PDA

View Full Version : New Pope condems gays



Mika
06-06-2005, 02:14 PM
Yup, just what the Catholic world needed... :D

Back to the future (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-06-06T195209Z_01_N06372885_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-POPE-GAYS-DC.XML)

Let me quote George Carlin here, it just seems appropriate :p


Religion - easily - has the best bull$hit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money.

lkfmdc
06-06-2005, 02:56 PM
A man who wears a dress everyday, and gets on his knees to be fed a cracker, making fun of ****sexuals? Wow, what a surprise :rolleyes:

This pope used to be the "bad guy" and the "enforcer", he's Arnold of the Church, no surprise here

Next he'll denounce birth control and abortion

brothernumber9
06-06-2005, 03:03 PM
condems help prevent STD's

It's good the new pope is looking out for ****sexuals

WinterPalm
06-06-2005, 03:23 PM
Big Suprise here.

mantis108
06-06-2005, 04:12 PM
I am kind of lost in the whole "the church is against gay marriage" thing. I mean it sounds as if being gay is the new leprosy in the Church's eye. But then didn't Jesus ,the Grand teacher of all the Christian disciples who start the Church in the first place, walked, aided and healed lepers and all? So how is it okay today in attempt to justify the condemnation and abandon of this "new leprosy" in the Church's opinion. Aren't they saying that they are free to not walk the same path of their founder of the faith? That's just something serious wrong with the whole religious thing.

I am against marriage whether it is straight or gay anyway. I don't think one needs a piece of paper to say "I love you" and then another to say "I hate your guts". It's just dump and silly. BTW, I couldn't figure out how sex is dirty but it gives birth to the "holy" priests but Church politic is clean but it won't allow the holy priests to procreate which is consider secrat duty of the idea of family in the new Pope's preaching (that's one of the reason why he's against gay marriage). :confused:

Mantis108

Mika
06-06-2005, 04:15 PM
It's a sad day for any religion when they take a step back. With all the child molestation publicity, is this the way to go? Actually, for any neo-conservatist, it probably is...

Don't they realize, though, that people are getting smarter and the appeal of the "invisible man" is starting to wear thin? Where will the money come from then? ;)

Luckily here religion plays no role in anything. It's ancient history. Yet, we are not in decadence... :D

Anywho, waiting for Judge Pen to chime in...

AndyM
06-06-2005, 05:20 PM
Let he who is without sin, bare the other cheek.

Or something like that. ;)

Dale Dugas
06-06-2005, 05:45 PM
funny the bible says "judge not others lest yee be judged."

Most catholics have no idea what the bible says. catholics some say have ruined christianity. hence all the born agains and others sects that have been popping up over the years as people cannot stand the garbage fed to them from the vatican.

Worlds third largest bank. They have lots of clout and have never earned a penny of it.

Thieves and hypocrites some say. I say ignore them as they are nothing. Most people want to believe in something as it takes the responsibility out of their hands. they can blame anything and everything on the will of god or some such nonsense.

Oh well....

rogue
06-06-2005, 06:00 PM
"Matrimony and the family are not, in reality, a casual sociological construction or the fruit of specific historic and economic situations," he said. I mostly agree with the Pope.

FatherDog
06-06-2005, 06:33 PM
I mostly agree with the Pope.

Family isn't a casual sociological construct, but matrimony certainly is.

ZIM
06-06-2005, 08:11 PM
I don't see where he condemned gays. He condemned gay marriages. And good on him, too. I'm opposed to them as marriages as a default position.

IRT: mantis108-
I mean it sounds as if being gay is the new leprosy in the Church's eye. Being gay is not. Gay sex, otoh, is a sin. Its not a forever-****ing sort of thing, though.

Seculars have the view that being gay is a permanent, inborn thing [not arguing that] and that if one is, the of course one will go out & have gay sex [not necessarily so. There's straights who are celibate by inclination, just as there are gays who are. But at this point we get into the "is it an act or a gender?" thing].

To the church, its a sin. All of us are sinners, and all of us have our own peculiar temptations, and thats what Confession is for - to gain forgiveness. My point is- no, it isn't easy being a gay catholic, but neither is it to be a straight catholic.

Last- all of you who're moaning- are you catholics? Why does what he says matter to you?

CaptinPickAxe
06-06-2005, 08:22 PM
Nothing like taking a big aethist stick and stirring up some good o' fashioned catholic hate...

all who opposed the "pope's" "word" be prepared to be flamed with the heat of a thousand hells....


Those freaks are easily T.O'd

CaptinPickAxe
06-06-2005, 08:23 PM
Religion is flawed to begin with...

Man's interpretation of God's word...

isn't that an Oxymoron?

rogue
06-06-2005, 08:27 PM
all who opposed the "pope's" "word" be prepared to be flamed with the heat of a thousand hells.... Who's flaming who?

CaptinPickAxe
06-06-2005, 08:31 PM
...wait for it....

