I googled "Fundamentalist Poland" to see what complaint you might have in that department. I found several very wacked-out opinion articles, such as this one (http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2005/72/kitlinskileszkowiczlockard.html). If I may quote the sub-title:

Poland went from communism to fundamentalism: it is anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-secular, and pro-Bush. Polish troops go to Iraq, women to kitchens, media to patriotic kitsch, and gays to hell, while politicians and the media rally around Bush.

Anti-gay: The author seems to say that heterosexuals like me are evil and must be put down. I can't really say I blame them for doing so, though. I'd prefer not to see a nation infiltrated with HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C. Which reminds me: Does Denmark still have an AIDS epidemic?

Basically, I'm saying Poland is right to be anti-gay.

...gays to hell...

According to Christianity, that's exactly right. But religion aside, one can easily see why Poland takes such a stance because of medical reasons. My personal, secular reason for thinking that the gay community is abhorrent is because in order to get their way, they have no shame in even trying to indoctrinate children as young as first grade. That's 6 years old! Have you heard of the story, Heather has Two Mommies? It was meant to indoctrinate children into believing that lesbian couples were not only "OK", that it was to be as widely accepted as the traditional marriage that has stood firm since the Dawn of Mankind! That is my problem with them. They have absolutely no scruples.

I'm done for now.

Basically, I'm saying Poland is right to be anti-gay.
No one has the right to be anti-anything. Government sanctioned bigotry is a huge no-no. And anyone saying it is justified is a ****ing moron.


But religion aside, one can easily see why Poland takes such a stance because of medical reasons.

Uh, no.

My personal, secular reason for thinking that the gay community is abhorrent is because in order to get their way, they have no shame in even trying to indoctrinate children as young as first grade. That's 6 years old! Have you heard of the story, Heather has Two Mommies? It was meant to indoctrinate children into believing that lesbian couples were not only "OK", that it was to be as widely accepted as the traditional marriage that has stood firm since the Dawn of Mankind! That is my problem with them. They have absolutely no scruples.

Right, because the anti-gay are so honorable as to not do anything like that as well. :rolleyes:

Actually, the Heather has two mommies thing was to curb the spark of anti-gay violence. And truth be told, it's perfectly fine.
There is no logical reason to dislike a group of people just because they were trying to stop bigotry. Do you also hate the black community and asian community for trying to get people to accept interracial relationships back in the 50's/60's/70's/80's?

If you don't, then you're a hypocrite.

PS: The story in no way described two mothers as being traditional marriage, please stop recycling bull**** you got from some backward thought moron.

I'd also like to repeat my statement about you not bull****ting your way through anything medical. If you had any intelligence on the matter at all you'd realize why not everyone has insurance. Infact most people that don't have insurance are actually capable of affording it.
It's just because of their background and "pre-existing conditions" that they are denied coverage. This is one of the biggest reasons why many people are pushing for national healthcare like that of Canada.


So again, get some sense on a subject before bull****ting your way through it. That goes for politics, medicine, and laws. And that "I don't go to law school" crap doesn't cover it. I don't either.

There is no logical reason to dislike a group of people just because they were trying to stop bigotry. Do you also hate the black community and asian community for trying to get people to accept interracial relationships back in the 50's/60's/70's/80's?

If you don't, then you're a hypocrite.

I don't think the gays should get any special treatment because of their sexuality, and I don't want to hear about the gay agenda on the front page of newspapers, web sites, etc., as if they are their own race. I do not hate gays. I despise their actions. If that makes me a "bigot" in your eyes, then so be it. Call me a bigot, call me old-fashioned, call me whatever. I don't care about your overt flames. I care about discussing the matter at hand.

That reminds me, I despise the actions of those who commit hate crimes as well. They have no reason to do that. I am not the anti-gay version of the KKK! I just happen to believe that gays shouldn't try to force their doctrine on me. I will have no part of it.

Oh, and I have absolutely no problem with the black community standing up for its rights. In those times, nearly 95+ % of white people hated blacks. But those numbers aren't so huge with gays, are they? Furthermore, we are not denying them basic rights because they're gay! Do you see gay/straight drinking fountains? Do you see gay-only or straight-only schools? If you do, then you need to open your eyes. They don't exist in America.

I also have Biblical reasons for intolerance of gay acts, but I doubt you'll care. So I won't bother.

I care about discussing the matter at hand.

Then let's get back to the matter at hand: The Iraq war. And before you say anything, Insane Sith, I am not afraid of you. Don't think you can use your position to bully me into agreeing with you. It will not work.

I just happen to believe that gays shouldn't try to force their doctrine on me. I will have no part of it.

Yup... the evil fags are trying to convert you to the gay side.

I don't see how demonizing someone because they don't accept your views is right, or how it helps your argument. They are under no obligation to accept your views, just as you are under none to accept theirs.

I hope your post isn't directed towards me, because my post was intended to be sarcastic. :p

Yup... the evil fags are trying to convert you to the gay side.I don't see how demonizing someone because they don't accept your views is right, or how it helps your argument. They are under no obligation to accept your views, just as you are under none to accept theirs.

I don't think the gays should get any special treatment because of their sexuality,

I don't recall anyone, including gays, asking for special treatment.

I just happen to believe that gays shouldn't try to force their doctrine on me. I will have no part of it.

How does one force "gay doctrine" upon a heterosexual. Does it involved a gay man's father with a shotgun and wedding bells? If you don't like homosexuality, don't have gay sex. If you disagree with same-sex marriage, pick a partner of the opposite gender. This seems all too logical. I dislike gay sex and disagree with their sexual choices. But if they want to marry each other, I'm enough of a economic conservative to recognize that the more dual-income families that exist in my neighborhood the better. It implies increased commerce and economic prosperity for all of us.

There are absolutely no logical reasons to be opposed to same-sex marriage. Disliking homosexuality won't make it go away.

And before you say anything, Insane Sith, I am not afraid of you. Don't think you can use your position to bully me into agreeing with you. It will not work.

