I am just another human being...... with a different point of view...........
nothing more or less.
nothing more or less.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
First of all, I don't hate Christians, the vast majority of people I know including friends and family are Christians. What they aren't is Whacko Fundies like you who believe that your religious beliefs should be the basis for all laws and that even those who don't adhere to your religious beliefs should have to heed them.
Using your religious values to legislate the sexual activities of others is definately telling others what they should do.
No that isn't what I want. You have as much right to say and discuss the political and legal processs as I do. I also have the right to disregard your argument when you invoke your religious beliefs into them because as an Athiest your Religious beliefs are not valid from my point of view, especially when it comes to legislating laws regarding sexual activities.
A few posts down Lord Magnus Cain posted about why he thought Homosexual activitly should be outlawed. Wen I rebuted them he replied with answers that did not have any religious aspect to them and in my opinion made for some good arguments for his case. However if he had said that it was against his Gods will and left it at that then those arguments wouldn't have been valid IMO because as far as I am concerned there is no God.
Ok Red fair enough........ Lets live and let live around here. If you believe what you told me quit jumping in behind me in this threads telling me to "shut up" or to "quit telling others what to do" allow me to voice my opinion.
In all fairness, I think you will find I have never told anyone here not voice their opinion or called anyone names.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
"the rectally ruptured tissues allow feces into the blood; constant need to repair and fight these infections leads to a weakened immune system."
I think you're making quite a leap with this one - you're the one making these statement, at least back, them up with facts. 20% of heterosexual couples regularly engage in anal sex in the US, and around 50% do in Brazil. That's a Much larger amount of people than all of the practicing homosexual couples in each country. Why are you not out crusading against that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex
"It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much higher."
Yet another fallacious jump with no documentation. While I do find is plausible that suicide rates are higher, I find it for a different reason: the reaction that society has towards gay people. This may not be as much of an issue to since society has become more more accepting of homosexual people, this was certainly true in the past. It's easy to see why being ostracized by society could lead to a higher suicide rate, but to say that homosexual sex is destructive to a person is a large jump.
"cirvical cancer is higher because of the sexual actvity, brest cancer because of not lactating, and lung cancer because of the much higher percentage of lesbians that smoke. why things are this way is questioanble as well, but the facts are still there."
Yet another proverbial jump to conclusion - see my response above.
"some don't think so, but it's my view that pre-marital sex is why we have such high levels of STDs and teen pregnancy."
Lack of evidence for this statement, more of a groundless opinion.
"this is true, but because of the homosexual rupturing and bleeding aids and other blood-born illnesses' transference is 4times more likely in gay sex. But then the likelihood of lesbian transference is the same if not lower."
No, those are caused by not practicing safe sex - which has nothing to do with sexual preference. Please provide a link for your "4times more likely" response.
"The governments of africa are discouraging non-monogomus sex there as well. Overall this is a culmination of the transferability of aids and the weakend imune system from homosexual sex"
How in the fvck did you come up with this brilliant stroke of genius?
I think you're making quite a leap with this one - you're the one making these statement, at least back, them up with facts. 20% of heterosexual couples regularly engage in anal sex in the US, and around 50% do in Brazil. That's a Much larger amount of people than all of the practicing homosexual couples in each country. Why are you not out crusading against that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex
"It is questionable as to why this is true, but suicide rates among gays is much higher."
Yet another fallacious jump with no documentation. While I do find is plausible that suicide rates are higher, I find it for a different reason: the reaction that society has towards gay people. This may not be as much of an issue to since society has become more more accepting of homosexual people, this was certainly true in the past. It's easy to see why being ostracized by society could lead to a higher suicide rate, but to say that homosexual sex is destructive to a person is a large jump.
"cirvical cancer is higher because of the sexual actvity, brest cancer because of not lactating, and lung cancer because of the much higher percentage of lesbians that smoke. why things are this way is questioanble as well, but the facts are still there."
Yet another proverbial jump to conclusion - see my response above.
"some don't think so, but it's my view that pre-marital sex is why we have such high levels of STDs and teen pregnancy."
Lack of evidence for this statement, more of a groundless opinion.
