 PM

Duly noted. Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster's love is indeed all around us, you jaded cynic. http://www.smiliemania.de/smilie132/00000298.gif

i wish that smiley could repalce the evilsatan winking smiley we have now:csad:

http://www.kmoser.com/fsm/fsm.jpg

EDIT:Now show me some gay animals in love! i'd get banned:csad:

EDIT EDIT: this is interesting though:
National Geographic special, "The New Chimpanzees" which aired September 6, 1995 - "Diverse and frequent hetero- and homosexual contact occurs among the animals. . . . Not only does homosexual behavior exist in nearly every species of every order of animal known to science (a fact demonstrated repeatedly by uncounted studies beginning with Konrad Lorenz, the father of modern zoology) but as one ascends the evolutionary ladder from less sophisticated creatures to hominids, homosexual activity increases in frequency."

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Science3.html

C-$

11-02-2006, 07:32 PM

But only because you'd be biggoted.:meow:

So I guess you agree with me that if you accept gay marriage but not polygamy then you're a bigot.

C-$

11-02-2006, 07:42 PM

So...heterosexuality is a choice too then?:huh: Because for all the people that go from gay to straight, there are also a great number that go from straight to gay. How do you know that you weren't born gay and just made the decision to be a heterosexual? Since you seem to think that you can be born heterosexual and choose to be gay. It's one or the other. You are either born with a certain sexual orientation, whether it be straight or gay, or you are not and you choose to either be straight or gay. Either way, it doesn't make being gay wrong and it doesn't prove that they should have any fewer rights.

Of course there are many straight people who go from straight to gay, which pretty much proves my point about homosexuality being a choice. Asking me how I don't know you're born gay but made the decision to be a heterosexual is like asking me how do I know that some people are born to be canabillistic but decided to not to be canabal anymore. How can you not you call homosexuality wrong? It dosen't take common sense to realize that human beings weren't created to have sex with the same sex. Homsexuality is unnatural and you know it.

C-$

11-02-2006, 07:45 PM

actually....see if you can wrap your head around this...your argument is apples and oranges to my argument.

Why can't you admit you're being hypocritical?

The Overlord

11-02-2006, 08:14 PM

We studied Darwin's theories and a lot of others including Dawkins in my advance Biology class. I am merely arguing that being gay is not a gene related incident. If it were, a lot of evolutionary theories would disprove it. Reproduction is the most important aspect of every life from on this planet. Without it, nothing would exist. With it, life gets stronger or weaker and becomes extinct. Homosexuality directly contradicts Darwin's theories as well as many other evolutionary models of dominant and recessive gene traits.

Atually one can consider Homosexuality a Malthusian check, created by nature to act as a check on over population. So in that case it would be completely natural.

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 08:17 PM

Why can't you admit you're being hypocritical?

because i'm not. not in the least.

besides- as i said repeatedly- i have no problem with polygamy.

Docker2.0

11-02-2006, 08:49 PM

Of course there are many straight people who go from straight to gay, which pretty much proves my point about homosexuality being a choice. Asking me how I don't know you're born gay but made the decision to be a heterosexual is like asking me how do I know that some people are born to be canabillistic but decided to not to be canabal anymore. How can you not you call homosexuality wrong? It dosen't take common sense to realize that human beings weren't created to have sex with the same sex. Homsexuality is unnatural and you know it.
Agreed! :up: I don't have a problem with gays, just tired of the "being born that way" argument. It's sex plain and simple. That's like saying people were born to be pedophiles becuase they are attracted to babies. It's a choice, plain and simple! And I'm glad that parade didn't take part in the holy land. I mean, what's the freakin point?! You got people dying everyday over serious matters there due to land and bloodline issues, and you want to have a ticker tape parade in some tight pink pants with your ass hanging out?! :rolleyes:

chaseter

11-02-2006, 09:45 PM

I hope you have gay children.
And my opinion on the matter still won't change. I hope you don't have children...:wow:

chaseter

11-02-2006, 09:46 PM

Agreed! :up: I don't have a problem with gays, just tired of the "being born that way" argument. It's sex plain and simple. That's like saying people were born to be pedophiles becuase they are attracted to babies. It's a choice, plain and simple! And I'm glad that parade didn't take part in the holy land. I mean, what's the freakin point?! You got people dying everyday over serious matters there due to land and bloodline issues, and you want to have a ticker tape parade in some tight pink pants with your ass hanging out?! :rolleyes:
Thank goodness someone in here thinks the way I do. It's not biological, it is cultural.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 09:49 PM

Atually one can consider Homosexuality a Malthusian check, created by nature to act as a check on over population. So in that case it would be completely natural.
Wow...I never thought of that. But now you are referring homosexuality to a disease, created to clean out the weak and keep a population in check as you say. I merely said that homosexuality is not natural because it serves no reproductive purpose...which is the main reason why all animals exist, to reproduce better offspring.

Darren Daring

11-02-2006, 09:52 PM

Thank goodness someone in here thinks the way I do. It's not biological, it is cultural.

Take that, Science!

chaseter

11-02-2006, 09:52 PM

maxwell's demon

11-02-2006, 09:52 PM

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 09:53 PM

Wow...I never thought of that. But now you are referring homosexuality to a disease, created to clean out the weak and keep a population in check as you say. I merely said that homosexuality is not natural because it serves no reproductive purpose...which is the main reason why all animals exist, to reproduce better offspring.

He didnt call it a disease, he called it a "natural counteraction". The world changes, animals evolve, just because they dont reproduce doesnt mean it isnt natural for them. They can adopt children or have a surrogate mother.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 09:53 PM

Take that, Science!
Science hasn't proven anything on a gay gene...so yea take that science, take that for not supporting the constant argument that someone was born gay.

Darren Daring

11-02-2006, 09:54 PM

Science hasn't proven anything on a gay gene...so yea take that science, take that for not supporting the constant argument that someone was born gay.

So, what, are you syaing gay people happen from sexual abuse, stuff like that?

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 09:54 PM

Agreed! :up: I don't have a problem with gays, just tired of the "being born that way" argument. It's sex plain and simple. That's like saying people were born to be pedophiles becuase they are attracted to babies. It's a choice, plain and simple! And I'm glad that parade didn't take part in the holy land. I mean, what's the freakin point?! You got people dying everyday over serious matters there due to land and bloodline issues, and you want to have a ticker tape parade in some tight pink pants with your ass hanging out?! :rolleyes:

You also have preists molesting little boys. :whatever: But apparently to you that must come 2nd to homosexuality.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 09:56 PM

He didnt call it a disease, he called it a "natural counteraction". The world changes, animals evolve, just because they dont reproduce doesnt mean it isnt natural for them. They can adopt children who have been put up for adoption or have a surrogate mother.
Animals evolve to be gay? We were talking about natural, biological phenomenon. Adoption is cultural, not biological. It's great that they adopt and I applaud them for giving children a good home. But once again that is cultural, I am arguing biologically.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 09:58 PM

So, what, are you syaing gay people happen from sexual abuse, stuff like that?
A lof of people, like my cousin, think they are gay because they had an uncle molest them when they were young. People like his uncle are sick people. But he thinks that because a man was attracted to him, he must be gay and so he is.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:00 PM

A lof of people, like my cousin, think they are gay because they had an uncle molest them when they were young. People like his uncle are sick people. But he thinks that because a man was attracted to him, he must be gay and so he is.