I don't think I noticed Sith make a moderator-based threat. Nor do I see any indication that he edited any of your posts. Did you get a PM? Though I will agree that Sithy came across a bit harsh. Still, you're a big boy, eh? You can see through the hyperbole and rhetoric. In the mean time, we can all use the reminder to be civil, including myself and Sith.

Fundamentalist? I googled "Fundamentalist Poland" to see what complaint you might have in that department. I found several very wacked-out opinion articles, such as this one (http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2005/72/kitlinskileszkowiczlockard.html).

Why, thank you for pointing that one out to me. I must have missed it. I found the articles in that particular issue most interesting, and I very much recommend that you read them.

As to why I complain about Poland in the Union: Well, we've had the Vatican poking its busybody nose into places it doesn't belong for decades already. Now Poland comes around and starts spouting the same bovine manure we've heard from Rome all these years. See, unlike the US, the EU is a secular union. And if I have anything to say about it, it'll stay that way. And, you see, I do have voting rights over here. And if Poland and Italy don't get that, well that's their loss. They're a net drain on our budget, anyway.

Anti-woman? The article really says little to support this. and I fail to see even one example. If you please, find some sort of valid complaint about the "anti-woman' movement. This article was hit #1 on Google.

Uh-huh, such as banning contraceptives and reproductive healthcare.

Anti-gay: The author seems to say that heterosexuals like me are evil and must be put down.

Which you infer from the fact that he rails against prohibitions on homosexual marriage?

I can't really say I blame them for doing so, though. I'd prefer not to see a nation infiltrated with HIV, AIDS, and Hepatitis C. Which reminds me: Does Denmark still have an AIDS epidemic?

And have you stopped beating you sister? Approx. .13 % of the US population is living with HIV/AIDS. Approx. .08 % of the Danish population is living with HIV/AIDS. And the dark numbers are almost certainly bigger for the US than for Denmark, since we actually have a functioning health care system.

Anti-Secular: I'm sorry, but LOL.Is it that bad in other parts of Europe? Has religion almost been done away with?

Bad? What's 'bad' about not being a theocracy?

According to Christianity, exactly right [that gays burn in hell].

Can't argue with you there.

But religion aside, one can easily see why Poland takes such a stance because of medical reasons.

Those being?

My personal, secular reason for thinking that the gay community is abhorrent is because in order to get their way, they have no shame in even trying to indoctrinate [i]children as young as first grade. That's 6 years old!

And Baptist Sunday Schools don't?

Have you heard of the story, Heather has Two Mommies? It was meant to indoctrinate children into believing that lesbian couples were not only "OK", that it was to be as widely accepted as the traditional marriage that has stood firm since the Dawn of Mankind!

Which - save for the brief Dark Age of Christianity lasting about 2000 years - is actually a factual observation.

That is my problem with them. They have absolutely no scruples.

You know, that's an excellent description of my feelings vis-a-vis the Papacy and the Bush regime.

That is my problem with them. They have absolutely no scruples.
Yeah, how dare they attempt to teach kids tolerance of things that are different. I shudder to think of a world where kids aren't raised to hate / distrust / dislike a certain group of people simply because they're different than we are.

Anti-gay: The author seems to say that heterosexuals like me are evil and must be put down. Being pro-homosexuals doesn't make you anti-heterosexuals...that's not even reasonable.
I don't want to hear about the gay agenda on the front page of newspapers, web sites, etc., as if they are their own race. Fine, then I'd like to stop hearing about the republican agenda on the front page either, as if THEY are their own race. I really don't think homosexuals consider themselves part of a unique race. They're part of a unique community, and why don't they have a right to voice their opinions or concerns?
Do you see gay/straight drinking fountains? Do you see gay-only or straight-only schools? Because it's only a problem if it gets that bad? We don't need to worry about them until we get into the SERIOUS segregation, and then we MAYBE have a problem.
I just happen to believe that gays shouldn't try to force their doctrine on me. I will have no part of it.So don't have sex with your gender. Problem solved! Wasn't that easy?

As someone who lives in the only American state to currently have legal same-sex marriage, I can honestly say: meh.

It went from firestorm to non-issue in a couple of weeks.

Nothing in my life has been affected in any measurable way, neither has any of my friends, neighbors or family from what I can see.

I only know one same sex couple that might have been affected by it, and they and their families already had considered them married long before this law was passed. And if they are all OK with it, what right do I have to pass judgement? It's their lives, not mine.

My personal rule on this kind of stuff is this: As long as it doesn't affect anybody else's personal freedoms in any way, why not give people the rights to live their lives in any way they see fit.
Homosexual people are going to live the way they wish, regardless if it's sanctioned by the government or not. Since that is the case, then why go out of your way to relegate them to 2nd-class citizenship just because their lifestyle makes you uncomfortable?

You can't use the laws of the country to regulate and enforce your personal morality code on strangers.

People have to be given the right to exercise their free will, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else in the process, or create an undue burden on the system. The gay lifestyle might make you uncomfortable, but that can hardly be considered harm. And it's certainly not deliberate harm towards you. Chances are, they just want to be left the hell alone to live their lives as they please,.. just like the rest of us. You know, that whole "Pursuit of Happiness" thing.
You might be able to argue a case towards the "burden on the system" part... but if heterosexual marriage isn't a burden, I don't see how you could realistically make the point that same sex marriage will be.

If homosexuality really does turn out to be #1 on God's hit list, then those that took part in it will have to answer when it's their time. But it seems to me that that's strictly between them and their God on their personal judgement day... it's really none of any of our business right now in this life.

If homosexuality really does turn out to be #1 on God's hit list, then those that took part in it will have to answer when it's their time. But it seems to me that that's strictly between them and their God on their personal judgement day... it's really none of any of our business right now in this life.

It seems to me that what really would be at the top of god's hit list would be adultery. It's a rampant problem that destroys families, and it has its own freaking commandment for god's sake. No where in the ten commandments is homosexuality even mentioned, and yet the fundies want to make it seem like homosexuality is the most horrible evil that god wants destroyed.

Did Jesus even have any anti-homosexuality teachings? If I believe what all the christians say about Jesus, he was all about love and tolerance.