"this is true, but because of the homosexual rupturing and bleeding aids and other blood-born illnesses' transference is 4times more likely in gay sex. But then the likelihood of lesbian transference is the same if not lower."
No, those are caused by not practicing safe sex - which has nothing to do with sexual preference. Please provide a link for your "4times more likely" response.
"The governments of africa are discouraging non-monogomus sex there as well. Overall this is a culmination of the transferability of aids and the weakend imune system from homosexual sex"
How in the fvck did you come up with this brilliant stroke of genius?
why should straight guys care if other guys want to put their penis in some dudes bum crack.
who cares, like really.
obsessed much?
who cares, like really.
obsessed much?
No, if you invoke your religious beliefs as the reason things should be legislated as such I will respond. In fact if you invoke your religious beliefs and say that the reason this country is going down the tubes I also will respond
OK I see you want it both ways........ Your own religious beliefs or rather lack there of form your opinions you just like to have yor right to say whatever you feel like under whatever pretense you decide. To you someone elses opinion must pass YOUR personal "right to say meter"
Anyway go ahead and respond how you see fit, your opinion does not matter to me one bit anyway. Go ahead and call me "Jesus boy" and whatever other names you can dream up, sticks and stones Red. Go ahead and tell me "I have no right to" while you exercise your own.
No, you're an ignorant prick who wants to impose his worldview on everyone around him. Stop acting the fool and own up to your busybody nature.
Your resorting to name calling is sad, and everyone here who speaks out on a topic "is imposing his worldview" by your definition.
Man you guys aroung here are self-righteous and seem so hateful to boot.
Thats all in your point of view.......... and depends upon what your in favor off.........
It cuts both ways it always does, thats all Im saying.
Yay!!
DO you also honor traditional slavery? Traditional stoning of prostitutes? Traditional subservience of women? Traditional but-raping of alter boys? You're a dying breed? Good, very good. Hopefully you will be resurrected as a decent typist and maker of sentences... but we can only hope for so much.
Also what are the "traditional virtues" you honor? Hypocrisy? Bigotry? Better-than-thou-ism? The virtue of believing in and grasping at preposterous myths and fairy tales because you are too weak to face reality as it is?
No, it's not "in your point of view" - discrimination is usually fairly clear cut. Are consenting, living, adult human couples being denied their rights as a couple in the eyes of the law?
Christian morality has little to nothing to do with this case, nor should it. Start telling me about how this nation was founded "on Christian principles" or how it's a "Christian nation" and I might debate it. Either present a clear-cut case citing judicial and historical precedent with sources, or just admit that you're a bigot and move on.
More personal attacks, bringing stupid self-serving examples to skew the point..... sad this is all you seem to offer.
You progressive thinkers are sure full of hate wishing us dead. Intresting to say the least..............
Have a nice day
These aren't personal attacks, they're questions that must be answered. But apparently you can't answer them.
Who says anyone wishes you dead? I wish that you get a brain and a conscience, but no more harm than that. (and, yes, that was meant to be sarcastic)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Read the thread (and others like it more carefully) calling people names, insulting their value system, degrading them, etc. Don't hide behind "I was only being sarcastic" that would never even be mentioned save being called to task on it.
Incorrect sir. If you reread my post, I showed evidence that tradition does not equal ethical. In any culture or family or collective of men, there are numerous traditions... the traditions can be "ethical" or "unethical" but the fact that they are traditions does not necessitate that they are either ethical or unethical. We have ethical traditions and unethical traditions and to have your logic (by your own admission) that "it's ethical because it's traditional" (or "it's right because it's how we have "always" done it up to now") is a very flawed kind of logic. So, slavery "is right" because we had a tradition of owning slaves for 20,000 years? No, it's not. And just because we have a tradition of "men marrying women" doesn't mean that's the only acceptable or right way for people to marry. "What we've always done before" has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral. That much is obvious to any rational human being who can look at a history book and see "traditions" that were maintained by various societies for thousands of years that are in fact, in hindsight, obviously very wrong.