He's just using that as an excuse.

"Maybe if I say I was raped everyone will accept me being gay a little more!"

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:01 PM

A lof of people, like my cousin, think they are gay because they had an uncle molest them when they were young. People like his uncle are sick people. But he thinks that because a man was attracted to him, he must be gay and so he is.Thst's because he wants to be, not because he has to.

Darren Daring

11-02-2006, 10:02 PM

A lof of people, like my cousin, think they are gay because they had an uncle molest them when they were young. People like his uncle are sick people. But he thinks that because a man was attracted to him, he must be gay and so he is.

This is an actual statement he has made? " A gay guy thought I was hot, So I must be gay" He said these words aloud?

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:06 PM

wow....the misunderstanding of homosexuality in this thread is astounding.
there's been great leaps and bounds in sceince that help to prove that homosexuality is actually biological or chemical, and not a choice.

but...that would require for everyone to actually go out looking for up-to-date research and they don't want to do that since it would interfere with their religious beliefs.

:whatever:

this is why i've turned my back on organized faith. well...one of many.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:07 PM

He's just using that as an excuse.

"Maybe if I say I was raped everyone will accept me being gay a little more!"
F*** you. You don't know him or his perogatives. So if that is an excuse, that he was raped, then you are a hypocrite if you say that people who say "I was born gay" in not an excuse. Why the hell would someone use being raped as excuse for being gay? That is how he justifies his sexuality just as you justify yours by nobody thinking you are pretty.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:09 PM

This is an actual statement he has made? " A gay guy thought I was hot, So I must be gay" He said these words aloud?
He was raped by his gay uncle. Did you not read my post? He was raped and that trauma made him think that if only a guy would, his uncle, would be sexually attracted to him, then he must be gay.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:10 PM

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:10 PM

F*** you. You don't know him or his perogatives. So if that is an excuse, that he was raped, then you are a hypocrite if you say that people who say "I was born gay" in not an excuse. Why the hell would someone use being raped as excuse for being gay? That is how he justifies his sexuality just as you justify yours by nobody thinking you are pretty.

lol he's too scared to just come out and be gay. his gayness has to have a "harsh cause".

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:11 PM

Just like how you brought all that scientific evidence in here to show us:whatever:

he's openly gay. i would take his opinion on homosexuality over yours any day.

cryptic name

11-02-2006, 10:11 PM

Thst's because he wants to be, not because he has to.

just like in Batman Forever :woot:

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:11 PM

you're missing the point they're making.
he's using the fact that he was molested as an excuse in the sense that he's trying to make seem like his sexuality is greatly outside of his control. and if it's outside of his control, people will sympathize with him and accept it easily. well, this is their opinion.

i don't agree.
but your cousin's logic seems off.

it begs the question of, if he was raped by a woman would he be straight? i doubt it myself.

Darren Daring

11-02-2006, 10:12 PM

He was raped by his gay uncle. Did you not read my post? He was raped and that trauma made him think that if only a guy would, his uncle, would be sexually attracted to him, then he must be gay.

I'm jsut wondering how it is you came to this conclusion? Did he tell you it? Is it an assumption? Maybe you hypnotized him and he slipped it out then.

You should probably tell him that that's the only reason he thinks he's gay. Once he knows the problem he can get around to fixing it:up:

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:12 PM

In a most case scenario, however, it is an actual choice, just like anytime someone commits a crime, it usually is an actual choice.

And the Bible does indeed mention some people with certain 'chemical' or whatever problems. But most are 'choice.'

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:12 PM

lol he's too scared to just come out and be gay. his gayness has to have a "harsh cause".
He's full out gay, his parents know, everyone knows. You just need to stfu and keep your personal jousts to yourself. Just because you can't get any doesn't mean you have to bash on my cousin and his horrible accounts of his childhood.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 10:13 PM

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:13 PM

he's openly gay. i would take his opinion on homosexuality over yours any day.
He boasts about all these scientific wonders and says that we can't use facts in our arguments yet he brings nothing in here to disprove me.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:15 PM

I'm jsut wondering how it is you came to this conclusion? Did he tell you it? Is it an assumption? Maybe you hypnotized him and he slipped it out then.

You should probably tell him that that's the only reason he thinks he's gay. Once he knows the problem he can get around to fixing it:up:
He told me, he confides in me, he came out to me first...because he knew I wasn't going to persecute him. I don't agree with his choice and told him that his uncle was sick f***, but he chooses to be gay and I can't stop him from doing what he wants.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:16 PM

because the bible is the source of so much SCIENTIFICALLY FACTUAL information.Yes! So many don't realize this.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:17 PM

just like in Batman Forever :woot:Yes! :woot:

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:18 PM

because the bible is the source of so much SCIENTIFICALLY FACTUAL information.
Science and faith are two different things. They don't always have to oppose each other...there are Christian scientists. I never once on here use the Bible to back up my facts.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 10:18 PM

Yes! So many don't realize this.
like how God created heaven and earth, adam and eve, even though there is scientific evidence of, you know, dinosaurs and various other life forms.

and then the arc, of course. and how people used to live for hundreds of years.

how are you from ottawa?!

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:21 PM

He's full out gay, his parents know, everyone knows. You just need to stfu and keep your personal jousts to yourself. Just because you can't get any doesn't mean you have to bash on my cousin and his horrible accounts of his childhood.

When you say "your uncle" it's actually you right? I solved it!

triplefive

11-02-2006, 10:21 PM

Science and faith are two different things. They don't always have to oppose each other...there are Christian scientists. I never once on here use the Bible to back up my facts.
i wasn't talking to you.

cryptic name

11-02-2006, 10:22 PM

like how God created heaven and earth, adam and eve, even though there is scientific evidence of, you know, dinosaurs and various other life forms.

and then the arc, of course. and how people used to live for hundreds of years.

how are you from ottawa?!

i think you mean Jesus Horses

Darren Daring

11-02-2006, 10:22 PM

He told me, he confides in me, he came out to me first...because he knew I wasn't going to persecute him. I don't agree with his choice and told him that his uncle was sick f***, but he chooses to be gay and I can't stop him from doing what he wants.

He said " I'm only gay 'cause a gay guy was attracted to me?" Those words?

Or is this jsut what you squeezed out of the convo?

Seems to me that you'd have to be just about retarded to think thats what qualifies you as gay.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:22 PM

When you say "your uncle" it's actually you right? I solved it!
I said his uncle jack @ss. How can he be my cousin and me be his uncle...I am not an imbred incestual unlike you obviously think is admirable.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:23 PM

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:24 PM

i wasn't talking to you.
And I was talking to you...