Here goes.
StaffSaberist: My personal, secular reason for thinking that the gay community is abhorrent is because in order to get their way, they have no shame in even trying to indoctrinate children as young as first grade. That's 6 years old!

ShadowTemplar: And baptist schools don't?
Chocolate cake en-route:).

Have you heard of the story, Heather has Two Mommies? It was meant to indoctrinate children into believing that lesbian couples were not only "OK", that it was to be as widely accepted as the traditional marriage that has stood firm since the Dawn of Mankind! That is my problem with them. They have absolutely no scruples.
Wanting 100% equality does not equal to being unscropolous (spelling?). Furthermore, teaching equality is not "indoctrination", it's the spreading of common sense.

Something can have existed "since the dawn of man" and still be negative. From the top of my head, I can name slavery as an institution that's been around forever and is still, as far as I know, one of the three biggest industries in the world, and still is utterly horrific and despisable.

I do not hate gays. I despise their actions. If that makes me a "bigot" in your eyes, then so be it.
Yes, that actually does makes you a bigot. Just like I'd be a an anti-inter-racial relationship bigot if I hated people who married "inter-colour".

That reminds me, I despise the actions of those who commit hate crimes as well. They have no reason to do that. I am not the anti-gay version of the KKK!
Good man:).

Furthermore, we are not denying them basic rights because they're gay!
And here I was thinking marrying the person you loved was a basic right.

Anti-Secular: I'm sorry, but LOL.Is it that bad in other parts of Europe? Has religion almost been done away with?
Yup. But that's for another discussion.

Do you see gay/straight drinking fountains? Do you see gay-only or straight-only schools?
Yes:
ONTARIO, Calif. - A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian school because her parents are lesbians, the school's superintendent said in a letter.

Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School on Thursday.

"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Superintendent Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl's biological mother.

Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition.

Stob could not be reached for comment by the newspaper. Shay and her parents said they won't fight the ruling.

School administrators learned of the parents' relationship this week after Shay was reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game, Tina Clark said.

Clark and her partner have been together 22 years and have two other daughters, ages 9 and 19.

Edit: You talked about (spelling? -again:p) your dislike about gays almost being a "different race". Let me just chirp in here and say that I perfectly agree with that.

I really dislike it when gays march in "Pride" parades with their own flag, call themselves a "Gay Community", etc. Not only is it erroneous, it also helps draw a line where a line shouldn't be drawn.

Did Jesus even have any anti-homosexuality teachings? If I believe what all the christians say about Jesus, he was all about love and tolerance.
Don't you remember that famous scripture: "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son for it... except for the homos. Man, does He ever hate those folks!"
I think most translations tend to leave out that second part these days. Must be a queer conspiracy. ;)

Ahh,.. I'm being facetious. (And probably more than a little offensive...) But just tryin' to make a point.

From what I recall, most of the anti-homosexuality stuff you find tends to be in the Old Testament... mainly in the books of the law. Y'Know... all those endless chapters dealing with all kinds of stuff we are all supposed to follow, or that none of us are ever supposed to do.
Like: Eating pork or shellfish; handling a dead body; all the things that classify as "work" on the Sabbath; all the complicated preparations to make on Holy Days; making animal sacrifices; tithing...
All that stuff that tends to get lumped together these days as "Jewish law," and is typically seen to be safe to largely ignore in this day and age. I mean, when's the last time anybody here has ever de-leavened thier house?

I think there might also be a couple of references in the epistles.

Chocolate cake en-route:).

I liked that one too...

all the things that classify as "work" on the Sabbath

Walter Sobchak: I told those ****s down at the league office a thousand times that I don't roll on Shabbos!
Donny: What's Shabbos?
Walter Sobchak: Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don't work, I don't get in a car, I don't ride in a car, I don't pick up the phone, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as ****
Walter Sobchak: don't ****ing roll! Shomer shabbos!

Sorry, had to do it.

I don't think the gays should get any special treatment because of their sexuality

like?

I do not hate gays. I despise their actions.
I don't hate christians, i just despise jesus, god, all that incessant praying etc...
I also don't hate blacks, i just despise all that dark skin and dark hair.

If that makes me a "bigot" in your eyes, then so be it.
I think it pretty much matches the dictionary definition of a bigot to a tee, so yes... sorry. :(

I will have no part of it.
You go girl! Don't let them get to you, cos one of them told me that they spend most of their time trying to work out how to indoctrinate right-wing fundamentalist bigots. Its like their 3rd favorite thing after (1) Bum sex and (2)Infiltrating schools as young as six!

Oh, and I have absolutely no problem with the black community standing up for its rights. In those times, nearly 95+ % of white people hated blacks. But those numbers aren't so huge with gays, are they? Furthermore, we are not denying them basic rights because they're gay! Do you see gay/straight drinking fountains? Do you see gay-only or straight-only schools? If you do, then you need to open your eyes. They don't exist in America.
They were that bad, 40 or 50 years ago.

Although of course since god forgot to make gays obviously noticable by the colour of their skin (rainbow coloured target?) it was a lot harder for people to go out and find some to lynch.

Homosexuality still got you imprisoned, and even after it was legalised it would still get you ostracised and banned from a lot of jobs (teaching?). It will still get you beaten up in a lot of places.
And in a lot of "christian" countries (like the ones in africa that are sending missionaries to the UK and US) it will still get you jailed or even killed.

The reason it ISN'T as bad as it used to be is the same reason it isn't as bad as it used to be for blacks... because they stood up for themselves, fought to prove that they were just as human as the rest of us, and attitudes began to slowly change over time. Darn them and their evil ways!!

And in a lot of "christian" countries (like the ones in africa that are sending missionaries to the UK and US) it will still get you jailed or even killed.

Muslim countries as well. Being gay in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is a big no-no. Gets you hung. I'm soooo glad those countries are America's allies. :rolleyes:

I didn't read all of the posts but here's what I'm going to say:
Christians are not raised to Hate anyone, its the person who twists things into thinking that the religion says to hate a type of person. Its true, I hate Gays behavoirs but not them. That being said, I sign off.

Yeah, right, 'cause we all know how nice and benevolent Christianity is. And nosirree, the Inquisitors weren't real Christians.

Thing is, the only way to find out who's a real Christian is by squinting and seeing if they look real. Certainly there's no way - no way at all - to tell that a person who talks like a Christian and acts like a Christian (until he for some very Christian reason decides to issue death threats to foreign heads of state or attack countries in illegal wars, or bear false witness, or lie, or worship the false icon of Creationism) isn't actually a Real Christian(TM).

Because you only know that someone is a real Christian when he can in no way, shape, or form hurt your argument by his example. No, sirree, and we're not rationalising here at all. And we're certainly not making up post-hoc justifications for our ignorant bigotry. Nope. Not at all. (http://www.stmoroky.com/sirrobin/fleeing~~.au)

Whoa, WTF? I'm sorry I missed out on all this.

^^^^
Christians have done things in history I'm not proud of. But of course, nothing of the kind can be said for atheists. Oh, no, no no NO! Religion is so eeevil. Oh, save it. I see I have a lot to reply to. I'll take what I see, completely at random, and reply.

Yes, that actually does makes you a bigot. Just like I'd be a an anti-inter-racial relationship bigot if I hated people who married "inter-colour".

I said I despise their actions. Not the people. Oh, that reminds me: You're a bigot for not tolerating my views.

Something can have existed "since the dawn of man" and still be negative.

Do you think heterosexual sex is negative?



Yeah, how dare they attempt to teach kids tolerance of things that are different. I shudder to think of a world where kids aren't raised to hate / distrust / dislike a certain group of people simply because they're different than we are.

Hate is too strong a word for me in most cases. But the actions that homosexuals engage in is distasteful at best, deadly at worst. Now, don't tell me that homosexuals aren't more likely to get AIDS, HIV, etc. etc. Heterosexuals have little chance of dying of diseases after mating. Homosexuals, on the other hand, who engage in unnatural practices, do. It's the issue of 'what are humans designed to do', not 'what we should tolerate because it's popular to do so'.

And Baptist Sunday Schools don't?

No baptist school forces people to see their point of view. They can leave any time. If I may be so blunt, no Baptist school offers lessons in oral or anal sex. No Baptist school would threaten to sue the parent of a child who said "EEEW!" when the details of Christian life were revealed to them.

In short, your argument is quite foolish.

Did Jesus even have any anti-homosexuality teachings? If I believe what all the christians say about Jesus, he was all about love and tolerance.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

There. Happy?

From what I recall, most of the anti-homosexuality stuff you find tends to be in the Old Testament... mainly in the books of the law. Y'Know... all those endless chapters dealing with all kinds of stuff we are all supposed to follow, or that none of us are ever supposed to do.

Corinthians is in the New Testament.

The reason it ISN'T as bad as it used to be is the same reason it isn't as bad as it used to be for blacks... because they stood up for themselves, fought to prove that they were just as human as the rest of us, and attitudes began to slowly change over time. Darn them and their evil ways!!

America was intolerant of blacks because of what they looked like. I am intolerant of gays today because of what they do. I don't give a flying **** what they look like. Unless I'm in jail for some odd reason.

You go girl!

I hope that was a joke, because doubts as to my gender (HINT: I'm male) may cause me to "forget" The no-flame rule.

And here I was thinking marrying the person you loved was a basic right.

Gag me. If they were about true love, why wouldn't they call it a MARRAIGE, instead of... what is the current doctrine... Oh yeah, a civil union. The US joining the confederacy back together was a civil union. Gay marriage is either marriage, or nothing at all.

I'm sure there's more, but I've gotten the majority of it, I believe.

Christians have done things in history I'm not proud of. But of course, nothing of the kind can be said for atheists. Oh, no, no no NO! Religion is so eeevil. Oh, save it. I see I have a lot to reply to. I'll take what I see, completely at random, and reply.

Athiests have also done plenty of bad things and, as an athiest, I don't deny that. It's embarassing to athiests that most all athiest leaders are communists, for example.

But if you look at history, most all of the brutal kings who ruled by "divine right" were christians if not some other religion. Then there's the Crusades, the Inquisition, Hitler, etc.

Hate is too strong a word for me in most cases. But the actions that homosexuals engage in is distasteful at best, deadly at worst. Now, don't tell me that homosexuals aren't more likely to get AIDS, HIV, etc. etc. Heterosexuals have little chance of dying of diseases after mating. Homosexuals, on the other hand, who engage in unnatural practices, do. It's the issue of 'what are humans designed to do', not 'what we should tolerate because it's popular to do so'.

You must be kicking yourself right now, because sitting at a computer and typing on the internet is a VERY unnatural act, and NOT what humans are meant to do. And where did you get the idea that being gay is "popular?" That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Also, what do you think about all those straight couples who have anal and oral sex? Should they have their right to marry taken away, because what they do is "unnatural," "gross," or "diseased?"

Or maybe you'll just realize that no matter if they can marry or not, they're going to keep having sex how THEY want to, not how YOU want them to.

There. Happy?

No, I'm not happy. Here I sat thinking that Jesus was some kind person who preached love and tolerance of others, and instead he's the kind of person who lumps homosexuals in with the same catagory as thieves and cheaters.

Christians have done things in history I'm not proud of. But of course, nothing of the kind can be said for atheists.

As it happens, that's not what I'm saying, although the propensity for atrocities has been significantly lower, but that's another issue entirely.

What I railed against was a True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) fallacy, and the bull**** about hating the act of one man ****ing another but not hating the men doing it. If the act in question had been cult worship, I would have accepted it, but sexuality is not something you choose.

I said I despise their actions. Not the people. Oh, that reminds me: You're a bigot for not tolerating my views.

Ah, but here we have the core of your fallacies: Sexuality is not a 'view'.

Do you think heterosexual sex is negative?

Mayhaps he thinks the truncated version of marriage that the anti-queer side advocates is.

But the actions that homosexuals engage in is distasteful at best, deadly at worst.

I can't say for the 'distasteful' part, but you are aware that in pre-industrial societies death in childbed is the single biggest cause of death among women in the fertile age segment, right?

Now, don't tell me that homosexuals aren't more likely to get AIDS, HIV, etc. etc. Heterosexuals have little chance of dying of diseases after mating. Homosexuals, on the other hand, who engage in unnatural practices, do.

As it happens, that's wrong. The risk of getting HIV is dependent less upon the kind of intercourse pursued than upon the proportion of HIV infected in the segment you court. Traditionally, that has meant that homosexual sex was more dangerous than straight sex, but that pattern is reversing in many parts of the world. Besides, IIRC the single greatest source of HIV infection in Scandinavia is contaminated injection needles.

It's the issue of 'what are humans designed to do', not 'what we should tolerate because it's popular to do so'.

First of all, humans are not 'designed' in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, if humans were designed, how would you explain the fact that male H. S. Sapiens have a g-spot in the anus?

No baptist school forces people to see their point of view. They can leave any time.

At an age of six?

I believe that the issue was whether or not it was acceptable for public schools to indoctrinate children at six in human rights, the principles of democratic government, solidarity, and all those other pinky, liberal, commie-thingies that the televangelists are so rabidly opposed to.

I simply turned the issue on its head. Is it OK for baptist schools to indoctrinate children at six in intolerance, creationism, theocracy, reconstructionism and all those other morally sound, real Christian values (like - you know - slavery and stoning)?

Children of six are just as free to leave public schools as children of six are to leave private schools.

If I may be so blunt, no Baptist school offers lessons in oral or anal sex.

Ah, and therein lies the problem, eh? For truely doth the 11th Commandment sayeth: "Verily, better it is to lie to thine children than telleth them of kinky sex."

No Baptist school would threaten to sue the parent of a child who said "EEEW!" when the details of Christian life were revealed to them.

Nope, but they would chuck the child out if they found out that the mother was gay. Same ****, different name.

America was intolerant of blacks because of what they looked like.

Some major revision of history taking place in your head. I seem to have read some tracts saying that 'The Black Man Was Not Made By GOD To Vote!' Or 'Equal Rights To Blacks Is An Unnatural Thing For Society!' or 'Allowing Blacks To Marry Whites Will Destroy The Family Values On Which America Was Built!'

Oh, of course they didn't actually say those things in so many words - mainly because the Jim Crows couldn't spell multi-syllable words like 'Unnatural' or 'Allowing'.

Gag me. If they were about true love, why wouldn't they call it a MARRAIGE, instead of... what is the current doctrine... Oh yeah, a civil union. The US joining the confederacy back together was a civil union. Gay marriage is either marriage, or nothing at all.

So, you're prepared to give them civil union with all the legal rights of a married couple? Of course nobody can reasonably demand that your sect grants their blessing to their relationship, and I can't really see why they'd want it anyway with the attitude you're displaying. But would you give civil unions the same legal status as marriage?

Oh, that reminds me: You're a bigot for not tolerating my views.

Bigot:

1. a. A hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite. b. A superstitious adherent of religion.
2. A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual.

You gotta love the OED.

Now, don't tell me that homosexuals aren't more likely to get AIDS, HIV, etc. etc.

In the United States, that is true. For the time being. However, HIV/AIDS is fast becoming more and more prevalent among heterosexuals and becoming less prevalent among homosexuals. It is but a matter of time before the disease affects populations in the way it does in other nations: the vast majority of those infected with HIV/AIDS in Russia are IV drug users; in Western Africa it's heterosexuals.

Heterosexuals have little chance of dying of diseases after mating. [/QUOTE]

And yet they are afflicted of diseases at far greater rates (syphillis, hepatitus, gonorrhea, herpes, etc.). Some of which are deadly and/or debilitating. Not to mention unwanted pregnancies. The HIV/AIDS argument is bollocks. Not because the gay population isn't the most at risk population, but because the risk doesn't change the person's sexual orientation. Indeed, it is because of the risk that same-sex marriage should be encouraged in order to promote monogamous relationships over polygamous.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, who engage in unnatural practices,

Homosexuality is NOT unnatural. Nature is full of homosexual behavior. But this is a common fallacy among those who are biggotted against it.

It's the issue of 'what are humans designed to do', not 'what we should tolerate because it's popular to do so'.

Except that humans weren't 'designed.' We evolved. It may very well be that natural selection will favor the practice and adaptations will evolve. Or not. Only time will tell and lots of it.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[theological nonsense]
There. Happy?
Corinthians is in the New Testament.

But there are one or two things of import with regard to Corinthians. First, it wasn't written by Jesus (who wrote nothing in the bible) nor was it alleged to be the words of Jesus: it was the word of Paul as far as we know. Second, Paul (we'll assume) wrote it in Greek and, in the original texts, he assigns to the behaviors that modern christians refer to as homosexuality the following two words: "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai."

"Malakos (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D) %2320236)" was used in ancient Greek to refer the faint-hearted, effeminate, or cowardly in the Corinthian context. Effeminate wouldn't have anything to do with sexual acts, but rather a derision for someone with a demeanor that wasn't considered "macho" by today's standards.

"Arsenokoitai" was actually a conjunction of two words: "arsen (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.refembed=2&layout.refdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057&layout.refcit=entry%3Da%29rse%2Fnion&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%23495) 5&layout.reflookup=a%29%2Frshn&layout.reflang=greek&layout.refwordcount=1)," or man, and "koitai (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D) %2358472)", meaning beds. The word was used in Corinthians but also in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the pre-christian Hebrew texts). In the latter context, it was used to translate the Hebrew word, "qadesh (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/CONHEB694.htm#S6945)") (found in I Kings) which referred to male prostitutes of pagan temples, but as memory serves, also means "holy one" in other places in the bible.

Ritual sex was once an acceptable practice. And it is this which early Christian writers and cult leaders were attempting to deride. The pagan cults were a clear threat to the new christian ones and needed appropriate propaganda and derision or perhaps just simple rules of prohibition. There are many examples in the christian doctrine where pagan practices are derided and prohibited -an important step for a new cult that wants to establish itself.