I am not saying "it's tradition so it's wrong" as you have accused me. Those are words you put in my mouth. I am only saying that "just because it's tradition doesn't mean it must be right." As someone else pointed out, "many of your arguments are facile and deliberately narrow minded" - I wrote my post clearly and showed evidence that supports my view that "traditional" does not equate to "ethical", yet you deliberately pretended I had not done so, and deliberately put words in my mouth.
bullshit
bullshit
bullshit
how can gays have anything other than pre-marital sex if they can not be married, and what difference does it make if their sex occurs in or out of wedlock anyway?
bullshit
bullshit
bullshit
I do dispute one of those statements as negatives (the one about pre-marital "sex rates"), but more importantly, I dispute those statements being facts. They are certainly not facts, and you must be using "evidence" produced during Wilson's presidency to support these "facts" if you have any evidence at all.
I'm calling you on divulging the basis of your ethics... "tradition" is not an adequate means for determining what is ethical and what is unethical. It never has been.
In the poll, I answered Yes. I am not a hypocrite; I have made no such preclusion. My basis of ethics is very simple... my body is my body, my property, and my life is my life, no one else's. I have the right to life - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Using my body in whatever way brings me pleasure, whether that be working hard and producing things I want, or things which I can exchange for things I want, or holding a soft animal in my arms and petting it or holding an attractive young woman close to my body or doing anything else that brings me pleasure. As long as what I am doing with my property does not harm someone else's property such that they are hindered in their own life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, then I am within my own rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to do whatever it is I choose to do. The same for everyone else. If it brings you much happiness to sit behind your computer and cast judgment on all the other people of the world for their "evilness" (in your very subjective opinion) that is fine. If you start blowing up churches that wed gay people, that's not fine... if you blow up doctors for doing their job because you judged them to be evil, that's not fine either, but if you walk around like a fool carrying signs saying how evil those doctors are (in your very subjective opinion) then that is fine. As long as you don't actually use force to push your beliefs onto others, you are within your rights, as you haven't violated anyone elses.
You are the one claiming that homosexuality, incest, necrophila, polygamy, bi-sexuality and consensual sex with minors is wrong, yet you have no way of explaining your position other than "we've always said it was wrong before, so it is wrong." We also said the Earth is flat for thousands of years, it was tradition to say that, but that didn't make it true. And before you talk about some mythical "harmful side effects" of any of these various sex acts, think about cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, red meat, dairy products and everything else... should we just outlaw everything that has some 'harmful side effects"? Harmful side effects are not a basis for judging ethical/unethical behavior either. If that were the case, then coal miners and soldiers would be the most evil people in the world, even worse than Bush's evil-doers.
Trollboy (yes this means you, Romans), if publicly whining as though to effect a moderator intervention every time you think someone steps on your toes isn't self-righteous, I don't know what is. The only difference is that you don't have the balls to stand up for yourself; you want someone else to do it for you.
You continue to deliberately misinterpret Red's message, and somehow seem to think that simply because you affect a nice guy persona your opinions should go unchallenged.
The message you constantly harp goes like this:
Romans: "Radical unconstitutional changes in government to reduce our freedom!"
Poster: "That's not constitutional, and our country was founded on freedom"
Romans: "Let's change the constitution, then! God Ru13zzzz!"
Poster: "Have you forgotten the separation of church and state?"
Romans: "There shouldn't be separation of church and state; sinners is teh 3vil!"
Poster: "You're not being logical here. Could you back up your claims with some substantive objective political analysis, scientific social review, longitudinal studies of successful religious governments .."
Romans: "I know in my heart that what I say is right, and you don't believe in God; your opinion is blinded by 3vil. Come on other fundie posters, back me up here!"
Fundie: "Y'all are all going to hell." *high-fives Romans*
Fundie2: "The thought of having another man put his penis up my rectum makes my tummy feel like butterflies. I'm worried that might mean I'd like it, so if we cut off the penises of all male homosexuals I won't have to worry about accidentally inviting a big strong man to make me feel like the whipped little whelp I secretly know I am."
Romans: "Gosh, cuttin' off penises and stuff. See guys, I'm not *that* crazy. I'm just a reasonable, friendly guy who believes in God. All I want to do is install cameras in everyone's bedroom and make sure nobody is touching that which the Good Lord says they ain't supposed to touch"
Poster: "You're a fsckin nutcase"
Romans: "That was uncalled for. Can't we all just get along
"HappyHelper:
Nice logical post. Particularly the "bullshit" part. But, he's beyond "helping".
