Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk

CapNColostomy actaully DOES have the right idea about Biblical God. THe God of the New Testament has just as much capacity for being vengeful, jealous and wrathful as the Old Testament God - because God is God, no matter what human time period your referencing..
...take this from people who have actually read it. Cover to cover.

Actually, I prefer that concept of God to the grampa bearded softy everyone here seems to know so much about.

Actually, I prefer that concept of God to the grampa bearded softy everyone here seems to know so much about.


Well, takes all kinds of course. Can't say I agree with your taste in deity's...
..but at least we both acknowledge what Biblical God is actually like... ;)

Skin:
Also, duel income families are more likely to invest their money. In addition, the stability of duel income/duel parent households is an advantage to raising children. Such advantages make it more likely for children to complete high school, continue to college, etc. College educated people have better advantages in job hunting.....These reasons you've listed merely highlight the inequality in our society facing single-parent children and their single-parents, and other unorthodox family units. Adding more types of married couples to the pile of people who are given financial assistance by the government for no apparent reason, is no solution. Abolish the lot. That'll sort it out.

RenegadeOfPhunk:

..if your gonna accuse me of 'indoctrination' , the least you can do is be clear on what my supposed 'indoctrination' is actually saying...You initially said in the previous thread that you were referring to, that the core principles of Christianity directly result in evil, implying that the Christian faith in its entirety is inherently evil. This is obviously a dogmatic and incorrect blanket statement that you may or may not have been indoctrinated to believe.

I will make it very clear that the Bible contains many good principles as well as some bad ones. You initially said that the core principles of Christianity directly result in evil. This has been proven to be untrue, as God never instructed his people to perform any of the evil acts that the Christian church and its members have committed post-bible. The core principles of the christian church are the ten commandments in the old testament and Jesus' teachings in the new. These are specific instructions from "God" telling people how to live in all time-periods.

Now you try to backpedal frantically by using fuzzy terminology. It won't work. Everyone knows what you said, what thread you said it in and how well your argument has been scotched.

QED.

..so how I'm making anybody ignore the good things Who said anything about you MAKING anyone do anything? I'd prefer it if you'd reply to my posts rather than the ones in your head.

...well, I give up trying to understand why you pin any of this outlandish stuff on me reallyGive it up, none of these unfounded and irrelevant statements are distracting me.

Well, even if God does have his wrathful, vengeful, and jealous sides ( We have them, and we are made in his image, so why not? ), he controls them allot better than we do, obviously. If not, we'd all be dead. How much could any of us take before we would one day snap and annihilate the world? :p

*shrugs* But I'm sure God has his warm cuddly grandpa side too. ;)

Edit: Oh, and don't worry about the :dozey: face CapN, I'm sure he didn't mean anything by it. Those things are just so damn addictive...

:dozey: :dozey: :dozey: :dozey: Ahh, that's the stuff...

Who said anything about you MAKING anyone do anything?


Sheesh. You did. In this very thread. Guess I'll have to remind you of your own words (again):

You said:

but I'll also fight against trendy-lefty indoctrination that makes people ignore the GOOD things in Christianity and other religions, and label them incorrectly


You stated that I am trying to push an opinion which makes people ignore the good in Christianity. Those are YOUR words.

...let me guess what your gonna say next - 'I was talking about you! When I said it makes 'people' do blah blah, I was refering to you'.

...ok, well it doesn't make sense when compared with your later statement:


that you may or may not have been indoctrinated to believe.


So let me get this straight. I ws made to ignore the good in Christianity by being indocrtrinated, and yet I may or may not have been indoctrinated?!
...I mean, have you actually read back one of your own posts. It doesn't make any sense, no matter which way you look at it.
...I try and give you the benefit of the doubt, but no - the nonsense-meter still jumps straight into the red - every bloody time.

And besides all this, how can I have been indoctrinated with a belief that I do even not beleive in the first place?!!

Skin, how much longer is this farce suppost to go on? Cos considering how far Al is willing to go to simply make up my own statements, I think I'm showing quite a bit of restraint right now. Please, this needs moderating. It's just not right...

..I'll happily debate with anybody who doesn't agree with me. But changing my argument for me?! It's just plain pathetic...


