PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next



Pages : [1] 2 3

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 11:17 AM
Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next





Homosexuality has jumped out of the closet and into social acceptance. Today, sodomite behavior even enjoys legal protection and political preference. If you had told our grandparents thirty-five years ago that this would be the case, they would have laughed you out of the room.

Thirty-five years ago, the only people who were trumpeting the normalization of homosexuality were left-wing college professors. Few people took them seriously. That was a fatal mistake. We should have remembered Lincoln’s sage instruction:

"The philosophy of the classroom in one generation is the philosophy of the country in the next."

Who can deny that those liberal college professors in the 1960’s changed the direction of the entire nation? It behooves us, therefore, to give serious consideration to what liberal college and university professors are now promoting.

I'm told that in an article in the May/June issue of Society magazine entitled, "Sexual Liberation’s Last Frontier," Associate Professor of Sociology at Temple University, Julia Erickson calls for more tolerance and understanding for pedophiles. Yes, pedophiles. Erickson argues that the word pedophilia is too harsh and judgmental. She prefers using "child-adult sex." She questions research that shows long-term effects of such activity.

Erickson compares the plight of pedophiles to homosexuals in years gone by. She believes punishments inflicted upon pedophiles are too severe and suggests they need social acceptance, even legal protection, instead. You and I are making a serious miscalculation if we disregard people like Erickson as the lunatic fringe of society. We made that mistake thirty-five years ago, and look what has happened.

America has legally and culturally abandoned its Judeo/Christian roots. We have expunged traditional morality from the public square, and from the public conscience. Aberrant sexual misconduct of every kind has taken its place. Adultery, fornication, cohabitation and sodomy are socially acceptable, even politically protected. America currently has no moral compass.

Next on the list to achieve politically correct categorization is pedophilia. Understand that pedophilia is exactly where homosexuality was thirty-five years ago: in the classrooms of liberal college professors. If America doesn’t make a sudden and dramatic turn toward traditional [how about Biblical? - JZ] morality, pedophilia will enjoy the same kind of social and political acceptance that homosexuality now enjoys, and it won’t take thirty-five years to happen, either.

http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/homosexualitynow.html

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 11:33 AM
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7227/homoslp5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 12:46 PM
you're insane

Insein
02-05-2007, 02:29 PM
you're insane

you make such a persuasive argument. :rolleyes:

The article does make alot of sense. Had it just been a gays =pedophiles case, i'd have said its a stretch. However, when college proffesors are actively promoting pedophilia as an acceptable act, then it is a serious matter. These people do shape the minds of others very easily. Looking at the last 50 years of this society and we can see many morally reprehensible behavior from the past now being seen as commonplace and even championed as superior to normal society.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 04:10 PM
you're insane

Yeah I get it... this kind of information just slaps you liberal homo enablers in the face. Kind of hard to perpetuate your tepid line of diatribe against this kind of evidence.

jillian
02-05-2007, 04:12 PM
Family Research Institute is real compelling. :uhoh:

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 04:14 PM
LOL @ "liberal homo enablers"

Come up with a scientific source on something sometime so I might take you at least a little seriously. The Family Research Institute does not qualify.

Better yet, go outside for a while and stop thinking so hard about gay sex all the time.

Hobbit
02-05-2007, 04:19 PM
Typical. You can't attack the facts, so you attack the source. This isn't supposed to be a 'scientific' article. It's supposed to be a social commentary. Thrity years ago, a fringe group of liberal professors suggested that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted or even endorsed by our laws. People laughed at them and never took them seriously, and now there's a movement to enact gay marriage across the country.

Now, a fringe group of liberal professors are saying the same things about pedophilia, and those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 04:22 PM
Thrity years ago, a fringe group of liberal professors suggested that homosexuality was normal and should be accepted or even endorsed by our laws.

That fringe group of liberal professors was the American Psychiatric Association. And all the "Moral Majority" had to came back with was Anita Bryant.

OCA
02-05-2007, 04:28 PM
LOL @ "liberal homo enablers"

Come up with a scientific source on something sometime so I might take you at least a little seriously. The Family Research Institute does not qualify.

Better yet, go outside for a while and stop thinking so hard about gay sex all the time.

Attacking the source, how quintessentially lib.

Maybe you should try and refute it, or am I asking too much?

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 04:28 PM
For the FOURTH time I post this info...

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

"Given what I now know, I believe there are FLAWS with Paul Cameron's study". BILL BENNETT

Oh, and who's Paul Cameron?
Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" ...it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ....At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is NOT a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...ron_sheet.html

Hobbit
02-05-2007, 04:29 PM
That fringe group of liberal professors was the American Psychiatric Association. And all the "Moral Majority" had to came back with was Anita Bryant.

Your dates and my dates are different then. The American Psychiatric Association bowed to pressure once homosexuality gained steam.

OCA
02-05-2007, 04:30 PM
That fringe group of liberal professors was the American Psychiatric Association. And all the "Moral Majority" had to came back with was Anita Bryant.


APA caved to political and finacial pressure, that is a fact that has been documented several times.

Why do you insist on apologizing for homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists?

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 04:36 PM
APA caved to political and finacial pressure, that is a fact that has been documented several times.

Why do you insist on apologizing for homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists?

This is for Hobbit too. Please provide evidence from unbiased links, or if they are biased, ones that back up their assertions that:

1) The ADA caved to political pressure.
2) They ADA caved to financial pressure.
3) Who put them under such pressure and why.
4) Who were the individuals that provided the pressure and what "power" did they have.
5) Why did these people put the ADA under pressure.
6) Which members of the ADA resigned in protest at these pressures being put on them.

Cheers

BTW, homos are not perverts any more than you are.

OCA
02-05-2007, 04:47 PM
For the FOURTH time I post this info...

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

"Given what I now know, I believe there are FLAWS with Paul Cameron's study". BILL BENNETT

Oh, and who's Paul Cameron?
Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" ...it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ....At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is NOT a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...ron_sheet.html

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_pedo-sum.html

Pro-Gay Bias In Study of Pedophilia
Homosexuals are considerably more apt to involve themselves sexually with the underage. Anyone actually in contact with the phenomenon has to acknowledge this fact, perhaps most strongly explicated by the chairman of FRI in 1985.1 While homosexual spokesmen have disputed his conclusion, in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.... Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles" (p. 464). These figures are quite similar to those we at FRI have used since the early 1980s -- figures that for which gay activists have roundly criticized us. So how do Blanchard, et al., most of whom are from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, handle this fact that seems so damaging to the homosexual cause? By telling people not to notice, or if they do, not to draw the obvious conclusions.

Here's how they ended their article:
"Implications for Societal Attitudes

A few closing comments are necessary to preclude any misunderstanding or misuse of this study. First, the statistical association of homosexuality and pedophilia concerns development events in utero or in early childhood. Ordinary (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls. Second, the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant to whether it should be considered a psychopathology. That question has already been decided in the negative, on the grounds that homosexuality does not inherently cause distress to the individual or any disability in functioning as a productive member of society (Friedman, 1988; Spitzer, 1981)." (p. 476)

Really? "developmental events in utero or early childhood" -- what is the evidence for this apparent attempt to exculpate those who engage in this behavior? Consider also "does not inherently cause distress to the individual." Both citations are relatively 'ancient' in that the cited authors could not have availed themselves of the research in the 1990s -- when a number of large, relatively unbiased studies on nonvolunteers were published. In 1994, the University of Chicago sex survey12 reported that homosexuals -- both men and women -- less frequently claimed to be happy and more frequently claimed to be unhappy than heterosexuals. More frequent mental disturbance by homosexuals of both sexes has been reported in every large, random-sample study on the issue published in the 1990s! (e.g., the Christchurch study; the NHANES study; the large military twins-registry study; the 1996 NHSDA). And in 2001, in the Archives of General Psychiatry, a large representative sample of the Dutch population3 yielded the same finding, with gays twice and lesbians two or three times more apt to have one or more disorders in either the past 12 months or lifetime So even from the rather narrow perspective of "distress to the individual" the statement is, as near as can now be determined, decidedly false.

Likewise "any disability in functioning as a productive member of society." Where have these scholars been living? AIDS has devastated homosexual men, and disproportionately affected homosexual women. A host of self-inflicted problems (e.g., higher rates of suicide, substance abuse) as well has higher rates of physical disease, mental disturbance, murder, and accidents contribute to a sharply reduced lifespan.4 And if as a class you die young, and you are disproportionately involved in substance abuse and corruption of youth, you cannot contribute as much to society as those who live normal lifespans and do not endanger their neighbors with their drug-use or their neighbors' children with their sexual predilections.

Another article dealing with the proportionality issue of child abuse was published by Freund and Watson in 1992. These authors5 noted the 1985 literature review by FRI's chairman, and agreed that the ratio of female to male pedophilic victims was about 2:1, even as the proportion of heterosexual to homosexual men is about 20:1. Freund and Watson did some 'figuring' to arrive at an estimate that homosexual men are 'only' twice as apt to be pedophiles. They concluded that their findings generated support for the notion that "a homosexual development notably often does not result in androphilia [sexual desire for men] but in homosexual pedophilia [desire for boys]. ... This, of course, should not be understood as saying that androphiles may have a greater propensity to offend against children than do gynephiles [men interested in sex with women],...." (p. 41). Notice that both sets of Canadian investigators went to some lengths to 'interpret' or 'gloss' their results as not harmful to the gay rights cause, but were honest enough to report 'the facts' as they found them.

How is either research team to account for the fact that 23% of the 671 gays in the Bell and Weinberg study in San Francisco6 said that half or less" of their partners "were 16 or younger when the respondent was 21 or older"? Might this mean that about a quarter of gays have engaged in pedophilia? Certainly, in California in 1970, the activity they admitted to met the definition of 'illegal sexual contact with the underage' [the age of consent was 18 yr.]. Then, some might have only had sex with those aged 16. How many had sex with boys aged 15 or less? Bell et al didn't ask. But in the original Kinsey study7it was 27% of gays (Kinsey's standard was having sex with the underage 'when you were aged 18 or older'). And how many had sex with boys aged 13 or less -- an age that is defined as 'protected by immaturity' in almost all of the nations in the world8 at this time? The original Kinsey data suggests that that figure must be somewhere around 14% of gays under his 'aged 18 or older' standard (7, p. 512). 14% is about a seventh of gays! Add-in the fact that a disproportionate number of homosexuals have sex with animals (most studies, including the two from the Kinsey Institute, have reported proportionately 4 to 6 times as frequently as among heterosexuals [in the Bell et al study in San Francisco,9 respondents were asked whether or not they had engaged in sex with animals. Among men, 134 (19.5 percent) of 685 homosexual men answered yes, as opposed to 18 (5.4 percent) of 334 heterosexual men. Among women, 19 (6.5 percent) of 292 lesbians said they had engaged in sex with animals, while none of the heterosexual women said they had done so [1981, p. 161]), and homosexuals are more apt to engage in sadomasochism [26% of the gays v 4.5% of the heterosexual men and 9.6% of the lesbians. 2.7% of the heterosexual women had engaged in sexual sadism (9, p. 161)] and you get a picture of people who more frequently sexualize the players and parts in life -- people who are if you will, 'omnisexual.'

Gregory Herek, an openly homosexual/gay activist psychologist at the University of California at Davis has criticized our published material on homosexuals in general and on the link between homosexuality and child molestation in particular. Herek criticizes the fact that no one, including us, knows the sexual orientation" of the man who molests boys in any study. We hold that "a homosexual" is "one who engages in homosexuality," and even if a person caught molesting a boy called himself a heterosexual that would be irrelevant (many men who have sex with men and get HIV call themselves "heterosexual." Self-labeling is interesting, but it is hardly determinative as to who is, by their actions, considered a homosexual. The standard of 'what the individual does' rather than what he says he is is the standard employed throughout AIDS research, the 1996 NHSDA, the Dutch study cited above, etc.). As a matter of fact, it appears that most people caught molesting boys call themselves "homosexual" or "bisexual" -- in one study (the only one of which we are aware in which the question as to 'identity' was asked), 86% of those incarcerated for molesting boys described themselves as homosexual or "bisexual" (10, p. 83) -- what the other 14% called themselves is not reported, but their behavior makes clear what they reasonably should be considered. A "homosexual" (or an omnisexual) is one who has sex with his own sex, quite apart from what he claims he "is." While Masters and Johnson suggested ambisexual" to describe many homosexuals since they go 'both ways -- that is, have sex with both their and the opposite sex,' we feel it makes the most sense to call them "omnisexual" (like 'omnivorous,' denoting willingness to eat both plants and animals) with a 'major' or emphasis in homosexuality, which suggestively accounts for their more frequent sex with animals, children, scatophilia, S & M, etc. Herek cites the 1994 Jenny et al11 study of hospital charts at Denver Children's Hospital of 269 children molested as demonstrating that the molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases." As a matter of fact, 22% of the children in this study were homosexually molested -- but only 2 of the children's hospital charts either explicitly (in one case) or implicitly (in the other case) mentioned homosexuality of the perpetrator and only one molestation by "someone who could be classified as a pedophile or preferential child molester" (11, p. 43). The rest of the 'sexual preferences' of the molesters were not listed on the charts and were assumed to be heterosexual and nonpedophiles by Jenny et al., -- often merely because the perpetrator was living with the mother of the boy molested. Because you have sex with a mother hardly means that you will not have sex with a boy. For instance, in the large (over 20,000 respondents) random French survey, of those who "reported having had sexual intercourse with a same sex partner at least once also stated that they had had sexual intercourse with persons of the opposite sex (4% of men and 2.5% of women reported practices with partners of both sexes)" (p. 111). For the sample as a whole, "4.1% of men and 2.6% of women reported having had at least once same sex partner" (p. 108). Thus, only 2.4% of men who had ever engaged in homosexuality and 3.8% of women who had ever engaged in homosexuality failed to also engage in heterosexuality.14 This is how some married men molest boys and some married women molest girls -- engaging in homosexuality is seldom the only kind of sex such an individual participates in. People whose worlds are 'colored sexual' often find any number of sexual things to do to and with others of many different ages, different species, and, of course, the opposite and same sex.

Returning to the Jenny et al. study, are the overwhelming proportion (over 99%) of those who molested children not "pedophiles" because they were not listed as such on the hospital charts? Perhaps "pedophiles" only commit about 1% of child molestations. But the 1% figure seems a tad improbable. Of course it depends upon what you mean by "pedophile." if the standard that 'any adult who voluntarily engages in homosexual activity is a homosexual' is applied to the Jenny et al. study, then every one of the child molesters was a pedophile. If we narrow the definition of pedophile" to those who 'major' in sex with children," then the Jenny et al. study does not tell us, and it still seems unlikely that only one perpetrator was a "pedophile" by this standard. The Jenny et al study also does not tell us how many of the molesters "majored" in homosexual activity (some of the girls molested by men were probably molested by 'homosexuals' under this definition). Why do we know so little? The sexual orientation" of the perpetrator was apparently not mentioned in any of the other hospital charts! Neither the children nor the perpetrators were interviewed for the Jenny study, only the hospital charts were examined. Hospital charts seldom record 'guesses' as to the "sexual orientation" of the perpetrator. If 60 (22%) of the children were homosexually molested, by any reasonable definition of 'what a homosexual is,' these children were molested by a person who engages in homosexuality -- i.e., a homosexual. Because a person engages in homosexuality does not mean that he does not engage in heterosexuality. Very few "homosexuals" have failed to have sex with the opposite sex. Thus both FRI and the Univ. of Chicago investigators12 reported that only 5% of women who have sex with women and 9% of men who have sex with men said that they were heterosexual virgins, the corresponding figures for the FRI study were 5% and 8%. In any given 5 year period, it appears likely that most of those who have sex with their own sex also have sex with the opposite sex. A goodly number of men who molest boys also molest girls1 -- all of these men are omnisexuals with an apparent 'major' or 'minor' in homosexuality. Our research has been published and defended in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. Herek's criticisms of us have not met this standard, nor has he replied to our defense of the validity of our data. As time marches on, just about all of the findings we have reported from our 1983-84 study have been replicated by other investigators -- most of whom disagree vehemently with our interpretations of those findings. But the findings are 'the facts,' the interpretations of those facts are just that -- interpretations or reasoned opinions.

dirt mcgirt
02-05-2007, 04:47 PM
Aberrant sexual misconduct of every kind has taken its place. Adultery, fornication, cohabitation and sodomy are socially acceptable, even politically protected. America currently has no moral compass.
Cohabitation, fornication, and sodomy is aberrant sexual misconduct???? And they're henny pennying that pedophilia will become a social norm based on that??????? http://www.abnehmen.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Here's what I think of the articles:
http://breakbeat.org/forums/images/smilies/smiley_poop.gif

OCA
02-05-2007, 04:58 PM
This is for Hobbit too. Please provide evidence from unbiased links, or if they are biased, ones that back up their assertions that:

1) The ADA caved to political pressure.
2) They ADA caved to financial pressure.
3) Who put them under such pressure and why.
4) Who were the individuals that provided the pressure and what "power" did they have.
5) Why did these people put the ADA under pressure.
6) Which members of the ADA resigned in protest at these pressures being put on them.