I answered yes as well, but I'm afraid a lot of people aren't ready for yes.
-Robert
Nice logical post. Particularly the "bullshit" part.
But, he's beyond "helping". I answered yes as well, but I'm afraid a lot of people aren't ready for yes.
-Robert
LOL, that couldn't have anything to do with it! No bahaha. It couldn't have anything to do with being ostracized by their families and society at large at a much greater rate than heterosexuals are. It couldn't have anything to do with being called "evil", "diseased", "freak", "disgusting", "fggot", "***", "cumgzzler", "carpet-muncher" 20 times a day every day of their lives? No, that couldn't have anything to do with higher rates of depression and/or suicide now could it?
Also, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that a great many gays have a hard time acquiring decent jobs and keeping them, that they have to lead a secret life, they are incessantly verbally and physically abused by "the good heterosexual" people.
Oh, and it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that "they" are never allowed to "love the one their with" in the eyes of the government or even in the eyes of their religion, thanks to the government (which I thought was supposed to not officiate religions?).
Finally I have to dispute the "much higher" part of that pronouncement. As usual you haven't backed up your statements at all, and where ever you got that info from is likely to be very dated and is obviously very biased. But I can see plenty of reason for gay people to get depressed; that's not very difficult.
good idea, and let's make any public display of fatness illegal too, because that's gross! I'll stop standing up for the gays if we can get more fat people out of my way.
but then you'd have to share the pool-boy with her! yuck!
amen
Originally posted by: myusername
Trollboy (yes this means you, Romans), if publicly whining as though to effect a moderator intervention every time you think someone steps on your toes isn't self-righteous, I don't know what is. The only difference is that you don't have the balls to stand up for yourself; you want someone else to do it for you.
You continue to deliberately misinterpret Red's message, and somehow seem to think that simply because you affect a nice guy persona your opinions should go unchallenged.
The message you constantly harp goes like this:
Romans: "Radical unconstitutional changes in government to reduce our freedom!"
Poster: "That's not constitutional, and our country was founded on freedom"
Romans: "Let's change the constitution, then! God Ru13zzzz!"
Poster: "Have you forgotten the separation of church and state?"
Romans: "There shouldn't be separation of church and state; sinners is teh 3vil!"
Poster: "You're not being logical here. Could you back up your claims with some substantive objective political analysis, scientific social review, longitudinal studies of successful religious governments .."
Romans: "I know in my heart that what I say is right, and you don't believe in God; your opinion is blinded by 3vil. Come on other fundie posters, back me up here!"
Fundie: "Y'all are all going to hell." *high-fives Romans*
Fundie2: "The thought of having another man put his penis up my rectum makes my tummy feel like butterflies. I'm worried that might mean I'd like it, so if we cut off the penises of all male homosexuals I won't have to worry about accidentally inviting a big strong man to make me feel like the whipped little whelp I secretly know I am."
Romans: "Gosh, cuttin' off penises and stuff. See guys, I'm not *that* crazy. I'm just a reasonable, friendly guy who believes in God. All I want to do is install cameras in everyone's bedroom and make sure nobody is touching that which the Good Lord says they ain't supposed to touch"
Poster: "You're a fsckin nutcase"
Romans: "That was uncalled for. Can't we all just get along
hahahahaha
Listening to Romans type fundamentals is pretty funny
I don't care what people do in the bedroom. You have something you want, incest, polygamy, bestiality - make your case that it won't harm anyone, get your case in front of the judicial system and fight for change ... that is what America is all about.
I hope to hear more from LMK and Romans in this thread... too bad they've been drowned out and discouraged by flaming and hateful rhetoric by a couple bad apples here.
Specifically I'd like to know if homosexual sex is mentioned in the New Testament? I know its in the OT, but did Jesus or his disciples ever speak against it?
Specifically I'd like to know if homosexual sex is mentioned in the New Testament? I know its in the OT, but did Jesus or his disciples ever speak against it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter