Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Saying "it's my opinion" doesn't cut it, aye? Are you trying to tell me that there is something being said in this thread that ISN'T opinion? Like everything is fact, unless it's coming from me...:rolleyes: Oh, and nice attempt to twist my words around. I never said I didn't like homosexuals, or that I find them gross. I said I think homoSEXuality is to me, gross. You see, I don't like a naked guy. I especially don't like two naked guys. I think that's gross. Oh, and nice try at analyzing me and my upbringing there, Mr. Freud. FYI, I was not raised by religious people. I've never seen my parents in a church, saying a prayer before a meal, or even cracking open a bible.

I'm not interested in the Romans, seeing as how they're not really running the world anymore, and I'm not a Roman myself. But thanks for the history lesson anyway.

Also, I don't treat homosexual men differntly than straight men. For one thing, it's not usually brought up. I honestly don't care if someone's gay or not. Nor do I have a fear of gay men. Think about it. Have you ever met a scary gay guy? I just think gay sex is kinda nasty, that's all. Gay people? No, they're fine by me. If saying "well that's just my opinion" isn't useful, I have to wonder who put a nickle in you, because you were certainly quick to share your useless opinion.

"Really, the only argument against homosexuality is religious. That's it. "

Apparantly not.

"In fact, it's not really a strictly religious thing."

Anyone for nice warm cup o' contradiction?

Anyway, ShadowTemplar hit the nail on the head. Without trying to belittle me, or my upbringing, he understood what I'd said perfectly. What part was so hard for you, Mort?

My sentiments exactly...

Poetry, my friend, poetry.

I smell smoke... And I didn't start it...

The way I see it, this whole flamewar en miniature is the result of a misunderstanding. CapN defended himself from critisism that wasn't aimed at him, and Mort took offence at his rather blunt language and poured a bucketfull of sh/t at him. I think you two should lay off, so we can get back on track. I'm betting you're not even disagreing much, just got caught up in some foul language.

Ah right, so you find "homosexuality" gross, but you have no problem with "homosexuals". This sounds all nice and everything, but it makes no sense.


Imagine that you're at work, and you work with a gay guy. Imagine you work with two gay guys. Imagine you work with a gay couple. Considering that you find homosexuality so gross, how are you possibly going to treat those two in exactly the same way as you would a heterosexual couple? You don't find them "gross". You're not grossed out if you see a heterosexual couple kissing, but you would be by the two guys kissing. And because of this, you will treat them differently, simply because they are homosexuals.

If someone has blonde hair or someone has black hair, that doesn't make a difference. You're not grossed out by either, you're not going to think twice about it.
Why not have exactly the same approach to homosexuals?


As for your supposed "contradiction", I was actually saying that it's not "religion" as a whole that has caused homophobia, but rather Christianity.

Originally posted by Mort-Hog
You're not grossed out if you see a heterosexual couple kissing, but you would be by the two guys kissing. And because of this, you will treat them differently, simply because they are homosexuals.

What he said was that he found the thought of them having sex gross. Now, personally, I'd be more than a little 'grossed out' by walking in on two of my colleagues having sex, no matter what their gender.

As for your supposed "contradiction", I was actually saying that it's not "religion" as a whole that has caused homophobia, but rather Christianity.

Can't really argue with that.

Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Ah right, so you find "homosexuality" gross, but you have no problem with "homosexuals". This sounds all nice and everything, but it makes no sense.


Imagine that you're at work, and you work with a gay guy. Imagine you work with two gay guys. Imagine you work with a gay couple. Considering that you find homosexuality so gross, how are you possibly going to treat those two in exactly the same way as you would a heterosexual couple? You don't find them "gross". You're not grossed out if you see a heterosexual couple kissing, but you would be by the two guys kissing. And because of this, you will treat them differently, simply because they are homosexuals.

If someone has blonde hair or someone has black hair, that doesn't make a difference. You're not grossed out by either, you're not going to think twice about it.
Why not have exactly the same approach to homosexuals?