Cheers

BTW, homos are not perverts any more than you are.

http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page57.html

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 05:08 PM
ROFL! gayconspiracy.co.uk :lmao:no - that can't possibly have a bias or agenda to it. LOL!

dirt mcgirt
02-05-2007, 05:14 PM
ROFL! gayconspiracy.co.uk :lmao:no - that can't possibly have a bias or agenda to it. LOL!
Don't underestimate the power of the gay conspiracy and a second shooter.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/images/smilies/cum.gif

OCA
02-05-2007, 05:15 PM
ROFL! gayconspiracy.co.uk :lmao:no - that can't possibly have a bias or agenda to it. LOL!


It says it all perfectly.

OCA
02-05-2007, 05:16 PM
Don't underestimate the power of the gay conspiracy and a second shooter.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/images/smilies/cum.gif


Didn't read the article, did ya?

Here let me help you out: www.readingcomprehensionfordummies.com

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 05:18 PM
The pure truth of the matter is, homosexuality is a deviant, perverted lifestyle choice. If someone is to think that a man ramming his johnson up another mans brown eye is NORMAL, then with that sort of sick thinking, CERTAINLY the leap from that to fondling minors is just a small detail, because in the twisted mind of the queer, there's NOTHING wrong with it.

I find people that defend faggots just as far out there and sick in the head as the faggot himself.

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 05:24 PM
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_pedo-sum.html

Pro-Gay Bias In Study of Pedophilia
Homosexuals are considerably more apt to involve themselves sexually with the underage. Anyone actually in contact with the phenomenon has to acknowledge this fact, perhaps most strongly explicated by the chairman of FRI in 1985.1 While homosexual spokesmen have disputed his conclusion, in a paper published in 2000 by Blanchard, Barbareee, Bogaert, Dicky, Klassen, Kuban, and Zucker2 the authors noted that the best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men..; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.... Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles" (p. 464). These figures are quite similar to those we at FRI have used since the early 1980s -- figures that for which gay activists have roundly criticized us. So how do Blanchard, et al., most of whom are from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, handle this fact that seems so damaging to the homosexual cause? By telling people not to notice, or if they do, not to draw the obvious conclusions.

.

You really need to read your links before posting. This is the SECOND time on a homo thread you have done this. Done what, you might ask? Tried to rebut my link about Paul Cameron with a link that quotes him extensively. Those first two superscripted red numbers that act as reference points? Go down to the bottom of the piece. They are quoting Cameron's study. The one I just rebutted (with a little help from uber conservative BILL BENNETT). Try again...

OCA
02-05-2007, 05:30 PM
You really need to read your links before posting. This is the SECOND time on a homo thread you have done this. Done what, you might ask? Tried to rebut my link about Paul Cameron with a link that quotes him extensively. Those first two superscripted red numbers that act as reference points? Go down to the bottom of the piece. They are quoting Cameron's study. The one I just rebutted (with a little help from uber conservative BILL BENNETT). Try again...


Cameron's study is spot on.

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 05:32 PM
Don't underestimate the power of the gay conspiracy and a second shooter.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/images/smilies/cum.gif


There may have been a couple of lesbians making out on the grassy knoll.

dirt mcgirt
02-05-2007, 05:34 PM
OH NOES MY PURITAN EYES ARE BURNING!!!!!1

http://news.narod.co.il/news/kurioz/15-05-2005_hot_lesbians.jpg

^
Totally fucking hot. Guess I'm abnormal. Oh well.

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 05:36 PM
Cameron's study is spot on.

It has been extensively rebutted. When someone like Bill Bennett says it's suspect (let alone his peers have disowned him), his study has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese...

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 05:41 PM
OH NOES MY PURITAN EYES ARE BURNING!!!!!1

http://news.narod.co.il/news/kurioz/15-05-2005_hot_lesbians.jpg

^
Totally fucking hot. Guess I'm abnormal. Oh well.

Homo enabler! I bet you're a sodomite too. :mad:

OCA
02-05-2007, 05:51 PM
It has been extensively rebutted. When someone like Bill Bennett says it's suspect (let alone his peers have disowned him), his study has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese...

The research is spot on, flawless.

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 05:57 PM
The research is spot on, flawless.

It has been proven flawed. If you can disprove my assertion, be my guest. Take your time....:beer:

Insein
02-05-2007, 06:04 PM
You can debate whether or not Homosexuality and Pedophilia are correlated till your blue in the face. However, the point of the original post I do fear is that College Proffesors do shape minds. If some professors are starting to preach that "child-adult sex" is a normal practice in society to their captive audiences, then we have major problems for the future of this society.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 06:13 PM
OH NOES MY PURITAN EYES ARE BURNING!!!!!1

http://news.narod.co.il/news/kurioz/15-05-2005_hot_lesbians.jpg

^
Totally fucking hot. Guess I'm abnormal. Oh well.

Would you think the same thing of two men groping each other?

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 06:15 PM
You can debate whether or not Homosexuality and Pedophilia are correlated till your blue in the face. However, the point of the original post I do fear is that College Proffesors do shape minds. If some professors are starting to preach that "child-adult sex" is a normal practice in society to their captive audiences, then we have major problems for the future of this society.

Hell insein, just look back forty years now. Morals are being flushed down the toilet by the unrelenting pressure from the secular progressives. They won't be happy until an old man can fuck a little boy up the ass, IN PUBLIC.

Yurt
02-05-2007, 06:20 PM
Hell insein, just look back forty years now. Morals are being flushed down the toilet by the unrelenting pressure from the secular progressives. They won't be happy until an old man can fuck a little boy up the ass, IN PUBLIC.


While I think ass sex is wrong, I don't think it can be equated with pedophilia. You would not say that rape is the same as hetrosexual sex. Pedophilia is more about choice, power, control, harm..... To compare the two is not accurate.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 06:30 PM
While I think ass sex is wrong, I don't think it can be equated with pedophilia. You would not say that rape is the same as hetrosexual sex. Pedophilia is more about choice, power, control, harm..... To compare the two is not accurate.

Well, yes, there is ample evidence that pedophilia is far more prevelant among homos than it is among heteros, and here's what I have to say about that...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The pure truth of the matter is, homosexuality is a deviant, perverted lifestyle choice. If someone is to think that a man ramming his johnson up another mans brown eye is NORMAL, then with that sort of sick thinking, CERTAINLY the leap from that to fondling minors is just a small detail, because in the twisted mind of the queer, there's NOTHING wrong with it.

With the progression of things thus far, the homosexual community will NOT be happy until they can do what they want, when they want, where ever they want, with whom they want, without a single word spoken in opposition.

OCA
02-05-2007, 06:31 PM
For the FOURTH time I post this info...

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

"Given what I now know, I believe there are FLAWS with Paul Cameron's study". BILL BENNETT

Oh, and who's Paul Cameron?
Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" ...it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ....At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is NOT a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...ron_sheet.html

Uhhh the link doesn't work but i've seen it before and its bogus.

All these asociations disassociating theirselves from Dr. Cameron are the same associations in the pocket of militant gay groups. This study is as bad as the life expectancy study on queers from Dr. Herek the fraud.

Yurt
02-05-2007, 06:35 PM
Well, yes, there has been ample evidence that pedophilia is far more prevelant among homos than it is among heteros, and here's what I have to say about that...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as you know, rape is far more prevelant among heteros.

Do you condone that? No. Of course not. Being "homosexual" is not the problem, it is putting one's dick into an orafice that is mean to excrete only.

That is my point. I don't believe this crap about "changing" gay men into heteros, if they like men, so what. Them acting on it is another thing entirely. As with rape, would you agree?

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 06:38 PM
Uhhh the link doesn't work but i've seen it before and its bogus.

All these asociations disassociating theirselves from Dr. Cameron are the same associations in the pocket of militant gay groups.

Course they are...:wink2: Did you know there were five shooters at the Kennedy assassination? That Area 52 is full of aliens? That Princess Di died at the hands of the Illuminati?

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 06:48 PM
And as you know, rape is far more prevelant among heteros.
Rape is rape. I'm not talking about rape. It makes no difference to me what so ever about sex or age when it comes to rape. A rapist is an animal, and should be castrated.


Do you condone that? No. Of course not. Being "homosexual" is not the problem, it is putting one's dick into an orafice that is mean to excrete only.
In my opinion, judging from what I've read, homosexuality is very much the problem. Queers are far more promiscuous than heteros, and they're not afraid to engage in perverted sex. They block out what is right from wrong, so to them homosexual anal sex is no more perverted than sex with a little boy. They just have to convince "you" of that now.


That is my point. I don't believe this crap about "changing" gay men into heteros, if they like men, so what. Them acting on it is another thing entirely. As with rape, would you agree?
I think I've pretty much stated my position already.

Yurt
02-05-2007, 07:08 PM
Pale Rider;10827]Rape is rape. I'm not talking about rape. It makes no difference to me what so ever about sex or age when it comes to rape. A rapist is an animal, and should be castrated.

The premise of this thread is that homsexuality is bad because statistically they are more likely to commit pedophilia. The second posts says this in bold (paraphrase):

2% of the pop is responsible for 20%-40% of something as troubling as child molestation.

Following this logic, then hetrosexuals must be far more troubling as heteros are far more likely to rape. Rapists are presumbly in the lower percentage of society.




In my opinion, judging from what I've read, homosexuality is very much the problem. Queers are far more promiscuous than heteros, and they're not afraid to engage in perverted sex. They block out what is right from wrong, so to them homosexual anal sex is no more perverted than sex with a little boy. They just have to convince "you" of that now.

I don't disagree. But "being" gay is different from "acting" gay, e.g., sticking your dick in ....

I disagree with the "little boy" train of thought. See above.

And I know "I" will never be convinced that ass fu.... is right, just like I will never be convinced that having sex with little children is right.







I think I've pretty much stated my position already.[/QUOTE]

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 07:09 PM
Would you think the same thing of two men groping each other?

Would you want to watch these two go at it?

http://thedacare.org/ThedaCareWeb/Images/Upload/eb52bd18-d6f4-4def-abe2-588adbea1947.couple.jpg

Besides, what are you a moral relativist now?

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 07:12 PM
The premise of this thread is that homsexuality is bad because statistically they are more likely to commit pedophilia. The second posts says this in bold (paraphrase):

2% of the pop is responsible for 20%-40% of something as troubling as child molestation.

Following this logic, then hetrosexuals must be far more troubling as heteros are far more likely to rape. Rapists are presumbly in the lower percentage of society.
I can't and won't argue that rapists are any better or worse than a pedophile. They both make me sick. But, all I'm saying is, there has been much evidence indicating homosexuals are more likely to be a pedophile than a hetero.



I don't disagree. But "being" gay is different from "acting" gay, e.g., sticking your dick in ....

I disagree with the "little boy" train of thought. See above.

And I know "I" will never be convinced that ass fu.... is right, just like I will never be convinced that having sex with little children is right.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 07:15 PM
Would you want to watch these two go at it?

I won't answer a question that is an answer to my question.


Besides, what are you a moral relativist now?
I'm a Christian. Figure it out.

Yurt
02-05-2007, 07:16 PM
Would you want to watch these two go at it?

http://thedacare.org/ThedaCareWeb/Images/Upload/eb52bd18-d6f4-4def-abe2-588adbea1947.couple.jpg

Besides, what are you a moral relativist now?


What are you an idiot now? Completely irrelevent.

Dolt

Yurt
02-05-2007, 07:18 PM
I can't and won't argue that rapists are any better or worse than a pedophile. They both make me sick. But, all I'm saying is, there has been much evidence indicating homosexuals are more likely to be a pedophile than a hetero.


As I said, fair enough. It still does not justify one thing over the over. Using stats.

Again, using this logic, heteros are more likely to commit rape. Which you find equally sick. Fine. Heteros "acting" on rape are criminals. Gays "acting" on pedophilia are criminals.

Fair?

Bubbalicious
02-05-2007, 07:28 PM
What are you an idiot now? Completely irrelevent.

Dolt


Point is, obviously, just because the idea of watching 2 guys go at it grosses you (or PR) out doesn't prove in and of itself that homosexuality's wrong. There are very few hetero couples that are at all fun to picture in their private time.

Nimrod

Yurt
02-05-2007, 07:39 PM
Point is, obviously, just because the idea of watching 2 guys go at it grosses you (or PR) out doesn't prove in and of itself that homosexuality's wrong. There are very few hetero couples that are at all fun to picture in their private time.

Nimrod

Ok nimrod:

You are now talking about watching, voreurism. You need help. And while you are at counseling, take a map reading class too. Your post is nowhere this thread bubba.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 07:50 PM
As I said, fair enough. It still does not justify one thing over the over. Using stats.
I was NOT trying to "justify" one or the other. There is none for such vile behavior.


Again, using this logic, heteros are more likely to commit rape. Which you find equally sick. Fine. Heteros "acting" on rape are criminals. Gays "acting" on pedophilia are criminals.

Fair?
Fair enough.

Yurt
02-05-2007, 07:52 PM
I was NOT trying to "justify" one or the other. There is none for such vile behavior.


Fair enough.

I know.

OCA
02-05-2007, 08:06 PM
OH NOES MY PURITAN EYES ARE BURNING!!!!!1

http://news.narod.co.il/news/kurioz/15-05-2005_hot_lesbians.jpg

^
Totally fucking hot. Guess I'm abnormal. Oh well.

Not typical of American dyke, those are commercial variety doing it for the money.

Reference Rosie O'Donnell or K.D. Lang for typical American bulldyke. In fact Rosie is a record according to Boone & Crockett.

On behalf of the staff please be accurate in your representations from now on, thanks in advance.

The Slayer
02-05-2007, 09:48 PM
You must not know many American Dykes !!!! You putting every lesbian in the same catagory as Rosie is a joke and a poor excuse for a generalization..
I am also shocked at how many threads are started on Homosexuals. I can not believe this is the biggest concern on a consevatives mind. My god there is a war going on, Dems have control of congress and the house oh and dont forget the Liberals and their greed, higher taxes, our love for enabling everyone( you know minority groups), our lack of work ethic and general lack of care for all of humanity besides our close minded selves.
Rant on now, as I am sure I have stirred the sess pool of bigotry and am about to be sodomized by it.

dirt mcgirt
02-05-2007, 10:05 PM
I am also shocked at how many threads are started on Homosexuals. I can not believe this is the biggest concern on a consevatives mind.
Good point. I remember seeing a couple of conservative figureheads who went way out of their way to proselytize about the evilness of gays, only to be outed for being closet queers themselves. Makes you wonder. :gay:

OCA
02-05-2007, 10:39 PM
This thread is being closed due to unwarranted flaming by Dirt.

jimnyc
02-06-2007, 09:22 AM
Thread has been re-opened, offending post was removed

dirt mcgirt
02-06-2007, 12:56 PM
You can debate whether or not Homosexuality and Pedophilia are correlated till your blue in the face. However, the point of the original post I do fear is that College Proffesors do shape minds. If some professors are starting to preach that "child-adult sex" is a normal practice in society to their captive audiences, then we have major problems for the future of this society.
Actually Insein, what you fail to realize is that the article PR posted conveys that this issue is urgent and inevitable. Check it out:

"Next on the list to achieve politically correct categorization is pedophilia. Understand that pedophilia is exactly where homosexuality was thirty-five years ago: in the classrooms of liberal college professors. If America doesn’t make a sudden and dramatic turn toward traditional [how about Biblical? - JZ] morality, pedophilia will enjoy the same kind of social and political acceptance that homosexuality now enjoys, and it won’t take thirty-five years to happen, either."

Well, guess what? The article was written in 2000. Either PR didn't know that or he was being intellectually dishonest and left that part out. America is no closer to normalizing relations with children today then they were 7 years ago. The author of that propoganda piece, Reverend Chuck Baldwin, is full of shit.