Jhapa
06-06-2005, 08:55 PM
this is from a religion that molests little kids and tries to hide about it and pay millions of dollars to keep them quite. why do catholics worship a MAN, he is nothing more than a man, just like you, me and every other person, straight and gays alike. we all have sins, even the almighty pope is a sinner, doesn't the bible say something like do not judge others, it seems like all they do is judge, if you are not catholic, you will go to hell, if you don't believe in the pope, you will go to hell, etc

during the popes funeral, someone mentioned that pope was like a god!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr Punch
06-06-2005, 09:20 PM
this is from a religion that molests little kids Religion doesn't molest kids... guns do!

Or something like that.

Zim, can you really be so disingenuous as to expect us to believe that what the pope says doesn't affect all of us? But especially those praying for a rain of condoms in Africa.

KC Elbows
06-06-2005, 09:55 PM
IRT: mantis108- Being gay is not. Gay sex, otoh, is a sin. Its not a forever-****ing sort of thing, though.
Last- all of you who're moaning- are you catholics? Why does what he says matter to you?

First, we share the world with catholics, who, imo, look tolerant in comparison to many baptists on the gay topic.

Second, if you are suggesting that sodomy(in biblical terms) is a sin, and thus, being gay is, I challenge you to find any source before the tenth century that interprets sodomy(in biblical terms) as anything but failing to treat a guest well.

The interpretation of sodomy(i.e. the sin of the sodomites) during well over half of Catholic history had nothing to do with ****sexuality. Certainly not during the time the old testament was compiled, or even when Christ was around. Not for the gnostics, nor any of the early popes(including the gay ones).

Of course, I'm not even religious. But I know that much.

Additionally, our modern world is the direct legacy of a bunch of gay roman emporers who assumed power after a bunch of gay greeks lost it.

History favors the swish, and not the tenth century REVISION of what "sodomy" actually means to God.

KC Elbows
06-06-2005, 10:04 PM
For the record, ****sexuals are periodically targetted throughout history not because of what they do, but because, lacking children, they tend to amass respectable fortunes that others always had to spend on family. Take a class with some money and a basic difference from others, ostracize them, get the population to herd them up, then you can take all of their stuff. Like the jews throughout Europe for many centuries before the nazis.

Before any christian wants to tell you what God thinks of gays, ask them why the church took a thousand years to figure it out, and why Christ never did.

Lu Bu
06-06-2005, 10:33 PM
*sigh* :rolleyes:

All I can say is...lol @ organized religion. It's really very sad. Ultimately, I feel that those who believe in God, regardless of their "denomination", should worry less about what some crochety old man (that's not just directed at whomever is today's pope) says about what HE feels is right and wrong, and just take care of themselves. Right and wrong aren't that complicated, I think, and I certainly don't need anyone to tell me what they THINK is right and wrong. More specifically, I couldn't care less about someone trying to condemn something I do because they don't like it. If I were ****sexual, my middle finger would probably be in the faces of a lot of people. :eek:

Oh noes...i am liek goign to H3LL now, amirite?

edit: Mantis108, I completely agree with what you said about marriage. In fact, I participated in a heated debate in high school a few years ago, saying essentially the same thing. I guess not too many people think about how little a piece of paper is really worth. :cool:

Stranger
06-07-2005, 04:20 AM
Zim, can you really be so disingenuous as to expect us to believe that what the pope says doesn't affect all of us? But especially those praying for a rain of condoms in Africa


Condoms arriving in Africa wouldn't begin to put a dent in the AIDS epidemic there. The problem appears to be much more complicated than that.

TaiChiBob
06-07-2005, 04:50 AM
Greetings..

Marriage is a contract of obligations.. obligations are the root of resentment, waking up each morning and re-affirming your love for someone without obligation is evidence of "Love", obligation, on the otherhand is the fodder for lawyers..

As for gays, as long as the aren't actively recruiting, they are a danger only to themselves.. however, since they don't produce offspring, they are known for recruiting (how else do they keep an active population?).. no one should influence a person's sexual preferences, let people become who they are.. aside from that, form and function of the human anatomy has evolved with a particular process.. a process that is contrary to gay activities.. i take my cues from nature, and design and function of the vessel i now inhabit.. yet, i don't judge gays as right or wrong, i only evaluate the consequences of their actions.. recruiting being one i do not find favor with..

Gay Marriage? why? Gays have gone to great lengths to point out their differences from "breeders" ( a term for straights used by gays), now they want to reverse that notion and be just like straights.. Marriage has a long and documented tradition of being between a man and a woman.. why change? if, as suggested by gays, the issue is rights.. call it "pairrage" and afford the same rights.. same result, similar name.. move on... We don't have "straight days", "straight parades", or "straight" flags and symbols pasted everywhere.. if gays are so intent on identifying their uniqueness let them be "pairried" and straights be married, simple, huh?