I'd prefer it if you'd reply to my posts rather than the ones in your head


Heh, nice try at throwing my own comments directed at you back at me :) Planning to come up with anything of your own soon?


implying that the Christian faith in its entirety is inherently evil.


...read your own words...
...implying...

...i.e. your - again - making my words up for me.

I never said anything about the Christian faith being 'evil in it's entirety...'. You know this very well, because your using the word 'implied' i.e. I said it without actually saying it.

Statement 1: Certain established Christian beliefs and attitudes (clearly denoted in the Bible) can be clearly linked to immoral behaviour...

Statment 2: The entire Christian faith is inherently evil.

Two different arguments. Totally.
Statment 1 repesents MY argument from the start.
Statement 2 represents YOUR make-believe argument you've created for me on my behalf. Thanks but no thanks.

You can choose to imply one means the other, but just because you say so, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

I clearly stated that Christianity is based on both good and bad concepts. Right ... from ... the .. beginning. Please read my posts.

If you want to disagree with that point of view, be my bloody guest! I don't give a s**t. But at least ahve the common, basic, human decency of allowing ME to make my OWN argument!

...you can't win debates by simply making up your opposites opinion like your doing right now.
You've certainly scortched an argument alright -I'll give you that. The only minor detail is that the argument you've scortched doesn't even belong to me!!

...maybe I just need to repeat it loads of times so it finally sinks in...

Good and bad
Good AND bad
Good ...and ... bad

..ok - I think that should be enough for even the most hard-of-reading on this board...


You initially said that the core principles of Christianity directly result in evil.


No. No. No. You've missed out the word SOME.

s .... o ... m ... e.

Not all, some.
Not most, some.

Read my posts!!

You stated that I am trying to push an opinion which makes people ignore the good in Christianity. Those are YOUR words.lol. This merely shows your comprehension up. I said that I fight against trendy-lefty indoctrination, and in the context of the message it was obvious that I was fighting against YOUR indoctrination, the indoctrination OF YOU. I didn't say you were trying to indoctrinate anyone else, though your misguided messages will probably have that effect upon some impressionable youths. ;) So you see, I'm doing this for your own good.

Heh, nice try at throwing my own comments directed at you back at meI wouldn't lower myself, frankly.

...implying...

...i.e. your - again - making my words up for me.Ha! It's not my inference so much as your obvious implication. Don't try to blame me for your failings. ;)

I never said anything about the Christian faith being 'evil in it's entirety...You stated that the core principles of christianity result directly in evil. If that doesn't imply that the very fabric, the very basis of all christianity is evil, I don't know what does.

Of course, you know it to be true, but you're caught in the web of your own illogic, and you're backpedalling frantically. But the bonds ever tighten. Wahahhr. :rolleyes:

No. No. No. You've missed out the word SOME.The specific quantity of core principles you believe are tainted, is irrelevant. You claimed that they encouraged evil acts directly AND NONE OF THE CORE PRINCIPLES DO. So you're wrong, and wrong thrice more.

Accept it, make it easy on yourself.

..I'll happily debate with anybody who doesn't agree with me. But changing my argument for me?! It's just plain pathetic...If you wanted to unjustly insult my arguments to a moderator, a private message would have been better. I can only assume you want to massage your ego in public. Who knows why? It does you no good.

...it was obvious that I was fighting against YOUR indoctrination, the indoctrination OF YOU.


Ermm, no - not obvious, as I made clear in my previous post. Check another of your statements regarding my opinion...


you may or may not have been indoctrinated to believe.


So your fighting indocrination I may not have even been indocrinated with? ...and which I don't even believe in the first place?!

...again - no way to look at it and make sense out of it. Fight whatever you like. Even imaginary arguments if you must.

..but don't constantly mis-represent me with every post you make. Once you've got the common decency to manage that, then we can start debating the actual points...

...the truth of the matter is actually opposite to what you incinuate. (surprise surprise). I was raised as a Christian. If I was 'indoctrinated' with anything, it was that the Bible is pure goodness, without question - from cover to cover...

This is a common misconception, as you should well know, as you hold (or at least held - not too long ago) the same view...
..so who's indoctrinated again?

Being raised a Christian did have one distinct advantage though - I did actually bother reading the whole Bible before making judgements on it's moral content. Funnily enough, it does help...


The specific quantity of core principles you believe are tainted, is irrelevant.