Hobbit
02-06-2007, 01:26 PM
Actually Insein, what you fail to realize is that the article PR posted conveys that this issue is urgent and inevitable. Check it out:

"Next on the list to achieve politically correct categorization is pedophilia. Understand that pedophilia is exactly where homosexuality was thirty-five years ago: in the classrooms of liberal college professors. If America doesn’t make a sudden and dramatic turn toward traditional [how about Biblical? - JZ] morality, pedophilia will enjoy the same kind of social and political acceptance that homosexuality now enjoys, and it won’t take thirty-five years to happen, either."

Well, guess what? The article was written in 2000. Either PR didn't know that or he was being intellectually dishonest and left that part out. America is no closer to normalizing relations with children today then they were 7 years ago. The author of that propoganda piece, Reverend Chuck Baldwin, is full of shit.

Aren't we? How light are the sentences given to female pedophiles, and how righteous to they feel in their 'love' of their victims? How much has the case of NAMBLA advanced? How many times have you seen a string of stories about an 18 year old being jailed for banging his 14-15 year old girlfriend followed by a suggested drop in the age of consent? Homosexuality didn't thunder in with a mighty boom, either. It came in slowly.

dirt mcgirt
02-06-2007, 01:54 PM
Aren't we?
No.

The Slayer
02-06-2007, 02:35 PM
Homosexuality didn't creep its way into your living room. It has been around as long as the bible, even longer. The only reason people see it as an issue of moral degradation these days is because it is a way to sway a popular vote. Lets bring the gays to front of an election and not put our focus on the real matters at hand. That way people get all riled up one way or another about it and the vote for one politician over the other is decided. Those who bring it up as the decay of modern society are counting on the Christian fundies to step up to the plate and call for the condemnation of a whole culture of individuals. They are not asking for special rights they are asking for equality, the same thing blacks, and women had to fight for. God forbid we not judge people by who they love, and allow nature to takes it course. Don't worry I know many people here do not think this is natural, but it is not for you to decide if you are as Christian as you claim to be. Homosexuals, which is actually a very PC term, are not encouraging pedophilia, they are not the cause, they are stuck getting the stigma attached because 1/2 of the gays out there are homosexual men. You know what's funny though, I bet half the people who bitch and moan about the gays corrupting society have either had anal sex, or watched some video that demonstrated it. Pedophilia is not about anal sex, it is about lusting and fulfilling that lust for the youth. Maybe people should spend a little more time educating their own children about sex and right and wrong touch, instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them.
You do not have to agree with anyone's lifestyle but please stop judging others on the way they live their lives. I am sure we can take a look at anyone here's home and find some skeleton's in the closet.

5stringJeff
02-06-2007, 03:01 PM
Homosexuality didn't creep its way into your living room. It has been around as long as the bible, even longer. The only reason people see it as an issue of moral degradation these days is because it is a way to sway a popular vote.

Actually, many of use focus on it because we see it as a true moral wrong.


Those who bring it up as the decay of modern society are counting on the Christian fundies to step up to the plate and call for the condemnation of a whole culture of individuals. They are not asking for special rights they are asking for equality, the same thing blacks, and women had to fight for. God forbid we not judge people by who they love, and allow nature to takes it course. Don't worry I know many people here do not think this is natural, but it is not for you to decide if you are as Christian as you claim to be.

You're right. If one is a Christian, it is not for us to decide what is moral behavior and what is immoral. It is up to God, and God has stated unequivically that homosexual behavior is immoral. So it is not us Christians who are making homosexuality to be immoral, it is God.


You do not have to agree with anyone's lifestyle but please stop judging others on the way they live their lives. I am sure we can take a look at anyone here's home and find some skeleton's in the closet.

Everyone is guilty of sin. However, that doesn't mean that people can't recognize and/or warn against sinful behavior.

The Slayer
02-06-2007, 03:23 PM
How many conversations have you had with god about what is immoral behavior? I am not questioning your faith by any means, but how do you really know what god say's unless you have a direct link to him. I do not believe that the bible is a direct link so please provide me with evidence other than the good book that backs your statement. Also if it is not up to us to decide, why is this conversation even happening? Why are there all these people with ideals on what is right and wrong in the eyes of god trying to convince each other that they know for a fact what god is saying? Who see's through those eyes?

I am sorry for the edit I deleted the quote.

Hobbit
02-06-2007, 03:42 PM
How many conversations have you had with god about what is immoral behavior?

Several. You'd be surprised what the guy has to say if you know how to listen.


I am not questioning your faith by any means, but how do you really know what god say's unless you have a direct link to him. I do not believe that the bible is a direct link so please provide me with evidence other than the good book that backs your statement.

I talk to Him, and not through signed and verified legal depositions, either. I'm afraid there's no proof I can offer that will satisfy you, as if you fail to believe that the Bible carries the word of God, there's little chance of you believing anything I have to say about talking to him is anything more than some kind of hallucination.


Also if it is not up to us to decide, why is this conversation even happening? Why are there all these people with ideals on what is right and wrong in the eyes of god trying to convince each other that they know for a fact what god is saying? Who see's through those eyes?

The reason this conversation is here is because we care for the country and know that God forbids things for very good reasons. A few millenia ago, he levelled two cities in a single day for such practices. It stands to reason that failing to heed that kind of warning will have dire consequences.


No.

Wow, I am so floored by your superior intellect and uncanny ability to counter every point I made with such flawless logic. Now go away unless you have something intelligent to say.

The Slayer
02-06-2007, 04:06 PM
I will give you my full respect for your beliefs and your choice to voice them in a humbling fashion. I also agree you can have your own conversation with God. I do not doubt that you do. I thank you for your honesty in approaching this whole matter.
I have my faith you have yours, I doubt they differ all that much besides the way we practice them. I do not believe that the bible is the word of God. I think there are valuable lessons in the Bible but I see a lot of misguided people interpret what is being said to mold to their beliefs of what is right and wrong.
I too care for my country, but I do not think that homosexuality is forbidden, nor do I believe God will give this whole country a leveling because there are gay people living their lives. I believe it is about who you are, what you do, and how you live your life that will speak volumes when and if you meet your maker. I refuse to spend my energy trying to convert people to my set of beliefs as I am born of free will the same as others.I will discuss freely what I believe in, but I will not stand for people judging me based on them. I enjoy an eye opening conversation with people who can have a mature discussion on their different beliefs without resorting to name calling and bigotry.
I am friends with the gay's, I will stand up for them any chance I am given, I do not see them leading this country to the bowels of hell. I feel there are a lot bigger fish to fry for redemption than people who have found love in a different place than myself.

Hagbard Celine
02-06-2007, 04:32 PM
Aren't we? How light are the sentences given to female pedophiles, and how righteous to they feel in their 'love' of their victims? How much has the case of NAMBLA advanced? How many times have you seen a string of stories about an 18 year old being jailed for banging his 14-15 year old girlfriend followed by a suggested drop in the age of consent? Homosexuality didn't thunder in with a mighty boom, either. It came in slowly.

First, pedophilia will NEVER enjoy the same status as homosexuality. Anyone who believes this is deranged. No civil society ever has or ever will permit child abuse. Second, when a hot teacher seduces a 15 or 16-year-old boy and sexes him up, there is no victim there. Didn't you go through puberty? Those dudes are living the dream, not being abused. And third, the reason guys get sent to prison for having sex with their underage girlfriends is that the girls' parentals are usually conservative pricks who overreact at the thought of their little princesses getting poked.

Gunny
02-06-2007, 09:41 PM
First, pedophilia will NEVER enjoy the same status as homosexuality. Anyone who believes this is deranged. No civil society ever has or ever will permit child abuse. Second, when a hot teacher seduces a 15 or 16-year-old boy and sexes him up, there is no victim there. Didn't you go through puberty? Those dudes are living the dream, not being abused. And third, the reason guys get sent to prison for having sex with their underage girlfriends is that the girls' parentals are usually conservative pricks who overreact at the thought of their little princesses getting poked.

Yeah, and twenty years ago I can recall hearing the same said about homosexuality ... it will NEVER enjoy the same status as heterosexuality.

BTW, those same societies that accepted homosexuality, also accepted pedophilia. The Romans and Greeks come to mind off the top of my head.

Pale Rider
02-07-2007, 02:04 AM
I will give you my full respect for your beliefs and your choice to voice them in a humbling fashion. I also agree you can have your own conversation with God. I do not doubt that you do. I thank you for your honesty in approaching this whole matter.
I have my faith you have yours, I doubt they differ all that much besides the way we practice them. I do not believe that the bible is the word of God. I think there are valuable lessons in the Bible but I see a lot of misguided people interpret what is being said to mold to their beliefs of what is right and wrong.
I too care for my country, but I do not think that homosexuality is forbidden, nor do I believe God will give this whole country a leveling because there are gay people living their lives. I believe it is about who you are, what you do, and how you live your life that will speak volumes when and if you meet your maker. I refuse to spend my energy trying to convert people to my set of beliefs as I am born of free will the same as others.I will discuss freely what I believe in, but I will not stand for people judging me based on them. I enjoy an eye opening conversation with people who can have a mature discussion on their different beliefs without resorting to name calling and bigotry.
I am friends with the gay's, I will stand up for them any chance I am given, I do not see them leading this country to the bowels of hell. I feel there are a lot bigger fish to fry for redemption than people who have found love in a different place than myself.


You are entirely entitled to believe in what you want. I condem no one for their beliefs. However, I will disagree with what they believe, as you do us Christians. That is your right here in America.

It's just to bad you have to throw your support and morals behind something so perverted as homosexuality. I wouldn't want to meet "my" maker and have to explain to him why I endorsed such perverse behavior all my life. He's likely to wonder why, when it should have been painfully obvious it's wrong.

The Slayer
02-09-2007, 12:17 AM
I dont know what you mean by you Christians? How do you know that I am not a Christian? There are many branches to Christianity when I last checked and my faith does not force me to be a narrow minded bigot. My parents are very good Christians and are also homo-enablers. I have yet to meet a real Christian who was not willing to accept the people they meet as they are- without this feeling of the day of reckoning. The people I choose to have in my life know in their heart of hearts that sexual orientation is not the definition of the individuals worth, even in the eyes of God.
Please forgive me for not understanding what your definition of a Christian is, or how you can tell over the internets wether or not a person is of the same faith base as yourself.
The only thing I find painfully obvious is that people become blind by their "beliefs" and interpretations of the written word. If they would open their eyes and their hearts a bit more and shut their mouths they might just see they are missing out on something really beautiful, I like to call it living, or not choosing to hide behind fear.

Gunny
02-11-2007, 10:42 PM
I dont know what you mean by you Christians? How do you know that I am not a Christian? There are many branches to Christianity when I last checked and my faith does not force me to be a narrow minded bigot. My parents are very good Christians and are also homo-enablers. I have yet to meet a real Christian who was not willing to accept the people they meet as they are- without this feeling of the day of reckoning. The people I choose to have in my life know in their heart of hearts that sexual orientation is not the definition of the individuals worth, even in the eyes of God.
Please forgive me for not understanding what your definition of a Christian is, or how you can tell over the internets wether or not a person is of the same faith base as yourself.
The only thing I find painfully obvious is that people become blind by their "beliefs" and interpretations of the written word. If they would open their eyes and their hearts a bit more and shut their mouths they might just see they are missing out on something really beautiful, I like to call it living, or not choosing to hide behind fear.

I agree with part of your statement, and disagree with part of it. Insofar as judgement is concerned, it is God's place to judge homosexuals because it is God's law they are defying. So, from a Christian perpective, IMO, it is not right for Man to presume to be God.

However, as a member of the society in which we live, it is Man's right to judge others for breaking Man's laws, and/or violating the norms of that society.

All BS arguments aside, homosexuality is NOT normal behavior, and obviously so. Special legislation decreeing it normal behavior to cater to an aberrant minority is just wrong.

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 10:52 PM
I wouldn't want to meet "my" maker and have to explain to him why I endorsed such perverse behavior all my life.

Even if there is a god, which as you know I don't believe, I don't think he'd/she'd give a rats...

Gunny
02-11-2007, 10:54 PM
Even if there is a god, which as you know I don't believe, I don't think he'd/she'd give a rats...

Assuming for your sake of argument there is a God, then it does matter. Homosexuality is clearly denounced in the Bible -- the word of God.

OCA
02-11-2007, 10:55 PM
Even if there is a god, which as you know I don't believe, I don't think he'd/she'd give a rats...

You see here is my view on atheists: people claim atheism because they are afraid that they are unable to live by any standards set for them. Its real easy, ain't it Chump? To just say "oh well there is no God, no heaven, I don't have to worry about shit.

Better hope you are right.

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 10:57 PM
Assuming for your sake of argument there is a God, then it does matter. Homosexuality is clearly denounced in the Bible -- the word of God.

That is if the bible is the word of god...

Grumplestillskin
02-11-2007, 11:00 PM
You see here is my view on atheists: people claim atheism because they are afraid that they are unable to live by any standards set for them. Its real easy, ain't it Chump? To just say "oh well there is no God, no heaven, I don't have to worry about shit.

Better hope you are right.

What standards would they be OFA? Just because there is no god doesn't mean I don't a life of integrity and honesty. And what do you mean I don't have to worry about shit? Course I do, just like anybody else. You think peoples' values/mores and living their lives without a god in it is any different as far as making things "easy" or not havign values or morals, or not worrying? Where'd you get that logic, or lack thereof, from?

I know I'm right. Just as Darin or Hobbit or Gunny or yourself knows you are right, right?

Missileman
02-11-2007, 11:02 PM
Assuming for your sake of argument there is a God, then it does matter. Homosexuality is clearly denounced in the Bible -- the word of God.

Are you referring to the same work of mythology in which "God" claims to flood the entire planet and kill every living thing that wasn't on Noah's Ark?

Gunny
02-11-2007, 11:04 PM
That is if the bible is the word of god...

I am not addressing whether or not there is a God. You made a statement for the sake of argument that "if" there is a God ..... The premise of your argument is that God would not care. It is that which I addressed.

Since I can't prove there is a God, and you cannot prove there is not, I'll forego that particular argument at this time.

Gunny
02-11-2007, 11:04 PM
Are you referring to the same work of mythology in which "God" claims to flood the entire planet and kill every living thing that wasn't on Noah's Ark?

Yep. That would be the one.

Missileman
02-11-2007, 11:07 PM
Yep. That would be the one.

And do you believe that a global flood occurred, or that it was lore made up to give "God" a more imposing aura?

Ado
02-11-2007, 11:10 PM
You see here is my view on atheists: people claim atheism because they are afraid that they are unable to live by any standards set for them. Its real easy, ain't it Chump? To just say "oh well there is no God, no heaven, I don't have to worry about shit.

Better hope you are right.

Is that right? We don't have to to follow laws or pay bills,
or care about shit? I say you have some seriously flawed
thinking there--that's fucked up.

What's the excuse that Christians use when they don't
follow the "almighty word"? Must not be too strong a
word, since there are so many hypocrites not understanding it.

Gunny
02-11-2007, 11:11 PM
And do you believe that a global flood occurred, or that it was lore made up to give "God" a more imposing aura?

I believe Noah's "world" was flooded. In the context of time, since no one then even knew the Earth was a "globe," if the world he knew was flooded, ti would amount to the same thing persepctive-wise.

Gunny
02-11-2007, 11:13 PM
Is that right? We don't have to to follow laws or pay bills,
or care about shit? I say you have some seriously flawed
thinking there--that's fucked up.

What's the excuse that Christians use when they don't
follow the "almighty word"? Must not be too strong a
word, since there are so many hypocrites not understanding it.

That isn't what he's saying, but I expect you know that. He's saying that nonbelievers don't have to concern themselves with moral consequence and can engage in behavior that those who believe in moral consequence would not.

Missileman
02-11-2007, 11:21 PM
I believe Noah's "world" was flooded. In the context of time, since no one then even knew the Earth was a "globe," if the world he knew was flooded, ti would amount to the same thing persepctive-wise.

The conversation related between God and Noah is pretty detailed. Are you saying that God said "everything under the heavens" but meant "everything under the heavens that Noah knows about"? What was the purpose of the flood again? Wasn't it to wipe out all of the unholy? A regional flood leaves an awful lot of non-jewish, therefore unholy, people on the planet doesn't it?

Gunny
02-11-2007, 11:30 PM
The conversation related between God and Noah is pretty detailed. Are you saying that God said "everything under the heavens" but meant "everything under the heavens that Noah knows about"? What was the purpose of the flood again? Wasn't it to wipe out all of the unholy? A regional flood leaves an awful lot of non-jewish, therefore unholy, people on the planet doesn't it?