Be well..

cerebus
06-07-2005, 05:06 AM
Recruiting? Excuse me Bob, I usually enjoy your posts and find them insightful, but... recruiting? How many gay people do you know? I've known a fair number of them, having lived throughout Europe & the U.S., and I've never known any of them to try "Recruiting" people into becoming gay! Gay people go for gay people. The ONLY people I've ever heard talk about gays trying to "recruit" straight people (what? like it's an organization or something?) have been h.omophobic individuals who seem terrified of the thought that they might get "recruited" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .

Interstingly, I seem never to have had any problems with gay people trying to "recruit" me (even though I'm a total stud :p :p :p ). I tell 'em I'm straight and everything's cool.

Man, some people have some really odd ideas. Don't worry Bob, gay people aren't a danger to straight people unless straight people let it get their blood pressure up (some really do :( ).

cerebus
06-07-2005, 05:10 AM
PS: I've also never (ever) heard any gay person refer to straight people as "breeders". Again, I HAVE heard hom.ophobic religionists make this claim. Have you been reading born-again, fundamentalist pamphlets or what? (Now THOSE are some folks who can show you what "recruiting" is all about).

TaiChiBob
06-07-2005, 05:32 AM
Greetings..

Well, we run in different circles.. i have enough gay acquaintenances to be certain of my references and of the recruitment philosophy.. of course, this may vary depending on availability in a particular locale.. phobic? nope, observant, yep.. and, i absolutely agree that the gay movement pales in comparison to religious evangelism, and i am evangelicalphobic.. neo-cons scare me.. but, more so, are the legions of rational people that are too apathetic to stand up for their reasoned principles..

Be well..

cerebus
06-07-2005, 05:53 AM
Heh, heh. I agree with ya' on the evangelicalphobia. Neo-cons too. Bleah. As for apathetic people, it seems that they are in the majority wherever you go (and it's a sad thing too). Anyway, yeah, I suppose some gay groups might have a "recruiting" agenda, I just don't think it's the "norm" though.

kungfu cowboy
06-07-2005, 06:00 AM
Oh yeah? Well, I heard that not only does Burt Reynolds wear a toupee, but that his mustache, beard, and even eyebrows are fake too!

ZIM
06-07-2005, 07:52 AM
First, we share the world with catholics, who, imo, look tolerant in comparison to many baptists on the gay topic.

Second, if you are suggesting that sodomy(in biblical terms) is a sin, and thus, being gay is, I challenge you to find any source before the tenth century that interprets sodomy(in biblical terms) as anything but failing to treat a guest well.

The interpretation of sodomy(i.e. the sin of the sodomites) during well over half of Catholic history had nothing to do with ****sexuality. Certainly not during the time the old testament was compiled, or even when Christ was around. Not for the gnostics, nor any of the early popes(including the gay ones).

Of course, I'm not even religious. But I know that much.

Additionally, our modern world is the direct legacy of a bunch of gay roman emporers who assumed power after a bunch of gay greeks lost it.

History favors the swish, and not the tenth century REVISION of what "sodomy" actually means to God.
My interest in asking the question was based on my observation that most of you are either atheists or philosophically Buddhist, Taoist, etc. The Pope has no authority over you, and since he was talking about *gay marriage* in this case, all he really said was "we catholics won't be marrying gays".

There are other denominations, you know. Different churches, some with apostolic successions and everything, will do so. The Episcopalians are almost on the verge of schism because they do it & the Presbyterians, Lutherans have their own very liberal views. One branch of Judaism will perform same-sex marriages.

With the exception of the Judaic branch, all of these denominations are suffering losses in membership while they cater to an admitted minority's whims. If the Episcopalians do schism [and they'll likely take the Anglicans of Canada with them] that will end a historical era, since it will break up a worldwide communion that has existed since the 1600's.

There are repercussions from bowing to the public's whims that are very different from those a government might suffer. I'm not going to fault the Pope for adhering to his church's teachings & reining in those elements within it who would do it damage by changing things around thoughtlessly.

Your second point: I said, clearly, that being gay was not a sin. Its a fine poiint, I'll admit, but it should've been an easy one to grasp. Your 'challenge' is not one I'll raise to, thank you very much. If you want to revise the Bible, go right ahead. There's entire cottage industries devoted to it.

For your second post:
Puh-lease. Are you playing the 'persecuted gay' card? I've already stated: They can get married elsewhere. Meantime expend your energies where they really are persecuted: The Middle East, where they are killed by law.

ZIM
06-07-2005, 07:59 AM
TCB-

Your viewpoint WRT 'pairrage' is closer in spirit to what some gay catholics hold - one of pride in themselves, celebratory of difference, upholding of tradition, etc.

cerebus-

I've known quite a few gays & lesbians, well over a hundred I'm sure. 'Recruitment' typically takes the form of seduction of straights, and yes indeed its common as a goal. "Breeders" is a dismissive term, currently going out of favor in the northeast but still used when dissing families [esp. dysfunctional ones, ie- 'what do you expect from breeders?'].

