Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[8wid]

Not that it matters being that the concept of Hell is a complete fantasy, but rarely is it ever coming from a place of concern when someone tells you you're going to hell. It's typically malicious.

Don't worry about it. I've been told that I have let Satan into my life for not going to a church. That is why I will always have bad luck to a group of Protestants.

 

[Saint]

In my experience. Its what I have seen. What I have dealt with. Im not saying all atheists are this way....if every Black male you met punched you in the face wouldnt your experience tell you every black male is aggressive?

You can't seem to decide what you're arguing here; first you state that you don't think every atheist is like the ones you've experienced, but then you state it would be reasonable to assume that every black person is angry if the ones you happen to meet punch you in the face. Do you see the contradiction? So is it okay to make ridiculous assumptions based on your experience or not?

I'd also like to point out another flaw in your (already massively flawed) statements about atheists. You say every atheist you've met has been flaunting their atheism in your face--but if they weren't flaunting it, you wouldn't know that they were atheists. For all you know, 99% of the atheists you've met have simply kept it to themselves. Thus, your experience is completely meaningless.

 

[Bill]

Atheist as a whole are quite scary.
They want to argue that something they do not believe in does not does not exist.

For example, the invisible giant purple mouse sitting next to me poking me with a small umbrella does not exist. This sounds like something a homless man would mumble and everyone would think they were nuts, yet Atheist do it all the time.

If someone told you there was an invisible giant purple mouse sitting next to them poking them with an umbrella why not just say "ok man, whatever and move along" instead of creating another kind of "ist".

Straight up crazy Atheists are.

Wouldn't it be great if it were just some one that could be so easily dismissed instead of most everyone who attempts to bombard you with the idea that the invisible giant purple mouse is going to send you to a fiery death for not allowing it to poke you with a small umbrella? Or that the idea of a invisible giant purple mouse has minions who recorded it's every thought and whim and that you should live according to it's every thought and whim despite reality contradicting it?

Do you think that if the Invisible Giant Purple Mouse Small Umbrella Pokees Club would just all keep their mouths shut and not interfere in political policy, education, daily lives, and the scientific pursuits of those who do not share their enthusiasm at being poked by an invisible giant purple mouse, they wouldn't feel the need to defend their opposing point of view?

 

[8wid]

Get ready!

 

[Manic]

One could argue the rapture didn't happen in 1992 because Jesus doesn't exist. I say Jesus changed his mind because New Jack Swing was just too damn awesome.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

one could argue the rapture didn't happen in 1992 because jesus doesn't exist. I say jesus changed his mind because new jack swing was just too damn awesome.

qft

 

[Lighthouse]

One could argue the rapture didn't happen in 1992 because Jesus doesn't exist. I say Jesus changed his mind because New Jack Swing was just too damn awesome.

Jesus changed his mind because he knew "The Dark Knight" was coming out in the '00s and really wanted to see it.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I can't believe that one can think that enlightenment can't be a bad thing. Enlightenment can be a bad thing if it's just an unpleasant thought, for example some people share details about themselves that others rather not know. If enlightenment can be good then it could definitely be bad. Some people do use knowledge to carry out bad deeds, i.e. someone could acquire knowledge so they can operate something properly in order to harm someone for no reason, dead or alive.

 

[Lighthouse]

wouldn't it be great if it were just some one that could be so easily dismissed instead of most everyone who attempts to bombard you with the idea that the invisible giant purple mouse is going to send you to a fiery death for not allowing it to poke you with a small umbrella? Or that the idea of a invisible giant purple mouse has minions who recorded it's every thought and whim and that you should live according to it's every thought and whim despite reality contradicting it?

Do you think that if the invisible giant purple mouse small umbrella pokees club would just all keep their mouths shut and not interfere in political policy, education, daily lives, and the scientific pursuits of those who do not share their enthusiasm at being poked by an invisible giant purple mouse, they wouldn't feel the need to defend their opposing point of view?

qft

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I can't believe that one can think that enlightenment can't be a bad thing. Enlightenment can be a bad thing if it's just an unpleasant thought, for example some people share details about themselves that others rather not know. If enlightenment can be good then it could definitely be bad. Some people do use knowledge to carry out bad deeds, i.e. someone could acquire knowledge so they can operate something properly in order to harm someone for no reason, dead or alive.

In that case, it's not the enlightenment that is the bad thing, but rather, the thing the person would do with the enlightenment. Which in turn would mean that the person would probably be inclined to do bad deeds regardless.

 

[Bill]

I passed by a church today, and there was a sign in front that read, "the Bible is the source of liberty." The quote was attributed to Thomas Jefferson, probably in relation to the 4th. Now, knowing a little about Jefferson, it was a surprise that he would say such a thing given his feelings towards Christianity.

Of course he never said such a thing, but it is a testament to how little research goes into what people want to believe in order to support their religion.

 

[Bat-Mite]

No wonder some people seem to think that all of our founding fathers were Christian fundamentalists.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I passed by a church today, and there was a sign in front that read, "the Bible is the source of liberty." The quote was attributed to Thomas Jefferson, probably in relation to the 4th. Now, knowing a little about Jefferson, it was a surprise that he would say such a thing given his feelings towards Christianity.

Of course he never said such a thing, but it is a testament to how little research goes into what people want to believe in order to support their religion.