So, the bible versions that include the word "homosexual" in Corinthians 6:9 are errant. They are wrong. They are not as they were originally written. Makes you wonder what else is wrong, eh? Another thread perhaps. But let us make no mistake, if Paul wanted to be specific about homosexuals, he would have had a very clear and obvious word at his disposal: "paiderasste (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D) %2324092)." After all, homosexuality was not a practice that was alien or unknown to Greece. They had a very well-known word for it. One should wonder why Paul didn't use this word -a word more descriptive and understood with regard to homosexual behavior of the day. Moroever, one must wonder why Paul didn't deride lesbians -none of the words above include the female gender.

Do you think heterosexual sex is negative?
I think the "marriage is only for the straight"-philosophy is negative.

Oh, that reminds me: You're a bigot for not tolerating my views.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm nothing of the sort. I study anti-homosexuality as well as homosexuality (I've even spent enough time on GodHatesFags to make me want to burn a certain person's house down:p), and I question my views a good deal more than the average anti-gay person. For example, I seriously started doubting if homosexual sex was so goddamned smart for the gays when I heard about the damage it does to the anus.

No baptist school forces people to see their point of view. They can leave any time.
Tolerance in a nutshell: Agree with us or get out:D.

It's embarassing to athiests that most all athiest leaders are communists, for example.
...Eh:confused:?

Corinthians is in the New Testament.
I did say that I thought there were references in the epistles (I didn't take the time to bother to try to look them up,) of which Corinthians is counted, I believe. It's been a while, so I might be mistaken.
But like Skin said: those are later writings; aren't direct quotes of Jesus; and have been interpreted into English to reflect a certain worldview, not necessarily the exact concept the original author was trying to get across.
2000 years and half a world away can be a pretty big cultural gap to bridge. Down through the ages the biblical authors have often been translated to reflect the times the translators lived in, not necessarily that of the authors.
Even reading things written 100 or so years ago, in American English, can be a bit of a challenge if you don't understand the culture and the mores of the times, the recent history it was written to reflect, and perhaps the background of the author. (Perusing Civil-War era documents can feel like trying to translate a foreign language sometimes. Or a casual read of Moby Dick, without taking into account the times it was written in and the whaling culture of the time can be an exercise in confusion.)

But still, the MAJORITY of phrases used to attack homosexuality are still from the Old-Testament. Usually by people who ignore all the other instructions found all around them and the context they are found in as 'things the new covenant has done away with.' Seems a bit selective to me.

To me, a practical example of tolerance equates to keeping your mouth shut and staying out of the way of any activity that you don't personally accept, as long as it isn't harming anyone. Not actively decrying it at every opportunity and trying to hinder progress legally.
Ultimately, the ideal of tolerance would be to truly accept people and their cultures for who they are, and enjoy all the cultural diversity that they bring to the planet. (If we were all exactly the same, would the planet be half as interesting as it is?)
But that might be a bit too much to ask at the moment.

I said I despise their actions. Not the people.
As has been said, that is garbage. Its trying to twist words to make you feel better about hating a group of people. If a group of people is DEFINED by something, and you hate that something, by definition you hate that group of people.

Oh, that reminds me: You're a bigot for not tolerating my views.
You mean like all those bigots who didn't tolerate hitler and saddam's views about jews, kurds and americans?
hating someone for no reason makes you a bigot, telling someone to stop hating doesn't make someone else a bigot.

Do you think heterosexual sex is negative?
As usual, that isn't the point. The point is that just because something is old or traditional, it doesn't make it good.

Hate is too strong a word for me in most cases. But the actions that homosexuals engage in is distasteful at best, deadly at worst. Now, don't tell me that homosexuals aren't more likely to get AIDS, HIV, etc. etc. Heterosexuals have little chance of dying of diseases after mating. Homosexuals, on the other hand, who engage in unnatural practices, do. It's the issue of 'what are humans designed to do', not 'what we should tolerate because it's popular to do so'.

Distasteful why?

More dangerous, no. AIDs is most risk to those who have many partners... it just so happens that by preventing homosexuals from marrying, or even coming out without fear in a lot of countries, society has forced them to be more promiscuous, putting them more at risk. As homosexuality becomes more accepted and couples become more monogamous the risk are falling to the same as heterosexuals.

Designed is a silly idea, as others have said. What you mean by designed is "traditional". And your view of traditional is what you were brought up to believe in your community. If you'd been brought up in other communities or other times you'd have totally different views about what humans were "designed" to do. Infact, surely if anything disproves the whole "intelligent design" nonsense, its that so many species enjoy homosexual sex? Why would your god have built that into the design?

If I may be so blunt, no Baptist school offers lessons in oral or anal sex. No Baptist school would threaten to sue the parent of a child who said "EEEW!" when the details of Christian life were revealed to them.
In short, your argument is quite foolish.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Did I miss the bit were they were teaching kids as young as six about anal sex? Seems more like your argument is foolish, and irrelevant, to me.

America was intolerant of blacks because of what they looked like. I am intolerant of gays today because of what they do.

Oh, and that makes a big difference.. how? America was intollerant of blacks because they were different, and because of their internal "mental image" of what a black person was. That seems to me to be the same reason you are intollerant of gay people.

I hope that was a joke, because doubts as to my gender (HINT: I'm male) may cause me to "forget" The no-flame rule.

Did you ever hear that thing about people with the biggest fear of gays being those with the most insecurity about their masculinity? I never gave much credence to that, but then again....

Gag me. If they were about true love, why wouldn't they call it a MARRAIGE, instead of... what is the current doctrine... Oh yeah, a civil union.
Cos people like you won't let them?


I don't think the gays should get any special treatment because of their sexuality

LIKE??

As has been said, that is garbage. Its trying to twist words to make you feel better about hating a group of people. If a group of people is DEFINED by something, and you hate that something, by definition you hate that group of people.