Err - no it's not irrelavent in the slightest, because that has been the whole point of the last round of posts where you have been telling me my own position, when in fact you've been making up your own position, and calling it mine.

There are good principles in the Bible which can be directly linked to good behaviour.
There are also bad princpiles in the Bible which can be directly linked to bad behaviour.

These kinds of statements (the kinds of statements I've been making all along in this debate) in no way imply, insinuate or lead to the conclusion that I beleive that Christianity is 'inherently evil', whilst 'ignor the GOOD things in Christianity -and other religions'.
...if you continue to push this, I DO expect Skin to step in. The misrepresentation here is just that obnoxious and blatent...

Right now, this is not about whether you agree or disagree with those statements (we'll get to that when you've learned to actually debate issues without constant mis-representation), or what you personally beleive are the 'core' principles of Christianity.

(Divine retribution is perfectly core to the whole concept of Christianity. This is simply fact - as has been made clear by OTHER CHRISTIANS on this very board OVER and OVER and OVER again...
...so you'll exuse me if I don't roll over and take your opinion on this as - heh - 'gospel' and continue to debate it You may want to only read certain pages of the Bible and rip out the rest, but I'm looking for a clearer view than that - thanks all the same...)

...this is about what MY argument actually IS. You can't possibly argue against me until you acknowledge my actual argument

Argue against it - fine.
Don't argue against it - fine again.
..but blatently change my argument? Why do you have to stoop so low?


..and no, putting QED at the end of statements doesn't actually make them true. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it only means you have the minimum intelligence required to type the letters Q - E - D.
I'm sure that's a praise-worthy achievement in your world and all - perhaps commendable for a genuis chimp - but not overly impressive to the rest of us tbh....

Here, you might not follow my reasoning, so here's a helpful example:


The moon is made of cheese

Q[i]uod Erat Demonstrandum


Nope. No more true because some extra letters were added to the end... But keep trying though - maybe you'll come up with arguments that can stand on more than 3 letters soon!
...wow - imagine that!

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Homosexuality: a tool of war? And here I was thinking it was a way to have sex with someone that has the same equipment.

Anyhow, I was just wondering how it is that gay people not being granted marriage or union, or being otherwise treated unfairly is comparible to the "wiping out" of "romans and indians." Even if the election this year was dominated by the religious right anti gay vote, I think there might be some degree of public outcry if we started shuttling gay folks off to reservations but only after we've killed and raped most of them and stolen their land. Or got them drunk and bought it really cheap. Whichever.

The second thing I'd like to mention, is how much it ammuses me to see how uninformed all of you Christian bashers are. Every time it seems like you're about to make a good point, you throw in something along the lines of "oh but wait, isn't this supposed to be the same mercyful, forgiving, blah blah blah bearded grandfatherly nice guy god blah blah blah, well if that's true, then what about blah blah blah?!?!"
Nobody ever mentions any of the other words used to describe him. Such as VENGEFUL, WRATHFUL, JEALOUS. That's just an observation I've made that I find ammusing. Otherwise, most of the time, if I didn't know any better, I'd agree with you.

I only used the comparisons between the Roman/Indians and homosexuals today to represent the Christian influence/rule/whatever word you want to choose.

In regard to the 2nd portion of your comment: you're partly right. I've barely read the Bible. However, countless Christians have told me of all this stuff about God being so forgiving and such. Where else to get it but straight from the horse's mouth? From all I've heard of God yeah, he is vengeful wrathful and jealous, but Christians seem to leave that out. So I'll give them that.

Nice to have you join this debate :D

Do you know how many times someone has acted like they knew thing one about the Bible, and I've corrected them, only to hear a response along the lines of "well, that's what Christians tell me"?!?!?!

Okay fine. That's what Christians tell you. But tell me this, Mr. Wizard. Why is it you apply so much "science" and "logic" and whatever else pseudo-wisdom-words you can conjure up, to everything that comes your way, yet you're willing to believe something a "Christian" tells you, and furthermore, something you claim not to believe in the first place? You think people that believe in God are fulla ****, but you believe something you heard from some guy in a gay bar, or here, or in your dorm, etc...????