While calling him a deist would be the most accurate term, Jefferson wasn't opposed to Christianity at all. He was opposed to the corruption that plagues it and any other institution or leadership. But on the religion itself, he said

To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...

...a system of morals is presented to us which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments [Jesus] left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.

His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.

 

[Bill]

While calling him a deist would be the most accurate term, Jefferson wasn't opposed to Christianity at all. He was opposed to the corruption that plagues it and any other institution or leadership. But on the religion itself, he said

Jefferson had a great deal of respect for the philosophy of Jesus, and that is the extent of his "Christianity." He did not believe him to be the son of God, and he edited his version of the Bible to reflect that.

His opinion of the Bible:

"The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 24, 1814.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Yes, Jefferson was in favor of what is now called Jesusism, which is about as far from popular Christianity as you can get.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Ash, you may want to look at this article regarding free will:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19020_7-life-altering-decisions-made-you-before-your-birth.html

A lot of things that decide who you are now, were made before you were born.

I'm not sure how that exactly fits into one's sexual orientation.

Excuse me for jumping into the middle of a conversation, and let me know if I'm misunderstanding you here, but please tell me you're not trying to excuse slavery as condoned in the Bible--because there is no excuse.

I don't see how slavery being used as a form of paying off debts relates to slavery in biblical times being condoned. And since there was a concern raised about historical evidence, I think I'll get into that. But first, I'll cover the basics. And in regards to source I've decided to quote, I believe the scripture is there to clarify, not to presuppose that the Bible is true. Same goes for the verses I've included.

First off, defining "slavery" can be tricky and ambiguous, so I found some definitions on the term:

1. (n.) slavery
the condition of a slave; bondage.

2. slavery
the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.

3. slavery
a state of subjection like that of a slave.

4. slavery
severe toil; drudgery.

The point I'm trying to make is that in our modern age, one's job could be severe toil or drudgery.

And speaking of definitions, Smith's Bible Dictionary has a wealth of information on the subject: here & here.

For my first argument, I will compare Kunta Kinte from Alex Haley's Roots to Exodus 21:5. If you not familiar with Kunta Kinte, here's some info. Whether or not Roots was a work of fiction, since there is some fact to it, is not the point. With that being said, Exodus 21:5 says, "But if the servant plainly says, 'I LOVE my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.'" "I will not go out free" is stated as "do not want to go free" in other versions, which means that the slave has a choice. The thought is carried on in verse 6, which says, "then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." The reason I emphasize "I LOVE my master" is because I don't see how Kunta Kinte could have loved his master. If you do, then I'm open to what you have to say. Either way, slavery in biblical times was different than the African slave trade-type slavery, which I will examine a bit more.

Now I will compare Leviticus 25:39 with the African slave trade, which kind of addresses the concern about historical evidnence. Leviticus 25:39 says, "And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells HIMSELF to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave." The reason I emphasize "and sells HIMSELF" is because one made oneself a slave due to economic hardships to one who was economically better off. The key point is that a person sold himself, so it's not like he was grabbed and made a slave. However, in the African slave trade, slaves were captured and brought.

You may want to consider the following:

So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery")

In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).

The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose for most of ANE slavery:


§"Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)


§"Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)


§"Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave." (1.664f)


§"On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…" (1.741)


§"The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)
http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

As well as this:

Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.

OT:: In the OT, this relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated (as in pledge of work, in case of default of debt, cf. the case in 2 Kings 4.1 where the creditor is probably coming to claim the children for non-payment, [BKC, in loc]) enslavement was a capital offense (unless it was a community punishment--you were an theft/fraud offender yourself, of course). This is generally in keeping with what we have noted earlier:
"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]

§Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death.
"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. " (Ex 21.16)
If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deut 24.7; cf. I Tim 1.10).
§The vast majority of cases would have been voluntary, with the person himself initiating the transaction--it is ALWAYS couched in the terms of 'selling oneself':
"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you..." (Lev 25.39)
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan... (Lev 25.47)
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. (Deut 15.12)
§Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g. Deut 15.12 above), continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the 'slave':
"But if the servant declares, `I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. (Ex 21.5)
But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant. (Deut 15.16f)
[Note: if a person had a wife/family when he sold himself, then the wife/family went free when his freedom occurred (If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. Ex 21.3). We will discuss the various release scenarios (with/family, w/o) below under 'Treatment".]
http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

I think that's all I have to say for that.

That's like saying your genetic imperative to reproduce "blows free will out of the water." Whether your biological programming says you're attracted to men or attracted to women, you still decide how you act. There's nothing stopping gay men from having sex with women, and vice versa.

OK, but what I was getting at was how experience impacts one's sexual orientation, not gay men having sex with women.

When people say being gay isn't a choice, they don't mean that homosexual men can't stop themselves from fornicating with other men. It means that they are naturally attracted to men sexually, the same way a straight man is naturally attracted to women. Or, more simply: at no point in your life did you decide what sexually arouses you. Same goes for gay people.