It does make sense to me, but I'll make an analogy:

Let's say you hate spaghetti. Despise spaghetti. One look at it and you get sick. One of your friends loves spaghetti however, and you two go out to eat. You order a burger, he orders spaghetti. Now, you can still be grossed out by it but you have no problem with your friend eating it since it's his choice.

Now imagine you've got another friend, a friend that loves apples.

You don't really care about apples. You don't particularly like apples, you don't particularly dislike apples. Apples are just apples.
You have a friend that loves apples.

Now, you have to choose which friend to go to dinner with, the one that loves the spaghetti that you find so abhorrent, or the one that loves apples that you have no real opinion on.

You are going to choose the apples friend.

Not necessarily, if you want to dine with your spaghetti friend more, he is perhaps the more lively conversationalist. You'll choose him instead.

Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Now imagine you've got another friend, a friend that loves apples.

You don't really care about apples. You don't particularly like apples, you don't particularly dislike apples. Apples are just apples.
You have a friend that loves apples.

Now, you have to choose which friend to go to dinner with, the one that loves the spaghetti that you find so abhorrent, or the one that loves apples that you have no real opinion on.

You are going to choose the apples friend.

Like ET says(I'll embrace the cliche and say that ET says the truth, much like he usually does), my choice depends on the personality, not that they enjoy spaghetti or apples. People are too dimensional for someone to not eat dinner with purely based on thier choice of food.

Originally posted by Tyrion
(I'll embrace the cliche and say that ET says the truth, much like he usually does),

I think you mean to say "ET makes an excellent point, as he usually does"

Yeesh, get it right :xp:


I don't even know how that came to be such a common phrase....I always thought I spoke nothing but incoherent babble :D

Originally posted by Mort-Hog
Now imagine you've got another friend, a friend that loves apples.

You don't really care about apples. You don't particularly like apples, you don't particularly dislike apples. Apples are just apples.
You have a friend that loves apples.

Now, you have to choose which friend to go to dinner with, the one that loves the spaghetti that you find so abhorrent, or the one that loves apples that you have no real opinion on.

You are going to choose the apples friend.

Who chooses their friends on food anyways? I hate chinese, but my fiance' loves it, and I'm friends with a girl who likes steak, I got no problem with steak. You saying I'm marrying the wrong girl? Cuz if you are, tell me your address so I can beat some sense into you.

But using your analogy, of the dinner plans, obviously I'd choose the fiance. Lets say its a couple of my guy friends with the same situation. One likes chinese, the other likes steak. I hate chinese, but I don't mind steak. I don't love it, but I don't hate it either. Know what I'd do? ASK EM BOTH TO A PLACE WHERE EVERYONE CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT. Its called common sense, something your little analogy seems to have left out.

I don't know about you guys, but I kick ass at this stuff...


Expand your Imagi-Nation

uh, you lot seem to have completely missed the entire point of the analogy.

Okay, there's a fourth friend. That friend doesn't like or dislike apples, nor does he like or dislike spaghetti. He doesn't really care about either. For him, the food they like is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter. So for him, both friends are on equal ground and have an equal chance of being chosen when going out.

You, on the other hand, being disgusted by spaghetti, you will take that into consideration. Yes yes, I know you lot will say "oh but personality is more important!" but you will have a prejudice against the spaghetti person, and you will at least follow the line of thought that "hmm, well he does like spaghetti, but he's still a nice guy". The spaghetti counts against him, he gets minus points on the friendship scale.
Whereas the apples guy, you think "hmm, he's a nice guy" because you don't really care about apples. He doesn't get minus points. It doesn't count against him. You base your opinion on him simply on his niceness. The spaghetti guy has to be more nice in order to make up for his spaghetti minus points and be on level ground with the apple guy.


I could spell this out, but this isn't a bad analogy.. But please, read the analogy twice before you post, and think about what the analogy actually is and what each element represents..