Can't say that I'm familiar with the story beyond the general so anything I have to sya would just be guessing. That would be not to mention that since neither of us were privy to the conversation, we only have the transcriber's words to go by, right?

I assume there is some point you are attempting to make?

Pale Rider
02-12-2007, 12:18 AM
I dont know what you mean by you Christians?
Born again Christian.


How do you know that I am not a Christian?
I don't. Sorry.


There are many branches to Christianity when I last checked and my faith does not force me to be a narrow minded bigot.
I see you like to throw around the bigot word too. You realize by doing so you're exposing yourself as a bigot. Think about it.


My parents are very good Christians and are also homo-enablers. I have yet to meet a real Christian who was not willing to accept the people they meet as they are- without this feeling of the day of reckoning. The people I choose to have in my life know in their heart of hearts that sexual orientation is not the definition of the individuals worth, even in the eyes of God.
God is quite clear what he thinks of homo's, so I'll help you out this once. Read...


Even if there is a god, which as you know I don't believe, I don't think he'd/she'd give a rats...
Same goes for you grump, read...


How do I answer when someone states that Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality?

First, as Bible believing Christians, we believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh - and believing so, Jesus' strongest stand on the issue of homosexuality had to be when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The Bible says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah - and Jesus is part of the triune God. The Bible tells us Jesus was there from the beginning of creation (Genesis) - and He was responsible for creation as well. How much more clearly can Jesus have been in his 'speaking out against' homosexuality, than in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

While it is true that the New Testament does not document any statements of Jesus specifically condemning or condoning homosexuality - He didn't need to. It was very clear. However, John 21:25 states that "…there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one…even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Further, it should be considered that there is no record of Jesus’ statements on other sexual practices like rape, incest, bestiality, etc. Yet it is unlikely that Jesus sanctioned these behaviors.

In addition, Jesus reinforced Old Testament law on sexual behavior in Matthew 5:27-30 and Mark 7:21-23. Old Testament law condemned the practice of homosexuality:

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

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them hath committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." – Leviticus 20:13

Clearly, Scripture does not equate homosexual and heterosexual relationships. In fact, perhaps the best indicator of Jesus’ stance on homosexuality is found in Matthew 19:4-6, where He restates the Genesis 2:21-25 account of God’s ordination of the marital union. This reference is consistent with all of Scripture, which esteems marriage, the union of one man and one woman in covenant union, above every other relationship, and maintains that all sexual activity must take place within its confines. Any other sex outside that of the grounds of biblical, heterosexual marriage is considered fornication, condemned by God.

Homosexuality was punishable by death in the Old Testament, but we are under the new covenant of grace now. How does that affect the practice of homosexuality?

Many moral laws are repeated throughout Scripture. Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws changed under the new covenant of grace. But Christ Himself affirmed much of the moral law in the gospels – His dissertation on adultery is just one example. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus stated, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Romans 1:26-27 informs us that sexual immorality and self-worship brings great consequence to those involved: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." These New Testament passages references the perversion of homosexuality – and affirms that God designed the sexual relationship for biblical, heterosexual marriage.

Some homosexual individuals twist the meaning of the Romans passage and argue that what comes "natural" to them is homosexuality so it would be sin to act contrary to those feelings. However, what is "natural" and right is defined by God’s created order (Genesis 2:21-25 and Matthew 19:4-6) not our feelings.

Is homosexuality worse than any other sin?

The Scriptures in Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) refer to homosexuality as an abomination, as detestable. Webster defines abomination as something that is "worthy of or causing disgust or hatred."

The joining of one man and one woman in a covenant union (including sexual relationship) is also a picture or type of the Gospel of Christ. Christ is refereed to as the "bridegroom" and the church (the body of believers) is referred to as the "bride." The two will be joined for all eternity at the "marriage supper of the lamb." The homosexual act perverts this picture to the greatest possible extent. Does this imply that homosexuals are worse than any other sinner? Certainly not. All sin is worthy of disgust or hatred. By its very nature, sin is the antithesis of the character of God. In I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-11, homosexuality is included among a host of other sins – sins that endanger an inheritance in the kingdom of God; sins that the law was designed to punish.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." – I Corinthians 6:9-10

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." – I Timothy 1:9-11

We should never view the sin of another as more egregious than our own. All of our sins separated us from our Creator. Christ died to redeem our lives from sin, and to reinstate our personal relationship with God.

When using the Bible to validate the principle that homosexuality is sin, one is often told, "That is your interpretation." What makes this interpretation more valid than others?

An individual who uses the preceding argument is likely using it for one of two reasons. Either the individual (1) does not understand the methodology of Bible Hermeneutics, or (2) is simply trying to justify his or her sinful behavior.

There is a vast difference between interpretation and opinion. Biblical interpretation is guided by hermeneutics. According to Webster, hermeneutics is "the study of the methodological principles of interpretation." Webster uses the following words to describe methodological: systematic, technique, process, discipline, orderliness, regularity, and classification. This means that Bible study must be done with great care to avoid arbitrariness and inconsistency.

A careful, systematic reading of both the Old and New Testaments indicates that marriage between one man and one woman is God’s one and ONLY plan for mankind, and that homosexuality is not an “alternative lifestyle” as some wish to define it: it is sin. Any other "interpretation" must be based on historical or theological revisionism or faulty hermeneutics. A more honest position by those who desire to support the acceptance of homosexual behavior would be to simply reject the Bible as God’s authoritative word; a position which denies any basis for the true Christian faith.


Please forgive me for not understanding what your definition of a Christian is, or how you can tell over the internets wether or not a person is of the same faith base as yourself.
The only thing I find painfully obvious is that people become blind by their "beliefs" and interpretations of the written word. If they would open their eyes and their hearts a bit more and shut their mouths they might just see they are missing out on something really beautiful, I like to call it living, or not choosing to hide behind fear.

There is NOTHING "beautiful" about HOMOSEXUALITY. It's ugly, perverse, immoral, degenerate, harmful and repugnant behavior.

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 01:00 AM
He's saying that nonbelievers don't have to concern themselves with moral consequence and can engage in behavior that those who believe in moral consequence would not.

Only if non-believers have no morals. I have seen both believers and non-believers with/without morals..:dunno:

The Slayer
02-12-2007, 01:12 AM
You see here is my view on atheists: people claim atheism because they are afraid that they are unable to live by any standards set for them. Its real easy, ain't it Chump? To just say "oh well there is no God, no heaven, I don't have to worry about shit.

Better hope you are right.


Here we are again with the judging. Don't you think it is out of fear that people believe in something like the word of god on paper? Those who do not fear the unknown do not have to follow by a written law, they chose to find their own sense of moral's and guidlines to live by. I have often found myself enjoying those "godless" types more so than the "god fearing" kind. Of course that is because I am not a fan of judgement. You calling Grumple-chump just goes to show for your lack of this so called faith you have and a lack of better judgement to know better. Be glad he knows who he is and does not live with the inner battle of not knowing what he believes.

The Slayer
02-12-2007, 01:22 AM
I suppose pale rider wants a round of applause for quoting the Bible..:clap:
There you go. I too can read and take a clip out of the written word. I can quote anyone you would like quoted. I too have read the bible YEAH ME, but I dont toss those words around like candy( I do not feel the need to prove I can copy and paste words), I see some good in the good book, but I also have learned a lot of lessons from other great books. Ones that are written by Authors and translated straight across the board. I do not need a scripture lesson and if I wanted one I would ask the real Christians I know. They are not born again, they have and always will be just that, good Christians.
You are right about one thing though Pale Rider I am a bigot, as are every other human, unfortunatly I think there have been very few cases of people who were selfless enough to give completly of themselves, and not expect anything in return. The difference between me and yourself is I admit I have faults and make mistakes. I do not need to point fingers past me for faults, and I will own up to those things which I lack in.

The Slayer
02-12-2007, 01:27 AM
There is NOTHING "beautiful" about HOMOSEXUALITY. It's ugly, perverse, immoral, degenerate, harmful and repugnant behavior.

I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the beauty in one living their life differently than yours. It is not them you are hurting by being so closed minded, it is yourself as you will never really know or understand the meaning of free will. When you choose to spew vile hatred and sling barbs at those who do not see eye to eye with you, you are cutting yourself short of any kind of reality and any chance at some kind of inner peace. You keep fighting the good fight within yourself, I would imagine it must be a lonely place to live.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 08:16 AM
Can't say that I'm familiar with the story beyond the general so anything I have to sya would just be guessing. That would be not to mention that since neither of us were privy to the conversation, we only have the transcriber's words to go by, right?

I assume there is some point you are attempting to make?

The point is this: There are parts of the Bible that are obviously not the word of an omniscient god. How do you know that God really thinks homosexuality is an abomination and that it wasn't something the "transcriber" ad libbed due to his own bias?

Pale Rider
02-12-2007, 12:57 PM
I suppose pale rider wants a round of applause for quoting the Bible..:clap:
There you go. I too can read and take a clip out of the written word. I can quote anyone you would like quoted. I too have read the bible YEAH ME, but I dont toss those words around like candy( I do not feel the need to prove I can copy and paste words), I see some good in the good book, but I also have learned a lot of lessons from other great books. Ones that are written by Authors and translated straight across the board. I do not need a scripture lesson and if I wanted one I would ask the real Christians I know. They are not born again, they have and always will be just that, good Christians.
You indicated that you didn't know what the Bible said as far as homosexuality went. I was just trying to help you out. As a Christian and a heterosexual, I go by what is written in the Bible, not some secular author. I follow my religon.


You are right about one thing though Pale Rider I am a bigot, as are every other human, unfortunatly I think there have been very few cases of people who were selfless enough to give completly of themselves, and not expect anything in return. The difference between me and yourself is I admit I have faults and make mistakes. I do not need to point fingers past me for faults, and I will own up to those things which I lack in.

I will whole heartedly admit I'm not perfect. Did I say I was? No. And I'll also admit I'm not a shinning example of a Christian. BUT, you won't find me denying my faith.

Pale Rider
02-12-2007, 01:03 PM
I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the beauty in one living their life differently than yours. It is not them you are hurting by being so closed minded, it is yourself as you will never really know or understand the meaning of free will. When you choose to spew vile hatred and sling barbs at those who do not see eye to eye with you, you are cutting yourself short of any kind of reality and any chance at some kind of inner peace. You keep fighting the good fight within yourself, I would imagine it must be a lonely place to live.

No... slayer, wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm not "closed minded" at all. That's just liberal spin and buzz words. However, I do have the NATURAL ability to determine RIGHT FROM WRONG. I also have the capacity to ADMIT IT. You people trying to pump this, "fags sucking each other off and fucking each other up the ass is beautiful" crap down our throats is all but laughable. You're telling us we're wrong for being RIGHT. It's absurd and a lie. You go ahead and keep lying to yourself. I won't lie to me.

OCA
02-12-2007, 03:46 PM
Again, atheists have to be right because if they are not its an afterlife of hot coals. If Christians aren't right and there is no heaven or hell.....oh well.

The moral relativist view on homosexuality is one born out of fear of commitment, you'd rather be seen as non-judgemental so you won't be labeled a bigot/homophobe or make some person face the ugly truth about their lifestyle choice and have them despise you rather than make a clear and logical decision when a clear right/wrong is staring you in the face.

Its really a pov born out of laziness and no intestinal fortitude.

OCA
02-12-2007, 03:54 PM
Is that right? We don't have to to follow laws or pay bills,
or care about shit? I say you have some seriously flawed
thinking there--that's fucked up.

What's the excuse that Christians use when they don't
follow the "almighty word"? Must not be too strong a
word, since there are so many hypocrites not understanding it.

No, you're quite wrong Sherlock.

When there is no concern for anything but the here and now and no belief in consequences after death for actions taken during life then it is much easier to cut corners so to speak.

A moral atheist, now that is humour!

Gunny
02-12-2007, 05:04 PM
The point is this: There are parts of the Bible that are obviously not the word of an omniscient god. How do you know that God really thinks homosexuality is an abomination and that it wasn't something the "transcriber" ad libbed due to his own bias?

:rolleyes:

Quite a stretch, even for you. Two can play the same game ...

How do you know that God doesn't think homosexuality is an abomination? All we have are statements that he does.

Homosexuality is NOT normal behavior, and you know it. The fact that anyone tries to argue otherwise is absurd.

The Slayer
02-12-2007, 05:34 PM
No... slayer, wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm not "closed minded" at all. That's just liberal spin and buzz words. However, I do have the NATURAL ability to determine RIGHT FROM WRONG. I also have the capacity to ADMIT IT. You people trying to pump this, "fags sucking each other off and fucking each other up the ass is beautiful" crap down our throats is all but laughable. You're telling us we're wrong for being RIGHT. It's absurd and a lie. You go ahead and keep lying to yourself. I won't lie to me.

See now you have crossed a line with me. I have tried to keep civil. I have not been personally attacking you or anyone else for their beliefs. I have disagreed and questioned but I did not get personal. When you throw around the terms like "YOU PEOPLE" and "liberal spin and buzz words" you are going to piss me off. There is no other person like me. I am my own individual with my own opinions and beliefs. Me not being a republican has nothing to do with the way I think or feel about this subject. I also never said "fucking anything" was beautiful. I said two people being truely in love was a beautiful thing so check your facts before twisting my words. I do not appriciate you being so boldly hateful of the way I think. You have all right to disagree with me, but please refrain from calling me names or generalizing me. Thats just petty, and childish. I am sorry you are not mature enough to have a discussion beyond a third grade level, maybe you should thank your school system for that.
And as far as pumping things down your throat as you so boldly put it, thats just a load of crap. You spend hours running around this board posting your opinions that you so easily call facts and throw up an argument to whomever may disagree with you, and you know what no-one says hey asshole quite shoving shit down my throat. People read it take what they want and discard the rest. If you dont like what I have to say then ignore me, but dont accuse me of forcing my beliefs on you. All you know about me is I like and support gay people, I too have read the bible, and I cant stand being put in a box to make it easier for you to find reason to dislike me. I dont need your approval to live my life, Thank God, and I sure as hell dont need your bullshit lie's to muck up what I am trying to say. So stick to quoting the bible as that seems to be the only source of refrence you dont screw up.

OCA
02-12-2007, 05:38 PM
Homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists mistake love for degenerate lust.

neener
02-12-2007, 05:43 PM
What other proclomations in Leviticus are we supposed to obey?

The rules on meat consumption?

Women's menstration cycles?

Seagulls?

Sea food?

:alcoholic:
:cuckoo:

5stringJeff
02-12-2007, 05:50 PM
What other proclomations in Leviticus are we supposed to obey?

The rules on meat consumption?

Women's menstration cycles?

Seagulls?

Sea food?

:alcoholic:
:cuckoo:

*yawn.*

Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, as are other forms of adultery.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 06:39 PM
:rolleyes:

Quite a stretch, even for you. Two can play the same game ...

How do you know that God doesn't think homosexuality is an abomination? All we have are statements that he does.

Homosexuality is NOT normal behavior, and you know it. The fact that anyone tries to argue otherwise is absurd.

I'm not the one who has to play fast and loose in claiming some parts of the Bible can be taken literally and some can't. I'm also not the one who has to make a judgement call as to which parts are God's word and which parts are merely some rabbi's own ideas claimed as God's word.

I've never claimed that homosexuality is normal. But in the belief that they are born homosexual, I find it beyond belief that any god would create millions(billions?) of people who would be destined for hell for following a trait that they are born with. If homosexuality were indeed an abomination in the eyes of God, I would think he'd put an end to people being born that way.

Abnormal doesn't mean immoral.

OCA
02-12-2007, 06:45 PM
I'm not the one who has to play fast and loose in claiming some parts of the Bible can be taken literally and some can't. I'm also not the one who has to make a judgement call as to which parts are God's word and which parts are merely some rabbi's own ideas claimed as God's word.

I've never claimed that homosexuality is normal. But in the belief that they are born homosexual, I find it beyond belief that any god would create millions(billions?) of people who would be destined for hell for following a trait that they are born with. If homosexuality were indeed an abomination in the eyes of God, I would think he'd put an end to people being born that way.

Abnormal doesn't mean immoral.

You find it hard to believe because in fact it isn't true, from all evidence known to man they aren't born that way.

Murder is an abomination in God's eyes but he lets people like John Wayne Gacy and Jeff Dahmer roam the earth.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 06:50 PM
You find it hard to believe because in fact it isn't true, from all evidence known to man they aren't born that way.

Actually, from all the evidence, they don't know.