You know what my science major friend said about this type of stuff? He said, "I hate when people try to twist science to political ends. Human beings are highly complex animals and to try to argue whether homosexuality is right or wrong doesn't change that it exists. Yes, orientation and preferences develop over time. You shouldn't be trying to debate with these kinds of chuckleheads." Whether you like it or not he's right, especially about that last part. He also said, "The complex combination of things that you are exposed to in the environment and that you experience help shape you to be the person that you are in addition to genetic predispositions so although the flavor of the month is that there is no freewill and that everything is predetermined before you are born I find that to be a weak philosophical cop out that people shouldn't try to improve themselves and try to just act out their baser more animalistic impulses. I find the twisting of science for political ends to say ipso facto 'biological determinism means we have no free will and can behave any way we damn please' to be that." Don't people sort of choose what they are attracted to but the process of finding out is experimental and experiential? My friend likes women but women don't exactly like him so then he gets kind of depressed about it. Does that mean he's attracted to depressing women?

This statement doesn't make any sense.

It wasn't supposed to. I'm not saying Christianity or religion in gneral is the be-all end-all and I'm not sure if you think of science as the be-all end-all, but since some people treat science as if it has all the answers, don't you think their thinking is absurd to say the least? Because a friend of mine is a science major and he doesn't think of science that way. I'm not if the fact that he's half-Christian half-pagan has anything to do with it.

 

[Ash J. Williams]

It very clearly suggests that various incestuous relationships are wrong when taken in context with the rest of the chapter and not "cookie cutting" it with the added burden of an agenda.

If the Bible is so clearly written, then why is it that none of you can just point to a verse that says, " the taking of many wives is forbidden" and be done with it?

You know, you shouldn't just look at the Old Testmant The following has some points regarding polygamy that you probably haven't taken into consideration, along with some New Testament verses: http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

I know what he meant, and I still maintain that he's reading into the Bible what he wants to read into it to make it fit his own prejudices. For example, if we go by what the Bible says, God created Eve from Adam's rib, therefore it's reasonable to conclude that she had the same DNA as Adam and therefore the same ethnicity. We can therefore use this knowledge to attack interracial couplings, and we should indeed do so because such couplings are against God's ideal of what marriage should be. Do you see what extremes these kind of ridiculous leaps in logic can lead people to?

It's OK for Christians to have interracial marriages, though.

Yes, it can mean that, but that doesn't mean that it always does.

mul·ti·ple (m

l

t

-p

l)adj. Having, relating to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component; manifold.

In other words, it can mean as little as two in number. However, the fact that we are in dispute in this matter shows that those who wrote, or at least, translated the "Word of God" were very careless people.

Although I don't agree with you in regards to translation, since English translations aren't perfect, I see what you mean when you mentioned what "mutiple" means. Wouldn't it just be best to agree to disagree?

Good to know. Now in addition to a lack of historical evidence on the matter, I can also use this as an excuse to ignore people when they start whining about how the Hebrew "slaves" were so badly oppressed by the Egyptians.

Even if the points I presented don't count as historical evidence -- the ones I quoted -- you still may want to consider them.

Science isn't some malevolent Dr. Frankenstein incarnation playing with beakers in a lab that somehow made about 10% of the population homosexual. It can't determine someone's sexual orientation. It can only help us to determine why someone has a particular sexual orientation. Nature is what actually determines the orientation.

If nature determines it, then where does that leave experiments and experience?

Furthermore, being a gay man myself, I know that it wasn't something that I ever chose. What kind of madman would choose it!? What reason would they have to do so? To have almost everyone you know and love turn their backs on you, to know that you'll never have children of your own, etc.

So by saying you didn't choose your orientation, you mean you were born gay? If so, you may want to consider the following:

The widespread, popular belief that science has proven a biological or genetic origin to homosexuality be traced to the publicity which surrounded three studies published in the early 1990’s. In August of 1991, researcher Simon LeVay published a study based on post-mortem examinations of the brains of cadavers. He concluded that differences in a particular brain structure suggested “that sexual orientation has a
biological substrate.”2 In December of 1991, researchers J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study of identical and fraternal twins and adoptive brothers, and found that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality . . . was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence.”3

Finally, in 1993, researcher Dean Hamer claimed to have found a specific “chromosomal region” containing “a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”4

These studies suffered from serious methodological weaknesses, such as small sample sizes, nonrandom samples and even possible mis-classification of their subjects. Other scientists have been unable to replicate these dramatic findings. These problems led two psychiatrists to conclude, “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a
biologic theory to be lacking. . . . In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.”5

Subsequently, more rigorous studies of identical twin pairs have essentially made it impossible to argue for the genetic determination of homosexuality.

Since identical (“monozygotic,” in the scientific literature) twins have identical genes,
if homosexuality were genetically fixed at birth, we should expect that whenever one twin is homosexual, the other twin would be homosexual (a “concordance rate” of 100%). Even Michael Bailey himself, co-author of the landmark 1991 twins study (which supposedly found a concordance rate of about 50%), conducted a subsequent study on a larger sample of Australian twins. As summarized by other researchers, “They found twenty-seven identical male twin pairs where at least one of the twin brothers was gay, but in only
three of the pairs was the second twin brother gay as well”6 (a “concordance rate” of only eleven percent Researchers Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner, from Columbia and Yale respectively, studied data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and found even lower concordance rates of only 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins. In fact, their study neatly refuted several of the biological theories
for the origin of homosexuality, finding social experiences in childhood to be far more significant:

"[T]he pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe—the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent samesex
romantic preferences."7

If it was not clear in the 1990’ it certainly is now—no one is “born gay.”


Foot Notes:

2 Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic
Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual
Men,” Science, 253: 1034 (August 1991).

3 J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A
Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives
of General Psychiatry, 48: 1089 (December 1991).

4 Dean H. Hamer, et al., “A Linkage Between DNA
Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual
Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 325.

5 William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual
Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,”
Archives of General Psychiatry, 50 (March 1993): 228,
236.

6 Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse, Ex-gays?
A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change
in Sexual Orientation (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic, 2007), p. 124; summarizing findings of:
J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas
G. Martin, “Genetic and environmental influences
on sexual orientation and its correlates in an
Australian twin sample,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 78(3), March 2000, 524-536.

7 Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, “Opposite-
Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,”
American Journal of Sociology Vol. 107, No. 5,
(March 2002), 1179-1205.

I was devastated in my teen years when I realized that I was gay. And guess what? My first course of action was to turn to God, to get him to "fix" me. It was the best thing that ever happened to me. It was when I realized that if there wasn't some magical sky friend that gave a damn about me, or if he did, he sure didn't care whether or not I was gay. I'm not talking about coming to this conclusion overnight, either, but months and months of prayer almost every single night. As Einstein said, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and I'm glad to say that I'm no longer insane.

Yeah, because arguing from experience makes perfect sense, doesn't it? And just because you pray doesn't mean something will go how you want it you to. What I mean by that is when you pray, you have God's will in mind. Not only that, but also faith or believing before seeing. And why would I wanna pray without having faith? I'm not saying it was God's will for you to be gay since not only do I doubt, but also since maybe you didn't know what faith, from a biblical perspective, meant at the time? Keep in mind that even the faith of a mustard seed ( Matthew 17:20) counts. Cuz you did say, "My first course of action was to turn to God, to get him to 'fix' me." Correct me if I'm wrong but, "My first course of action was to turn to God" means you didn't know a lot about Christianity, right?

I can explain that for you very simply. If you're gay and it's made perfectly clear to you that your family and friends are going to desert you because of your sexual orientation, or if you're so damned afraid that you're going to go to hell because of said orientation, it's very easy to lie to yourself and others and say that God has "changed" you.

Actually, people don't go to hell for being gay because one's sexual orientation isn't a sin. The only sinful aspect of homosexuality is engaging in homosexual sex. A Chrsitan can struggle with homosexual tendencies, yes, but that doesn't mean God can't make that struggle go away. And it's up to the Christian what he or she does with that struggle until God sets him or her free from it. Since I don't know the ins and outs, I can't say you sruggled with it, but I thought I'd touch upon Christians who struggle with homosexuality anyway.

If you tell yourself that lie often enough, you might even begin to believe it... at least until an attractive person of the same sex comes along and forces you to confront the reality of the situation again.

Right, because lying makes all the difference. How do you figure one who has had homosexual tendencies, but no longer does, as a result of truly coming to Christ will give into temptation and sleep with the person they find attractive? It's not like you speak for those people. Most Chrstians I know don't tell themselves lies about how God has worked their lives. There's a difference between true repentance -- that is, accepting Christ and turning from one's ways -- and asking Christ to come into one's heart but not living like it. I know Christians who used to do drugs and be into that lifestyle, but God eventually saved them and they were convicted of the Holy Spirit and they gave up that lifestyle. They may relapse once in a while, yes, but that doesn't mean God doesn't love 'em any less. Nor does it mean that He won't allow them to ask for forgiveness for what they did and ask Him to help them to not relapse again if that makes sense. I know a guy who has been clean (from alcohol) by God's grace for 21 years and you think that resulted from him telling himself lies? It's not in God's nature to lie because to do so would be a sin against His people.

And here's something that most Christian fundamentalists don't want people to know about, which is why I scream it from the rooftops... the founders of Exodus International, one of the world's largest (if not the largest) "ex-gay" ministries admitting that they are gay themselves and apologizing for their hand in creating this horrible organization, and also admitting that they never saw one instance in which it helped anyone. These people have hurt a lot of people, including themselves, in doing what they did, but I applaud them for having the courage to see the error of their ways and admitting the truth for all the world to hear:

I'm not really sure what to say about that, but I will say that if you have a faulty foundation, you're gonna screw yourself over, as Exodus International did. Since it kinda relates, I will add that the addicts at my church, the meetings they go to, both Christian and secular, are led by those who used to do drugs. However, that doesn't mean that the meetings aren't helpful. If AA didn't have a firm foundation, do you think it'd still be around today?

Finally, the ludicrous argument that "science" (I'm assuming that you mean nature) causing one to be homosexual takes away free will makes no more sense than saying that heterosexuality being determined by nature does.

Didn't you say that homosexuality is caused by nature, though? If that's the case, then how is it that heterosexuality isn't caused by nature?

Did YOU choose to be straight? Was this some conscious decision that you made at some point?

Earlier I mentioned that experimenting and experience determine one's orientation, which influenced my attraction to the opposite sex in turn.

Does someone having white skin take away his free will if he'd rather have been black or Asian? If so, God forgot to give us our own personal avatar editor programs for us to fix little issues like this in the whole free will situation.