What the hell? All this food crap...Who likes apples, who likes spaghetti, and look who's coming to dinner...I don't like GAY SEX BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GROSS. BECAUSE I, NOT THE BIBLE, OR MY PARENTS THINK IT'S GROSS, BUT BECAUSE I AM MY OWN MAN AND MAKE MY OWN OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS.

All I was trying to say, is that contrary to the thread starters beliefs, not everyone that dislikes gay sex is a Christian. I think we've figured that out. Some people (like me) just don't like two dudes humping because it ain't what turns me on. Not that God has beef with it.
It sucks that people of religion have to be the butt of every joke in the Senate, nay the WORLD.

Quit trying to use religion as an excuse for idiocy world wide. I don't need Jesus's help in being an ignorant ass. I figured it out all by myself. So you like it. Huzzah. I'll not be holding my breath waiting on your humanitarian awards to start pouring in, if it's all the same to you. Anyways, it sounds like you're a better Christian than I could ever be. So cheers to you, slick.


And please take me to dinner. I'm fookin' starvin'.

I must say i don't dream of sitting next to a gay couple having sex too, but i would not tend to find it gross, either. Gross was my fat ancient female russian teacher standing in front of the class, scratching a place between her short fat wobbling legs. OK, maybe there's another 'gross' we're talking about, maybe more like a "i just cannot imagine sex between that very fat guy and this very thin lady over there, how are they supposed to have sex, what must this look like"-gross. Well, ... HUMANS.

However i'm not thinking that much about same sex sex, anyways. I'm straight, why care? Maybe only, to know how it is done, but on the other hand, what can gay couples do what straight can't? I don't know really. I just know IT'S NOT ONLY ABOUT HAIRY BUTTS.

So apples and spaghettis. What must this taste like?

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

You, on the other hand, being disgusted by spaghetti, you will take that into consideration. Yes yes, I know you lot will say "oh but personality is more important!" but you will have a prejudice against the spaghetti person, and you will at least follow the line of thought that "hmm, well he does like spaghetti, but he's still a nice guy". The spaghetti counts against him, he gets minus points on the friendship scale.
Whereas the apples guy, you think "hmm, he's a nice guy" because you don't really care about apples. He doesn't get minus points. It doesn't count against him. You base your opinion on him simply on his niceness. The spaghetti guy has to be more nice in order to make up for his spaghetti minus points and be on level ground with the apple guy.


...but any negative points the spaghetti guy supposedly has gets wiped because, like I said in my first analogy, that you realize it's his decision to eat. Besides, someone would have to be unimaginable shallow to not go out to dinner with a friend purely on his dinner preference.

You know what I think is disgusting? SauerKraut. I can't stand the smell, and I think it's gross that people actually eat that stuff. My mom eats that stuff, but I don't think less of her because of it. My girlfriend eats it too, but I still love her.

I don't treat them differently because of it either, it's just something that they do, that I don't really like. It doesn't make me a biggot, it just makes me opinionated.

Look, as long as CapN doesn't let his opinion on sex between homosexual affect the way he treats them, then I think there should be no problem. It's his own little secret if he doesn't particularly fancy the thought of them having sex. However, what is important here is his actions toward homosexuals during interactions, conversations, etc., not how he might think of them. Believe it or not, the actions that people take do not always have to be influenced by the opinions or thoughts that they have.

you could argue that the only reason he would have to think of such a thing as being disgusting would be the society most of us grow up in, where many things condition us to see it as wrong and therefore "yucky". Just think of all the childhood playground insults we used to throw around...

However, everyone has irrational likes, dislikes and thoughts and stereotypes at some time or other (whether influenced by society, experiences or just from nowhere) and i would agree that it is how you treat people that is important.

Maybe we are still too close to the generations who had such deep seated prejudices to erase them entirely, we just need to control them... then our kids wont be exposed to them and will never learn them.

It does explain why you will sometimes get people coming out with the most unexpected, hateful stuff even if most of their actions would indicate they feel the opposite.

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
....... [Astro has a point]......