Murder is an abomination in God's eyes but he lets people like John Wayne Gacy and Jeff Dahmer roam the earth.

Any evidence that these guys were born killers?

5stringJeff
02-12-2007, 07:05 PM
I've never claimed that homosexuality is normal. But in the belief that they are born homosexual, I find it beyond belief that any god would create millions(billions?) of people who would be destined for hell for following a trait that they are born with. If homosexuality were indeed an abomination in the eyes of God, I would think he'd put an end to people being born that way.

Let's take your reasoning one step further. You just said that, based on all the evidence, scientists don't know whether one is born gay or not. However, you just said that it doesn't make sense that God would create people to be born gay if homosexuality was sinful. Indeed, that doesn't make sense. So, if God views homosexuality as a sin (as the Bible states), and God is responsible for the creation of human beings and their traits (as the Bible states), then God would not create a human being with a built-in biological need to sin. Therefore, we can say that God does not create people as homosexuals.

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 07:08 PM
Again, atheists have to be right because if they are not its an afterlife of hot coals. If Christians aren't right and there is no heaven or hell.....oh well.

I disagree. I doubt a benevolent loving god would send me to hell for the rather minor infraction of not believing in him/her. I give her/him more credit than those that interpret his/her alleged words.


The moral relativist view on homosexuality is one born out of fear of commitment, you'd rather be seen as non-judgemental so you won't be labeled a bigot/homophobe or make some person face the ugly truth about their lifestyle choice and have them despise you rather than make a clear and logical decision when a clear right/wrong is staring you in the face.

bbbzzzzzz..wrong, it is borne out of the fact that homos do no harm to me. Nothing more nothing less.


Its really a pov born out of laziness and no intestinal fortitude.

It's a point of view borne out of enlightenment and free thinking as opposed to bigotry and hatred..

Missileman
02-12-2007, 08:13 PM
Let's take your reasoning one step further. You just said that, based on all the evidence, scientists don't know whether one is born gay or not. However, you just said that it doesn't make sense that God would create people to be born gay if homosexuality was sinful. Indeed, that doesn't make sense. So, if God views homosexuality as a sin (as the Bible states), and God is responsible for the creation of human beings and their traits (as the Bible states), then God would not create a human being with a built-in biological need to sin. Therefore, we can say that God does not create people as homosexuals.

This is true only if there is a God, and IMO, without a doubt, why Christians argue so vehemently that homosexuality must be a choice.

jillian
02-12-2007, 08:23 PM
Let's take your reasoning one step further. You just said that, based on all the evidence, scientists don't know whether one is born gay or not. However, you just said that it doesn't make sense that God would create people to be born gay if homosexuality was sinful. Indeed, that doesn't make sense. So, if God views homosexuality as a sin (as the Bible states), and God is responsible for the creation of human beings and their traits (as the Bible states), then God would not create a human being with a built-in biological need to sin. Therefore, we can say that God does not create people as homosexuals.

Well, G-d has all kinds of reasons for creating different things. He created tall people, short people, people of every color, every hair color. There are people born with beautiful skin and people born with skin so bad it gets acne scarred. There are people born with horrible deformities and people born looking like Christie Brinkley. G-d isn't only about perfection because, presumably, everything is perfect in its own way, regardless. Homosexuality is just another variation, IMO, because G-d doesn't do anything imperfectly, yet not everything created is "perfect" as it would normally be defined.

Gunny
02-12-2007, 08:50 PM
I'm not the one who has to play fast and loose in claiming some parts of the Bible can be taken literally and some can't. I'm also not the one who has to make a judgement call as to which parts are God's word and which parts are merely some rabbi's own ideas claimed as God's word.

I've never claimed that homosexuality is normal. But in the belief that they are born homosexual, I find it beyond belief that any god would create millions(billions?) of people who would be destined for hell for following a trait that they are born with. If homosexuality were indeed an abomination in the eyes of God, I would think he'd put an end to people being born that way.

Abnormal doesn't mean immoral.

You asked me a question concerning a response to another poster, and I answered. I repeated what the Bible says within the context of the comment ... that God wouldn't give a rat's ass if one was homosexual in regard to judgement.

I have played fast and loose with nothing, so let's quit trying to take my statement out of the context within which it was made.

Each and every time I have made the argument that homosexuality is aberrant behavior, I have made a point of NOT using the Bible, God, Christ, and/or religion as the basis of my argument. As many times as you and I have had this same argument, I would think you would have caught on to that by now.

Abnormality and immorality are not mutually inclusive; neither, are they mutually exclusive. Abnormality easily can lead to immorality. Just depends on what the abnormality entails.

Gunny
02-12-2007, 08:55 PM
This is true only if there is a God, and IMO, without a doubt, why Christians argue so vehemently that homosexuality must be a choice.

In your anti-religious zeal, you pretty-much ignore the fact that there are plenty of anti-religious people who believe exactly the same thing. All it takes is giving a rat's ass which way the society in which you live is headed, no God required.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 09:21 PM
In your anti-religious zeal, you pretty-much ignore the fact that there are plenty of anti-religious people who believe exactly the same thing. All it takes is giving a rat's ass which way the society in which you live is headed, no God required.

Believe what exactly? That homosexuality is a choice, or immoral, or an abomination? I'll address the second part of your post when I see the answer to my question.

OCA
02-12-2007, 09:22 PM
I disagree. I doubt a benevolent loving god would send me to hell for the rather minor infraction of not believing in him/her. I give her/him more credit than those that interpret his/her alleged words.



bbbzzzzzz..wrong, it is borne out of the fact that homos do no harm to me. Nothing more nothing less.



It's a point of view borne out of enlightenment and free thinking as opposed to bigotry and hatred..

Enlightenment? Is that what you guys are referring to moral relativism nowadays? Guess the voters in some 20 odd states aren't enlightened, eh?

The other stuff is so far out in left field as to not even be worthy of reply.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 09:29 PM
Believe what exactly? That homosexuality is a choice, or immoral, or an abomination? I'll address the second part of your post when I see the answer to my question.

homosexuality is biologically pointless.....a choice and immoral....

Missileman
02-12-2007, 09:32 PM
homosexuality is biologically pointless.....a choice and immoral....

You don't count yourself among the anti-religious do you?

manu1959
02-12-2007, 09:35 PM
You don't count yourself among the anti-religious do you?

what does anti religious mean

Missileman
02-12-2007, 09:37 PM
what does anti religious mean

In the context of how Gunny used it, atheistic would probably be a good short answer.

Gunny
02-12-2007, 09:42 PM
Believe what exactly? That homosexuality is a choice, or immoral, or an abomination? I'll address the second part of your post when I see the answer to my question.

But ignore the post previous to this response?:rolleyes:

Religion is not required to believe homosexuality is either or all of the above ...a choice, abnormal, and/or immoral.

Gunny
02-12-2007, 09:44 PM
what does anti religious mean

In the context of how Gunny used it, anti-religious would be those actively denying religion, not those who just don't have one.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 09:57 PM
But ignore the post previous to this response?:rolleyes:

Which post number are you referring to?


Religion is not required to believe homosexuality is either or all of the above ...a choice, abnormal, and/or immoral.

I'm trying to get clarification on what you are claiming that plenty of anti-religious people believe when it comes to homosexuality. While it's true that relgious isn't required, I believe that it is almost a unanimously prevalent trait of homosexual detractors...particularly among the "immoral" believers.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 10:01 PM
In the context of how Gunny used it, anti-religious would be those actively denying religion, not those who just don't have one.

What other response to a religiously-motivated argument do you suppose an atheist might offer?

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:05 PM
In the context of how Gunny used it, atheistic would probably be a good short answer.

if anti religious is aetheistic then yes and no....what does it matter my religious views in the contect that i think.....homosexuality is biologically pointless.....a choice and immoral....

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:07 PM
Which post number are you referring to?



I'm trying to get clarification on what you are claiming that plenty of anti-religious people believe when it comes to homosexuality. While it's true that relgious isn't required, I believe that it is almost a unanimously prevalent trait of homosexual detractors...particularly among the "immoral" believers.

I'm surprised you haven't asked me to define "plenty.":laugh2:

That homosexuality is immoral may very well be a prevalent trait of the religious. From a religious standpoint, I too believe homosexuality to be immoral. I just choose to not use religion as a basis for my argument because I have noticed that believing homosexuality is not immoral is a prevalent trait of the non-or-anti-religious.

But any rational-thinking human being without an agenda can see that homosexuality clearly is not normal. No moral, religion, nor anything else but common sense and logic required.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 10:10 PM
if anti religious is aetheistic then yes and no....what does it matter my religious views in the contect that i think.....homosexuality is biologically pointless.....a choice and immoral....

My question however was in response to Gunny's claim that "plenty of anti-religious people believe exactly the same thing."

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:10 PM
What other response to a religiously-motivated argument do you suppose an atheist might offer?

An true atheist may not accept religion as an answer, but is hardly going to spend the amount of time you have in the past just attacking the religion.

Not believing in any religion is just that. It is not believing in disproving religion; which, I consider a religion in and of itself.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:12 PM
My question however was in response to Gunny's claim that "plenty of anti-religious people believe exactly the same thing."

i belive people belive what they belive....to try to generalize won't work out....

Missileman
02-12-2007, 10:15 PM
I'm surprised you haven't asked me to define "plenty.":laugh2:

That homosexuality is immoral may very well be a prevalent trait of the religious. From a religious standpoint, I too believe homosexuality to be immoral. I just choose to not use religion as a basis for my argument because I have noticed that believing homosexuality is not immoral is a prevalent trait of the non-or-anti-religious.

But any rational-thinking human being without an agenda can see that homosexuality clearly is not normal. No moral, religion, nor anything else but common sense and logic required.

And as I said before, abnormal doesn't equal immoral. There aren't very many, if any, people who's only argument is that homosexuality is wrong because it's abnormal.

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:17 PM
My question however was in response to Gunny's claim that "plenty of anti-religious people believe exactly the same thing."

Morals .... a personal belief in what is right or wrong, good and bad, and/or a set of rules by which one conducts oneself. I have never met a truly a-moral person.

You attempt to tie religion to morality, but in the past, you HAVE argued that our society's accepted morals and norms are based on "right and wrong and common sense," not Juedeo-Christian belief.

So which is it? I believe we are currently a society far-removed from understanding the origin of our morals and sense of right and wrong, good or bad. In other words, people possess the morals they just don't know why.

In that sense, one could easily find homosexuality immoral, AND be atheist.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:21 PM
Morals .... a personal belief in what is right or wrong, good and bad, and/or a set of rules by which one conducts oneself. I have never met a truly a-moral person.

You attempt to tie religion to morality, but in the past, you HAVE argued that our society's accepted morals and norms are based on "right and wrong and common sense," not Juedeo-Christian belief.

So which is it? I believe we are currently a society far-removed from understanding the origin of our morals and sense of right and wrong, good or bad. In other words, people possess the morals they just don't know why.

In that sense, one could easily find homosexuality immoral, AND be atheist.


before religion exisited....do you belive people knew right from wrong?

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:22 PM
And as I said before, abnormal doesn't equal immoral. There aren't very many, if any, people who's only argument is that homosexuality is wrong because it's abnormal.


hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:23 PM
And as I said before, abnormal doesn't equal immoral. There aren't very many, if any, people who's only argument is that homosexuality is wrong because it's abnormal.


And as I said before, abnormal and immoral are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive. Abnormality can lead to immorality. I am not equating one with the other.

All someone has to do is believe homosexuality is wrong, and that is deciding it is immoral, regardless their reasoning.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 10:24 PM
An true atheist may not accept religion as an answer, but is hardly going to spend the amount of time you have in the past just attacking the religion.

Not believing in any religion is just that. It is not believing in disproving religion; which, I consider a religion in and of itself.

That's a blatantly dishonest characterization of my arguments and you know it. I make arguments based on common sense. I don't attack religion, but I do attack religion-based arguments that don't pass a common sense test. I also attack non-religious arguments that don't make sense.

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:24 PM
before religion exisited....do you belive people knew right from wrong?

Only insofar as what was "right and wrong" for them. Morality is not inherent. Food, shelter, warmth, companionship ... those are inherent traits. Right and wrong/good and bad are learned traits.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:26 PM
Only insofar as what was "right and wrong" for them. Morality is not inherent. Food, shelter, warmth, companionship ... those are inherent traits. Right and wrong/good and bad are learned traits.

so before religion...was killing and stealing know to be right or wrong?....

jillian
02-12-2007, 10:28 PM
Only insofar as what was "right and wrong" for them. Morality is not inherent. Food, shelter, warmth, companionship ... those are inherent traits. Right and wrong/good and bad are learned traits.

But those things do not only arise out of religious conventions. Religion is only one means by which moral lessons are to be taught. Societies all had their own internal controls to assure self-preservation and the relatively peaceful coexistence of their members.

Morality also comes from social philosophy and is not necessarily religious based. People are also raised to know right from wrong. Whether someone believes in G-d or not, doesn't mean that person will steal. Belief in G-d doesn't guarantee morality. Nonbelief does not guarantee immorality.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:28 PM
That's a blatantly dishonest characterization of my arguments and you know it. I make arguments based on common sense. I don't attack religion, but I do attack religion-based arguments that don't pass a common sense test. I also attack non-religious arguments that don't make sense.

so does common sense tell you that homosexuality is:

biologically normal

sociologically normal

moral

not a choice

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:29 PM
That's a blatantly dishonest characterization of my arguments and you know it. I make arguments based on common sense. I don't attack religion, but I do attack religion-based arguments that don't pass a common sense test. I also attack non-religious arguments that don't make sense.

It is not a dishonest characterization at all. True, you attack non-religious arguments that don't make sense to you, but that is not part of this argument.

You HAVE attacked Judeo-Christianity on more than two-or-three occasions. What exactly would you call your "Noah's Ark" theory if not an attack on Judeo-Christianity?

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:30 PM
But those things do not only arise out of religious conventions. Religion is only one means by which moral lessons are to be taught. Societies all had their own internal controls to assure self-preservation and the relatively peaceful coexistence of their members.

Morality also comes from social philosophy and is not necessarily religious based. People are also raised to know right from wrong. Whether someone believes in G-d or not, doesn't mean that person will steal. Belief in G-d doesn't guarantee morality. Nonbelief does not guarantee immorality.

exactly...so in the pre-religious cave man days....were two alpha males having anal sex to the benift of the clan?

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:32 PM
But those things do not only arise out of religious conventions. Religion is only one means by which moral lessons are to be taught. Societies all had their own internal controls to assure self-preservation and the relatively peaceful coexistence of their members.

Morality also comes from social philosophy and is not necessarily religious based. People are also raised to know right from wrong. Whether someone believes in G-d or not, doesn't mean that person will steal. Belief in G-d doesn't guarantee morality. Nonbelief does not guarantee immorality.

I did not state that morals were exclusive to religion. As a matter of fact, I stated the same thing you did in the post you responded to, only in a more generalized manner.

Everything beyond natural instinct for survival, which includes perpetuation of the species, is a learned behavior.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 10:32 PM
In that sense, one could easily find homosexuality immoral, AND be atheist.

I see your point, and agree it's possible. I doubt it's frequent though.

jillian
02-12-2007, 10:33 PM
exactly...so in the pre-religious cave man days....were two alpha males having anal sex to the benift of the clan?

I don't know..depends if it kept the alpha males happy. :dunno:

By the same token, did it hurt Greece or Rome that homosexuality were accepted parts of the culture?

Missileman
02-12-2007, 10:37 PM
It is not a dishonest characterization at all. True, you attack non-religious arguments that don't make sense to you, but that is not part of this argument.

You HAVE attacked Judeo-Christianity on more than two-or-three occasions. What exactly would you call your "Noah's Ark" theory if not an attack on Judeo-Christianity?

It was an effort to show that the reliability of a "God calls homosexuality an abomination in the Bible, therefore it must be an abomination" argument is questionable based on the unreliability of the account of what God supposedly said in the Noah's Ark story. Again, it was an attack on an argument.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:38 PM
I don't know..depends if it kept the alpha males happy. :dunno:

By the same token, did it hurt Greece or Rome that homosexuality were accepted parts of the culture?

reproduction of the species is more improtant than the happines of any single individual....alpha males job is to reproduce...

as for greece and rome....i would say yes it did hurt them....they went from supper power of the day to an immoral mess that got smoked by those more focused on kicking ass....i could argue that the west is rome and the middle east is about to kick our ass.....