TonyM.
06-07-2005, 08:13 AM
I love it. Der Fuher has opened his candy arsed ghey mouth and got all the kiddies upset. Can't wait for him and his but buddy Kolvenbach to issue a new catachism with instructions on how to goose step.

TaiChiBob
06-07-2005, 08:32 AM
Greetings..

It is interesting to note that statistics indicate no more than 4% of the population claims to be gay.. so triple that, just to account for those still in the closet and still, you have only 12%.. now, look at the impact an estimated 12% has on the rest of the public.. either in fad-like acceptance or in intolerant persecution, you have to admit that such a small percentage has an enormous impact.. Why? Because they are willing to stand up for their principles and use their economic influence to support their community.. same as the neo-con-religists.. interesting connection.. But, there are much more important issues simmering and capable of irreversable harm, that slip by unnoticed or not given their worth.. we struggle with the deception of smoke and mirrors.. the gay issue is a distraction from more sinister agendas....... be aware!

Be well..

TonyM.
06-07-2005, 08:41 AM
Bingo! I love it when people really understand what is going on.

ZIM
06-07-2005, 09:16 AM
Because they are willing to stand up for their principles and use their economic influence to support their community.. same as the neo-con-religists.. interesting connection...Religious traditionalism is almost always a reaction to a *perceived* tendency towards the abolishment of a religion's views. Whether one agrees or not, there are quite a few who hold that the liberalizing, secularizing agenda threatens their traditions mortally. With that in mind, one can approach an understanding for their views, an understanding of their reactions. I hold that understanding, not necessarily agreement, is generally a good thing.

From their POV the secularists are trying to abolish traditional religious beliefs & replace them with their agendas. Interestingly, KC Elbow's first statement "First, we share the world with catholics", tends to reinforce that opinion because it implies that since he believes in a certain way, others must also. Perhaps you'll see why this can sound sinister.

Traditions are formed over generations, not overnight. Too many seem to think that changing the basis of the churches is just a matter of declarations - it isn't. The reforms some seek may come about, but it'll be a move measures in decades maybe centuries. No, that probably doesn't sit well with many. Too bad. The reality of how traditions work is different than what you'd want, that's all.

Meantime, yes - we may disagree on what threats are which, but I'll agree that looking at this issue in exclusion to others is missing the broader picture.

mantis108
06-07-2005, 11:40 AM
Hi Zim,

I admire your intelligence. Really, I do. :) It's refreshing to see someone standing up for the religious cause whether, they are a believer or not with good informed opinion. Personally, I am going to be burned in Catholic Hell for all enternity anyway but then if I don't go to hell who would?! But first, show me this place called Hell (not that town in America). :D

I wonder why would anyone in their right mind believe that there is a special someone on earth as a human being have "authority" over him/her? What's worst is that this shadow of fear is reinforced by ritual rite such as Baptism. I mean no offence but is it really purification of sin or marking or territories? New born child has no say in it and to me it looks more like marking of a property which was pretty "normal" way back when. Just like women were property of men until arround the '50s then things starting to change. I have known people who were Baptized when they were badies and they just end up "become" one not because of they truely believe in everything Catholicism represents but because they have the guilty that their parents have envisioned them to be or not to be. I guess that's why "family" is some important to the Church. How else are you going to get more and more paying customers?

The biggest turn off for me is all these fear of God, original sin, and notion of guilt and suffering (practically what Americana Bushism is about, go go Team America!). Oh, almost forgot a little brain washing too (pun intended). BTW, it does affect everyone especially when we are paying more than $50.00 USD a barrel of black gold.

I wish everyone luck in founding peace and enlightenment especially to those who believe that they are own by someone or something else.

And on the lighter side .... We used to only have to worry about one person in the dating game. Now we have to deal with at least 4. She, her may be boyfriend/husband, her may be girlfriend(s); He, His may be girlfriend/wife, His may be boyfriend. It's just too complicated. lol... :D

Regards

Mantis108

PS Lu Bu glad you figured it out early in the game.

brothernumber9
06-07-2005, 01:37 PM
Royce would own you,

and then choke out Satan.

KC Elbows
06-07-2005, 01:51 PM
My interest in asking the question was based on my observation that most of you are either atheists or philosophically Buddhist, Taoist, etc. The Pope has no authority over you, and since he was talking about *gay marriage* in this case, all he really said was "we catholics won't be marrying gays".

Incoreect, he is interpreting the judgement of God on ****sexuals. Major difference.


There are other denominations, you know.

I know, I mentioned one such branch becausde I felt some posters were unfairly caustic to catholics on this issue when the worst tendency I've ever seen is among southern baptists.