That wasn't what I was getting at.

Oh, I'm not saying that a straight person can't have gay sex. That happens all the time in prisons. But once those guys get out of prison, they are no longer stuck with men as their only option and they go right back to having sex with women.

So in what way did I refer to or imply gay sex in prison? I believe I was asking if science determines one's orientation, that means he or she is stuck with it no matter what, right? I wasn't asking about a homosexual having sex with the opposite gender.

And as the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz said, "Of course, some people do go both ways." If someone likes men and women, it doesn't have anything to do with free will, it just means that they're bisexual.

Right, but isn't the process of finding out one's orientation experimental and experiential?

you do realize Satan is defeated in Revelation? if Adam and Eve had not eaten the Fruit of Knowledge, there wouldn't be evil. its knowledge that separates the connection to God. not saying you're wrong, but that chart is a bit offensive

Good point.

Atheist as a whole are quite scary.
They want to argue that something they do not believe in does not does not exist.

For example, the invisible giant purple mouse sitting next to me poking me with a small umbrella does not exist. This sounds like something a homless man would mumble and everyone would think they were nuts, yet Atheist do it all the time.

If someone told you there was an invisible giant purple mouse sitting next to them poking them with an umbrella why not just say "ok man, whatever and move along" instead of creating another kind of "ist".

Straight up crazy Atheists are.

Heh heh...that post made me chuckle.

No wonder some people seem to think that all of our founding fathers were Christian fundamentalists.

More than half were. Did you know that 27 of our nation's 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees? http://www.creationists.org/myth-of-the-seperation-of-church-and-state.html

 

[Bill]

You know, you shouldn't just look at the Old Testmant The following has some points regarding polygamy that you probably haven't taken into consideration, along with some New Testament verses: http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Still nothing that denotes a definitively clear answer to the issue. In the end, it is your source's "belief" that what they think is so.

I could care less about the issue myself, my response was to an OT verse taken out of context, and the lack of any clarity on the subject. Your source does nothing to dispel that.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Hi,

Just wanted to give you my two cents on homosexuality, because it upsets me so much that people are still judged for this.

When I was younger I had no experience of gay people whatsoever. My first encounter was my mums best friend. Her daughter and I were really close as well and we sort of became a family unit. Myself and Emma started to suspect something was weird when we caught them hugging a bit too close. We confronted them and they told us the truth. That they had feelings for each other.

Emma freaked. Ran screaming from the house. I was crying and ran up to my room. Didn't know how to feel about it. But my mum assured me there was nothing wrong with it, but she understood that I was upset.

I was only 12. And society didn't exactly teach you it was normal.

10 years on and Emma is in a long term relationship with a woman with two kids. I live with them as a lodger. They are the happiest couple I have ever met, let alone lived with. And the kids are a hell of a lot happier since they don't have to live with their abusive father.

My best friend is a gay guy. We've been close since we were about 15. He is an absolutely wonderful person, and because of him my whole towns opinions of gay people has changed. He is not over the top or in your face. He does not come onto straight guys or flaunt his sexuality. He's just not attracted to women. He's attracted to men.

You actually hear people say 'oh yeah I hate them gay guys... Unless they're like Mikey, he's okay'. I think that's wonderful.

You can think what you want, it's fine. But I've grown into a person who can see love for what it is. Wherever it is, whoever it's between.

Two consenting adults who love
each other? That's not wrong. That's beautiful. That's what people spend their whole lives looking for. Regardless of the genetalia. Regardless of what society says is 'normal'.

 

[Bat-Mite]

It's OK for Christians to have interracial marriages, though.

Is it? It doesn't say that in Genesis any more than it says that Adam and Eve were an example of "God's ideal" arrangement. Though if they were God's ideal, why should we not say that their race enters into that ideal? Furthermore, it's hardly always been the consensus that interracial marriages were an "OK" arrangement for Christians to enter into. It was, in fact, Christians who were the main opponents of it and who saw it as immoral. Interestingly enough, the arguments that they used against it are currently being recycled to be used against gay marriage.

Although I don't agree with you in regards to translation, since English translations aren't perfect, I see what you mean when you mentioned what "mutiple" means. Wouldn't it just be best to agree to disagree?

Oh, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I still think it's careless of anyone writing or translating this book to not be as specific as possible in its meaning. After all, many Christians do set this book up as an idol and worship it as being equivalent to God himself.

Even if the points I presented don't count as historical evidence -- the ones I quoted -- you still may want to consider them.

I was talking about the slavery of the Hebrews specifically. If slavery, in Biblical days, wasn't all that bad as you seem to be claiming, then I'd just as soon not hear all this dishonest whining about how bad the Hebrew slaves, or servants, had it under the pharaoh's rule. The lack of historical evidence I mentioned was pertaining to there not being any evidence outside of the Bible itself that this event ever occurred. Not only that, its reluctance to mention the pharaoh by name is extremely suspicious.

If nature determines it, then where does that leave experiments and experience?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with that. Straight people and gay people experiment all the time without ever stepping out of their sexual orientations to do so.

So by saying you didn't choose your orientation, you mean you were born gay? If so, you may want to consider the following:

This large wall of text that you pasted is written by Peter Spriggs of the hate group known as the Family Research Council. That's hardly deserving of any consideration. Just to give you an idea of why this group is designated as a hate group by the SPLC, I'll give you a little taste of Mr. Spriggs' comments (and comments from the FRC) about homosexual people:

"homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses."

"homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys."

“one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,”

“homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” [In other words, he's saying that this is strategy only, but we're secretly buddy-buddy with the pedos.]

“[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. … [T]hey want to promote a promiscuous society.”

“If they [gays and lesbians] had children, what would happen when they were too busy having their sex parties?”

“I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.”

“I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.”

Source

In other words, that article is written by a man with a vested interest in making people hate and fear gays. The kind of misinformation that he spreads is comparable to the misinformation spread by the nazis about the Jews. He wants gays, particularly gay men, to be associated with pedophiles, because he wants to provoke violence against gay men from people who are fearful for their children's safety. As for what he's saying, well, first of all, it's very telling that the most recent research that he addresses is from 20 years ago. I was going to type up this long thing to counter his points, but when I was getting that information from the SPLC, I also found this on their site, so I'll just be lazy and copy and paste it.

THE FACTS
Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.”

The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm said he was about to release a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was “trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic.” But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.

Wikipedia also has a wealth of recent information on the subject: Biology and sexual orientation. The physiological traits of gay men and lesbians are particularly interesting, I think. Also, Mr. Spriggs only addressed the genetic issue, but I think prenatal exposure to hormones has a lot more to do with it than genes, though I don't completely rule out the possibility of genetics playing a factor.

Yeah, because arguing from experience makes perfect sense, doesn't it? And just because you pray doesn't mean something will go how you want it you to. What I mean by that is when you pray, you have God's will in mind. Not only that, but also faith or believing before seeing. And why would I wanna pray without having faith? I'm not saying it was God's will for you to be gay since not only do I doubt, but also since maybe you didn't know what faith, from a biblical perspective, meant at the time? Keep in mind that even the faith of a mustard seed ( Matthew 17:20) counts. Cuz you did say, "My first course of action was to turn to God, to get him to 'fix' me." Correct me if I'm wrong but, "My first course of action was to turn to God" means you didn't know a lot about Christianity, right?

I don't see how you take it to mean that I didn't know a lot about Christianity, as lots of Christians turn to God first thing when they go through some sort of crisis, i.e., the loss of a child, etc. It's rather unfortunate that Christians do have a tendency to blame people for the outcome when things don't go the way that they supposedly should. I can assure you that my faith was much larger that a mustard seed, nor was I just sitting there every single night praying not to be gay and so on, I was asking God questions like if it was some sort of test or if it was a punishment, I was reading the Bible to try to find those answers to my questions, praying and reading simultaneously, etc. It was getting me nowhere. I will also add that I was a 13 year old kid at the time. You can't just expect a kid, no matter how faithful, to process that kind of situation in the same way an adult would.

Actually, people don't go to hell for being gay because one's sexual orientation isn't a sin. The only sinful aspect of homosexuality is engaging in homosexual sex. A Chrsitan can struggle with homosexual tendencies, yes, but that doesn't mean God can't make that struggle go away. And it's up to the Christian what he or she does with that struggle until God sets him or her free from it. Since I don't know the ins and outs, I can't say you sruggled with it, but I thought I'd touch upon Christians who struggle with homosexuality anyway.

Yes, it always is convenient for heterosexuals who get to marry, have sex within that marriage, have love and companionship within that marriage, etc. to tell homosexual people that they are forbidden these same things unless they try to jam them into a heterosexual situation, in which case it is a forced and loveless marriage and creates Ted Haggard-like scenarios. George Rekers, too. He helped found the FRC and NARTH and was one of those guys that was real big on brainwashing gay men to be straight in the name of Christianity... then it came out last year that he was touring Europe with a young male escort that he hired from a website called Rentboys. I should also point out that he counseled a five year old boy for playing with Barbie dolls, claimed that the boy was cured of his homosexual "behavior", and then this boy became a man that committed suicide when he was in his 30's. The family holds Rekers responsible because of the psychological trauma that the man was put through when he was a child. These jackasses can't even fix themselves, so I'd rather not try to get Christ to supposedly fix me or help me in my struggle etc., via means that they and their ilk recommend.

Right, because lying makes all the difference. How do you figure one who has had homosexual tendencies, but no longer does, as a result of truly coming to Christ will give into temptation and sleep with the person they find attractive?

I never said that they would automatically sleep with the person. Merely that they could lie to themselves and be convinced of it until they saw some attractive person of the same sex that reminded them of the sham they were putting on.

It's not like you speak for those people. Most Chrstians I know don't tell themselves lies about how God has worked their lives.

Exactly what motivation would any gay person have to tell you if they were gay, struggling, etc.? I'm not trying to be mean, but you don't exactly come across as a beacon of tolerance and understanding. Nor do most Christian fundamentalists. The environment of judgment that they create discourages people from being honest. This is especially apparent in the black community, where there are a lot of men living "on the downlow." It happens in other ethnic communities also, but seems to be especially common there.