ROFLMAO

.....I'd never thought Id hear that combination of words here in The Chambers Cap ! Youve certainly turned things upside down here... :D However, the main problem I have with that point though, what about girls with hairy butts, especially women after marriage, they let themselves go y'know :p And European girls, man, they dont even bother when it comes to down there :p

*Astro runs back to the swamp where he belongs*

mtfbwya

Crap, I don't know why I'm even getting into this... but here we go again.

Has it possibly even once ever struck any of you that saying things along the lines of "Anyone who disagrees with my opinion of gay peope" is bigoted? Of course it has. You use that line all the time against Christians. But in doing so, you're in fact saying the exact same thing. Because you're saying that no opinion except yours is valid, and giving some evidence for why you believe your particular opinion, and then bashing anyone who doesn't agree with you as "stupid," "ignorant," or absolutely "idiotic and uniformed".

The Bible never endorsed the kind of slavery that was practiced in more modern history. When slaves were taken by the Israelites, Mosaic law declared they were to be freed after seven years... sounds a lot like lifetime slavery, doesn't it? Moreover, when Paul wrote to churches and said, "Slaves, obey your masters," he followed up by writing to the master to remember that those over whom they were placed were going to be with them in Heaven.

New point here that almost no one has brought up. And shut up and actually think about what I'm saying here before you bash me for being stupid (that's why I disappear for long periods of time - calling someone stupid because you disagree, even if a majority disagrees, with their point of view is fruitless in debate). Marriage has never, in any society, really been for the people involved. Our Rome example demonstrated that nicely, actually.

Marriage is about providing a stable, (hopefully) balanced structure in which the upbringing of children can proceed apace and thereby ensure the continuation of that particular civilization. Now, a number of widely published studies (I'll go see if I can find some websites with those references sometime here in the next few days) have recently concluded that the family arrangement most stable and beneficial for children is that of the nuclear family: father, mother, children. The reason is because male and female, because of biological differences at a level as fundamental a brain chemistry, have different perspectives on bringing up children. And both perspectives are essential to the upbringing of children.

So, arguing that "it doesn't affect you, so shut up" doesn't hold water. Does gay sex directly impact me? No. Does it affect anyone except those people? No. But gay marriage can and will affect the structure of the society. Even the Romans clearly recognized that. If they were so into homosexual activity, why did they continue to marry and have children within a set family structure? Because they recognized the need for that family structure in order for the society to keep functioning. Indeed, there's little need for marriage, really, if all sex is equal (as the Romans purportedly believed). All you really need is to keep getting women pregnant and have any kind of support system set up.

But I'm sure it's just coincidence that every society in history, regardless of whether or not the approved, condemned, accepted, etc. homosexual activity, had some variant of heterosexual marriage as the standard for the raising of children. Must be pure coincidence, because anything else would upset your safely liberal, "liberated" viewpoint.

One last thing to notice: regardless of my beliefs on what God says or doesn't say, I'm keeping that out of this, since the word "God" seems to be a fetish for mad rage around here...

Now, fire away, because I can already feel the volley coming.

Left is ALWAYS gonna see Right as bigots, and Right is always gonna see Left as bigots.

But something is bugging me, and it has been for some time. Why do the major religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all think every other religion is wrong? Now I know what the answer is: "Because G*d/Jesus/Muhammad said it was". Yea, well all the preachers of past religions (Greeks, Egyptians, Incans, Mayans) all said they were right...so what makes them wrong and Jews/Christians/Muslims right? A book? A series of books? The old religions had scriptures. Oh, the Torah/Bible/Quran is the word of God...but it was written by men...but they're not stories, per se', their divine scriptures. So were the huge stone slabs with pictures in all those pyramids. So again, whats makes the new religions right? Oh, the old religions failed, I see. Well, that may have something to do with Christian ethnic cleansing...but that was by the hand of God, right? So all that gold Cortez stole was for God, not his self-righteous greed? Sure...


Expand your Imagi-Nation

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Now, a number of widely published studies (I'll go see if I can find some websites with those references sometime here in the next few days) have recently concluded that the family arrangement most stable and beneficial for children is that of the nuclear family: father, mother, children.

I'm looking forward to seeing the references to those studies (I'm not simply being sarcastic, I'm genuinely interested).

In the mean time, I'll dig out the citations to books and papers that suggest that the most effective family arrangement with regard to raising children is the extended family relationships in which 8 to 10 people reside within the family dwelling and take on responsibilities of teaching and raising kids.

Then we can compare and contrast.

Actually, that's a very good point, Kain. I'm glad we're being reasonable today; that's a nice change. And to really answer that, I'm going to have to start another thread, one discussing the validity (or lack thereof) of such documents historically.

But you're right, unless we as religious people can conclusively demonstrate an historical reason to believe the document's validity (and its divine inspiration) there is little reason to believe the religion except anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence can be strong but is not enough to be truly convincing to the typically skeptic modern mind.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
I'm glad we're being reasonable today; that's a nice change.

I'm actually very reasonable in my posts in the Senate. In the swamp, well, then I'm usually just sarcastic.


Expand your Imagi-Nation

In the mean time, I'll dig out the citations to books and papers that suggest that the most effective family arrangement with regard to raising children is the extended family relationships in which 8 to 10 people reside within the family dwelling and take on responsibilities of teaching and raising kids. Ah, excellent. A good point, as well. The extended family concept is, in my opinion, quite good. I'll go see if I can find those studies in the next few days (though it may take me a bit, b/c I'm pretty busy right now) but I also feel that the importance of extended family doesn't necessarily negate the importance of the 1-father 1-mother relationship.

Finally, though, some real honest discussion. This I have missed.

Edit: Gah! Posting too fast! I guess you're right about being usually decent in here, Kain. I'm just used to you over at the swamp more. Even in here, though, we've had some pretty heated comments go back and forth more than once. Like I said, I'm glad this particular debate, at least, has room for some reasonable discussion.

Interesting point about the nuclear family Keralys, though The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees (http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZSVB8F79C&sub_cat=106)

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Because you're saying that no opinion except yours is valid, and giving some evidence for why you believe your particular opinion, and then bashing anyone who doesn't agree with you as "stupid," "ignorant," or absolutely "idiotic and uniformed".

I smell smoke... Anyway, what they say is that discriminating against a person because of conditions that are outside his control is unfair and bigoted. And since homosexuality is not your choice, it is unfair and bigoted to discriminate against homosexuals. Not that it's bigoted to find the thought of homoerotic sex a turnoff.* So, as you see, there is a logical and consistent reasoning (well, most of the time) behind the opposition to homophobia.

* 'Cept Mort, and to that I can only say: NEWSFLASH: What you are turned off by is entirely out of your control; it's hardwired into your biology. That's the very same argument we use against homophobes, remember.

The Bible never endorsed the kind of slavery that was practiced in more modern history.

:confused: Why do you bring up the Bible now? Did I miss something when I skimmed over the flamewar part? And anyway, what the Bible says is largely irrelevant. Through the centuries in which Christianity's doctrine was shaped, most Christians couldn't even read the book!

Marriage has never, in any society, really been for the people involved.

[...]

Marriage is about providing a stable, (hopefully) balanced structure in which the upbringing of children can proceed apace and thereby ensure the continuation of that particular civilization.

But 'marriage' is a relatively new invention. Many civilisations have eclipsed the (so-called) Christian Civilisation without such an institution. In fact, the current, Western civilisation is an example of one such.

Now, a number of widely published studies (I'll go see if I can find some websites with those references sometime here in the next few days) have recently concluded that the family arrangement most stable and beneficial for children is that of the nuclear family: father, mother, children.

Again: That's relatively new. Y'see for most of mankind's history, the raising of children were not the prerogative of the parents, but rather the grandparents (and, more specifically, the grandmothers)

So, arguing that "it doesn't affect you, so shut up" doesn't hold water. Does gay sex directly impact me? No. Does it affect anyone except those people? No. But gay marriage can and will affect the structure of the society

You're saying that 8% of all marriages (even less than that, because you'd think that the percentage of unmarried gay couples would be less than the percentage of unmarried straight ones) will seriously effect the fabric of society? Get real!

Indeed, there's little need for marriage, really, if all sex is equal (as the Romans purportedly believed). All you really need is to keep getting women pregnant and have any kind of support system set up.

And, in the Roman system (that Christianity pretty much adopted, adding only the Fascist elements) that system of support happened to be the family. But it was not, and has not been for the greater part of Christianity's history, the nucleus family. As I stated before, that's a relatively new thing.

But I'm sure it's just coincidence that every society in history, regardless of whether or not the approved, condemned, accepted, etc. homosexual activity, had some variant of heterosexual marriage as the standard for the raising of children.

Those were unions between the involved clans, not the involved persons. And of course they had, because if they didn't, the clans would start killing each other over who's son knocked up who's daughter. And again marriage has never been for raising children. The clan elders took care of that.

Must be pure coincidence, because anything else would upset your safely liberal, "liberated" viewpoint.

And do quit the flaming, please. It upsets me to see an intelligent person resort to that.

One last thing to notice: regardless of my beliefs on what God says or doesn't say, I'm keeping that out of this, since the word "God" seems to be a fetish for mad rage around here...

Mad rage? Can you say Inquisition? Can you say Crusades? Can you say slavery? AIDS? Discrimination? Genocide? Torture? Fascism? Who's on a mad rage again?

Anecdotal evidence can be strong but is not enough to be truly convincing to the typically skeptic modern mind.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't count for squat.

The extended family concept is, in my opinion, quite good.

I don't. It leads to a situation where the clan elders have the final word in where you go, who you see, and what you do throughout your whole life. At least that seems to be the effect in the societies where it is practiced.

but I also feel that the importance of extended family doesn't necessarily negate the importance of the 1-father 1-mother relationship.

'Cept that it's nonexistent in most clan-based societies.

Finally, though, some real honest discussion. This I have missed.

Then you have been too long in the Swamp.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Mad rage? Can you say Inquisition? Can you say Crusades? Can you say slavery? AIDS? Discrimination? Genocide? Torture? Fascism? Who's on a mad rage again?

:rofl:

Why is everyone using Rome for every argument. That empire clasped because of all the stuff they were doing. So I would not use the Roman Empire in any of my arguments.

I guess you can call me a bigot or ignorant Christian, or whatever. But I do not agree with or condone gay marriage, or the actual sexual act of homosexuality. But this is a free country that I live in, so no one should be allowed to tell anyone how to live their life as long as it's legal. Let them be married, thats between them and God. I have no say so in it. But don't tell me people don't like Gays because of Christianity. And Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it. Be it homosexuals, Christians, or atheist. So don't put Islam and Christianity in the same sentence when you refer to us as the "same religion". I'm really tired of you guys disrespected my God here. Come here with a legitimate post.

I think the mods should say something about it. Here is a snippet from a post from a mod(OnlyOneCanoli) in the Read tread:

If you flame for another person's beliefs, you will be lucky if you're warned before you're spanked. Just be civil and respect other people's opinions, and we'll be fine.

Just because a mod, or anyone doesn't believe in Christianity does not mean that anyone can say something against it. Please refrain from disrespecting my God. Thanks!

EDIT: Is anyone posting here actually gay or are we all strait men and women trying to convince the rest of the Star Wars community that we don't have a problem with it?

Sorry, mashed the edit button by mistake... nothing altered or changed.

Originally posted by THE BADGER:
Why is everyone using Rome for every argument. That empire clasped because of all the stuff they were doing. So I would not use the Roman Empire in any of my arguments.

Actually, the Roman Empire fell because of what it wasn't doing. It was far too big to have everything under control and communications were far too slow to do anything. When the vikings came, they ripped through Rome like a fat kid through cake.