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:39 PM
I don't know..depends if it kept the alpha males happy. :dunno:

By the same token, did it hurt Greece or Rome that homosexuality were accepted parts of the culture?

Does either empire still exist?

jillian
02-12-2007, 10:41 PM
Does either empire still exist?

No empires exist anymore... not a single one survived. Had to do with the impossibility of maintaining far flung occupations, ultimately resulting in defeat and loss of empire. Plus, people who are being occupied have an awful bad habit of ultimately ejecting the occupiers. ;)

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:43 PM
No empires exist anymore... not a single one survived. Had to do with the impossibility of maintaining far flung occupations, ultimately resulting in defeat and loss of empire. Plus, people who are being occupied have an awful bad habit of ultimately ejecting the occupiers. ;)

there are several new empires:

china

europe

the middle east

the US

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:44 PM
It was an effort to show that the reliability of a "God calls homosexuality an abomination in the Bible, therefore it must be an abomination" argument is questionable based on the unreliability of the account of what God supposedly said in the Noah's Ark story. Again, it was an attack on an argument.

You may attack the argument, but a Judeo-Christian person, who's belief is based on faith, is not going to be daunted because there is no factual evidence that God Himself stated homosexuality is an "abomination." The Bible itself is an early form of factual evidence.

Grumplestillskin
02-12-2007, 10:47 PM
Everything beyond natural instinct for survival, which includes perpetuation of the species, is a learned behavior.

Which brings me to the question I have asked before and nobody has answered - homos actually like women but chose to bonk men - because?

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:47 PM
No empires exist anymore... not a single one survived. Had to do with the impossibility of maintaining far flung occupations, ultimately resulting in defeat and loss of empire. Plus, people who are being occupied have an awful bad habit of ultimately ejecting the occupiers. ;)

The United Kingdom is still an empire.;)

And both empires suffered the same fate of individuals placing self above the society/Nation.

jillian
02-12-2007, 10:48 PM
there are several new empires:

china

europe

the middle east

the US

An empire is defined by it's control over geographic areas not its own. What countries do China, the European Nattions, the middle eastern nations occupy?

The U.S. is closest... which is why if the course of action it is following isn't changed, it's doomed to failure like every other empire.

Again, though, Greece and Rome didn't fall because homosexuality was an accepted part of the culture.

Missileman
02-12-2007, 10:49 PM
so does common sense tell you that homosexuality is:

biologically normal

sociologically normal

moral

not a choice

Common sense tells me:

Not a choice

Not immoral in itself, but could be part of an immoral act such as adultery just like heterosexuality.

A biological abnormality

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:53 PM
Which brings me to the question I have asked before and nobody has answered - homos actually like women but chose to bonk men - because?

I have never stated anything of the kind. Obviously if homosexuals desired women the issue would be moot.

But as you well know, there are a few environmental causes that could easily lead to homosexuality.

One is being programmed that homosexuality is okay and normal from birth. This would happen in each and every homosexual household raising a child.

Two would be defying the accepted norm of the establishment.

Three would be men who can't deal with women.

Four would be an individual experimenting and feeling trapped on a path he mistakenly believes he cannot change. You've heard the old saying: Suck one c*ck and you're a c*cksucker for life?" Once tagged, a person would feel the could not go back.

Gunny
02-12-2007, 10:55 PM
An empire is defined by it's control over geographic areas not its own. What countries do China, the European Nattions, the middle eastern nations occupy?

The U.S. is closest... which is why if the course of action it is following isn't changed, it's doomed to failure like every other empire.

Again, though, Greece and Rome didn't fall because homosexuality was an accepted part of the culture.

Greece and Rome didn't fall because of homosexuality in and of itself, but homosexuality was a symptom of a much larger problem ... a decadent, self-indulgent society.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:55 PM
Common sense tells me:

Not a choice

Not immoral in itself, but could be part of an immoral act such as adultery just like heterosexuality.

A biological abnormality

common sense tells me:

they could choose not to have gay sex but the choose to have it anyway....

moral beahviour is defined by the norm...the norm is not gay sex....just because a group of society has chosen to ignor the norm does not make it the norm....it just means society has lost its moral compas....further when brought to a vote, society votes that it is immoral by not voting it on equal footing.....you can argue that all of society is wrong and gay sex is normal....but biologically you already said it wasn't....

agree with the last one....

manu1959
02-12-2007, 10:56 PM
Greece and Rome didn't fall because of homosexuality in and of itself, but homosexuality was a symptom of a much larger problem ... a decadent, self-indulgent society.

yep....like the accepting tollerant pc crowd that doesn't keep score, play dodgeball, play tag or give out grades....

jillian
02-12-2007, 11:00 PM
yep....like the accepting tollerant pc crowd that doesn't keep score, play dodgeball, play tag or give out grades....

But I think that stuff is all just goofy... but it isn't going to cause the fall of the country. It's just gonna make for a lot of people who are very disappointed in real life when they go out into the world. :boom2:

Can't really draw that analogy.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 11:06 PM
But I think that stuff is all just goofy... but it isn't going to cause the fall of the country. It's just gonna make for a lot of people who are very disappointed in real life when they go out into the world. :boom2:

Can't really draw that analogy.

sure can...if a majortiy of people are like this then they will loose to the real world.....because i can tell you the middle east is not teaching their kids to be fair and accepting and tollerant of others....

Gunny
02-12-2007, 11:08 PM
But I think that stuff is all just goofy... but it isn't going to cause the fall of the country. It's just gonna make for a lot of people who are very disappointed in real life when they go out into the world. :boom2:

Can't really draw that analogy.

It's an easy analogy to draw. It's called circling the drain.

manu1959
02-12-2007, 11:16 PM
It's an easy analogy to draw. It's called circling the drain.

looks like we win!

5stringJeff
02-13-2007, 10:53 AM
Well, G-d has all kinds of reasons for creating different things. He created tall people, short people, people of every color, every hair color. There are people born with beautiful skin and people born with skin so bad it gets acne scarred. There are people born with horrible deformities and people born looking like Christie Brinkley. G-d isn't only about perfection because, presumably, everything is perfect in its own way, regardless. Homosexuality is just another variation, IMO, because G-d doesn't do anything imperfectly, yet not everything created is "perfect" as it would normally be defined.

However, being tall, short, black, white, blonde, beautiful, acne-ridden, deformed, or 'supermodel-hot' aren't sinful traits. Homosexual behavior, however, is sinful, according to the Bible.

Pale Rider
02-13-2007, 11:33 AM
See now you have crossed a line with me. I have tried to keep civil. I have not been personally attacking you or anyone else for their beliefs. I have disagreed and questioned but I did not get personal. When you throw around the terms like "YOU PEOPLE" and "liberal spin and buzz words" you are going to piss me off.
Well lets take a look.

Here you start playing games...


I do not believe that the bible is a direct link so please provide me with evidence other than the good book


I do not believe that the bible is the word of God.


but I do not think that homosexuality is forbidden,
Of course you wouldn't, you don't believe in God or the word of God. Or do you?


How do you know that I am not a Christian?
Well... because you said this...


Don't you think it is out of fear that people believe in something like the word of god on paper? Those who do not fear the unknown do not have to follow by a written law, they chose to find their own sense of moral's and guidlines to live by.
Spoken like a true godless secular athiest, NOT a Christian. And you go on to reiforce that...


I have often found myself enjoying those "godless" types more so than the "god fearing" kind.
So I quote the Bible to you to show you what God say's about homosexuality, and you throw this sarcastic response out...


I suppose pale rider wants a round of applause for quoting the Bible..
Followed by...


I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the beauty in one living their life differently than yours. It is not them you are hurting by being so closed minded, it is yourself as you will never really know or understand the meaning of free will. When you choose to spew vile hatred and sling barbs at those who do not see eye to eye with you, you are cutting yourself short of any kind of reality and any chance at some kind of inner peace. You keep fighting the good fight within yourself, I would imagine it must be a lonely place to live.
In that you call me "close minded". You acuse me of "spewing vile hatred and slinging barbs". Where did I do that? Free will? You call living in sin and ignoring the word of God "free will"? And that's going to bring me "inner peace"? You sound like the voice of the DEVIL!



There is no other person like me. I am my own individual with my own opinions and beliefs. Me not being a republican has nothing to do with the way I think or feel about this subject. I also never said "fucking anything" was beautiful. I said two people being truely in love was a beautiful thing so check your facts before twisting my words. I do not appriciate you being so boldly hateful of the way I think. You have all right to disagree with me, but please refrain from calling me names or generalizing me.
And here you're "generalizing me"...


Those who bring it up as the decay of modern society are counting on the Christian fundies to step up to the plate and call for the condemnation of a whole culture of individuals.
You go on to insult me again...


Thats just petty, and childish. I am sorry you are not mature enough to have a discussion beyond a third grade level, maybe you should thank your school system for that.
So I'm "childish and petty" for disagreeing with you.


And as far as pumping things down your throat as you so boldly put it, thats just a load of crap.
You've pumped plenty here junior. Don't play games with me.


Thank God, and I sure as hell dont need your bullshit lie's to muck up what I am trying to say.
What the hell are you thanking God for. You've made it painfully obvious you don't believe in God.


So stick to quoting the bible as that seems to be the only source of refrence you dont screw up.
First you critisize and ridicule me for quoting the Bible, now you tell me to keep it up.

See this is where you people lose all credibility. You're all over the place, and you know why? Because you have NO STEADFAST THING TO GUIDE YOU. You make up your mind about something at will. To suit the moment. To make yourself FEEL GOOD. It's SICKENING! Homosexuality is SICKENING. YOU are SICKENING.

jillian
02-13-2007, 01:28 PM
See this is where you people lose all credibility. You're all over the place, and you know why? Because you have NO STEADFAST THING TO GUIDE YOU. You make up your mind about something at will. To suit the moment. To make yourself FEEL GOOD. It's SICKENING! Homosexuality is SICKENING. YOU are SICKENING.

I think the point she was making was that you can't use a source to prove itself. No personal attacks on her part.

I've known some of the biggest hypocrites who claim to be religious, same as I've known athiests who are truly stand up people.... and vice versa.

Pale Rider
02-13-2007, 02:07 PM
I think the point she was making was that you can't use a source to prove itself. No personal attacks on her part.

I've known some of the biggest hypocrites who claim to be religious, same as I've known athiests who are truly stand up people.... and vice versa.

No she wasn't Jill. She called me closed minded for believing in my Christian Bible. She was preaching her own sermon of godlessness and acceptance of perversion, and I wasn't having any of it.

If "YOU" don't believe what the Bible says, that's fine. I DO! Just don't get all up in my face about it and call me a bigot, or tell me I'm closed minded, or anything else that puts ME beneath YOU just because I'm a Christian.

THAT is where YOU piss Me off.

jillian
02-13-2007, 02:16 PM
No she wasn't Jill. She called me closed minded for believing in my Christian Bible. She was preaching her own sermon of godlessness and acceptance of perversion, and I wasn't having any of it.

If "YOU" don't believe what the Bible says, that's fine. I DO! Just don't get all up in my face about it and call me a bigot, or tell me I'm closed minded, or anything else that puts ME beneath YOU just because I'm a Christian.

THAT is where YOU piss Me off.

First, I respect people who have belief. I have my own. Do I believe the bible is the word of G-d? Well, I was taught that it's allegorical. But even if I believed it was the absolute WORD, I would still quetion the bible that we read today and its accuracy, because I can think of at least three things in English translations off the top of my head that aren't accurate given the words in the original Hebrew/Aramaic.

I certainly don't think anyone is beneath me for having belief. Like I said, I have my own. My objection is when people don't seem to understand that we ALL have our individual beliefs... and some of us don't believe there's anything OUT THERE. Thing is, it's all about "faith", nothing proven, nothing sure. And none of us are gonna know til we're gone and then we're not going to be able to tell anyone else.

That shoudn't piss you off at all.

OCA
02-13-2007, 03:28 PM
Which brings me to the question I have asked before and nobody has answered - homos actually like women but chose to bonk men - because?

Because they might be mentally shortwired which leads to this.....if they are somehow able to make this choice given their natural urges to mate with the opposite sex then maybe some intensive psychotherapy or drugs could be of use.

OCA
02-13-2007, 03:30 PM
An empire is defined by it's control over geographic areas not its own. What countries do China, the European Nattions, the middle eastern nations occupy?

The U.S. is closest... which is why if the course of action it is following isn't changed, it's doomed to failure like every other empire.

Again, though, Greece and Rome didn't fall because homosexuality was an accepted part of the culture.

Homosexuality was not an accepted part of the culture in Greece at least not homosexuality as defined by today's standards. It was any hole in a storm and it was before Christ and nobody knew any better. Nowadays there is no excuse, we all know better.

Abbey Marie
02-13-2007, 03:43 PM
...First, I respect people who have belief. I have my own. Do I believe the bible is the word of G-d? Well, I was taught that it's allegorical.
,,,


J, if you don't mind, I am curious about something. Do you think the Jews of the OT protected, carried with them, and treated as holiest of holiies the Ark of the Covenant, all the while thinking it was allegorical? Or do you just think the whole wandering in the desert story itself was allegorical?

Roomy
02-13-2007, 04:29 PM
J, if you don't mind, I am curious about something. Do you think the Jews of the OT protected, carried with them, and treated as holiest of holiies the Ark of the Covenant, all the while thinking it was allegorical? Or do you just think the whole wandering in the desert story itself was allegorical?

Hello Abbey:) , I know you asked Jillian but I would just like to say that allegorically the Jews wandered the desert until te state of Israel was granted them in the 40's, as for the ark, it is legend.My take on it.

jillian
02-13-2007, 05:21 PM
J, if you don't mind, I am curious about something. Do you think the Jews of the OT protected, carried with them, and treated as holiest of holiies the Ark of the Covenant, all the while thinking it was allegorical? Or do you just think the whole wandering in the desert story itself was allegorical?

Of course I don't mind, it's a fair question. Listen, I'm not orthodox. But I know what my rabbis taught us. However, the Torah is always considered sacred. It can't be dropped, is paraded through the Temple and every week there is a reading of another section. It doesn't matter that G-d used allegory to teach His lessons. They aren't any less valuable and shouldn't be any less revered.

Plus, I think we all know that Moses being given the Torah would precede the end of the five books, therefore it would have had to be written whole when handed to him and would have had to contain the future. I don't believe that happened.

Do I think the wandering through the dessert happened? Yes. Because there is archeological evidence to support that. There was even an Israel soldier who tried to map the locations referenced in the bible and he got to a particular spot and there were "flakes" falling in a particular spot which were high in glucose and protein.... manna from heaven... in the spot described in the bible.

And again, the bible has been translated so many times that we don't know where there are inaccuracies. As I said earlier, I can think of at least three places (and I'm certainly no biblical scholar) where I've learned that words are mistranslated and those mistranslations change the meaning.

trobinett
02-13-2007, 08:36 PM
Posted by Pale Rider:


Next on the list to achieve politically correct categorization is pedophilia. Understand that pedophilia is exactly where homosexuality was thirty-five years ago: in the classrooms of liberal college professors. If America doesn’t make a sudden and dramatic turn toward traditional [how about Biblical? - JZ] morality, pedophilia will enjoy the same kind of social and political acceptance that homosexuality now enjoys, and it won’t take thirty-five years to happen, either.



Seems our society is WELL on the way, there are a "few" here that plainly don't see that.

Watch the new's and all the"Amber alerts"that are being announced these days.

I worry about the world my grandchildren are growing up in, and I worry all the more when I see some of the posts on this thread.

You CAN'T argue in favor of perversions that attack the very core of a society.

If you truly believe in such perversions, might I suggest you relocate to France, or Greece.

I see the damage being done, most of our society sees as I do. Personally, I fine it sad that some don't, but that certainly doesn't make it ok, nor do I understand how they can rush to the defense of those that practice such behavior.

Sleep tight, might want to check, and make sure your children are still in bed.:eek:

Ado
02-13-2007, 08:43 PM
No, you're quite wrong Sherlock.

When there is no concern for anything but the here and now and no belief in consequences after death for actions taken during life then it is much easier to cut corners so to speak.

A moral atheist, now that is humour!

I believe that is totally opposite of what is true.

I think the here and now is important and
everything counts. Because I don't get
a second chance and I am accountable for
my actions right here and now.

I don't need any god to tell me to be fair
to people: not commit adultry, not steal,
not murder, not lie. Why would I need
a book to tell me what is right?

Why do I need to pay someone else
10% to tell me how to live on the straight
and narrow? :confused:

It seems to me that an over-reliance
on religion is a symptom of a weak
moral compass, and you need someone
else to tell you what you should have
learned as a child.