As much as you anti religious types will hate to hear this, you're full of ****, and more than half the time, even more hypocritical than the religious people you loathe so ****ing much. If you're going to say you don't believe, fine. But please, for the sake of your own credibilty if nothing else, stop saying "well, that's what Christians tell me." If you believe the things they tell you, but still choose not to believe in God, not only are you making your arguments pointless, you're making quite the ass of yourself.

Hey there tiger slow down eh.

I've never claimed that religious types are full of ****, nor denied that indeed, some anti-religious people are full of ****.

All I've said is that from my experience with Christians, i.e., sermons and whatnot, that's all I've heard.

I'm not anti-religion either. I had very much wanted to be a Christian a year ago, but now I'm just lost in the whole scheme of things... eh... maybe I'll start up religion 2 years before I'm in the grave. Call me an agnost if you wish but I'd like very much to believe in God. It's just very difficult to believe in something that requires such blind faith.

Christianity as a whole, so much as I've seen of it, is very aggressive in its "morals" and very aggressive in forcing these "morals" down the throats of other people.

I had a strong feeling that sort of reply would come...:p

wow, CapNColostomy must have slept very well the last err.. years.. ^^;

the point you're making is somehow valid, on the other hand, if i would ask a christian to tell me about "his" god, and he tells me he a nice-person-and-all-that god, why shouldnt i think that's actually how he sees his god. just because i listened to his stuff doesnt mean i believe nor accept it as my truth.
AND if god is described otherwise, like you like to point out, why shouldnt i ask, WHY is there a different picture in that believers mind? and why shouldnt i ask it in a way like "hey, i met ths believer ('christian') and he told me blahblahabibi."
they might not be "true" believers in your eyes though, but they see themselfes as such. everyone wants to be THE true believer, but they can't come down to one point.
crap a la card.
and seriously, i couldnt care less what people think "god" is like, so i wouldnt ask anyway.

RenegadeOfPhunk, your PM box is full.

This message will be deleted in a few day (it's SPAM), but let me take this opportunity to interject something off-topic but necessary:

PM BOX FULL is often the result of messages you can't see not being deleted. Most members probably delete stuff from their in-box as they come in or soon after. Some probably forget that the box only shows a limited view, you have to click on "last 30 days, last 100 days," etc.

Also, it is often the case that the Sent Items folder is ignored. This one can fill up quick if you are active with PMs and sneak up on you after a bout a year or so if not.

Check your Sent Items! Delete them!

[/end public service announcement]

Where did the discussion about homosexuality go :eek:?

[Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Where did the discussion about homosexuality go :eek:?

Eh? Oh...it disappeared and was replaced by relegion vs Anti Religion, like so many threads here tend to do...

Homosexuals...yeah, boy, how about them Homosexuals... :stick:

*shrugs* Ah, I got nuthin'...

As the supposed reason of this debate over homosexuality lies in religion... I can see why :xp:




omg Skin spammed! :D

Originally posted by Hiroki
Homosexuals...yeah, boy, how about them Homosexuals... :stick:
I believe this :worship: is the smilie you wanted

RenegadeOfPhunk:
Ermm, no - not obviousMaybe not obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it wasn't obvious. You seem to lack the ability to self-analyse, and always presume that others are in the wrong despite your own failings. This attitude does not assist one in a search for the facts. If you're only interested in banter, a debate is not the place for you.

So your fighting indocrination I may not have even been indocrinated with? ...and which I don't even believe in the first place?!The qualification was necessary because there's a slim possibility that you've come by your erroneous belief that the core principles of christianity directly cause evil, all by yourself. But frankly, you bear all the hallmarks of rabid lefty conditioning.

...the truth of the matter is actually opposite to what you incinuate. (surprise surprise). I was raised as a Christian. If I was 'indoctrinated' with anything, it was that the Bible is pure goodness, without question - from cover to cover...Many of us were raised in religious atmospheres. Sometimes as a form of adolescent rebellion, people who are raised in Christian environments end up unjustly hating Christianity not merely as the flawed group of people that it undoubtedly is- but as a set of principles, when none of the core principles of christianity can be called amoral, which is what you think according to your previous posts.

So is this what happened to you?

Also it's worth noting that being indoctrinated to believe one thing above all others in youth, might well make you more susceptible to indoctrination of other sorts in later life.

Err - no it's not irrelavent in the slightest, Yes it is. It wouldn't matter if you said "one core principle is amoral" or "all core principles are amoral" because NONE of them are amoral, so you're just as wrong either way. The ten commandments, the teachings of christ, neither are amoral.

...if you continue to push this, I DO expect Skin to step in. The misrepresentation here is just that obnoxious and blatent...Skin will no doubt make his own judgement based on the forum rules and his own concience. Hope for everything, but expect nothing, that's my motto. :)

These kinds of statements (the kinds of statements I've been making all along in this debate) in no way imply, insinuate or lead to the conclusion that I beleive that Christianity is 'inherently evil', whilst 'ignor[ing] the GOOD things in Christianity -and other religions'.If you believe the core principles of any life-philosophy, be it science, christianity or islam, are evil, then it follows that everything that results from those principles will be tainted with evil. If one of the core principles of Christianity was "All of my flock must kill at least two rodents a day in the most painful manner possible" then it would naturally be amoral, tainting the whole religion.

If you genuinely believe what you have previously said: that the core principles of christianity are tainted and cause evil directly, then what follows is unavoidable, though you may deny it all you wish.

As for ignoring, yes you are. You're ignoring the fact that the core principles of Christianity, the literal instructions, are not evil in the slightest. Only individual people taint the Christian message for their own purposes. So as a group of people, yes, Christianity could be regarded as evil. But as a set of principles, no.

..and no, putting QED at the end of statements doesn't actually make them true. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it only means you have the minimum intelligence required to type the letters Q - E - D.
I'm sure that's a praise-worthy achievement in your world and all - perhaps commendable for a genuis chimp - but not overly impressive to the rest of us tbh.... How very insulting you are, albeit not in a forthright, honest way. If you really want to call me "chimp" and accuse me of having minimum intelligence, do it in a PM "to my face." Enough implication from you. ;)

QED merely means "that which was to be proven" and one uses it as a suffix when one has presented irrefutable evidence to support one's position. Such is the situation in which I use it, and no other. Frankly I can't see what logical objection you could have.

maybe you'll come up with arguments that can stand on more than 3 letters soon!

...wow - imagine that!You are guilty of hypocrisy. You accuse me of having no valid arguments, yet spend your posts sidestepping, backpedalling and dodging all questions and arguments put to you. You reply directly to nothing, and have no evidence to support your claims.

Your entire argument seems to hinge upon obtuseness, deliberately ignoring the content of my posts, and making vague personal attacks. I'm going to have to declare myself winner by default unless you shape up. :D

YOU know the REAL reason dinosuars became EXTINT?


The GAY disaster killed them! The dinosuars ALL turned GAY and paired off! They never had babies again!:laughing:

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
YOU know the REAL reason dinosuars became EXTINT?


The GAY disaster killed them! The dinosuars ALL turned GAY and paired off! They never had babies again!:laughing:

Not sure if I should be offended or confused - so I'll just go play Halo or something...

Originally posted by Kain
Not sure if I should be offended or confused - so I'll just go play Halo or something...

Kinda funny you mentioned Halo. You belong to a group named Spartans, right? And Spartans in history were ultra-masculine warriors who practiced homosexuality.

So, the more you play Halo the more homoseuxal tendances start to surface in you. The more homosexual tendances that start to surface, the more you'll talk about and eventually be a homosexuality.

Hence, I've gone completely off-topic but I have proved without a doubt that Kain is becoming a homosexual. ;)

Dude, I don't even care what ANYONE says - Johnny Depp is HOT...and so is RVD...and Jeff Hardy...and lest we forget the Undertaker; in a dead creepy kind of way:p

Kinda funny you mentioned Halo. You belong to a group named Spartans, right? And Spartans in history were ultra-masculine warriors who practiced homosexuality.
Every nationality practices homosexuality. Do you mean that they were mature enough to actually legalize and tolerate it?:confused:

Where did the discussion about homosexuality go ?
This thread is going way off-topic, like all threads around here seems to -from politics to religion...:o It's sad how people can't stay on topic.

And yes, it's scary that so many people in the States care more about prosecuting a minority group than caring for themselves.:( "Screw the problems, we've got a once-in-a-life chance here! We get to go a-gay hunting!"