History lesson is over. I love History Channel


Expand your Imagi-Nation

Furthermore, the attacks against christianity in general isn't flaming, which is by definition use of ad hominem remarks against a particular person/group. The attacks are typically not ad hominem, and are therefore allowed to exist. :)

They will endure the wrath of our bigot-god. It was always this way, it was written in stone. Blablabla.

^ Ad hominem, I think not. And stop calling people bigots just because we don't agree. Aren't you being a bigot as well?

Furthermore, the attacks against christianity in general isn't flaming, which is by definition use of ad hominem remarks against a particular person/group. The attacks are typically not ad hominem, and are therefore allowed to exist.

Typically not? So since not all of the remarks are not against my God the rest can slide? :confused:

Actually, the Roman Empire fell because of what it wasn't doing. It was far too big to have everything under control and communications were far too slow to do anything. When the vikings came, they ripped through Rome like a fat kid through cake.

Yes true, but that was not the only reason they fell. But I did forget about the vikings.:)

Originally posted by THE BADGER:
And Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it.

false, they don't believe in killing unless it's in self-defense. :)


Originally posted by THE BADGER:
EDIT: Is anyone posting here actually gay or are we all strait men and women trying to convince the rest of the Star Wars community that we don't have a problem with it? does it matter?


PS: I'm bi-sexual. So I guess that makes me half gay?

Originally posted by THE BADGER:
........ And Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it. Be it homosexuals, Christians, or atheist. So don't put Islam and Christianity in the same sentence when you refer to us as the "same religion". I'm really tired of you guys disrespected my God here. Come here with a legitimate post.
.....

As the resident Muslim at LF, I would like you to stop basing your knowledge of Islam on what you hear on the news, or what Saudi Arabian loons holding guns profess Islam is....

Go, read the Kuran. You'll see that the spirit and intention of both books is similar(well, mainly referring to the Old Testament)...
Historically you cannot easily extricate the 3 'persian' religions(Christianity, Islam and Judaism) as far as their base theologies are concerned....The lessons of Abraham, Moses, Solomon etc are just as dear to Muslims as they are to Jew or Christians.....

Unfortunately for the close-minded, Islam does NOT openly advocate murder.... I mentioned Moses above, The Ten Commandments are just as important to us as they are to you, or someone of the jewish faith...... The often misquoted phrases of the Kuran you refer to, describe the right of a Muslim to fight to defend his faith. This may seem very warlike or aggressive in 2003, but in 600s onwards, it wasnt an unknown thing for conquerors of lands to attempt to impose their beliefs on others....this statement in the Kuran addresses that very real fear that would have occupied the minds of all peoples living in such violent times.....

mtfbwya

Originally posted by Astrotoy7
As the resident Muslim at LF, I would like you to stop basing your knowledge of Islam on what you hear on the news, or what Saudi Arabian loons holding guns profess Islam is....

Very true Astro.

Darn it Badger, mind what you say. If you don't have any proof, and you simply look at the television, without having a glance at the Qu'ran, and not know anything worth a grain of salt about Islam, DON'T ACCUSE BLINDLY. If your way of debate was right, I could simply say some things about Christians which I've been harbouring in my mind for quite some time, even though I don't know anything about them.

Originally posted by The Badger on 08-20-2004 10:14 PM
Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it. [...] So don't put Islam and Christianity in the same sentence when you refer to us as the "same religion". [...] I think the mods should say something about it. [...] "If you flame for another person's beliefs, you will be lucky if you're warned before you're spanked. Just be civil and respect other people's opinions, and we'll be fine. "

About "flaming" the belief in Islam, which is "another person's belief" here, or being critical of religion in general? Or just your religion?

First, I'd be interested in knowing which part of the Islamic religious text you'll find encouragement for Muslims to kill non-believers. I've read most of the Koran, along with several other major religious texts, and I can tell you that the Xian bible has far more encouragement for this sort of thing than any of the others I've read.