There's a difference between true repentance -- that is, accepting Christ and turning from one's ways -- and asking Christ to come into one's heart but not living like it. I know Christians who used to do drugs and be into that lifestyle, but God eventually saved them and they were convicted of the Holy Spirit and they gave up that lifestyle. They may relapse once in a while, yes, but that doesn't mean God doesn't love 'em any less. Nor does it mean that He won't allow them to ask for forgiveness for what they did and ask Him to help them to not relapse again if that makes sense. I know a guy who has been clean (from alcohol) by God's grace for 21 years and you think that resulted from him telling himself lies? It's not in God's nature to lie because to do so would be a sin against His people.

There is a big difference in having someone of the same gender as a romantic partner and being a drug addict. The former doesn't impair your judgment, cause you to commit violent crimes, or steal, etc. Not saying that all drug addicts do that, because that depends on the addict in question, drug being used, how much is used, etc. It's still apples and oranges, though. By the way, you can say Christ did it, and if you believe that, good for you... but there are also other religions that can claim to be just as helpful, 12 step programs, meditations, secular programs, etc. that are just as successful.

I'm not really sure what to say about that, but I will say that if you have a faulty foundation, you're gonna screw yourself over, as Exodus International did. Since it kinda relates, I will add that the addicts at my church, the meetings they go to, both Christian and secular, are led by those who used to do drugs. However, that doesn't mean that the meetings aren't helpful. If AA didn't have a firm foundation, do you think it'd still be around today?

What is their faulty foundation? I want to know in concrete terms what it is that makes the foundation of an ex-gay ministry faulty so that I don't ever join a faulty one by accident. By the way, Exodus International is still going strong and is still endorsed by Focus on the Family. It's just that these original leaders of it struck a major blow to it when they announced the truth about it.

Didn't you say that homosexuality is caused by nature, though? If that's the case, then how is it that heterosexuality isn't caused by nature?
Earlier I mentioned that experimenting and experience determine one's orientation, which influenced my attraction to the opposite sex in turn.

Umm.. actually, heterosexuality IS caused by nature... that's what I was saying. My point was whether you're born straight or gay, neither takes free will away from you any more than your skin color does. A gay man can still choose who he wants as his boyfriend or husband, can still choose to be celibate, etc.

By the way, I just have to call you out on it. When you say that you went through some sort of experimentation and experience that determined you like the opposite sex, I think that's BS. Maybe you were sexually confused and didn't realize it or something, or maybe you're just talking about something that happened as a kid, like playing doctor with someone, but I've never heard of experimenting as being a necessity for someone to know they were heterosexual. Even in sex ed classes, they talk about the processes in which people become attracted to the opposite sex. There's no stage of experimentation or deciding to like a certain gender involved in what they talk about. Maybe I'm being unfair and you're the exception to the rule, but I've never heard someone say, "Oh.. back when I was a kid and deciding whether or not I was straight or gay..." I mean, I could see a bisexual going through a scenario like that, but I've never heard about straight people going through that.

So in what way did I refer to or imply gay sex in prison? I believe I was asking if science determines one's orientation, that means he or she is stuck with it no matter what, right? I wasn't asking about a homosexual having sex with the opposite gender.

If nature determines one's sexual orientation, then obviously, yes, they are stuck with it. That doesn't mean that one can't be sexually confused and so on, though... I never claimed that. However, I've never been under the impression that experimenting to determine one's orientation was the norm, either. I certainly didn't have to experiment to know that I was gay. I knew. I just didn't like it at first.

Right, but isn't the process of finding out one's orientation experimental and experiential?

Only for bisexuals and the sexually confused. I think there's a strong movement from the Christian right to convince everyone that being gay is a choice because it's a lot easier to hate someone if you think they are in control of their situation than it is if they have no choice in the matter. I don't think you hate gay people, but I'm talking about people like Paul Spriggs and the FRC who would "export" gays or have us arrested if they had their way.

More than half were. Did you know that 27 of our nation's 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees? http://www.creationists.org/myth-of-the-seperation-of-church-and-state.html

If you can find a less biased website, I might be willing to consider it. That the website is "creationists.org" was more than enough to throw up a red flag. When it called the ACLU an anti-Christian organization in the first paragraph, I closed the window. At any rate, just because someone has a Christian seminary degree only means that they have an education on the subject matter, not that they are a Christian. Alan Watts, one of my favorite authors on Eastern religions, had one, but he was never a Christian.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Hi,

Just wanted to give you my two cents on homosexuality, because it upsets me so much that people are still judged for this.

When I was younger I had no experience of gay people whatsoever. My first encounter was my mums best friend. Her daughter and I were really close as well and we sort of became a family unit. Myself and Emma started to suspect something was weird when we caught them hugging a bit too close. We confronted them and they told us the truth. That they had feelings for each other.

Emma freaked. Ran screaming from the house. I was crying and ran up to my room. Didn't know how to feel about it. But my mum assured me there was nothing wrong with it, but she understood that I was upset.

I was only 12. And society didn't exactly teach you it was normal.

10 years on and Emma is in a long term relationship with a woman with two kids. I live with them as a lodger. They are the happiest couple I have ever met, let alone lived with. And the kids are a hell of a lot happier since they don't have to live with their abusive father.

My best friend is a gay guy. We've been close since we were about 15. He is an absolutely wonderful person, and because of him my whole towns opinions of gay people has changed. He is not over the top or in your face. He does not come onto straight guys or flaunt his sexuality. He's just not attracted to women. He's attracted to men.