OCA
02-13-2007, 09:10 PM
I believe that is totally opposite of what is true.

I think the here and now is important and
everything counts. Because I don't get
a second chance and I am accountable for
my actions right here and now.

I don't need any god to tell me to be fair
to people: not commit adultry, not steal,
not murder, not lie. Why would I need
a book to tell me what is right?

Why do I need to pay someone else
10% to tell me how to live on the straight
and narrow? :confused:

It seems to me that an over-reliance
on religion is a symptom of a weak
moral compass, and you need someone
else to tell you what you should have
learned as a child.

Better hope you are right or its gnashing of teeth for ya!

Pale Rider
02-13-2007, 09:22 PM
First, I respect people who have belief. I have my own. Do I believe the bible is the word of G-d? Well, I was taught that it's allegorical. But even if I believed it was the absolute WORD, I would still quetion the bible that we read today and its accuracy, because I can think of at least three things in English translations off the top of my head that aren't accurate given the words in the original Hebrew/Aramaic.

The issue isn't a debate about the veracity of the contents of the Bible. It's about the attitude of those who do not believe any of it towards someone who does, and frankly, I'm getting a little sick of it.

Over the years I've been blogging, I've never met a more intolerant, indignant, militant, frothing at the mouth bunch of BIGOTS other than the "we love queers, you should to" bunch. And that is how the faggots and their army of apologizers have furthered their perversion as far as they have. Because people are utterly AFRAID to say anything AGAINST it for fear of the rabid reprisal they'll face. So when they meet up with the likes of ME, in HERE, and I'm not afraid to open their closet door to reveal all the dirty little secrets about butt fucking and dick sucking, OOOOOOOHHH YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT THAT! Well why not?! That's what homosexuality is. A SICK, DEVIANT, PERVERTED and HARMFUL LIFESTYLE CHOICE. It is not NATURAL, it is not ACCEPTABLE, it is not BEAUTIFUL, and DON'T TELL ME IT IS! You people are slamming your heads against mother nature, swimming upstream, telling me the sun is shinning at midnight, and you're all full of SHIT! You're lying to ME, and you're lying to YOURSELF. Would you drive your car to work tomorrow BACKWARDS, and then try and convince everyone THAT'S NORMAL??!! My GOD it's sickening to listen to you people.


I certainly don't think anyone is beneath me for having belief. Like I said, I have my own. My objection is when people don't seem to understand that we ALL have our individual beliefs... and some of us don't believe there's anything OUT THERE. Thing is, it's all about "faith", nothing proven, nothing sure. And none of us are gonna know til we're gone and then we're not going to be able to tell anyone else.
This whole thing isn't about you and what you believe Jill. It's about faggots, and the people that defend them, and their attitude.


That shoudn't piss you off at all.
Buuuuulllshit it shouldn't.

Ado
02-13-2007, 09:34 PM
Better hope you are right or its gnashing of teeth for ya!

How do you explain the competetiveness of
every religion that proclaims it is the "IT"
religion?

Is that the way to run your life?
To let something hold fear over you
for something that can't be proved?

I have no problem with people who
want to believe in a religion, until they
insist that their religion is the only one,
until they start wars over it, or insist
that someone else has to live the way
their religion insists, or they insist
that public policy to be made from
their one religion--it's ridiculous.

It's like sex--it's no one's business
what religion you are, if you aren't violating
someone else's legal rights. Keep it to
yourself, practice what you want--but
imposing one belief on all other people
is not necessary and it's a waste of energy.

Dilloduck
02-13-2007, 09:37 PM
How do you explain the competetiveness of
every religion that proclaims it is the "IT"
religion?

Is that the way to run your life?
To let something hold fear over you
for something that can't be proved?

I have no problem with people who
want to believe in a religion, until they
insist that their religion is the only one,
until they start wars over it, or insist
that someone else has to live the way
their religion insists, or they insist
that public policy to be made from
their one religion--it's ridiculous.

It's like sex--it's no one's business
what religion you are, if you aren't violating
someone else's legal rights. Keep it to
yourself, practice what you want--but
imposing one belief on all other people
is not necessary and it's a waste of energy.

Is that something you encourage everyone to believe?

Pale Rider
02-13-2007, 09:47 PM
How do you explain the competetiveness of every eligion that proclaims it is the "IT" religion?

Is that the way to run your life? To let something hold fear over you for something that can't be proved?
I don't "fear" my religon. I have "faith" in my Lord.


I have no problem with people who want to believe in a religion, until they insist that their religion is the only one, until they start wars over it, or insist that someone else has to live the way their religion insists, or they insist that public policy to be made from their one religion--it's ridiculous.jkj
Then you ought to be REEEEEAAAAL pissed off at the muslims.


It's like sex--it's no one's business what religion you are, if you aren't violating someone else's legal rights. Keep it to yourself, practice what you want--but imposing one belief on all other people is not necessary and it's a waste of energy.
I agree. Believe what you want to believe. Have whatever kind of sex you want. Just don't throw it all up in my face, which is what the fags have been doing for years.

OCA
02-13-2007, 09:47 PM
How do you explain the competetiveness of
every religion that proclaims it is the "IT"
religion?

Is that the way to run your life?
To let something hold fear over you
for something that can't be proved?

I have no problem with people who
want to believe in a religion, until they
insist that their religion is the only one,
until they start wars over it, or insist
that someone else has to live the way
their religion insists, or they insist
that public policy to be made from
their one religion--it's ridiculous.

It's like sex--it's no one's business
what religion you are, if you aren't violating
someone else's legal rights. Keep it to
yourself, practice what you want--but
imposing one belief on all other people
is not necessary and it's a waste of energy.

God holds no fear over me, in fact its quite the opposite, a belief in God, Christ and the Holy Spirit and a belief that he's gonna always be there for you as long as you are at least ATTEMPTING to hold up your end of the bargain releases you of most fears.

Now most people are probably shitting themselves right now "OCA is talking God? WTF? I know that if my ticket were pulled right now i'd probably be shaking hands with "O Keratas", Greek for the horned one, but that doesn't mean I don't know what is right I just struggle with a couple of sins with the lust in your heart thingy being particularly troublesome.

Oh Ado...sorry I forgot about you......continue on with your anti-religion diatribes. Just please keep your non-morally rooted value system away from my kids.

Ado
02-13-2007, 09:51 PM
Is that something you encourage everyone to believe?

No--it's not my hobby to tell others
what to do--but that might explain
why the religious right and other
religions have so much
opposition.

They are too busy trying to tell others
what to do and believe, they aren't
practicing it themselves.

Ado
02-13-2007, 09:56 PM
God holds no fear over me, in fact its quite the opposite, a belief in God, Christ and the Holy Spirit and a belief that he's gonna always be there for you as long as you are at least ATTEMPTING to hold up your end of the bargain releases you of most fears.

Now most people are probably shitting themselves right now "OCA is talking God? WTF? I know that if my ticket were pulled right now i'd probably be shaking hands with "O Keratas", Greek for the horned one, but that doesn't mean I don't know what is right I just struggle with a couple of sins with the lust in your heart thingy being particularly troublesome.

Oh Ado...sorry I forgot about you......continue on with your anti-religion diatribes. Just please keep your non-morally rooted value system away from my kids.

I don't want to be near your kids.

If I had my own, I'd make sure they could rely
on themselves, and make sure they know their
family loves them, and is there for them.

I'd teach them to respect differing opinions,
and they can make up their own minds.

OCA
02-13-2007, 10:26 PM
I don't want to be near your kids.

If I had my own, I'd make sure they could rely
on themselves, and make sure they know their
family loves them, and is there for them.

I'd teach them to respect differing opinions,
and they can make up their own minds.

And if you had a boy who wanted to do gay porn? Would you let him make up his own mind on that? Hell no!

You people are H Y P O C R I T E S.

manu1959
02-13-2007, 10:28 PM
I don't want to be near your kids.

If I had my own, I'd make sure they could rely
on themselves, and make sure they know their
family loves them, and is there for them.

I'd teach them to respect differing opinions,and they can make up their own minds.

so you would teach them to respect president bush and his opinions?....good for you....

jillian
02-14-2007, 12:41 AM
so you would teach them to respect president bush and his opinions?....good for you....

Respect for differing opinions is one thing. Respect for someone who hasn't earned it just cause he's president.... nope.

Pale Rider
02-14-2007, 12:52 AM
No--it's not my hobby to tell others
what to do--but that might explain
why the religious right and other
religions have so much
opposition.

They are too busy trying to tell others
what to do and believe, they aren't
practicing it themselves.

Try preachin that to the muslims.

I as a Christian say, "God says homosexuality is an abomination, and your blood will be upon you", but I leave it up to God to take care of that.

The muslims on the other hand say, "cut the head of the homosexual, KILL HIM"!

Pale Rider
02-14-2007, 12:54 AM
Respect for differing opinions is one thing. Respect for someone who hasn't earned it just cause he's president.... nope.

"Respect for someone who hasn't earned it"? You just negated the total population of the world, other than the few people you know.

jillian
02-14-2007, 12:58 AM
"Respect for someone who hasn't earned it"? You just negated the total population of the world, other than the few people you know.

I was specific to someone in the position of president, hon...... I respect the office. Doesn't mean I respect the person sitting there.

You know how that works, right?

Ado
02-14-2007, 02:34 AM
And if you had a boy who wanted to do gay porn? Would you let him make up his own mind on that? Hell no!

You people are H Y P O C R I T E S.

First of all, if my son were gay--there isn't
a damn thing I could do about it.

If he wanted to do porn, I wouldn't be happy,
but he's still my son. As an adult, he'd make
his own choices.

I think I would have encouraged him to go
into other professions before that, and given
him some help to go to school or learn a trade.

Ado
02-14-2007, 02:39 AM
so you would teach them to respect president bush and his opinions?....good for you....

If he wanted to be a Republican, fine,
but I wouldn't want to hear the
hateful trash that gets posted
on this board about poor people,
gays, liberals; At the very least
Id let him know that he doesn't
need to be in other peoples'
business regarding sex & religion.

He can use his time better to focus
on himself and being postive. If
he wants to study different religions,
then fine.

Ado
02-14-2007, 02:45 AM
Try preachin that to the muslims.

I as a Christian say, "God says homosexuality is an abomination, and your blood will be upon you", but I leave it up to God to take care of that.

The muslims on the other hand say, "cut the head of the homosexual, KILL HIM"!

It's all relative. Their situation is
more violent--they kill.
We are more developed--have
different government, so
we deny them equal rights.

Comparing ourselves
to areas of the world that are
not the same, give us an excuse
not to better ourselves here.

No religion is better or worse than another.
Christianity has become subject
to government because some of
our founders were fleeing from
religious and economic oppression,
so it was tempered for while.

Not all muslims are radicals.

Pale Rider
02-14-2007, 10:25 AM
I was specific to someone in the position of president, hon...... I respect the office. Doesn't mean I respect the person sitting there.

You know how that works, right?

No. How can you respect something that's inanimate?

But regardless of your redirecting trick, respect is earned by a person, and if you don't know that perosn, how can you ever respect them? Case in point, I have no respect for anyone that I have never met.

manu1959
02-14-2007, 10:47 AM
If he wanted to be a Republican, fine,
but I wouldn't want to hear the
hateful trash that gets posted
on this board about poor people,
gays, liberals; At the very least
Id let him know that he doesn't
need to be in other peoples'
business regarding sex & religion.

He can use his time better to focus
on himself and being postive. If
he wants to study different religions,
then fine.


interesting....

do you think religion should be taught in schools?

do you think tollerance of the gay lifestyles should be taught in schools?

do you think a nativity sceen should be erected on the twon sqare lawn?

do you think "in god we trust" should be on the currency of the US?

Ado
02-14-2007, 01:05 PM
interesting....

do you think religion should be taught in schools?

do you think tollerance of the gay lifestyles should be taught in schools?

do you think a nativity sceen should be erected on the twon sqare lawn?

do you think "in god we trust" should be on the currency of the US?

I don't think there should be religion in public schools--unless it is
a study of all religions--but that is usually college material.
Of course there are schools set up around religions--fine.

Public school should be a strong foundation of the basics.
We should be turning out kids that are strong in math,
reading, writing, and critical thinking skills. A good grasp
of economics, money management. Multiple languages
is good. Not everyone wants college, so some technical
courses would be good. We need to turn out people
who can work. Religion and sex beyond basic birth
control and control of STD's does not need to be a
major issue. That can be handled at home.

At the very least, kids should know what their body
parts are for and how to protect themselves--against
disease, unwanted births and sexual predators, as soon
as they can mentally process it.

If we aren't doing this, and we aren't, we are failing them
by not giving them skills for a better life, regardless
of color or what part of town they live in.

'In God We Trust' on money? Who cares?
I'm not that petty, and the value of the dollar
is falling daily, and that's is what is troubling.

Nativity scene in TOWN SQUARE?
Why?--can't the churches put it on
their lawns and people on their lawns?

Public places should stick to generic
decorations and people can do what
they want where those things mean
something more personal to them.

manu1959
02-14-2007, 01:27 PM
I don't think there should be religion in public schools--unless it is
a study of all religions--but that is usually college material.
Of course there are schools set up around religions--fine.

Public school should be a strong foundation of the basics.
We should be turning out kids that are strong in math,
reading, writing, and critical thinking skills. A good grasp
of economics, money management. Multiple languages
is good. Not everyone wants college, so some technical
courses would be good. We need to turn out people
who can work. Religion and sex beyond basic birth
control and control of STD's does not need to be a
major issue. That can be handled at home.

At the very least, kids should know what their body
parts are for and how to protect themselves--against
disease, unwanted births and sexual predators, as soon
as they can mentally process it.

If we aren't doing this, and we aren't, we are failing them
by not giving them skills for a better life, regardless
of color or what part of town they live in.

'In God We Trust' on money? Who cares?
I'm not that petty, and the value of the dollar
is falling daily, and that's is what is troubling.

Nativity scene in TOWN SQUARE?
Why?--can't the churches put it on
their lawns and people on their lawns?

Public places should stick to generic
decorations and people can do what
they want where those things mean
something more personal to them.

very reasonable....pity reality, at least in my area, does not match your reasonable point of view....

my children are being taught; about islam not christianity and tollerance and acceptance of gay marriage, i won't even get into the political stuff....

you can't put a nativity scene on your lawn or even put up an american flag without some liberal wacko complaining...

welcome to the san francisco bay area....

Ado
02-14-2007, 01:36 PM
very reasonable....pity reality, at least in my area, does not match your reasonable point of view....

my children are being taught; about islam not christianity and tollerance and acceptance of gay marriage, i won't even get into the political stuff....

you can't put a nativity scene on your lawn or even put up an american flag without some liberal wacko complaining...

welcome to the san francisco bay area....

On your own lawn or house? That's wrong.

The Slayer
02-14-2007, 01:50 PM
PR you have no right to call me goddless.. That is you wanting to put me in a box that you fit into. I am not like you at all obviously. I do have faith, I do believe in God. I do not agree with your ideals on what a Christian is or what they stand for, so if that puts me in the same catagory as the Devil for you so be it. I do not have to justify my beliefs to prove my faith to you or anyone. I cannot believe that such a Christian as yourself would be capable of calling me the devil when you have no idea of who I am or what I stand for, beyond those few lines I had put down here on an internet message board. So judge away silly man, and call me devil if that makes you feel better about yourself and your attampts to prove your faith. I am a walking example of mine, in my everyday life . The people I encounter in my daily life know me and what i stand for and believe in. That is all that matters to me.
Keep on hating it just shows the strength of your character.

glockmail
02-21-2007, 09:03 PM
Back to the subject: they are related. :ssex:

Missileman
02-21-2007, 09:17 PM
Back to the subject: they are related. :ssex:

Prove it!

glockmail
02-21-2007, 09:20 PM
Prove it! Again? :coffee:

Missileman
02-21-2007, 09:21 PM
Again? :coffee:

Still waiting!

glockmail
02-21-2007, 09:31 PM
Still waiting! The vast majority of peds are males having sex with young boys. :gay: Case closed.

Missileman
02-21-2007, 09:54 PM
The vast majority of peds are males having sex with young boys. :gay: Case closed.

All you need to do now is post some evidence to support the claim...good luck with the attempt, it doesn't exist.

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 09:58 PM
The vast majority of peds are males having sex with young boys. Case closed.
No I think I'm gonna open it back up.
Any links to where you got this fact from?