Different churches, some with apostolic successions and everything, will do so. The Episcopalians are almost on the verge of schism because they do it & the Presbyterians, Lutherans have their own very liberal views. One branch of Judaism will perform same-sex marriages.

With the exception of the Judaic branch, all of these denominations are suffering losses in membership while they cater to an admitted minority's whims.

Cater to a whim? Really, please reiterate your source for sodomy being related to ****sexuality in any chirch pre-10th century, because this is actually an issue of interpretation, not whim.


If the Episcopalians do schism [and they'll likely take the Anglicans of Canada with them] that will end a historical era, since it will break up a worldwide communion that has existed since the 1600's.

How is that relevant to this topic?



There are repercussions from bowing to the public's whims that are very different from those a government might suffer. I'm not going to fault the Pope for adhering to his church's teachings & reining in those elements within it who would do it damage by changing things around thoughtlessly.

Speaking of thoughtless change, care to pin down a date at which the church began it's stand against ****sexuality? Cause it wasn't anywhere near the beginning, was it?


Your second point: I said, clearly, that being gay was not a sin.

I never said you did. You said that having gay sex was, which directly brings into question the use of the term sodomy, since you are clearly referring to biblical referrence to the sodomites. As such, I asked you to support your supposition that it was a sin in the eyes of the early church, something you will not be able to do because they did not approach it from that view.

It was common throughout the ancient world to see mistreating a guest as horrible, to actually rape one was the sin of the sodomites, and so the sin was that. By your interpretation, had the angel been raped vaginally or orally, the sin would be that. Had it been a hand job, the sin would be that. Do you see why that interpretation is spiritually meaningless?


Its a fine point, I'll admit, but it should've been an easy one to grasp. Your 'challenge' is not one I'll raise to, thank you very much. If you want to revise the Bible, go right ahead. There's entire cottage industries devoted to it.

I didn't revise it, I suggested you find a case pre tenth century where the word sodomy is read by the church as "the sin of anal sex". You won't, whether you rise to the challenge or not, because that was not how the text was interpreted then.



For your second post:
Puh-lease. Are you playing the 'persecuted gay' card?

No, I was summing up the past as briefly as possible. If you are saying that is an inaccurate statement, then please share what sources you use for the history of the church and gays.


I've already stated: They can get married elsewhere. Meantime expend your energies where they really are persecuted: The Middle East, where they are killed by law.

No. Your whole premise that the pope's decrees are simply a recommendation for catholics is incorrect.

KC Elbows
06-07-2005, 02:08 PM
Interestingly, KC Elbow's first statement "First, we share the world with catholics", tends to reinforce that opinion because it implies that since he believes in a certain way, others must also.

Now who's playing the persecution card? Nothing is sadder than whining about "the secularists".

My statement implies no such thing. It implies that if an opinion about other people is based on so much ether, it fails to deserve respect. Should it ever be otherwise?

For instance, the poster who stated that ****sexuality is against nature. Losing argument, right away. ****sexuality is prevalent within the animal kingdon, as long as there is overpopulation there is a place for it. Within much of the animal kingdom, "gay" animals also raise the young of animals who have died. Whoops, the natural argument just went down the drain.

David Jamieson
06-07-2005, 02:37 PM
well, we share the world with gays as well.

why can't the catholics get along with the gays? After all, there are so many gay catholics and apparently a lot of undeclared nambla members in their preistly ranks.

I guess that's an aspect of catholicism?

You know, all that "know thine enemy" stuff from the 10th century.

But then, intolerance has been a hallmark of the Catholic Church for so long, why should they stop now? How many "thou shalls" are in the ten commandents? I think it's 2 and they really are thinly veiled shalt nots when you look at it.

Now all you gays out there don't worry about pope benny, he's just sounding off for teh benefit of the old guard he comes from. they really don't like much at all of this new fangled acceptance stuff. It's the fear you know. :p

ZIM
06-07-2005, 03:59 PM
Thanks for the compliment, first. I myself am not catholic, although my mother's family is. I stand up for Christianity because I view it as a valid spiritual path rather than as simply a collection of dos & don'ts. And I don't view a church as merely a community center, either, which is where conflicts such as this one arise, I think.

I wonder why would anyone in their right mind believe that there is a special someone on earth as a human being have "authority" over him/her? What's worst is that this shadow of fear is reinforced by ritual rite such as Baptism. I mean no offence but is it really purification of sin or marking or territories? New born child has no say in it and to me it looks more like marking of a property which was pretty "normal" way back when. Just like women were property of men until arround the '50s then things starting to change. I have known people who were Baptized when they were badies and they just end up "become" one not because of they truely believe in everything Catholicism represents but because they have the guilty that their parents have envisioned them to be or not to be. I guess that's why "family" is some important to the Church. How else are you going to get more and more paying customers? Here, you seem to be espousing a more Protestant viewpoint, or even 'independent catholic'. A lot of these same arguments were part of the Congregationalist movement, especially baptism, and for the exact same reasons you're saying here. :)

ZIM
06-07-2005, 04:21 PM
Actually, I didn't want to get into a Biblical/early church argument at all. I find they tend to not solve any thing and, to be honest, I don't much care about the early church.