Oh? And what would you know of "True Christianity"? Lets hear what you have to say, since you are such a Holy Man.
Christian=follower of God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost, or a combination of the three. Regardless of what he does. I wish people would stop going "murderers aren't Christians".:mad: I'm not saying Christians are murderers -I'm just saying that some Christians are bad, too.

There's a Norwegian discussion/debate programme on TV right now on the said election. I'll watch it and then tell you what happened in it.

Originally posted by Kain
Dude, I don't even care what ANYONE says - Johnny Depp is HOT exactly.

MAybie the news and media whinned about homosexuality to distract us from the REAL problems in the US!

Do you realy think Bu$h WANTS us to raconise the problem with our dependence on oil, the faling economy, and the real reason for the war in iraq!

this bumper sticker says it ALL!!!:D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/kipperthefrog/lotr/weapons_destract_tn2.gif)

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Every nationality practices homosexuality. Do you mean that they were mature enough to actually legalize and tolerate it?:confused:

I meant more along the lines of how it was adopted into society(particularly war) itself( I might be confusing myself with the Macedonians, however). And just to set myself clear, I do support homosexual marriages, if you got the wrong vibe from what I said.

Originally posted by Tyrion
I meant more along the lines of how it was adopted into society(particularly war) itself( I might be confusing myself with the Macedonians, however). And just to set myself clear, I do support homosexual marriages, if you got the wrong vibe from what I said.


Achilles was bisexual. As well as many other numerous heroes of mythology. Homosexuality was quite common among Roman athletes also.


>.>

<.<



Orlando Bloom roxX0rz my b0xX0rz!

You belong to a group named Spartans, right? And Spartans in history were ultra-masculine warriors who practiced homosexuality.Actually the claim that homosexuality between mentors and students was institutionalized in ancient Sparta is very revisionist in nature and quite unsupported by any evidence. Contemporary commentators such as Xenophon actually remarked on the distinct lack of pederasty in Sparta.

I'm not sure why this strange idea has become widespread other than the possibility that trendy-lefty revisionist historians got involved, but it's a misconception.

They may not have practiced homosexuality, that is debatable. But it isn't really debatable that ancient greeks were VERY infatuated with the male form, in particular that of the adolescent male, which is evidenced in their art, PARTICULARLY the Kouros sculptures.

But it isn't really debatable that ancient greeks were VERY infatuated with the male form,That's a non-issue ET. Look at the action stars of the eighties: Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Were all the young men who idolised them as the ideal male role-models homosexual? Obviously not. Are bodybuilders and those who wish to look like them all homosexual? Obviously not.

Admiring the male form in the way of ancient greece does not directly hint at any perverse sexual fascination, though trendy-lefty revisionists would have you believe otherwise.

Remember, "infatuated" is in this case a loaded term, and unworthy of debate.

But were you to give a kid a choice between a stellar hot woman model and Arnold, MOST guys are going to go with the woman, whereas in Ancient Greece if they used women in art they buried them in clothes. The REAL beauty came from men in their eyes.

whereas in Ancient Greece if they used women in art they buried them in clothes. The REAL beauty came from men in their eyes.That's a non sequitur. Societies often bury women in clothing PRECISELY BECAUSE they're more desirable than men. Look at Islamic societies. Are they all secretly gay? Obviously not.

In bodybuilding competitions, the men show more flesh than the women. Is that because the viewers are gay, and find the men more "beautiful"? Obviously not, it's merely the societal standard we live in that women should cover their upper torso.

Revisionists must necessarily read much into minute details in order to support their cases. This is often therefore a clue to their failings.

Originally posted by Rogue15
homosexuality is totally unnatural, and prolly what pissed God off enough to wipe out Sodom and Gammorah.

oh and here is what i found in leviticus chapter 18:



thank u for stating that so I didn't have too(not that I am tryin to flame an gays out there)

Homosexuality is more natural than sitting here browsing internet forums.

Homosexuality is more natural than sitting here browsing internet forums.It is not more natural than a man and a woman bumping uglies like bunnies, though.

Is it? ;)

Making it any less natural than "true" intercourse and/or sexual orientation doesn't necessarily make it evil does it?

:D

I think you'll find that I haven't said that it's evil, nor have I said that it's not evil. I have pointed out that any claim that it's "natural" is meaningless.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I think you'll find that I haven't said that it's evil, nor have I said that it's not evil. I have pointed out that any claim that it's "natural" is meaningless.