Grumplestillskin
02-21-2007, 10:01 PM
No I think I'm gonna open it back up.
Any links to where you got this fact from?

From this particular character? You'll be waiting a long time (unless you believe biased Christian, right-wing nut job sites, in which case you'll be inundated) :lmao:

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:01 PM
All you need to do now is post some evidence to support the claim...good luck with the attempt, it doesn't exist.


No I think I'm gonna open it back up.
Any links to where you got this fact from?

For some reason methinks you're not really interested in facts, but hey, knock yerselves out. http://www.gayxjw.org/ped.html

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

Grumplestillskin
02-21-2007, 10:07 PM
I rest my case.

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:10 PM
From this particular character? You'll be waiting a long time (unless you believe biased Christian, right-wing nut job sites, in which case you'll be inundated) :lmao: I see you're still shooting the messenger, Dr. Grump? :wink2:

CockySOB
02-21-2007, 10:10 PM
The vast majority of peds are males having sex with young boys. :gay: Case closed.

I'd be interested in a source for your statistic. Are you using FBI or perhaps DOJ numbers?

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:13 PM
For some reason methinks you're not really interested in facts, but hey, knock yerselves out. http://www.gayxjw.org/ped.html
LOL I hope your joking....
I love how retarded Christian nut jobs who probably never went to college are using quotes from some fanatic Jehovah’s witness cult to try and debunk what professional and real research tells us is false.
Basically your website tried to say this was wrong:

"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia."
- Martin Downs, WebMD Medical News
"There is no medical evidence to suggest an association between homosexuality and impaired moral judgment."
- Journal of the American Medical Association - Pediatric Forum, March 2001

"It is ludicrous to identify pedophiles as homosexuals."
- Stan Robson, Chief Deputy, Benton County Sheriffs Department
(In over 14 years of Robson's work with pedophiles, 498 out of 500 offenders identified themselves as heterosexual.)

"The vast majority of offenders are heterosexual men. Male offenders who abuse young boys maintain adult heterosexual relationships. The habitual molester of boys is rarely attracted to adult males."
- Roland Summit, M.D. Head Physician, Community Consultation Service, Harbor UCLA Medical Center.

"The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data. The child offenders who engaged in adult relationships as well, were heterosexuals. There were no homosexual adult oriented offenders in our samples who turned to children."
- A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D., Director of the Sex Offender Program, Connecticut Department of Corrections, and Co-Director of the St. Joseph College Institute for the Treatment and Control of Child Sexual Abuse

Because this said so:

"Then again, a young boy may get started in homosexuality by being seduced by homosexual men. There was a glaring example of this in Vancouver, Canada, where some homosexuals seduced thirty-five young boys between the ages of ten and fourteen and then made traffic out of them."
- "The Watchtower" 5/15/70 p314
"Shocking as it is, even some who have been prominent in Jehovah's organization have succumbed to immoral practices, including homosexuality, wife swapping, and child molesting."
- "The Watchtower" 1/1/86 p12

"History does not make clear how prevalent homosexuality was among the Romans. No doubt, though, they were influenced by their Greek predecessors, among whom it was widely practiced. It was customary for older men to corrupt young boys, taking them under their wing in a student-teacher relationship that often steered the youngsters into deviant sexual behavior. Undoubtedly, Satan and his demons were behind such vice and mistreatment of children."
- "The Watchtower" 7/15/97 pg.10

You'll have to do better than that...
I'm not sure that your "source" would even convince the most bias of conservative christians.

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:19 PM
From this particular character? You'll be waiting a long time (unless you believe biased Christian, right-wing nut job sites, in which case you'll be inundated)
Check out his "source"...It's quite hilarious.

Missileman
02-21-2007, 10:19 PM
For some reason methinks you're not really interested in facts, but hey, knock yerselves out. http://www.gayxjw.org/ped.html

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

From your own link Sherlock....

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."

Having a Hobbit moment?

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:21 PM
LOL I hope your joking....
I love how retarded Christian nut jobs who probably never went to college are using quotes from some fanatic Jehovah’s witness cult to try and debunk what professional and real research tells us is false.
Basically your website tried to say this was wrong:


Because this said so:


You'll have to do better than that...
I'm not sure that your "source" would even convince the most bias of conservative christians.

I'm not going to play the game where I bring up links and you dispute them based on who the publisher is. Facts are facts. Why not discuss them?

And I don't appreciate the reference my education level. I'm almost certain that I have more edumacation than you. Ask Missleman if you don't believe me, as I'm sure he's aware. But that's not the point. The point is that I am here to openly discuss facts, not to have juvinile pissing matches with y'all who disagree with me.

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:23 PM
From your own link Sherlock....

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."

Having a Hobbit moment?

Let's try and have a civilzed discussion, shall we? Or are you here for another reason?

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:25 PM
I'm not going to play the game where I bring up links and you dispute them based on who the publisher is. Facts are facts. Why not discuss them?

And I don't appreciate the reference my education level. I'm almost certain that I have more edumacation than you. Ask Missleman if you don't believe me, as I'm sure he's aware. But that's not the point. The point is that I am here to openly discuss facts, not to have juvinile pissing matches with y'all who disagree with me.

Thats all they do is dispute the source. Oh do bring up the link that shows the APA was pressured by queer rights groups financially and otherwise to remove queer lifestyle choice as a treatable malody, watch them go nuts!

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:26 PM
I'm not going to play the game where I bring up links and you dispute them based on who the publisher is. Facts are facts. Why not discuss them?
What a nice ploy.
I believe that I did dispute the facts using what your website gave me. There is no fact on your website other than the medical researchers they source who all debunk what your trying to say.
The people you claim gave "fact" to your argument are a cult of lying morons who use the bible as their source.
Quite a difference in who to trust...

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:27 PM
And I don't appreciate the reference my education level. I'm almost certain that I have more edumacation than you. Ask Missleman if you don't believe me, as I'm sure he's aware. But that's not the point. The point is that I am here to openly discuss facts, not to have juvinile pissing matches with y'all who disagree with me.
Please stop. Your making me laugh to hard.

darin
02-21-2007, 10:28 PM
I'm not going to play the game where I bring up links and you dispute them based on who the publisher is. Facts are facts. Why not discuss them?

And I don't appreciate the reference my education level. I'm almost certain that I have more edumacation than you. Ask Missleman if you don't believe me, as I'm sure he's aware. But that's not the point. The point is that I am here to openly discuss facts, not to have juvinile pissing matches with y'all who disagree with me.



psst! Liberals don't debate facts. They rant and rave and ridicule. Ever heard of Logical Fallacies? Liberalism DEFINES Logical Fallacy.

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:29 PM
What a nice ploy.
I believe that I did dispute the facts using what your website gave me. There is no fact on your website other than the medical researchers they source who all debunk what your trying to say.
The people you claim gave "fact" to your argument are a cult of lying morons who use the bible as their source.
Quite a difference in who to trust...

Secularism kicks ass don't it?

Missileman
02-21-2007, 10:30 PM
Ask Missleman if you don't believe me, as I'm sure he's aware.

I don't know that I've seen a post of yours that places you more advanced than the 10th grade. Maybe you'll do better here than at USMB, though you appear to be off to a slow start.

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:31 PM
Please stop. Your making me laugh to hard.

I believe thats "too" instead of "to" there Einstein. You wanna get fucken picky on people's spelling and punctuation? Is that the game you wanna play? Better proofread your shit from now on.

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:32 PM
Please stop. Your making me laugh to hard. The jokes on you. You fell for it hook line and sinker, bubba. Just ask anyone who knows me for 2-3000 posts.

But if you wanna debate facts, I'm here fer ya!

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:33 PM
I don't know that I've seen a post of yours that places you more advanced than the 10th grade. Maybe you'll do better here than at USMB, though you appear to be off to a slow start. So you're memory is dim or is mine?

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:35 PM
psst! Liberals don't debate facts. They rant and rave and ridicule. Ever heard of Logical Fallacies? Liberalism DEFINES Logical Fallacy.
I'm glad to know we have people with IQ's that are lower than a fucking rock running this board.

Missileman
02-21-2007, 10:35 PM
Thats all they do is dispute the source. Oh do bring up the link that shows the APA was pressured by queer rights groups financially and otherwise to remove queer lifestyle choice as a treatable malody, watch them go nuts!

Sure wish you could make up your mind. You keep insisting that everone's born heterosexual and that some people choose to engage in homosexuality, yet you are disappointed that the APA no longer considers homosexuality a disease. No matter what kind of screwed up logic you might apply, you couldn't equate a "choosing heterosexual" with a "diseased homosexual".

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:36 PM
believe thats "too" instead of "to" there Einstein. You wanna get fucken picky on people's spelling and punctuation? Is that the game you wanna play? Better proofread your shit from now on.
That was one error. He made about five.

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:36 PM
I'm glad to know we have people with IQ's that are lower than a fucking rock running this board.

We gonna have a repeat of last night pardner?

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:37 PM
That was one error. He made about five.

Those who live in glass houses............

manu1959
02-21-2007, 10:38 PM
I'm glad to know we have people with IQ's that are lower than a fucking rock running this board.

what is your purpose?

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:38 PM
But if you wanna debate facts, I'm here fer ya!
Honestly I've been on quite a few boards with a far right majority, and yet I have never come across a bigger dumbass than you.

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:38 PM
Sure wish you could make up your mind. You keep insisting that everone's born heterosexual and that some people choose to engage in homosexuality, yet you are disappointed that the APA no longer considers homosexuality a disease. No matter what kind of screwed up logic you might apply, you couldn't equate a "choosing heterosexual" with a "diseased homosexual".

I believe the ability to make that awful choice might be brought on by a mental shortwire, could possibly treated by drugs.

Missileman
02-21-2007, 10:40 PM
So you're memory is dim or is mine?

Time will tell...still waiting for that proof.

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:40 PM
Honestly I've been on quite a few boards with a far right majority, and yet I have never come across a bigger dumbass than you.

Obama you here to debate or just troll which is what you've done up to now.......in a big way.

Missileman
02-21-2007, 10:41 PM
I believe the ability to make that awful choice might be brought on by a mental shortwire, could possibly treated by drugs.

Name any other disease that is considered a choice.

CockySOB
02-21-2007, 10:42 PM
Thats all they do is dispute the source. Oh do bring up the link that shows the APA was pressured by queer rights groups financially and otherwise to remove queer lifestyle choice as a treatable malody, watch them go nuts!

I must spread some Reputation around before giving it to OCA again.

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:43 PM
That was one error. He made about five. Actually I made zero and you made 5 by assuming they were unintentional, massah!

As I said earlier, the jokes on you.

Now suck it up and debate facts, brutha!

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:44 PM
Obama you here to debate or just troll which is what you've done up to now.......in a big way.
After this, don't respond to me because you won't get a reply.
I nicely ripped him apart, and clearly showed him how there was no fact to his source other than the opinions of a Christian cult.
He repeatedly ignored me and just said "I'll debate the facts"
That is being a dumbass in its purest form.

Guernicaa
02-21-2007, 10:46 PM
Actually I made zero and you made 5 by assuming they were unintentional, massah!

As I said earlier, the jokes on you.

Now suck it up and debate facts, brutha!
So you say....

Missileman
02-21-2007, 10:46 PM
Honestly I've been on quite a few boards with a far right majority, and yet I have never come across a bigger dumbass than you.

What's your malfunction? Why waste the time of picking a handle and avatar just to come in with the intent of getting booted?

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:47 PM
After this, don't respond to me because you won't get a reply.
I nicely ripped him apart, and clearly showed him how there was no fact to his source other than the opinions of a Christian cult.
He repeatedly ignored me and just said "I'll debate the facts"
That is being a dumbass in its purest form.

Oh no you didn't say that, you'll fucking reply to me whether you want to or not, you make the choice, you've got 5 minutes to make the choice.

manu1959
02-21-2007, 10:48 PM
What's your malfunction? Why waste the time of picking a handle and avatar just to come in with the intent of getting booted?

..........it is not past his bedtime yet?

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:49 PM
What's your malfunction? Why waste the time of picking a handle and avatar just to come in with the intent of getting booted?

Missle I think we can 100% agree on this, this guy is a troll in its most purest form.

darin
02-21-2007, 10:49 PM
I'm glad to know we have people with IQ's that are lower than a fucking rock running this board.

That was NOT called for. Try again in 48hrs.

manu1959
02-21-2007, 10:50 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:


That was NOT called for. Try again in 48hrs.

OCA
02-21-2007, 10:50 PM
See ya round the bend Osama!

glockmail
02-21-2007, 10:53 PM
Oh no you didn't say that, you'll fucking reply to me whether you want to or not, you make the choice, you've got 5 minutes to make the choice.
heh heh.. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/nuke2.gif

Abbey Marie
02-21-2007, 11:42 PM
That was NOT called for. Try again in 48hrs.

Persoanlly, I would by now make it permanent. :wink2:

avatar4321
02-22-2007, 12:48 AM
That was NOT called for. Try again in 48hrs.

Maybe he was talking about himself...

Grumplestillskin
02-22-2007, 02:30 AM
Don't worry about it Obama - you got 'em good. When they have nothing left, they send you to the land of nod...heh

(edit)

Oh, and when you come back, you can certainly ignore OFA if you wish. You'd be advised to! I would too, but he's so easy to bait...

Grumplestillskin
02-22-2007, 02:37 AM
I see you're still shooting the messenger, Dr. Grump? :wink2:

No, I'm shooting the dude who spews the same thing over and over again, and then backs up his "facts" from a right-wing Christian nutjob site (or derivatives thereof), which I have proved on numerous occasions to be flawed (to say the least).

Grumplestillskin
02-22-2007, 02:40 AM
psst! Liberals don't debate facts. They rant and rave and ridicule. Ever heard of Logical Fallacies? Liberalism DEFINES Logical Fallacy.

Believing in the bible, and using it to prove your "facts", is not debating either. Your "facts" are based on faith. Huge difference. Try again...

glockmail
02-22-2007, 02:50 AM
No, I'm shooting the dude who spews the same thing over and over again, and then backs up his "facts" from a right-wing Christian nutjob site (or derivatives thereof), which I have proved on numerous occasions to be flawed (to say the least).

Don't pull another algore on me, please. I'm tired of that.

So you still think that a man who pokes a boy ain't gay? :lol:

glockmail
02-22-2007, 03:01 AM
Three kinds of scientific evidence point to the proportion of homosexual molestation: 1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported. These three lines of evidence suggest that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality (3) account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Grumplestillskin
02-22-2007, 03:06 AM
Don't pull another algore on me, please. I'm tired of that.

So you still think that a man who pokes a boy ain't gay? :lol:

Absolutely he is gay. Never said otherwise. It's your preposterous assertion that gays are more prevelent than straights at it that makes me laugh. I mean, men who rape girls are they called hetrosexual paedophiles or just paedophiles?

Grumplestillskin
02-22-2007, 03:09 AM
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Oh, Christ, not this fucker again. If I have to go through the motions of pointing out all the fallacies, lies, misrepresentations and idiotic moments in this link again, I think I'll top myself (wishful thinking Zorba)...For the last time - even that darling of trhe rabid right-wing neocon cabel says he doesn't trust Cameron's research. Go figure. Oh, the APA got rid of him (because he was full of shit, not because they were pressured as shills like OFA with have you believe).
Man, whoever invited you over, needs a lobotomy. Then again, I put my hand up for being one of the folks who gave Psycho the link - so fair's fair I guess. Needless to say, this subject is done with me - especially with you Glock.

Sitarro
02-22-2007, 03:38 AM
Please stop. Your making me laugh to hard.

You know kid, the danger in arrogantly showing how much smarter you are by pointing out typos and grammatical errors in someone's post is that you may just mispell a three letter word in your own....:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:...idiot!

Grumplestillskin
02-22-2007, 03:59 AM
You know kid, the danger in arrogantly showing how much smarter you are by pointing out typos and grammatical errors in someone's post is that you may just mispell a three letter word in your own....:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:...idiot!

The irony being that my first run in with you had you doing exactly the same thing re pointing out typos. My how soon we forget...:lmao:

Sitarro
02-22-2007, 04:25 AM
The irony being that my first run in with you had you doing exactly the same thing re pointing out typos. My how soon we forget...:lmao:

Kind of missed the point didn't you Grump, what's new? What is a re? :laugh: :lmao: Good one!

Grumplestillskin
02-22-2007, 04:28 AM
Kind of missed the point didn't you Grump, what's new? What is a re? :laugh: :lmao: Good one!

Er, no. Your point was rather basic. Although it does seem you have missed mine!