But here we are. :) I'll agree to disagree on the meaning of the Pope's statement, OK? And the relevance of the Episcopalian church's possible schism is of paramount importance to it's members. They're witnessing their beloved church disintegrate before their eyes. Would you insist on the destruction of every church just to prove a point? If so, how is that a respectful stance?

When I said 'cater to the whims of a minority', I meant it. This is all just so much PC nonsense and if the RCs want no part of it, that's their business. Again, the Episcopals are doing every bit of the program that progressives want - and its causing them to lose members & break apart. Here's a real-world case for the experiment & it doesn't work. That's called evidence.
The RCs are not condemning gay persons - which I'm now repeating for the third time - which is evident since they have self-identified gay priests, monks, etc. The problem is the act, not the identity.

You are to be congratulated for knowing about the possiblity that Sodom was destroyed for it's inhospitable, selfsh & uncaring folk. There is evidence that linguistically it could mean that, as well as this passage:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

However, this does not solve the case. A brief survey -

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: it is abomination," and "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..." Also Leviticus, IIRC, states that men wearing women's clothing are in a state of sin, or some such.

Matthew 19:3-7. Specifically: "for this cause [marriage, reproduction, family] shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh...what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." [Seems to condemn same sex marriage, but YMMV]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" shall not inheret God's kingdom. Looking at the original Greek used for these words, Paul speaks of both participants involved with ****sexual intercourse.

1 Corinthians 11:11-12. neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Romans 1:26-27. Paul condemns those who are "without natural affection" and who leave the natural use for "that which is against nature"

But I'll give you another, because I'm such a swell guy. :)

Luke 17-34-35: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two [women] shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

What's interesting to me is that 1] this is Christ speaking 2] Luke was a Greek, so he was likely the only one of this group of nice Jewish boys who knew what in blue blazes was being referred to here.

I solve this issue by coming back to Confession - the entire point of that is make contrition for fault in order to obtain forgiveness. Why is one taken to heaven, the other not? I'd say it has to with forgiveness versus rebellion. :)

This is what separates Christianity from every other religion: Grace. The free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God. http://www.wordreference.com/definition/grace

But hey, if Christianity is not your spiritual path or if you don't take it seriously, then why bother with any of this? Its all just barracks-room lawyering otherwise.

ZIM
06-07-2005, 04:22 PM
Now who's playing the persecution card? Nothing is sadder than whining about "the secularists".
I was careful to emphasize the word "percieved", as in 'a percieved threat'. Please read my responses more carefully.

Other than this, you animal argument fails because its basically:
1. Animals do it.
2. ????
3. It's okay for humans to do it.

On that logic, I can eat my kids.

To KL/David-

Most of your post was anti-Catholic slagging. The only portion thereof I would care to address is with a question: Why should the catholic church be required to accept gays?

lada
06-07-2005, 07:46 PM
well, we share the world with gays as well.

why can't the catholics get along with the gays? After all, there are so many gay catholics and apparently a lot of undeclared nambla members in their preistly ranks.

I guess that's an aspect of catholicism?

You know, all that "know thine enemy" stuff from the 10th century.

But then, intolerance has been a hallmark of the Catholic Church for so long, why should they stop now? How many "thou shalls" are in the ten commandents? I think it's 2 and they really are thinly veiled shalt nots when you look at it.

Now all you gays out there don't worry about pope benny, he's just sounding off for teh benefit of the old guard he comes from. they really don't like much at all of this new fangled acceptance stuff. It's the fear you know. :p


Have you ever considered that you are being fed lies in order to weaken you or your family or your society? That kind of thing does happen. Read some history books.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church as been an opponent of other world societies for control of the world. I find it interesting that in the entire world, only the Catholic church seems to have this problem of child abusers in their ranks. What is the liklihood of that?

I think it is much more likely that the Catholic church is the target of a plot to destroy their power. This has already taken place. Look at how much money the Catholic Church has paid out for these claims. Look at how most of the public views Catholics. As child abusers. Millions of people painted with the actions of maybe 20 of them.

Look at that book by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code. Isn't it about a secret Catholic Society that is up to no good? They are called Opus Dei. I have read that both Opus Dei and the Catholic Church both feel the book has damaged them.

What is intriguing? Dan Brown wrote another book. In it, the Illuminati were the guys up to no good. That book was not very popular. It did not sell well. How convenient for the people traditionally associated with the Illuminati that Dan Brown changed his villians from the Illuminati to the Catholic Church. One of the opponents of the Illuminati.