True. Murder and aggression are natural things that humans do and feel, but they aren't neccessarily encouraged upon...

Originally posted by Spider AL
I think you'll find that I haven't said that it's evil, nor have I said that it's not evil. I have pointed out that any claim that it's "natural" is meaningless.


Ah, so sorry Meester D. Advocate. :p



I'd like to know, very blatantly, your opinion on this matter. Do you support it or not?


and no playing a little red guy with a red hot poker either... :D

Well I've actually addressed that very question earlier in the thread.

But what the hell.

I consider that in the ideal society, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't seriously harm others, so if people want to molest each other with grapefruits, they should be allowed to do so. But that doesn't mean that shoving a six-inch diameter sphere into a distinctly smaller orofice is good for their physical or psychological wellbeing. But it's people's moral right to damage themselves in whatever way they wish, in the privacy of their own home.

But frankly, I do have several problems with the cultures of sexual perversions of all sorts:

Firstly, sex for non-procreative purposes is purely for fun, and therefore no more important than any other hobby. Yet sexual predelictions of all sorts bombard us via the media and via charities and campaigning groups... It's really not that important, and it obsesses so many people so much...

Secondly, It's a bad thing for our society that people define themselves by their sexuality rather than their skills or abilities or other sundry good points. Sexuality has become a uniform, everything from fursuits to the butch lesbian look have become nigh-mandatory in the communities to which they belong, and it's sad that these people, many of whom proclaim themselves to be more enlightened than the rest of humanity are enmeshed and mired in brainwashing of a different shade. Their sexual predilictions have defined not only their behaviour inside the bedroom, but also outside the bedroom, and in the way they dress and think... it's awful. And hypocritical, in many ways.

And thirdly many people from these insular cliques define the rest of the world in negative terms. The word "straight" has become an insult. Some of the most intolerant people I've ever met have been members of sexual minorities.

---

To put my views very simply: I don't like the fact that the majority of people with sexual perversions that I've encountered define themselves and others by their sexuality. I find it petty.

I dislike being bombarded with other people's fetishes. I keep my fantasies about desert islands populated with nubile young lay-deeees to myself, and I expect plushie fetishists to keep their encrusted cuddly toys to themselves as well, not plaster them all over leaflets and mass-mailshots and TV spots. Sexuality has become so overexposed it's now cheap, tawdry and on occasion genuinely disgusting.

And finally I'm tired of trendy-lefty activists trying to define things like the act of molesting a stuffed giraffe as "normal." It's not normal, it's perverted sexuality, purely by definition.

"Hey friend," I say, "hump a sports-bag if you like, but don't try and salve your outdated victorian concience and quell your ingrained self-loathing by equating the savage rape of Geraldine the Happy Giraffe with procreative sex between two adult humans of different genders. Because it don't wash, and I don't want to hear it. Just shut the hell up."

In short, it's not sexual perversion I have a problem with, any more than I have a problem with golf, or table-tennis. Like smoking, it's the irresponsible and frankly offensive way it's used by certain elements that I have concerns concerning. It's not inherently bad for society to want to pork a plush toy, but if the obsession becomes all-consuming, it can definitely have a negative effect on the world.

I must have missed your post then. My apologies.


I agree with some parts of your statements.

1) People can do what they want sexually, however "morally" or "immorally" justified it may be.
2) Sexuality is overrated and overhyped and media driven.
3) Raping a stuffed animal is not normal.

Your post in a nutshell I believe.

:D

Corrections

1) In the privacy of their own homes.
2) Perversion especially.
3) Anything perverted is abnormal, including raping stuffed animals, but also including homosexuality and any other non-procreative fetish.

Whats depressing to me is that in modern times (especially in the U.S., as I've witnessed firsthand) the populace is less educated on such subjects as gay marrage. They turn to the tabloids for information. Some say that the bible states that gayness is a sin and is wrong, but consider this:

The bible is a piece of scripture over 500 years old, and has been translated counless times. On some occasions, the translator has changed certan extremes that contredict what they feel is right. In the end, we have something half complete, it seems.