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:24 PM

I said his uncle jack @ss. How can he be my cousin and me be his uncle...I am not an imbred incestual unlike you obviously think is admirable.

what are you..like 13?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:25 PM

Ummmm.... what about dinosaurs? That's not unbiblical? :huh:

And how am I from Ottawa???????????????????????????
Some believe dinosaurs are in the Bible...Job 40.

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:25 PM

Just like how you brought all that scientific evidence in here to show us:whatever:
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8920972&postcount=560
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9313511&postcount=774

hold on, i'm looking for some of the other ones i posted.
it's going to take a while.

*gasp*
a religious site that doesn't condem!!
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9816850&postcount=860

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:25 PM

what are you..like 13?
You want to keep this up and heckle my family and call me a rapist whatever...I thought you were a better poster than that.

Darren Daring

11-02-2006, 10:26 PM

Let's all go to Chaseter's Art Thread and comment on the Gay undertones running through all his pics!

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:27 PM

Some believe dinosaurs are in the Bible...Job 40.Yes, that's what I was referring too! Note I said 'that's not unbiblical' because the Bible talks about them. I actually forgot where. Thanks!

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:27 PM

You want to keep this up and heckle my family and call me a rapist whatever...I thought you were a better poster than that.

I'm pretty sure I just asked how old you were.

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:27 PM

Some believe dinosaurs are in the Bible...Job 40.
the serphent from the sea?
there's serphents throughout the Bible.

you're not supposed to read it literally but metaphorically. good job.
i go to a Catholic school and they teach us that one. probably because the Bible oh..i don't know...contradicts itself constantly?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:29 PM

I'm pretty sure I just asked how old you were.
I am pretty sure it doesn't matter but for your little sick pleasures, I am 22.

C. Lee

11-02-2006, 10:29 PM

Calm down in here.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:31 PM

the serphent from the sea?
there's serphents throughout the Bible.

you're not supposed to read it literally but metaphorically. good job.
i go to a Catholic school and they teach us that one. probably because the Bible oh..i don't know...contradicts itself constantly?
It speaks of a behemoth and a leviathan. It describes animals that are not of this current world. Some people might see it as a metaphor, others might see it literally...like I said some people think dinosaurs are in the Bible. And the only other monsters spoken of in the Bible are during Revelation and that is a metaphor of what is to come.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:32 PM

Go read it before you come on here and try to disprove it. It speaks of a behemoth and a leviathan. It describes animals that are not of this current world. Some people might see it as a metaphor, others might see it literally...like I said some people think dinosaurs are in the Bible. And the only other monsters spoken of in the Bible are during Revelation and that is a metaphor of what is to come.

The Bible isnt fact. It's a bunch of men writing stories.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:33 PM

Go read it before you come on here and try to disprove it. It speaks of a behemoth and a leviathan. It describes animals that are not of this current world. Some people might see it as a metaphor, others might see it literally...like I said some people think dinosaurs are in the Bible. And the only other monsters spoken of in the Bible are during Revelation and that is a metaphor of what is to come.Yes, the descriptions seem to be literal rather than anything else in the OT.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:34 PM

The Bible isnt fact. It's a bunch of men writing stories.How do you know? You weren't there!

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:35 PM

The Bible isnt fact. It's a bunch of men writing stories.
Oh, well I trust you...since you were there during the writing of it.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:35 PM

How do you know? You weren't there!

Yes, I was. :cmad:

cryptic name

11-02-2006, 10:36 PM

The Bible isnt fact. It's a bunch of men writing stories.

and not particularly good stories either. i've noticed a distinct lack of ninjas and giant robots

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:37 PM

and not particularly good stories either. i've noticed a distinct lack of ninjas and giant robots
Any book is instantly better with ninjas and giant robots.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 10:38 PM

How do you know? You weren't there!
right chaseter and rodhulk, you were ALSO both in existence before christ was born to witness the telling of tales from god to whomever.

everything you people take from the bible is based on (un)educated guesses. the behemoth in Job could be anything. like, you know, an elephant. those existed in around the time the book was written.

C. Lee

11-02-2006, 10:38 PM

I am pretty sure it doesn't matter but for your little sick pleasures, I am 22.
Then act like it.

You are getting upset about comments made by the posters who regularily try to make people mad...and take absolutely nothing seriously. So calm down.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:38 PM

Yes, I was. :cmad:Sorry, sweets!

Any photos........

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:39 PM

Oh, well I trust you...since you were there during the writing of it.
because stories where people live to be 600+ years old, all the women are either barren or prostitutes, and all the men magically have visionary experiences that don't happen in current times isn't a bunch of fiction?

or how about the fact that there is no proof that the Israelites were ever in Egypt from a historical perspective? perhaps you should take a course or two in religious studies and learn that even people of faith acknowledge that one should not read the Bible as a literal account. the OT contradicts the NT. depending on which section of Christianity you follow the Bible is also different.

cryptic name

11-02-2006, 10:39 PM

Any book is instantly better with ninjas and giant robots.

it goes without saying.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:39 PM

Then act like it.

You are getting upset about comments made by the posters who regularily try to make people mad...and take absolutely nothing seriously. So calm down.

Why do you always have to ruin my fun.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:40 PM

Then act like it.

You are getting upset about comments made by the posters who regularily try to make people mad...and take absolutely nothing seriously. So calm down.
I am sorry but when someone says my cousin is making excuses for being raped and then refers to me as being a rapist makes me angry. If you know they constantly try and make people mad...why do you allow it? I might see it as a joke if a smiley was insterted:cwink: :whatever: :wow: :oldrazz: :yay: ...because saracasm is lost over the internet as someone on here said.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:40 PM

right chaseter and rodhulk, you were ALSO both in existence before christ was born to witness the telling of tales from god to whomever.

everything you people take from the bible is based on (un)educated guesses. the behemoth in Job could be anything. like, you know, an elephant. those existed in around the time the book was written.OK professor!

However, many of the descriptions don't fit an elephant or other creatures that exist today.

C. Lee

11-02-2006, 10:41 PM

Why do you always have to ruin my fun.
That's how I have fun.

cryptic name

11-02-2006, 10:41 PM

because stories where people live to be 600+ years old, all the women are either barren or prostitutes, and all the men magically have visionary experiences that don't happen in current times isn't a bunch of fiction?

or how about the fact that there is no proof that the Israelites were ever in Egypt from a historical perspective? perhaps you should take a course or two in religious studies and learn that even people of faith acknowledge that one should not read the Bible as a literal account. the OT contradicts the NT. depending on which section of Christianity you follow the Bible is also different.

that would be because the NT represents a new covenant between man and God through Christ.
i'm not christian, just throwing that out there

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:43 PM

It speaks of a behemoth and a leviathan. It describes animals that are not of this current world. Some people might see it as a metaphor, others might see it literally...like I said some people think dinosaurs are in the Bible. And the only other monsters spoken of in the Bible are during Revelation and that is a metaphor of what is to come.
even though a leviathan and behemoth doesn't exist in real life people are going to read that as literal? :huh:

....wow....

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:43 PM

OK professor!