I think the Catholic Church is trying to help society with it's pronouncements about gays. I think that when ****sexuality becomes widespread, that it does damage society. ****sexual people are unbalanced, that is why they are ****sexual. One sided. If there are too many of them, they make the entire society unbalanced. That is why they need to be "repressed".

Don't take that too strongly. Gays always have and always will be around. I don't believe in persecting anyone. What I am saying is that the popular culture glorification of the gay lifestyle will cause damage to society at large. This is what the Catholic Church is warning against.

If you think in terms of good and evil, I think evil has the upper hand at this point in history. I think evil is spreading lies about everything in order to cause maximum pain and destruction to the human race at large. I think evil is behind the massive media campaign that plasters ****sexuality across every print, movie and TV outlet.

Catholicism is a religion. How can a religion be as bad as people say? It is like Bush calling Amnesty International, Shamnesty International. Amnesty International has been a good, high status, respected organization for as long as I can remember. They accuse Bush of Guantanamo being a Gulag and suddenly, every media outlet in the USA is calling Amnesty International terrorist sympathizers.

I think the Amnesty International head even had to apologize. Or what about the Newsweek story about the Quran desecration? Newsweek has been around for decades and everyone respects them. Suddenly Newsweek is described as being full of hacks and being terrorist sympathizers.

Lies are everywhere, right here, right now. Gay is OK is one of them. If you wanna be gay, that is fine. But don't believe it is healthy and fine because it is not. You will be different from a normal person in very specific and identifiable ways. I think it makes you less. People really don't like it when I say that.

Christopher M
06-07-2005, 10:54 PM
Seriously. ****ing Catholics should all burn in hell. That'll teach them for being intolerant. The Jews too. And the gays.

No, wait...

KC Elbows
06-08-2005, 12:10 AM
I was careful to emphasize the word "percieved", as in 'a percieved threat'. Please read my responses more carefully.

Other than this, you animal argument fails because its basically:
1. Animals do it.
2. ????
3. It's okay for humans to do it.

On that logic, I can eat my kids.


It wasn't my argument. One poster brought up that ****sexuality was "against nature", which is pure rubbish, and I showed that. Nature has no complaints about a lot of behaviors. And the reason you cannot eat your kids is more practical than not: who has a crock pot that big?

KC Elbows
06-08-2005, 12:30 AM
But hey, if Christianity is not your spiritual path or if you don't take it seriously, then why bother with any of this? Its all just barracks-room lawyering otherwise.

I come from a large and influential catholic family. Who happen to have utter disdain for those who spend one second casting stones that could have been spent doing works. My parents always foster premies, and my parents are really too old to be doing that. My father spends every day at the children's hospice lightening up the lives of kids with cancer. They have the time to do that because they don't waste their time voting down gay marriage. They have real world priorities and a sense that God is not a total moron. Anytime a spiritual pursuit involves worrying about what other people do that bothers you(not meaning you, you get the wording) more than what you are doing for other people, it's missing the high point of religion.

When my dad comes to a family function crying because he just that afternoon watched a kid who he has cheered on for months finally pass on, it just seems to speak more of the power of God than when some guy speaks against gays because someone commited the irony of sodomizing God's faerie.
One act is the selfless devotion to helping each other to find peace, the other is flat earthing your way through your religion. Flat, center of the universe earthing, I should say.

So when the pope makes my kind, selfless father look like a dink, the pope deserves what he gets. That's why I see it as my business.

David Jamieson
06-08-2005, 06:39 AM
Here comes the fear and hate, fear and hate, fear and hate, whoa, hey, shadooby.

Catholic slagging? lol
Fed lies? Everyday man, I just don't swallow em. :D

some of you dogmatic dudes gots to chill a little. :rolleyes:

ZIM
06-08-2005, 07:09 AM
So when the pope makes my kind, selfless father look like a dink, the pope deserves what he gets. That's why I see it as my business.That was a good post, KCE, it explained a lot. Thanks.

FWIW, nothing that the Pope says would affect your father being kind & selfless. Worrying about 'looking like a dink' is as immaterial as 'worrying about what other people do that bothers you more than what you are doing for other people'.

For your father & family, the church itself might be the cross you're intended to bear, who knows? ;)

WRT the nature thing: I suppose thats the risk of long, involved posts. I hadn't realized it was in response to another poster. When I got off-line, I reconsidered it. I wondered whether or not that factoid really had a place in the argument, you know?

Here's my thinking: Yes, the animal world probably does have evidence of gay sex [I've read about it, thanks. I only wonder if the evidence hasn't been exaggerated for the cause] but we're talking about church law, which is a human construction and quite apart from nature.
Even if we accept that nature has a voice within church law, we have a further issue to be mindful of: Using nature as a source of revelation is a pagan concept. I've already shown that Scripture speaks clearly on the topic. To accept a revelation overturning that from the natural world would be Apostasy.

KL/David-
I haven't promoted any hate or fear. But I did ask you a question, hoping you'd answer seriously, without slagging. Its alright if you don't want to answer, I guess.