Another thing is, is George W Bush gay? No, so how can he know its wrong and unnatural when he hasn't even experienced it? This entire situation can be compared with the Civil Rights movement, to the dot. If we don't learn from our mistakes, history repeats itself. That seems to be Mr. Bush's speciality.

Originally posted by CaptainSkye

If we don't learn from our mistakes, history repeats itself. That seems to be Mr. Bush's speciality. [/B]

Bu$h is making a lot of mistakes made before! he just wants gay marae and abortion (not to mention the war in iraq) to be a distraction from REAL issues like the economy, our dependence on oil, andthe multi billion dolar depicit!

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Bu$h is making a lot of mistakes made before! he just wants gay marae and abortion (not to mention the war in iraq) to be a distraction from REAL issues like the economy, our dependence on oil, andthe multi billion dolar depicit!

Exactly! Sometimes...ok, all the time I wonder how the U.S. re-elected such a Yak! Have we become THAT ignorent? Or have we just given up? Or have all the choices ran out?

Another thing is, is George W Bush gay? No, so how can he know its wrong and unnatural when he hasn't even experienced it? You know that I agree that Bush is a tard, and that homosexuality isn't inherently amoral any more than playing golf is amoral...

But you don't have to experience something to judge its nature and ramifications. I don't have to hit someone in the head with an axe to know that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do, for instance.

Again, don't get me wrong, I don't think sexual practices are issues of morality, I'm just making a point on that... point. ;)

Originally posted by Spider AL
But you don't have to experience something to judge its nature and ramifications. I don't have to hit someone in the head with an axe to know that it wouldn't be a nice thing to do, for instance.

:lol:

Ok, point taken. I suppose a better way to state my point is: Don't make assumptions over something you don't fully understand. Bush probably has no info on the travails of homosexuality so he assumes its immoral and sees to "amend" the constitution in order to stop this "problem", while we both can safely say that hitting someone's head with an axe would by mean.

whatever your opinion of sexuality or gay marriages, it is pretty clear that bush (or more likely his advisors) used the ISSUE as a way to mobilise people into supporting them. Putting a controversial issue like that on the ballot is a clever way to get your supporters riled up and out there at the polling stations.
So it was definately a propoganda weapon...

Oh absolutely. What suprises me is that more Democrats didn't get out there and take Bush to the cleaners because of the presence of such divisive issues. Maybe America really is made up of a majority of neoconservatives.

heh, doubtful. its just that the majority of americans that vote are moderately conservative. the actual population, i believe, is actually a bit more left leaning. the dems just have a hard time getting them to the polls (try harder in 2008, foo's :fist: )

my views on homosexuality(prepare for wierdness):

homosexuality is not natural. i believe that sexual preference is deturmined by a person's environment during the sexually impressionable time period that starts at the beginning of adolescence. so far, no one has proven that homosexuality is natural in humans. you can cite the gay sheep all you want, but they aren't human.

homosexuality is a sin. the Bible clearly states this in several different locations, not just Leviticus. of course, this depends on whether or not you believe in God. otherwise, you can ignore this point.

homosexuals should have the right to marry (this is where all the fundalmentalists get really pissed at me). marriage is considered to be a natural right. the supreme court stated in 1967 that marriage is indeed a natural right, and it should not be prevented by law, constitutional amendment or otherwise. this is a democracy people, not a theocracy. whenever Revelations 19:11-21 occurs, then God will ban it for you.

until then, we, as christians, are apart of this world, although not of it (born again means that we've attempted to abandon our fleshy desires in favor of God). you can try to define marriage as between the opposite sexes, but that is your definition, not the definition of homosexuals. in a democracy, thats called limiting the rights of the minorities to promote the values of the majority (which is especially odd considering that only approx. 30% of the american population considers themselves to be 'christian').

homosexuals should have equal rights, no benefits. as i've stated earlier, we live in a democracy. giving benefits to a certain group is called favortism. of course, thats why i'm opposed to affirmative action, but thats another thread. :D

I agree with stingerhs.

I heard this little story on the radio this morning. Heh, it's like the gay sheep.

A breeder is suing a farmer for selling him a top-dollar pig to be bred. But the pig was gay and only interested in other male pigs, so he couldn't breed. He even has pictures to prove it! :p

But if homosexuality is natural in humans is more difficult to prove. Either way, no matter if it's natural or not it does not mean they shouldn't have equal rights.