However, many of the descriptions don't fit an elephant or other creatures that exist today.
The Behemoth has a tail as large as a tree...do elephants have large swinging tails...no.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:44 PM

That's how I have fun.

hmmmm

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:45 PM

even though a leviathan and behemoth doesn't exist in real life people are going to read that as literal? :huh:

....wow....
How do you know they didn't exist? How do you know it wasn't a brontosaur or other extinct animal or dinosaur?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:46 PM

That's how I have fun.
Well sorry to ruin your fun...I will have to start acting more sarcastic and a other few select words to be accepted on these boards and not be repremanded for sticking up for one's self.

Holly Goodhead

11-02-2006, 10:46 PM

I am sorry but when someone says my cousin is making excuses for being raped and then refers to me as being a rapist makes me angry. If you know they constantly try and make people mad...why do you allow it? I might see it as a joke if a smiley was insterted:cwink: :whatever: :wow: :oldrazz: :yay: ...because saracasm is lost over the internet as someone on here said.

I never said he was making excuses for being raped. :huh: I said he was using it as an excuse to get sympathy for being gay. As for you being a rapist I still stand by that. :meow:

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:46 PM

that would be because the NT represents a new covenant between man and God through Christ.
i'm not christian, just throwing that out there
yes it is.
but if people are going to take the gospels as literal fact and live their lives accordingly they need to take the ENTIRE gospel as such. why? because the only true thing about the new covenant in the NT is that why can become abstained from sin and don't have to follow certain old covenant anymore. but the people of Israel are still the chosen people of God, we need to keep the social justices laws going only in a less violent way, the ten laws need to be upheld, we still shouldn't eat meat on Fridays, should go to mass on Saturday evening/Sunday morning, shouldn't wear clothes of more than one cloth. that last one is my personal favorite.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:47 PM

The Behemoth has a tail as large as a tree...do elephants have large swinging tails...no.Exactly!

The wording used was used in that way (behemoth, etc...) because certain words we use today didn't exist back then.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:49 PM

yes it is.
but if people are going to take the gospels as literal fact and live their lives accordingly they need to take the ENTIRE gospel as such. why? because the only true thing about the new covenant in the NT is that why can become abstained from sin and don't have to follow certain old covenant anymore. but the people of Israel are still the chosen people of God, we need to keep the social justices laws going only in a less violent way, the ten laws need to be upheld, we still shouldn't eat meat on Fridays, should go to mass on Saturday evening/Sunday morning, shouldn't wear clothes of more than one cloth. that last one is my personal favorite.
If that were true...Christians would still be sacrificing white baby lambs in the name of God. Like Rodhulk said...the NT contradicts the OT because it is a new covenant. The OT is to be used for lessons and history. The NT is what is suppose to matter and people live by.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 10:49 PM

Exactly!

The wording used was used in that way (behemoth, etc...) because certain words we use today didn't exist back then.
oh please, if you take the ENTIRE thing as literally as you are, then the behemoth is also a vegetarian carnivore who lies in the shadows of trees. those must be some damn big trees.

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 10:49 PM

1.WTF do you think their agenda is...to institutionalize gay marriage and have their union noticed as hetero couples do.

is that what YOU think their agenda is? because I don't think they have one other than having the same rights as other human beings.

let's say that this is their AGENDA.

tehn what?

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:50 PM

How do you know they didn't exist? How do you know it wasn't a brontosaur or other extinct animal or dinosaur?
because science has proven how old the earth is, and has dated fossils of dinosaurs. plus there's that whole pesky evolution thing which even though it's more-or-less proven to be fact still sticks in the side of Christian's.

and, as i've said before you're not supposed to read the Bible as a LITERAL fact. it's all speculation as to where things were, and what happened where. there isn't even any proof - archeological proof - that the Hebrews were ever exiled to Egypt. so, with so much disproving the Bible AND the fact that just about every other religion's creation myth(s) and other stories that are located in their religious texts are similar to the ones in the Bible...you shouldn't take it as fact.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:50 PM

yes it is.
but if people are going to take the gospels as literal fact and live their lives accordingly they need to take the ENTIRE gospel as such. why? because the only true thing about the new covenant in the NT is that why can become abstained from sin and don't have to follow certain old covenant anymore. but the people of Israel are still the chosen people of God, we need to keep the social justices laws going only in a less violent way, the ten laws need to be upheld, we still shouldn't eat meat on Fridays, should go to mass on Saturday evening/Sunday morning, shouldn't wear clothes of more than one cloth. that last one is my personal favorite.The OT mentions there would be a change coming one day (the NC was it).

cryptic name

11-02-2006, 10:52 PM

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:52 PM

is that what YOU think their agenda is? because I don't think they have one other than having the same rights as other human beings.

let's say that this is their AGENDA.

tehn what?
An agenda is a set of goals that want to be achieved. If they didn't have an agenda, they wouldn't protest, lobby, etc...to try and achieve their goal.

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:53 PM

If that were true...Christians would still be sacrificing white baby lambs in the name of God. Like Rodhulk said...the NT contradicts the OT because it is a new covenant. The OT is to be used for lessons and history. The NT is what is suppose to matter and people live by.
yes, it contradicts it and it also keeps some of it.
hell, there's storylines in the OT that pretty much are exactly what happens in the NT. there's even prophets with similar wording and imagery.

you are not supposed to take it literally.

just take the big broad themes which is pretty much this - try and be a good person.

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:54 PM

The OT mentions there would be a change coming one day (the NC was it).
ssshhh! don't tell the Christians that their entire religion is just an elborate tale of fiction. :csad:

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 10:54 PM

oh please, if you take the ENTIRE thing as literally as you are, then the behemoth is also a vegetarian carnivore who lies in the shadows of trees. those must be some damn big trees.Seriously, the Bible is describing something that doesn't exist today. Although you don't have to believe it may be saying it was a dinosaur, you can't 100% say it wasn't describing a dinosaur? Am I right?

C. Lee

11-02-2006, 10:54 PM

Well sorry to ruin your fun...I will have to start acting more sarcastic and a other few select words to be accepted on these boards and not be repremanded for sticking up for one's self.
(1) You haven't ruined anything for me.
(2) Sarcasm helps.
(3) Sticking up for one's self to a real insult is one thing...doing it to a joke is another.
(4) Submit your selection of other words on the proper forms or they will be denied.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:54 PM

because science has proven how old the earth is, and has dated fossils of dinosaurs. plus there's that whole pesky evolution thing which even though it's more-or-less proven to be fact still sticks in the side of Christian's.

and, as i've said before you're not supposed to read the Bible as a LITERAL fact. it's all speculation as to where things were, and what happened where. there isn't even any proof - archeological proof - that the Hebrews were ever exiled to Egypt. so, with so much disproving the Bible AND the fact that just about every other religion's creation myth(s) and other stories that are located in their religious texts are similar to the ones in the Bible...you shouldn't take it as fact.
Tribes in the amazon still think and have drawn images that scientists believe to be a brontosaur. Scientists also thought the celocanth...I think that is how you spell it, and the horseshoe crab were long extinct according to fossil records...but GUESS WHAT? They still exist today.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 10:56 PM

(1) You haven't ruined anything for me.
(2) Sarcasm helps.
(3) Sticking up for one's self to a real insult is one thing...doing it to a joke is another.
(4) Submit your selection of other words on the proper forms or they will be denied.

