Brainwashing Camp for Gay Kids

[shira]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: zendari
Homosexuality is the sin in question, not sodomy.

Now you'll have to forgive me as I've not quite memorized the Bible word for word, so I had to look this up.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That makes absolutely no reference to simply BEING a homosexual is a sin. If I'm not mistaken sodomy was the sin. Are homosexuals who don't commit in that act sinners? If I'm interpreting this correctly, the answer is no.

Originally posted by: zendari
:beer: I'm about to give up on these liberals myself.

Don't take too long

And what's absolutely hilarious, in a perverse sort of way, is that the bible mentions all sorts of things as being "abominations". (I wish I knew the bible well enough to cite them all.) But the point is, these intolerant bigots don't jump all over the other "abominations" at all. It's only homosexuality that is "a grave sin". Why? Because intolerant bigots say it's a grave sin.

The moral of this story is: You can make the bible mean anything you want it to mean. Right-wing Christians hate homosexuality not because of any objective bible-based statement, but because they can't stand the thought that someone whose sexuality is so different from their own should go unpunished.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: zendari
Homosexuality is the sin in question, not sodomy.

Now you'll have to forgive me as I've not quite memorized the Bible word for word, so I had to look this up.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

That makes absolutely no reference to simply BEING a homosexual is a sin. If I'm not mistaken sodomy was the sin. Are homosexuals who don't commit in that act sinners? If I'm interpreting this correctly, the answer is no.

Originally posted by: zendari
:beer: I'm about to give up on these liberals myself.

Don't take too long

And what's absolutely hilarious, in a perverse sort of way, is that the bible mentions all sorts of things as being "abominations". (I wish I knew the bible well enough to cite them all.) But the point is, these intolerant bigots don't jump all over the other "abominations" at all. It's only homosexuality that is "a grave sin". Why? Because intolerant bigots say it's a grave sin.

The moral of this story is: You can make the bible mean anything you want it to mean. Right-wing Christians hate homosexuality not because of any objective bible-based statement, but because they can't stand the thought that someone whose sexuality is so different from their own should go unpunished.

That is the greatest flaw in the bible.

Would you really think God would make a book as such? One that could easily be mistranslated and abused to control people?

As for an "abomination" homosexsuality, is very much as a sin without a doubt. Levitcus isn't the only chapter or what not that discusses it. I like how you point out how "homosexsuality" above all of the items even the 10 commandments.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
By God

Jesus will welcome with healing arms every homosexual who rejects his sin and cries out, "I'm in need, Master. Forgive and heal me."

Interesting that you focus on homosexuals when it comes to sodomy. Sodomy is ANY not-coital sexual act. For example, oral or manual sex.

Considering that heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by perhaps fifty to one, there's undoubtedly far more heterosexual sodomy occuring than the homosexual kind.

Which begs the question: If you're so obsessed with opposing sin, why are you focused on the relatively small problem of homosexual sodomy? Why aren't you railing against the "criminal" heterosexual couples who undoubtedly live right in your own neighborhood and who are committing sodomy every day of the week?

In fact, if you're a typical heterosexual female, it's quite likely you've "committed sodomy" yourself. You may STILL be doing it.

Have you? DO you?

zendari, do yourself a favor when talking with certain individuals who feel it is ok for them to be intolerant but don't allow others to to be intolerant. It is even worse when they hate everything you do because you differ with them on a few ideas. They have no concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner."

Now, for my comment. You post a quote and say it is from God. I will remind you that it was man that wrote the Bible. In fact, some chapters were left out after going through a committe! So, use the Bible to guide your beliefs but don't always take it verbatim. To do so would be similar to those who watch and read the mainstream media, hollywood "stars", and politicians of any party and assume they are telling the truth.

So, rather than saying God said this you would be more accurate if you said it is said in the Bible... or wherever you got that quote from.

Let the liberals act as they do. We can't afford to allow ourselves be pulled down.


Newsweek actually did LIE! :| People DIED!
CBS actually did LIE! :| People would have DIED!

:beer: I'm about to give up on these liberals myself.

I don't know, you guys sound pretty liberal to me. Whining that every belief deserves equal tolerance...isn't that the stereotypical liberal view? I thought you big tough conservatives believed in fixed morality and standing up for what you believe.

 

[NINaudio]

Originally posted by: boran
edit: and you have to be kidding on that still being illegal part, that's down right rediculous. I'd expect that in strict religious societies but not in "the land of the free and brave"

There are a lot of states in the US that have old laws that are still on the books, but not enforced in any way.

Originally posted by: zendari

?? If there were truly 5 proper judges, which there aren't, the other 4 could be college students from Berkeley for all I care.

Translation: The judges that don't share my beliefs should not be judges.