Typically the only time xianity gets criticism in this forum is when some xian uses it as an excuse/reason/justification for poppycock or another, like the bigotry against homosexuals. In those instances, the criticism is often warranted and if you find it to be a "flame" on your beliefs, I would suggest avoiding the Senate Chambers, since this is where threads of that type would end up.

The bottom line: a "flame" of ones belief system is subjective and relative from point of view. But religion cannot be expected to be given as a logical argument for or against something discussed and not expect criticism, even harsh criticism against superstitious and magical thinking.

Speaking for myself, the main reasons i "attack" christianity are:
(a) It is the religion i know most about, and am therefore best equipped to understand and see the pros and cons of.
(b) It is the main religion that has (or tries to have) an effect on the western world (where i happen to live).
(c) There are many more christians on these forums to debate with.

There would be little point in me discussing buddhism or islam in much detail as i know little of it, and i suspect there would be few people here who knew much about it either. That would be a fun discussion...
----------------------------------------------------------------
The "nuclear family" is a highly modern invention, and was never the standard before around victorian times. People always look back on the "good old days" before crime, aids, gays and all the modern causes of the end of society.... but most of these were just as bad back in the "good old days", or the "cures" were worse. Many others are infact recent inventions.

Marriage itself never used to be a "holy" institution, it was simply a formal contract for "legal" reasons. There are articles by jewish scholars explaining the original purpose behind marriage before it got hijacked by religion.

I actually think that the "extended family" is a fairly good way to raise children, although it can lead to too much control and suffocation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever, this has no bearing on homosexual mariage. 80%* of homes aren't "ideal" nuclear family homes.
Or do you want to ban people from having children outside marriage?
Ban divorce?
Ban any other unusual family group?
Ban mothers from working?

If not, then why are you happy for these "unusual", non-optimal family groupings, but not happy for a homosexual family grouping. (Which would affect a far smaller percentage of the population.)

I can only think of one reason....

*figures come from out of tomS's head. Not always an entirely reliable source...

As the resident Muslim at LF, I would like you to stop basing your knowledge of Islam on what you hear on the news, or what Saudi Arabian loons holding guns profess Islam is....

I am terribly sorry if I offended you my friend. That was not my intent. I guess in defending my God I may have flamed yours, and I am truly sorry for that.

I guess I read that passage wrong then. But that was what I got out of it in la-mens terms.

Anyway back on the topic, I have no problem with gay people marrying. This is a free country, and they should have the same rights as me as a married man. What people do with there life is none of my, or anyone else for that matter, business. That is between them and God.

does it matter?
PS: I'm bi-sexual. So I guess that makes me half gay?

No I guess it doesn't, I was just curious is all.
And do you think of yourselves as gay? If not than I guess your not.
When I was younger I had a couple of trisks *GASP* with the same sex. Doesn't mean I am gay, I was just curious is all. Being gay is a lifestyle, not just having sex the the same sex.

"So I guess that makes me half gay?"
that was more or less a joke question.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
"So I guess that makes me half gay?"
that was more or less a joke question.

I dunno sithy, having spoken to you a bit more about it I'm still thinking your *not* gay, not even half gay....you've got terrible dress sense for starters :p

well, Mr Badger, I accept your apologies. I know this is just a net forum, but would like to demonstrate that if people shot their mouths of like that at school/work etc, the world would be a very terrible place..... intolerance is ugly :(

mtfbwya

Look, if you damn someone for having a sexual preference of men, why not hate men who have a preference for red-heads, since the church used to claim that red-heads were children born of foul and Devil-influenced means. Oh thats right: its the 21st century. It's politically incorrect, especially since SCIENCE proved that red hair was genetic. Christ forbid that homosexuals escape this kind of hatred...lets stone them to death and burn em at the stake for 200 years until science makes us feel stupid! YAY!!

Yea, do I hafta post [/sarcasm]? I didn't think so.


Expand your Imagi-Nation