(1)Darn:csad:
(2)I will try better
(3)How did I know it were a joke? I don't constantly talk to Holly and know her ways
(4)I need the forms and no I will not wait in line:yay:

whatever...I am over it now.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 10:59 PM

Seriously, the Bible is describing something that doesn't exist today. Although you don't have to believe it may be saying it was a dinosaur, you can't 100% say it wasn't describing a dinosaur? Am I right?
NOTHING the bible describes exists today. how do you know ANY of it is right?

take everything you read with a huge freaking grain of salt.

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 10:59 PM

Tribes in the amazon still think and have drawn images that scientists believe to be a brontosaur. Scientists also thought the celocanth...I think that is how you spell it, and the horseshoe crab were long extinct according to fossil records...but GUESS WHAT? They still exist today.
the brontosaur in the amazon could possibly be an elaborate myth.
funny how myths work...there used to be dragons in ancient medival times in Europe according to tapestries and paintings and lymerics and stories. unicorns too. and a wizard...or twelve.

what's next? you're going to tell me leprechauns are real too?

i never said science was perfection but so far it's kicking religion's ass in the proof department.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 11:08 PM

the brontosaur in the amazon could possibly be an elaborate myth.
funny how myths work...there used to be dragons in ancient medival times in Europe according to tapestries and paintings and lymerics and stories. unicorns too. and a wizard...or twelve.

what's next? you're going to tell me leprechauns are real too?

i never said science was perfection but so far it's kicking religion's ass in the proof department.
I love how you just skipped over my specific example of scientific proof that disproves your comment. Ancient animals that were once thought to be extinct for millions of years still live in our oceans today. Most of the Amazon and other jungles have not be mapped or stepped on by civilized man. For all you know, there could still be dinosaurs living in the jungles. We find new species of animal and plant life everyday. Who are you to say that it's not possible for them to still exist?

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 11:09 PM

NOTHING the bible describes exists today. how do you know ANY of it is right?

take everything you read with a huge freaking grain of salt.:woot: You're awesome, man!

When you feel like being mature and making sense, get back to me, sweets!

PS The Bible describes people, trees, birds, etc.... all that exists today.

cryptic name

11-02-2006, 11:11 PM

NOTHING the bible describes exists today. how do you know ANY of it is right?

take everything you read with a huge freaking grain of salt.

jesus still exists today. i saw him at the walmart buying batteries and peperidge farm gold fish

triplefive

11-02-2006, 11:11 PM

:woot: You're awesome, man!

When you feel like being mature and making sense, get back to me, sweets!

PS The Bible describes people, trees, birds, etc.... all that exists today.
i feel sorry for you.

hahaha, what's up, captain literal?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 11:12 PM

:woot: You're awesome, man!

When you feel like being mature and making sense, get back to me, sweets!
A lot of posters on here grasp at straws to try and make their arguments valid. It's like me telling them how to be an atheist, catholic, or whatever belief they have if any. People take the Bible different ways. Just because one person translates it differently doesn't mean that they are wrong. He has no proof to prove you or me wrong just as we have no proof to disprove him 100%. But that is what seperates "a** holes from gentlemen"...realizing that. I wish I knew who said that quote.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 11:14 PM

i feel sorry for you.

hahaha, what's up, captain literal?hahahahahahahaha!

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 11:14 PM

i said:
i never said science was perfection

good job reading that. :up:

anyway, since i've read and watched things about Big Foot, the supposed dinosaur in the Amazon, the chupacabra down in Puerto Rico, and the Loch Ness Monster - i doubt any of them ever existed. why? well, proof of their existence should've been found by now. strange how the only things that prove they might exist are hazy images taken from far away and nothing else has shown up to prove they exist. people's memories act strangely - ask two people who've witnessed a crime scene what the victim's shirt color was one will swear it was blue the other will swear it was red and both will believe they're right. funny how that worked out. after a certain amount of time local folklore magically becomes fact.

a behemoth and leviathan are creatures of pure fiction. there's no evidence to prove they existed, no matter what the Bible says.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 11:15 PM

hahahahahahahaha!
omg, you're so much more mature than i am.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 11:16 PM

A lot of posters on here grasp at straws to try and make their arguments valid. It's like me telling them how to be an atheist, catholic, or whatever belief they have if any. People take the Bible different ways. Just because one person translates it differently doesn't mean that they are wrong. He has no proof to prove you or me wrong just as we have no proof to disprove him 100%. But that is what seperates "a** holes from gentlemen"...realizing that. I wish I knew who said that quote.I agree.

Funny how they attack us just because we believe something they don't.

And great answers you've given here. Though nobody can say for sure, it cannot be denied 100% that the Bible did indeed talk about dinosaurs. I simply choose to believe it did and look how people attack that.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 11:17 PM

anyway, some people are born gay. :up:

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 11:18 PM

omg, you're so much more mature than i am.Something we agree with!

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 11:18 PM

anyway, some people are born gay. :up:
*ahem*
some?

all gays are born gay. they make a choice to accept the fact or not.

rodhulk

11-02-2006, 11:20 PM

ssshhh! don't tell the Christians that their entire religion is just an elborate tale of fiction. :csad:Or is it???????????

triplefive

11-02-2006, 11:20 PM

i have some gay friends who say they chose to be gay... i suppose they were born bi

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 11:21 PM

why would you choose it? :huh:
****ing freaks.

if i had the choice i'd be a happy lil' hetero.

Mr Sparkle

11-02-2006, 11:22 PM

An agenda is a set of goals that want to be achieved. If they didn't have an agenda, they wouldn't protest, lobby, etc...to try and achieve their goal.

:whatever: yes, and aside from equal treatment what is this "agenda" you speak off?
what is this evil "goal"they strive for?

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 11:24 PM

adoption
marriage/civil unions/whatever you wanna call it
all of the rights that come with marriage

that's really it

triplefive

11-02-2006, 11:27 PM

why would you choose it? :huh:
****ing freaks.

if i had the choice i'd be a happy lil' hetero.
i would love to be a gay boy :up: but that's my liberal democratic upbringing speaking.

newwaveboy87

11-02-2006, 11:35 PM

i'd still be a liberal democrat, just not queer if i could've decided my life.
oh well!

no regrets about the current one.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 11:50 PM

aww, the believers got tired of circular arguing with us. whatever will we do to entertain ourselves now?

chaseter

11-02-2006, 11:56 PM

:whatever: yes, and aside from equal treatment what is this "agenda" you speak off?
what is this evil "goal"they strive for?
Did I say it was evil? No. They, IMO, are tying to desanctify marriage. Like I have said a million times...a line has to be drawn somewhere. Who ultimately can say that gays can be married but polygamists can't. It is a slippery slope. Quit oversimplifying my posts to try and invalidate them and mock me.

chaseter

11-02-2006, 11:58 PM

aww, the believers got tired of circular arguing with us. whatever will we do to entertain ourselves now?
That is because we have better things to do than troll internet forums all night...good night to you all.

triplefive

11-02-2006, 11:58 PM

That is because we have better things to do than troll internet forums all night...good night to you all.
you stuck around long enough!

don't let the bed bugs bite.