Well, welcome to America! We are supposed to be able to have our own differing beliefs as long as they do not harm others.

 

[NINaudio]

double post

 

[geminigear]

Thats Pretty SAD, sry to hear

 

[SlitheryDee]

When are you going to understand that it's not these "different" (whatever those differences may be) people that are the problem?

I have a friend who is gay. Before I met him I had absolutely no opinion on the subject, in fact I had never seriously considered the right or wrongness of the issue. Now, I thoroughly believe that he had no choice in the matter. Homosexuals are what they are. Not you, me, the government, or any magical fairies in the sky can ever change the fact that some people are sexually attracted to others of the same gender. You may twist their minds by utilising the basic desire to "fit in" and be free of a socially taboo subculture to create any number of "successful gay to straight transitions", but all you are really doing is forcing people to be something that they are not.

The fellow I mentioned has just recieved his masters at LSU, and will eventually be moving on to massachusetts to study for his PHD in english literature. He happens to be one of the most organised, intelligent, and stable people that I know and has been a great help to me in negotiating the issues I've had in the course of my own education. Yet I guess that many here would say that he would be better off if he had been admitted to a similar "summer camp" at an early age. Personally I think that such a place would destroy someone's motivation and self-image.

Just my $0.02

 

[misterj]

beastiality.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: misterj
beastiality.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Whatever has been done "in the name of God" pales in comparison to what has been done by secularlists.

I have doubts that much of anything bad has ever hapened in the name of secularity. Secularists are simply lack the organization and cause to commit crimes. Do you consider the Nazis and Soviets to be secular? They did after all promote certain religous ideologies while condeming others.

 

[Aquila76]

I don't believe sexuality is a choice, based on what I've read & experienced. If you have sexual feelings one way, the other, or both, that's normal and no one can tell you otherwise. Sexuality is no different than skin, eye, and hair color; you are born with it. You can try and hide it (like skin/eye/hair color), but under the outward appearance the person you are within remains.

A little off topic: If this thread would prove anything to me, it is that many Christian heterosexuals are intolerant, hate-filled, and downright violent towards those they don't understand. Good thing I don't base my opinions based on the sampling of 'Christian' posters here. I wish there was a 'summer camp' for them.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I have a friend who is gay. Before I met him I had absolutely no opinion on the subject, in fact I had never seriously considered the right or wrongness of the issue. Now, I thoroughly believe that he had no choice in the matter. Homosexuals are what they are. Not you, me, the government, or any magical fairies in the sky can ever change the fact that some people are sexually attracted to others of the same gender. You may twist their minds by utilising the basic desire to "fit in" and be free of a socially taboo subculture to create any number of "successful gay to straight transitions", but all you are really doing is forcing people to be something that they are not.

Originally posted by: Aquila76
I don't believe sexuality is a choice, based on what I've read & experienced. If you have sexual feelings one way, the other, or both, that's normal and no one can tell you otherwise. Sexuality is no different than skin, eye, and hair color; you are born with it. You can try and hide it (like skin/eye/hair color), but under the outward appearance the person you are within remains.

First, let me make a distinction, which I'll then proceed to render totally irrelevant:

Clearly, most of us have no choice whatsover as to which sex we feel desire towards. If attraction is a choice, then I (a straight male) should be able to "train" myself to be attracted to and desire men. I simply find that notion impossible to swallow, since as far as I can tell, my reaction to the appearance of women is at the most visceral, physical, "primitive" level - there's no "cognition" involved in the process. And I have no reason to doubt that the attraction of gays toward others of the same sex is similiary primitive.

Now, certainly, whether or not to ENGAGE in sex (or the pursuit of a sexual partner) is a conscious activity, involving choice. But this is NOT a "choice" that has any significance in the gay/stright debate. Frankly, I think it would be the equivalent of torture for someone whose most basic attractions are focused on one gender to engage in romantic relationships with someone of the opposite gender. And the alternative for gays advocated by the right - not only lifelong abstinence, but denying oneself the love and romantic connection of a life partner, is cruel beyond measure. So, this "solution" advocated by the right is no solution at all, as it doesn't recognize and accept (a stronger word than "tolerate") the valid emotional and physical needs of real human beings.

Now, I included those quotations above because, while I completely agree with the sentiments expressed, I believe that focusing on "choice" is just allowing oneself to be drawn into a fraudulent game of "blame the victim" perpetrated by the right. The right wants to turn the debate about human rights into a debate about choice.

(An aside: There's a certain irony in the right's foisting "choice" on the gay-rights debate. After all, "choice", albeit in a somewhat different sense of the word, is THE central issue in the abortion-rights debate - the right doesn't think any woman should have a choice at all. When it comes to gays, however, the right insists that gays cannot help having a choice.)