What you say is ludicrice. If a group of black people is defined by a long series of illegal acts (i.e. a black-only gang) I hate the illegal actions they are defined by. Does that make me a racist? No. It means I hate the actions of a bunch of people who happen to be black.

In the same way, homosexuals have been breaking anit-sodomy laws. Of course, instead of adapting to the laws like the rest of us, they seek to strike down these laws. I have no problem with their endeavor to change laws; that's perfectly legal. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they're doing simply because they are trying to make their ways legal. Just like marijuana is being made legal in some parts of the US (a bad mistake) doesn't mean that I like marijuana.

You mean like all those bigots who didn't tolerate hitler and saddam's views about jews, kurds and americans?
hating someone for no reason makes you a bigot, telling someone to stop hating doesn't make someone else a bigot.

FOA, I was being sarcastic. Second, gays are not parallel to Hitler, Stalin and Sadaam because gays don't seek to mass-murder innocent civilians, making them die cruel, painful deaths. Yeah, I know I said AIDS kills, and it does. But not in the 33 million range.

As usual, that isn't the point. The point is that just because something is old or traditional, it doesn't make it good.

Heterosexual marriage/sex is old, traditional, and preferred by most of the world. I asked you if it was good because you seem to be insinuating that it's not.


Designed is a silly idea, as others have said. What you mean by designed is "traditional". And your view of traditional is what you were brought up to believe in your community. If you'd been brought up in other communities or other times you'd have totally different views about what humans were "designed" to do. Infact, surely if anything disproves the whole "intelligent design" nonsense, its that so many species enjoy homosexual sex? Why would your god have built that into the design?

FOA, if humans were designed for anal/oral sex, then why can't two males reproduce? Two females can't either, without outside help. A male/female combination is the only logical combination that allows reproduction.

As for God putting that into the disign, your argument can be refuted by looking at nature. What percentage of any given species is gay? The number should be around 0%. Mankind is the only species that commits gay acts. Why? Well, you brought God into this, so don't expect anything for source other than the Bible for this answer. Consder yourself warned.

God designed man and woman, but the first two sinned by disobeying a direct order from God. Thus, after the rebellion of Lucifer, God withdrew partly from the Earth, but not entirely. (Ever wonder why there are no miracles today like the Old Testament? There you go.) Lucifer (Satan) has since been allowed to tempt the people of the world. One such temptation is homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is the only passage in the entire Bible that directly deals with homosexuality, but it is there. (And translations vary from KJV to NIV, but all translations of the Bible say the same thing worded differently. The only real difference is Bibles like the New International Version have had the words adapted so we don't have to read "art" "thou" and "something-eth". I do have KJV, by the way, so I know what the first ones say.

I'll get to the rest of this later, but I am severely pressed for time at the moment.

Heterosexual marriage/sex is old, traditional, and preferred by most of the world. I asked you if it was good because you seem to be insinuating that it's not.

Being right-handed is old, traditional, and preferred by most of the world. So much so that even in some cultures today, left-handed people are shunned. Is it wrong to be left-handed?

FOA, if humans were designed for anal/oral sex, then why can't two males reproduce? Two females can't either, without outside help. A male/female combination is the only logical combination that allows reproduction.

What if reproduction isn't a goal? Humans don't appear naturally selected for flight, yet we fly. We aren't naturally selected for the cold, yet we live in cold climates. H. sapiens has the ability to overcome its evolved limitations.

What percentage of any given species is gay? The number should be around 0%. Mankind is the only species that commits gay acts.

You're absolutely wrong on this. Do you not even visit the zoo? There are many species that have individuals within its populations that "commit gay acts." Bonobos, orangutans, and geladas along with dolphins are but a few examples. Some of our genetically closest cousins.

God designed man and woman, but the first two sinned by disobeying a direct order from God.

Poppycock. Lets leave religious indoctrinations out of it unless you have some testable evidence of "design," shall we. This is nonsense and if its your only point of reason then its just another example of the fundamentally religious attempting to push its crap on the rest of society. Lets hear arguments that haven't a cult reasoning. Lets hear logical arguments please.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is the only passage in the entire Bible that directly deals with homosexuality, but it is there. (And translations vary from KJV to NIV, but all translations of the Bible say the same thing worded differently. The only real difference is Bibles like the New International Version have had the words adapted so we don't have to read "art" "thou" and "something-eth". I do have KJV, by the way, so I know what the first ones say.

And as I pointed out earlier, the original Greek has been mistranslated. Moreover, as I pointed out now, religious arguments can be summarily discarded. They have no bearing on society since their source is flawed.

What you say is ludicrice. If a group of black people is defined by a long series of illegal acts (i.e. a black-only gang) I hate the illegal actions they are defined by. Does that make me a racist? No. It means I hate the actions of a bunch of people who happen to be black.
And you would be allowed to hate the gay-only-criminal gang because of their criminal actions in a similar way. However as being gay is intrinsically related to the actions of homosexual sex you cannot unlink the two.
What you are saying is you only hate GAY gay people, not the straight ones?

Heterosexual marriage/sex is old, traditional, and preferred by most of the world. I asked you if it was good because you seem to be insinuating that it's not.
It doesn't matter, it has no relation to the argument. (but if you must know i have no problem with marriage in any way - unless they make it an exclusive club and exclude others from it's benefits).

But many ancient (pre and post christian) cultures had no problem with homosexuality... so you could argue its pretty traditional after all.

But it wouldn't matter if 99.99999999999% of the world was straight and there was only one gay couple in the entire world... who cares.. if they wan't to be happy together what the heck does it have to do witht he other 99.999999999%?

Slavery, arranged marriages, forced female castration and a lot of other things are/were traditional and prefered by a lot of the world... that doesn't mean to say that just because they are old and have become accepted they are right.

FOA, if humans were designed for anal/oral sex, then why can't two males reproduce? Two females can't either, without outside help. A male/female combination is the only logical combination that allows reproduction.
But is reproduction the only goal in our lives? Darwin would probably state that it is. But surely the thing that makes us feel we are better than mere animals, controlled by our genes, is the fact we can strive to do more than just propogate and die.