You actually hear people say 'oh yeah I hate them gay guys... Unless they're like Mikey, he's okay'. I think that's wonderful.

You can think what you want, it's fine. But I've grown into a person who can see love for what it is. Wherever it is, whoever it's between.

Two consenting adults who love
each other? That's not wrong. That's beautiful. That's what people spend their whole lives looking for. Regardless of the genetalia. Regardless of what society says is 'normal'.

Thanks for sharing that. And I agree completely. We're in the 21st century, you'd think we'd have moved beyond petty things like this by now. We wouldn't look to the authors of the Bible for education about scientific facts, so I don't see why we're trusting their judgment on who we can and can't be with. The fact of the matter is, if we took a time machine to them and brought a television, mp3 player, or similar technological device with us, these very people would probably think we were angels, if not God himself.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Hi,

Just wanted to give you my two cents on homosexuality, because it upsets me so much that people are still judged for this.

When I was younger I had no experience of gay people whatsoever. My first encounter was my mums best friend. Her daughter and I were really close as well and we sort of became a family unit. Myself and Emma started to suspect something was weird when we caught them hugging a bit too close. We confronted them and they told us the truth. That they had feelings for each other.

Emma freaked. Ran screaming from the house. I was crying and ran up to my room. Didn't know how to feel about it. But my mum assured me there was nothing wrong with it, but she understood that I was upset.

I was only 12. And society didn't exactly teach you it was normal.

10 years on and Emma is in a long term relationship with a woman with two kids. I live with them as a lodger. They are the happiest couple I have ever met, let alone lived with. And the kids are a hell of a lot happier since they don't have to live with their abusive father.

My best friend is a gay guy. We've been close since we were about 15. He is an absolutely wonderful person, and because of him my whole towns opinions of gay people has changed. He is not over the top or in your face. He does not come onto straight guys or flaunt his sexuality. He's just not attracted to women. He's attracted to men.

You actually hear people say 'oh yeah I hate them gay guys... Unless they're like Mikey, he's okay'. I think that's wonderful.

You can think what you want, it's fine. But I've grown into a person who can see love for what it is. Wherever it is, whoever it's between.

Two consenting adults who love
each other? That's not wrong. That's beautiful. That's what people spend their whole lives looking for. Regardless of the genetalia. Regardless of what society says is 'normal'.

I appreciate you sharing that story. I certainly have my views and opinions on homosexuality, but I could never judge and condemn someone for being homosexual. As you said, it is 2 consenting adults who have chosen to be in a certain relationship. How can that be bad? The people who say it harms society or hurts anyone for that matter are simply wrong.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Thanks for sharing that. And I agree completely. We're in the 21st century, you'd think we'd have moved beyond petty things like this by now. We wouldn't look to the authors of the Bible for education about scientific facts, so I don't see why we're trusting their judgment on who we can and can't be with. The fact of the matter is, if we took a time machine to them and brought a television, mp3 player, or similar technological device with us, these very people would probably think we were angels, if not God himself.

Completely agree.

In fact it's one of the things that makes me laugh about religion. Why would anyone live by something that was written thousands of years ago?

That means it was only relevent thousands of years ago IMO.

Yes, I understand that people believe it is 'the word of God'... but it is still a text written by humans, some of whom may have been corrupt and using 'The Bible' to spread their own message. Who knows how much of what is in the bible is actually how it was originally intended by whoever you believe the initiator was.

I'm a writer. I want to write a novel. But if I told my best friend what my novel was about and asked him to tell his friend and then get his friend to write it... well it certainly wouldn't be the book i intended.

It'd have my original stories and ideas, but the tone, the morals of the story, and parts of the plot would all boil down to how the actual writer interpreted what i was saying. It'd all be polluted with HIS opinions.

I appreciate you sharing that story. I certainly have my views and opinions on homosexuality, but I could never judge and condemn someone for being homosexual. As you said, it is 2 consenting adults who have chosen to be in a certain relationship. How can that be bad? The people who say it harms society or hurts anyone for that matter are simply wrong.

I think that basically people who are strongly against homosexuality are thankfully in the minority.

Then again, a group of us all went to see Zack and Miri make a porno. We got to the scene with Brandon Routh and Justin Long just TALKING about their relationship and this one guy we were with got up, started ranting that he couldn't believe he'd payed for this **** and stormed out before he could watch any more. I mean everyone thought he was weird for doing it, but it shows that it is still engrained in some people, in how they were brought up or whatever.

 

[WildcatNC]

Jefferson had a great deal of respect for the philosophy of Jesus, and that is the extent of his "Christianity." He did not believe him to be the son of God, and he edited his version of the Bible to reflect that.

His opinion of the Bible:

"The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 24, 1814.

He and I share that opinion. He is able to far more eloquently express it than I though (as anyone would expect lol).

 

[WildcatNC]

Then again, a group of us all went to see Zack and Miri make a porno. We got to the scene with Brandon Routh and Justin Long just TALKING about their relationship and this one guy we were with got up, started ranting that he couldn't believe he'd payed for this **** and stormed out before he could watch any more. I mean everyone thought he was weird for doing it, but it shows that it is still engrained in some people, in how they were brought up or whatever.

These people are deep in the closet of denial IMO. They want **** and hate themselves for it.