The Overlord

11-03-2006, 12:00 AM

Wow...I never thought of that. But now you are referring homosexuality to a disease, created to clean out the weak and keep a population in check as you say. I merely said that homosexuality is not natural because it serves no reproductive purpose...which is the main reason why all animals exist, to reproduce better offspring.

So people who can't produce children due biological reasons are unatural and shouldn't be allowed to mate?

Do you have any proof that homosexuals are unatural?

I never said it was disease, your twisting my words, it is just a check nature puts into place to balance everything out, therefore its natural. Its not unnatrual if nature is the one doing it.

Mr Sparkle

11-03-2006, 12:09 AM

Did I say it was evil? No. They, IMO, are tying to desanctify marriage. Like I have said a million times...a line has to be drawn somewhere. Who ultimately can say that gays can be married but polygamists can't. It is a slippery slope. Quit oversimplifying my posts to try and invalidate them and mock me.

dude, legal marriages are not "sanctified" you're mixing religion with legality here.
sorry.
here's a good guideline for you.
"what consenting loving adults do that doesn't hurt a third party is none of my concern because it doesn't affect me or others"

maxwell's demon

11-03-2006, 11:28 AM

http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/4247521

Anti-Gay Bush Ally Quits Evangelical Post in Gay Sex Scandal

by Kevin Wayne
November 3, 2006

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO - The leader of an Evangelical organization known for its homophobia and anti-gay politics has resigned after being accused of paying for sex with a man.

The Rev. Ted Haggard stepped down as president of the influential 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals on Thursday after the alleged gay sex scandal was revealed. Haggard also resigned as head of the 14,000-member New Life Church pending an investigation by a four-member church panel.

During an interview aired on a Denver radio station, Mike Jones, 49, alledges that Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month for three years. Jones claimes he last had sex with Haggard in August and that Haggard initially made contact through an Internet website for male escorts. Jones also said Haggard snorted the drug methamphetamine before their sexual encounters, to heighten his experience.

Haggard, a married father of five, has publicly denied allegations, but a Colorado Television station reports that Rev. Ross Parsley from New Life Church says that Haggard has admitted that some of the accusations are true.

"I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed, but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told KKTV-TV.

As Focus on the Family's James Dobson, a prominent Evangelical and staunch opponent to gay-marriage, came out in support of Haggard, Jones dropped another bomb shell by revealing he has voice mail messages and a letter from Haggard.

demento

11-03-2006, 11:29 AM

It's gay of you to post that. ^

USMC

11-03-2006, 11:31 AM

I just read that. I guess he chose to be gay... it's the only thing that makes sense.:o

Armand Z Trip

11-03-2006, 11:31 AM

Very funny.

Haggard also resigned as head of the 14,000-member New Life Church pending an investigation by a four-member church panel.

Sounds impartial.

demento

11-03-2006, 11:32 AM

Very funny.

Haggard also resigned as head of the 14,000-member New Life Church pending an investigation by a four-member church panel.

Sounds impartial.
Are you implying that the panel is gay too?

Ben Urich

11-03-2006, 11:32 AM

lollerskates.

Armand Z Trip

11-03-2006, 11:33 AM

Maybe I am. No, no...I'm not.

NOFX

11-03-2006, 11:34 AM

Why is anyone surprised, I mean the pic says it all!

http://www.tedhaggard.com/images/home_left.jpg

Danalys

11-03-2006, 11:38 AM

i saw that guy having a go at richard dawkins on a documentary. started ranting that dawkins called his community animals. anyway he seemed a right prat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ted_Haggard_%28ROAE%29.jpg

chaseter

11-03-2006, 11:46 AM

So people who can't produce children due biological reasons are unatural and shouldn't be allowed to mate?

Do you have any proof that homosexuals are unatural?

I never said it was disease, your twisting my words, it is just a check nature puts into place to balance everything out, therefore its natural. Its not unnatrual if nature is the one doing it.

Well if you can't reproduce...what is the point in mating? Sure you can have sex for pleasure purposes, but the point of mating is to produce offspring...so I don't get your question...it seems to be contradictory.

Do you have any proof that they are not? My argument is that homosexuality is not biological but cultural. Science has yet to find a "gay" gene that supports the theory that people are born gay. Through my experiences with gay friends and family, an event such as a rape or growing up with 4 sisters and no dad has caused the individual to develop homosexual tendencies and thus act upon them.

I know you didn't say it was a disease...but parallelism suggests it would be related to one. Disease keeps animal populations in check and in their proper habitat, so does your theory over nature keeping a population in check, which was very insightful IMO...I would have never thought that. But if it were natural, there would be a sexually related and passable gene to their offspring, dominant and recessive trait theory. If a gay male and a gay female were to mate, scientifically speaking, they should produce gay offspring...that is if it were gene related which I highly doubt. But overall, I have nothing against that lifestyle. I think it is wrong but I am not going to condemn them for it...it is not my place to do so. But when they flaunt it and push their lifestyle on me...that gets me angry.

chaseter

11-03-2006, 11:50 AM

dude, legal marriages are not "sanctified" you're mixing religion with legality here.
sorry.
here's a good guideline for you.
"what consenting loving adults do that doesn't hurt a third party is none of my concern because it doesn't affect me or others"
Our legality as you say was formed off of religion. The founding fathers were God fearing men and reflected their creating of out constitution upon those morals. Today, things are changing but legally speaking, it is still illegal for gays to be married. It has made its way to the supreme court and it was still denied. Initiatives have been made in every state and have failed...except New Jersey of course but it is still not federally recognized. So legally, "what consenting loving adults do that doesn't hurt a third party is none of my concern..." still is not legal for homosexuals.

triplefive

11-03-2006, 11:55 AM

Well if you can't reproduce...what is the point in mating? Sure you can have sex for pleasure purposes, but the point of mating is to produce offspring...so I don't get your question...it seems to be contradictory.
Then do you feel that barren women and sterile men are wrong to engage in sex?

Do you have any proof that they are not? My argument is that homosexuality is not biological but cultural. Science has yet to find a "gay" gene that supports the theory that people are born gay. Through my experiences with gay friends and family, an event such as a rape or growing up with 4 sisters and no dad has caused the individual to develop homosexual tendencies and thus act upon them.
Yes, your sample size of 5 means everything.
Some of my gay friends come from upper class families and took a lot of flak for coming out. They're Catholic, Athletic and conservative (they voted conservative -- seriously). They have heterosexual brothers. That doesn't stop them from liking men and the company of men. They weren't raised to be gay.

USMC

11-03-2006, 11:55 AM

Well if you can't reproduce...what is the point in mating? Sure you can have sex for pleasure purposes, but the point of mating is to produce offspring...so I don't get your question...it seems to be contradictory.

Do you have any proof that they are not? My argument is that homosexuality is not biological but cultural. Science has yet to find a "gay" gene that supports the theory that people are born gay. Through my experiences with gay friends and family, an event such as a rape or growing up with 4 sisters and no dad has caused the individual to develop homosexual tendencies and thus act upon them.

I know you didn't say it was a disease...but parallelism suggests it would be related to one. Disease keeps animal populations in check and in their proper habitat, so does your theory over nature keeping a population in check, which was very insightful IMO...I would have never thought that. But if it were natural, there would be a sexually related and passable gene to their offspring, dominant and recessive trait theory. If a gay male and a gay female were to mate, scientifically speaking, they should produce gay offspring...that is if it were gene related which I highly doubt. But overall, I have nothing against that lifestyle. I think it is wrong but I am not going to condemn them for it...it is not my place to do so. But when they flaunt it and push their lifestyle on me...that gets me angry.

I hate when you heteros flaunt your straightness and push your lifestyle on me. Your whole agenda of trying to make sure everyone is straight is sickening. Every single day that you wake up and "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex is just disgusting, cause that is exactly what you do... you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. You make a conscious decision to get erections when you see a female with big breasts. That is just foul.

Stop holding hands in public, stop kissing in public, stop going on dates and snuggling at the theater, it's just wrong.

And stop getting married, over 50% of you just end up in divorce anyway. Britney gets married and divorced in the span of a week, etc. You heteros do everything you can to desanctify what marraige is, it's abhorrant, and I demand you stop right now. All you're doing is showing how evil and immoral it is to get married and the thing you heteros are doing is only going to lead to poligamy and beastialty being legalized, might as well give pedophiles (who, as a matter of FACT, are mostly straight MEN) a free license to continue their gross behavior.

Knock it off, heteros, you make the rest of the population look like crap.

Darren Daring

11-03-2006, 11:57 AM

I think USMC is doing some kinda funky inverse perspective thing. I caught it!

USMC

11-03-2006, 12:00 PM

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/markpoyser/uggabugga/2003/mission-accomplished-thanksgiving.jpg

chaseter

11-03-2006, 12:15 PM

Then do you feel that barren women and sterile men are wrong to engage in sex?

Yes, your sample size of 5 means everything.
Some of my gay friends come from upper class families and took a lot of flak for coming out. They're Catholic, Athletic and conservative (they voted conservative -- seriously). They have heterosexual brothers. That doesn't stop them from liking men and the company of men. They weren't raised to be gay.

Mating and sex are two different things that I addressed had you read my post fully.

It's wrong for people to persecute gays...I already said that. But you showed me no proof it was biological and not cultural. Some experience could have caused them to become gay. You sample size is 5 as well.

maxwell's demon

11-03-2006, 12:23 PM

Mating and sex are two different things that I addressed had you read my post fully.

It's wrong for people to persecute gays...I already said that. But you showed me no proof it was biological and not cultural. Some experience could have caused them to become gay. You sample size is 5 as well.

Chaseter, i asked you a question yesterday to which you never responded.
What is your burden of proof? what form woudl it have to take? you said it wasn't 100% so you didn't belive it. what if scinece showed a 95% likelihood? or 85%?

And if it WAS shown, hypothetically, 100?% to be a biological trait, would you then accept it wholeheartedly?

Personally it doesnt matter to me one or the other. Most frieds i know who are gay say they knew when they were 4 or 5 years old, and none had any traumatic childhood events that could've affected them and made them "choose" to be gay.

But again, i don't really see what the problem is one way or the other.

triplefive

11-03-2006, 12:25 PM

Mating and sex are two different things that I addressed had you read my post fully.

It's wrong for people to persecute gays...I already said that. But you showed me no proof it was biological and not cultural. Some experience could have caused them to become gay. You sample size is 5 as well.
my point was, together, ours is 10 and show things from two sides. and there are a million more with different experiences. your perspective is too narrow. and who are you to decide that something happened in every one of these peoples' lives to cause them to become gay? you treat it as though it's a psychological disorder. people like you are why parents try to "fix" their kids. one of my friends went to a shrink for years because his parents wanted him to be straight. guess what? a few hundred grand later, he's still gay. shocking.

psychological disorders are what cause people to become serial killers, rapists and pedophiles. please don't lump homosexuals in with them.

i don't think ALL gay people were born gay, because a couple of my gay friends have scoffed at that statement saying that it was their choice. but they consciously made that decision at a point when it could have gone either way. it's not the same as what you're talking about.

chaseter

11-03-2006, 12:26 PM

I hate when you heteros flaunt your straightness and push your lifestyle on me. Your whole agenda of trying to make sure everyone is straight is sickening. Every single day that you wake up and "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex is just disgusting, cause that is exactly what you do... you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. You make a conscious decision to get erections when you see a female with big breasts. That is just foul.

Stop holding hands in public, stop kissing in public, stop going on dates and snuggling at the theater, it's just wrong.

And stop getting married, over 50% of you just end up in divorce anyway. Britney gets married and divorced in the span of a week, etc. You heteros do everything you can to desanctify what marraige is, it's abhorrant, and I demand you stop right now. All you're doing is showing how evil and immoral it is to get married and the thing you heteros are doing is only going to lead to poligamy and beastialty being legalized, might as well give pedophiles (who, as a matter of FACT, are mostly straight MEN) a free license to continue their gross behavior.

Knock it off, heteros, you make the rest of the population look like crap.
Heteros were here before homos. You owe your very existence to the first man and woman being hetero. Without them, we wouldn't be here...whether that be Adam and Eve or neanderthals.

thedeadite

11-03-2006, 12:27 PM

wasn't the same argument about marriage going around up till about 50 years ago... oh yeah, it was about interracial marriage though. stupidity is cyclical.

Darren Daring

11-03-2006, 12:27 PM

Heteros were here before homos. You owe your very existence to the first man and woman being hetero. Without them, we wouldn't be here...whether that be Adam and Eve or neanderthals.

And if it weren't for Hitler, my grandfather never would have come to America nd knocked up Grandma*:up: Yay Hitler!

* This didn't actually happen to me, but it probably did to someone else.

Mr Sparkle

11-03-2006, 12:28 PM

Our legality as you say was formed off of religion. The founding fathers were God fearing men and reflected their creating of out constitution upon those morals. Today, things are changing but legally speaking, it is still illegal for gays to be married. It has made its way to the supreme court and it was still denied. Initiatives have been made in every state and have failed...except New Jersey of course but it is still not federally recognized. So legally, "what consenting loving adults do that doesn't hurt a third party is none of my concern..." still is not legal for homosexuals.

I know you think you made a point, but this never adressed how gay people wanted to have their unions "sanctified" which they don't.
I ask again, how do legal non-religious gay marriages affect you or anyone.
and what does the law have to do with religion?
(it doesn't since it was once legal to own slaves, the bible has guidelines for keeping slaves, yet today it's illegal in most parts of the world)

newwaveboy87

11-03-2006, 12:28 PM

homosexuality as a psychological/mental disorder was proven false in the 60s/70s. why are people still stuck in believing it?