Most straight sex has no reproductive value - it is done for pleasure. Kissing, fondling, oral sex, anal sex - none of that is needed for reproduction, and 99% of the time it doesn't lead to reproduction.

Should kissing be frowned on because it has no reproductive value?

What all this IS is pleasurable.. and you could argue that god, or nature, or whatever made it pleasurable in order to encourage us to mate and reproduce. But then howcome god or nature or whatever also decided to make anal sex pleasurable? Must have been a reason. Eitehr it was all made pleasurable on purpose or it wasn't, you can't have it both ways.

Otherwise all those people, pigs, monkeys, penguins, ducks and other species wouldn't be at it... unless lucifer is spending his time tempting ducks into homosexuality??

Heterosexual marriage/sex is old, traditional, and preferred by most of the world.
Much of the world still prefers arranged marriages and polygamy to this day, as well... yet these fall outside the realm of what's currently acceptable in our country. The biblical patriarchs all practiced polygamy, as well as using concubines. Does that make it OK for our society? (Not to mention if there were only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able in the beginning... who exactly did Cain mate with? His mother, or one or more of his undescribed siblings? So that means God looked away from an incestuous marriage then, is it OK to do now?)

Seems to me the defintion of marriage has been pretty flexable in our history about what it will allow and not allow, and still be considered a marriage. But it's also been altered over the years.
If it's been changed in the past... then why not now? Times change, and our societial rituals need to be able to change with them. When did the rules get set in stone?

God designed man and woman,

Please take your Intelligent Design Creationism here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=157094&page=1&pp=40).

...Eh:confused:?

I knew someone would probably question that. What I mean is, all the communist dictators are athiests, and to me that sends a bad sign to people that when you take god out of government, you get communism and ****. I know it sounds stupid to me and you, but that's the kind of thing that fundies would think.

That's because the fundies don't realise that Communism is just as religious as their own secterian beliefs. It has it all: High priests, heresy, redemption, salvation, purgatory, paradise. And, of course, the mandatory larger-than-life Dear Leader who selflessly serves the People. Terms like 'class traitor' is a dead giveaway too.

'kay, TK, now I get it. Thanks:).

That's because the fundies don't realise that Communism is just as religious as their own secterian beliefs. It has it all: High priests, heresy, redemption, salvation, purgatory, paradise. And, of course, the mandatory larger-than-life Dear Leader who selflessly serves the People. Terms like 'class traitor' is a dead giveaway too.
Not to mention their own holy books like Mao's little Red Wart and Karl Marx's Communist Crapofesto:p.

When did the rules get set in stone?

100bc or something like that... though those rules didn't have anything about the illegality of same-sex (pengiun) marriages.
(well, maybe the first lot did, but not the lot we got to hear about..)

That's because the fundies don't realise that Communism is just as religious as their own secterian beliefs. It has it all: High priests, heresy, redemption, salvation, purgatory, paradise. And, of course, the mandatory larger-than-life Dear Leader who selflessly serves the People. Terms like 'class traitor' is a dead giveaway too.
Or maybe we 'fundies' realise it...we just don't buy into that particular religion...

Or maybe we 'fundies' realise it...we just don't buy into that particular religion...

Coming from someone who couldn't tell the difference between SPD and KPML-r to save his life...

Coming from someone who calls me a bigot but can't tolerate Christian opinions to save his life...

I'll respond to the rest later, but I'm enjoying my B-day. :D

Coming from someone who couldn't tell the difference between SPD and KPML-r to save his life...
I can find no discernible reason why that matters, or why I should care in the least...

I'll respond to the rest later, but I'm enjoying my B-day. :D

Happy b-day... another year wiser. :D

Coming from someone who calls me a bigot but can't tolerate Christian opinions to save his life...

Opinions enjoy no protection in a civilised society. Everyone must be allowed to attack any opinion - ruthlessly - for democracy to function.

I can find no discernible reason why that matters, or why I should care in the least...

Ignorance is Strength

Coming from someone who couldn't tell the difference between SPD and KPML-r to save his life...
:confused:

Coming from someone who calls me a bigot but can't tolerate Christian opinions to save his life...
It isn't so much about not tolerating people's opinions...anyone has the right to question anyone else's opinions. Its about not tolerating people.
I may not like what you say, but i DON'T say you don't have the right to say it. I also have the right to challenge it though.
You don't like gay people, but you DO say they don't have the right to be gay. That is the fundamental difference.

I'll respond to the rest later, but I'm enjoying my B-day. :D
Happy birthday! What the heck are you doing here? Go have some fun! :)

Coming from someone who couldn't tell the difference between SPD and KPML-r to save his life...:confused:

Socialdemokratische Partei Deutchlands and KommunistParti Marxist-Leninistisk - radikalt

Socialdemokratische Partei Deutchlands and KommunistParti Marxist-Leninistisk - radikalt
Gee, that tells us a lot...

If knowing the difference between the two is as significant as you seem to think, why don't you enlighten us to it, instead of playing stupid games? Otherwise, the whole argument (if you can call it that) is just a waste of everyone's time.

Despite not know precisely what language those are, I'd guess the first to be the Socialist Party of Germany and the second to be a radical communist marxist/leninist party.

I would guess the import of the assertion is knowing the difference between the socialist party and communist party.

I'm having trouble accessing the thread. What's going on?

No problem here. *Shrug*

If I click the thread, it says "invalid post specified". The only way I can access this thread at all is to click on "reply" from my Control Panel. And even then, it gives me the error after I post. I can only tell what you are saying by reading below this reply box. NOT fun at all. :(

No problem here either.

Try a different browser, or clear all your cookies and session data, and try again.

Cache cleared, but this spam is the only way I can reach the thread still. As soon as I can, I'll delete this and the above post, I promise. But in the meantime, I'll have to wait for this to work itself out. All other threads work fine, this is strange...

Despite not know precisely what language those are, I'd guess the first to be the Socialist Party of Germany and the second to be a radical communist marxist/leninist party.

I would guess the import of the assertion is knowing the difference between the socialist party and communist party.

Hole in one.