But getting back to this fraud perpetrated by the right: Why does it matter whether gays have a choice? Let's suppose every gay is making a conscious choice to be attracted to people of the same sex, and then acting on that choice. My question: Why should that matter? If having sex with someone of the same sex makes you happy, whether a "choice" is involved or not, I say go for it!

Isn't the "pursuit of happiness" one of THE fundamental tenets of the establishment of the United States? Where in the Constitution does it say that sexual/romantic happiness is to be restricted to heterosexual couples? Where does it say that only if no "choice" is involved, is the pursuit of happiness okay?

The point is, when a righty tries this "choice" nonsense, ask them why they're changing the subject and refocus the debate on what really matters: the right of every human being to be free to pursue happiness, without limitations placed on them by intolerant bigots.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: misterj
beastiality.

Not between consenting adults. Neither is pedophilia.

Although, when it comes down to it, we've got to consider whether there is anything wrong with bestiality legally, which starts by considering whether or not animals have rights. Do they? If they don't, can you deprive a person the right to do what they will with their own property simply because you find it objectionable? Same goes with polygamy and incest, do you have a right to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do simply because you find it objectionable?

It's up for debate.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I have a friend who is gay. Before I met him I had absolutely no opinion on the subject, in fact I had never seriously considered the right or wrongness of the issue. Now, I thoroughly believe that he had no choice in the matter. Homosexuals are what they are. Not you, me, the government, or any magical fairies in the sky can ever change the fact that some people are sexually attracted to others of the same gender. You may twist their minds by utilising the basic desire to "fit in" and be free of a socially taboo subculture to create any number of "successful gay to straight transitions", but all you are really doing is forcing people to be something that they are not.

Originally posted by: Aquila76
I don't believe sexuality is a choice, based on what I've read & experienced. If you have sexual feelings one way, the other, or both, that's normal and no one can tell you otherwise. Sexuality is no different than skin, eye, and hair color; you are born with it. You can try and hide it (like skin/eye/hair color), but under the outward appearance the person you are within remains.

First, let me make a distinction, which I'll then proceed to render totally irrelevant:

Clearly, most of us have no choice whatsover as to which sex we feel desire towards. If attraction is a choice, then I (a straight male) should be able to "train" myself to be attracted to and desire men. I simply find that notion impossible to swallow, since as far as I can tell, my reaction to the appearance of women is at the most visceral, physical, "primitive" level - there's no "cognition" involved in the process. And I have no reason to doubt that the attraction of gays toward others of the same sex is similiary primitive.

Now, certainly, whether or not to ENGAGE in sex (or the pursuit of a sexual partner) is a conscious activity, involving choice. But this is NOT a "choice" that has any significance in the gay/stright debate. Frankly, I think it would be the equivalent of torture for someone whose most basic attractions are focused on one gender to engage in romantic relationships with someone of the opposite gender. And the alternative for gays advocated by the right - not only lifelong abstinence, but denying oneself the love and romantic connection of a life partner, is cruel beyond measure. So, this "solution" advocated by the right is no solution at all, as it doesn't recognize and accept (a stronger word than "tolerate") the valid emotional and physical needs of real human beings.

Now, I included those quotations above because, while I completely agree with the sentiments expressed, I believe that focusing on "choice" is just allowing oneself to be drawn into a fraudulent game of "blame the victim" perpetrated by the right. The right wants to turn the debate about human rights into a debate about choice.

(An aside: There's a certain irony in the right's foisting "choice" on the gay-rights debate. After all, "choice", albeit in a somewhat different sense of the word, is THE central issue in the abortion-rights debate - the right doesn't think any woman should have a choice at all. When it comes to gays, however, the right insists that gays cannot help having a choice.)

But getting back to this fraud perpetrated by the right: Why does it matter whether gays have a choice? Let's suppose every gay is making a conscious choice to be attracted to people of the same sex, and then acting on that choice. My question: Why should that matter? If having sex with someone of the same sex makes you happy, whether a "choice" is involved or not, I say go for it!

Isn't the "pursuit of happiness" one of THE fundamental tenets of the establishment of the United States? Where in the Constitution does it say that sexual/romantic happiness is to be restricted to heterosexual couples? Where does it say that only if no "choice" is involved, is the pursuit of happiness okay?

The point is, when a righty tries this "choice" nonsense, ask them why they're changing the subject and refocus the debate on what really matters: the right of every human being to be free to pursue happiness, without limitations placed on them by intolerant bigots.

Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[CDC Mail Guy]

Lots of posts here, so mine might not be read, but here goes. Once again we have religion and government tromping on peoples free choice to live thier life how they want. It's real convenient that if you don't like something someone is doing to throw "God" into the picture, and hope that their fear will force them to see the error of their ways and that you are right.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I have a friend who is gay. Before I met him I had absolutely no opinion on the subject, in fact I had never seriously considered the right or wrongness of the issue. Now, I thoroughly believe that he had no choice in the matter. Homosexuals are what they are. Not you, me, the government, or any magical fairies in the sky can ever change the fact that some people are sexually attracted to others of the same gender. You may twist their minds by utilising the basic desire to "fit in" and be free of a socially taboo subculture to create any number of "successful gay to straight transitions", but all you are really doing is forcing people to be something that they are not.

Originally posted by: Aquila76
I don't believe sexuality is a choice, based on what I've read & experienced. If you have sexual feelings one way, the other, or both, that's normal and no one can tell you otherwise. Sexuality is no different than skin, eye, and hair color; you are born with it. You can try and hide it (like skin/eye/hair color), but under the outward appearance the person you are within remains.

First, let me make a distinction, which I'll then proceed to render totally irrelevant:

Clearly, most of us have no choice whatsover as to which sex we feel desire towards. If attraction is a choice, then I (a straight male) should be able to "train" myself to be attracted to and desire men. I simply find that notion impossible to swallow, since as far as I can tell, my reaction to the appearance of women is at the most visceral, physical, "primitive" level - there's no "cognition" involved in the process. And I have no reason to doubt that the attraction of gays toward others of the same sex is similiary primitive.

Now, certainly, whether or not to ENGAGE in sex (or the pursuit of a sexual partner) is a conscious activity, involving choice. But this is NOT a "choice" that has any significance in the gay/stright debate. Frankly, I think it would be the equivalent of torture for someone whose most basic attractions are focused on one gender to engage in romantic relationships with someone of the opposite gender. And the alternative for gays advocated by the right - not only lifelong abstinence, but denying oneself the love and romantic connection of a life partner, is cruel beyond measure. So, this "solution" advocated by the right is no solution at all, as it doesn't recognize and accept (a stronger word than "tolerate") the valid emotional and physical needs of real human beings.

Now, I included those quotations above because, while I completely agree with the sentiments expressed, I believe that focusing on "choice" is just allowing oneself to be drawn into a fraudulent game of "blame the victim" perpetrated by the right. The right wants to turn the debate about human rights into a debate about choice.

(An aside: There's a certain irony in the right's foisting "choice" on the gay-rights debate. After all, "choice", albeit in a somewhat different sense of the word, is THE central issue in the abortion-rights debate - the right doesn't think any woman should have a choice at all. When it comes to gays, however, the right insists that gays cannot help having a choice.)

But getting back to this fraud perpetrated by the right: Why does it matter whether gays have a choice? Let's suppose every gay is making a conscious choice to be attracted to people of the same sex, and then acting on that choice. My question: Why should that matter? If having sex with someone of the same sex makes you happy, whether a "choice" is involved or not, I say go for it!

Isn't the "pursuit of happiness" one of THE fundamental tenets of the establishment of the United States? Where in the Constitution does it say that sexual/romantic happiness is to be restricted to heterosexual couples? Where does it say that only if no "choice" is involved, is the pursuit of happiness okay?

The point is, when a righty tries this "choice" nonsense, ask them why they're changing the subject and refocus the debate on what really matters: the right of every human being to be free to pursue happiness, without limitations placed on them by intolerant bigots.

Great, excellent post. :thumbsup:

 

[EXman]

better than an asswashing camp...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: EXman
better than an asswashing camp...

Dumb, stupid post. :thumbsdown:

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: EXman
better than an asswashing camp...

A what?

 

[misterj]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: misterj
beastiality.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy

ah elementary logic. i think i was asleep that day. however, i'm not saying to allow gay marriage is liking to allow beastiality, but rather both are like a sickness. a biological imperfection one must endure. to allow either one to marry is plain UNNATURAL. for political or financial reasons? sure i guess, give em something. seems the people who take the most offense are the ones still viewing marriage as a "sacred bond between a man and a woman to raise children". the other, "a certificate which entitles tax and other benefits".

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: misterj
beastiality.

Not between consenting adults. Neither is pedophilia.

Although, when it comes down to it, we've got to consider whether there is anything wrong with bestiality legally, which starts by considering whether or not animals have rights. Do they? If they don't, can you deprive a person the right to do what they will with their own property simply because you find it objectionable? Same goes with polygamy and incest, do you have a right to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do simply because you find it objectionable?

It's up for debate.

indeed. my personal objection is based on religion, but we all know religion has no place in government these days..

in any case, "i have a dream, that i can marry a sheep."

 

[Kerouactivist]

Basically the parents hate their own lives and wish to extend this to their children...in their hope that their children may also hate themselves with the same zeal that the parents do..