Mr Sparkle

11-03-2006, 12:33 PM

homosexuality as a psychological/mental disorder was proven false in the 60s/70s. why are people still stuck in believing it?

because it conveniently underscores their "beliefs".

newwaveboy87

11-03-2006, 12:35 PM

Our legality as you say was formed off of religion. The founding fathers were God fearing men and reflected their creating of out constitution upon those morals. Today, things are changing but legally speaking, it is still illegal for gays to be married. It has made its way to the supreme court and it was still denied. Initiatives have been made in every state and have failed...except New Jersey of course but it is still not federally recognized. So legally, "what consenting loving adults do that doesn't hurt a third party is none of my concern..." still is not legal for homosexuals.
you mean the same founding fathers who raped, destroyed, diseased, and nearly genocided the Native Americans? yeah. they were real good Christians. :whatever:

and if you knew anything about American History you'd know that Spain was actually the first one to settle North America. they did so in Florida in the 1500s. 1545 i believe.

newwaveboy87

11-03-2006, 12:37 PM

because it conveniently underscores their "beliefs".
that would make sense.
i pose another question to you, the Bible says that marriage is for life and even has people engaging in polygamy, yet in modern times polygamy is frowned upon and divorce is sky high. so, what's the big deal about gays getting married when heteros can't even keep it together themselves?

USMC

11-03-2006, 12:38 PM

Heteros were here before homos. You owe your very existence to the first man and woman being hetero. Without them, we wouldn't be here...whether that be Adam and Eve or neanderthals.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation on choosing to be straight (which is what heterosexuals are doing every day) and heteros f**king up the sanctity of marraige... :huh:

maxwell's demon

11-03-2006, 12:39 PM

Heteros were here before homos. You owe your very existence to the first man and woman being hetero. Without them, we wouldn't be here...whether that be Adam and Eve or neanderthals.

sure what, you say is true, somewhat, though i always felt the word "owe" was kind of loaded when used in this context ( i prefer to say "due to the first heterosexual couples having sex")...

but regardless, why does this matter NOW, today? Due you truly believe homosexuality is going to wipe out life on earth?

kane9321

11-03-2006, 12:40 PM

hehe

Whirlysplat

11-03-2006, 12:40 PM

That is because we have better things to do than troll internet forums all night...good night to you all.

:ninja: No offence but you have quite a high post count :ninja:

- Whirly

Mr Sparkle

11-03-2006, 12:42 PM

that would make sense.
i pose another question to you, the Bible says that marriage is for life and even has people engaging in polygamy, yet in modern times polygamy is frowned upon and divorce is sky high. so, what's the big deal about gays getting married when heteros can't even keep it together themselves?

well, that's because hypocrisy is a fairly key in these beliefs.
I have always said "want to protect marriage...outlaw divorce then"

but, no one ever will, because it's much more fun to deny someone else their rights than to have your own infringed upon.

newwaveboy87

11-03-2006, 12:44 PM

well, that's because hypocrisy is a fairly key in these beliefs.
I have always said "want to protect marriage...outlaw divorce then"

but, no one ever will, because it's much more fun to deny someone else their rights than to have your own infringed upon.
"Look the two symbols of the American government! An elephant and a fat white man who's threatened by change!"

chaseter

11-03-2006, 12:44 PM

you mean the same founding fathers were raped, destroyed, diseased, and nearly genocided the Native Americans? yeah. they were real good Christians. :whatever:

and if you knew anything about American History you'd know that Spain was actually the first one to settle North America. they did so in Florida in the 1500s. 1545 i believe.
I actually believe the vikings were the first to actually set foot in Canada and other northern states in North America. But I was talking about were we got our rules and laws from...I never said the English were the first people here...we didn't get our constitution and other laws or court system from the Spanish...the 13 colonies were not under their rule. So don't lecture me on American history when you skew my post into another.

Wilhelm-Scream

11-03-2006, 12:45 PM

LOL, uh, dudes, I can't believe the story didn't mention it, but Ted Haggard was the ass**** pastor in the documentary "Jesus Camp", who was exceedingly gross.

I googled his name to make sure it was him, and the first entry is his website with an angry response to Jesus Camp, but when you click on it...:eek:.....there's nothing there now.:eek:

Hahahahahaha

triplefive

11-03-2006, 12:46 PM

well, that's because hypocrisy is a fairly key in these beliefs.
I have always said "want to protect marriage...outlaw divorce then"

but, no one ever will, because it's much more fun to deny someone else their rights than to have your own infringed upon.
it's like when college-age guys say, "being gay is wrong, it says so in the bible", and i say, then why are you having sex with your girlfriend?

they only quote it when it's most convenient to them.

chaseter

11-03-2006, 12:46 PM

:ninja: No offence but you have quite a high post count :ninja:

- Whirly
I got it from the X-Men and Spider-Man forums...I just started visiting here.

Mr Sparkle

11-03-2006, 12:47 PM

I actually believe the vikings were the first to actually set foot in Canada and other northern states in North America. But I was talking about were we got our rules and laws from...I never said the English were the first people here...we didn't get our constitution and other laws or court system from the Spanish...the 13 colonies were not under their rule. So don't lecture me on American history when you skew my post into another.

the vikings settled nothing so no point there.
and the laws where initially accepting of slavery.
again, you think this is right and christian?

Whirlysplat

11-03-2006, 12:47 PM

I got it from the X-Men and Spider-Man forums...I just started visiting here.

Well O.K. but........ It takes time to post. :whatever:

- Whirly

Wilhelm-Scream

11-03-2006, 12:49 PM

it's like when college-age guys say, "being gay is wrong, it says so in the bible", and i say, then why are you having sex with your girlfriend?

they only quote it when it's most convenient to them.

This hypocrisy makes me especially ill.
I can't tell you how many "Christians" I've known who swear, lie, avoid church and have pre-marital sex, and then condemn others because of Biblical teachings.

Sorry, that's just plain evil or retarded.

newwaveboy87

11-03-2006, 12:49 PM

I actually believe the vikings were the first to actually set foot in Canada and other northern states in North America. But I was talking about were we got our rules and laws from...I never said the English were the first people here...we didn't get our constitution and other laws or court system from the Spanish...the 13 colonies were not under their rule. So don't lecture me on American history when you skew my post into another.
Viking's didn't make any settlements. so, try again.
we got our laws from the English, French, and Spanish laws. so, try again.

:down

chaseter

11-03-2006, 12:50 PM

Well O.K. but........ It takes time to post. :whatever:

- Whirly
Ohhh I went crazy there a month or two before X3 came out...I wanted to know everything about that movie and it spoiled it for me. I was on these boards at least 4 hours to get some news on that movie.

Mr Sparkle

11-03-2006, 12:50 PM

it's like when college-age guys say, "being gay is wrong, it says so in the bible", and i say, then why are you having sex with your girlfriend?

they only quote it when it's most convenient to them.

I had a friend who routinely used women in college, and I don't mean "used" in the "the OC" you hurt my feelings kind of way, but in the "debbie does dallas" then cries for weeks way.
but when I started going out with an ex of his he got all like "you just don't do that"

needless to say, I nearly died laughing.