David Jamieson
06-08-2005, 07:23 AM
zim speakest thusly and asked this question out of the blue: Why should the catholic church be required to accept gays?

To which I reply: I don't know? Why should they? On the other hand, is it really necessary that they speak out against them? Tit for tat though. Really, one can't make a papal pronouncement that ostracizes a huge portion of the population of the world and not expect some backlash from that group or it's supporters.

The catholic church doesn't have to participate in sanctifying gay marriage if it doesn't want to. Any more than married gays have to be catholic.

Can I ask why you asked me that question and how you gleened from my posts anything even remotely close that I thought the catholic church "should" support gays?

David Jamieson
06-08-2005, 07:32 AM
Oh and I also wonder why the catholic church doesn't publicly and loudly condemn the following:

1. Child poverty in industrialized nations or elsewhere
2. Slavery and endentured slavery practices
3. Arms dealers who feed civil wars and destabilization of developing countries
4. War as a solution to political problems
5. Child abuse by their own members
6. Child abuse in general
7. Familial abuse

and so on. The whole gay, condoms, sex thing is so "who cares" it is staggering to see such a powerful organization being so myopic about what problems there are in the world. Unfortunately, this same religious organization has the ear of roughly a billion of earths inhabitants.

For shame, for shame...

ZIM
06-08-2005, 07:44 AM
Can I ask why you asked me that question and how you gleened from my posts anything even remotely close that I thought the catholic church "should" support gays?
Because you had written

well, we share the world with gays as well.

why can't the catholics get along with the gays? After all, there are so many gay catholics and apparently a lot of undeclared nambla members in their preistly ranks.

I guess that's an aspect of catholicism?That's all. :)

ZIM
06-08-2005, 07:55 AM
Oh and I also wonder why the catholic church doesn't publicly and loudly condemn the following:

1. Child poverty in industrialized nations or elsewhere
2. Slavery and endentured slavery practices
3. Arms dealers who feed civil wars and destabilization of developing countries
4. War as a solution to political problems
5. Child abuse by their own members
6. Child abuse in general
7. Familial abuse
They do, actually. You don't hear very much about it in the news because its the nail sticking up that gets the press.

In the case of 1, 6 & 7, the church maintains family services in every parish that provide for counseling, safe houses, legal aid, food, financial assistance, clothing, etc. It could be done better, but they are in place.

As for 3 & 4, Pope JPII was a vocal opponent to the war in Iraq, placing him alongside your views. He believed that pressure applied in the name of simple humanity was best. No Pope in modern times has vocally supported war as a solution, IIRC, even in WWII [to their eternal shame - see it works both ways].

I can't respond to 2 in any adequate fashion, but it possibly falls under their calls for human rights which come out periodically. Mabe others have more info.

5. The wall of silence on this issue is shameful. You are 1 for 7. Congrats!

David Jamieson
06-08-2005, 08:22 AM
They do, actually. You don't hear very much about it in the news because its the nail sticking up that gets the press.

In the case of 1, 6 & 7, the church maintains family services in every parish that provide for counseling, safe houses, legal aid, food, financial assistance, clothing, etc. It could be done better, but they are in place.

As for 3 & 4, Pope JPII was a vocal opponent to the war in Iraq, placing him alongside your views. He believed that pressure applied in the name of simple humanity was best. No Pope in modern times has vocally supported war as a solution, IIRC, even in WWII [to their eternal shame - see it works both ways].

I can't respond to 2 in any adequate fashion, but it possibly falls under their calls for human rights which come out periodically. Mabe others have more info.

5. The wall of silence on this issue is shameful. You are 1 for 7. Congrats!


Ge thanks zim, without your approval whatever would i do with my days! :rolleyes:

lol

TonyM.
06-08-2005, 08:29 AM
Correct. No pope in modern times has publicly supported war. This is why they have cardinals to do it. Do your homework on "Spelly's War" Also no pope is EVER going to give someone else authority over Roman Catholics. As for their human rights record check out Argentina where my cousin is the bishop of Santiago. He spends more time as an apologist than doing anything real. Don't drink the kool aide.

ZIM
06-08-2005, 08:38 AM
Don't drink the kool aide.
Something oddly funny about that in the context of a conversation about catholicism. :D

Guys, its looking like this thread has about had it, at least for me. If someone else wants to take it up, go right ahead.

It was fun & interesting.

FatherDog
06-08-2005, 09:19 AM
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: it is abomination," and "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..." Also Leviticus, IIRC, states that men wearing women's clothing are in a state of sin, or some such.

Leviticus 11:10-12
But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.

When will the Pope speak out against the horrible practice of shrimp-eating, which is far more widespread than ****sexuality?

All of which is completely immaterial anyway, since A) Leviticus is instructions specifically for the tribe of Levi, and inapplicable to other Hebrew tribes, let alone Gentiles, and B) Old Testament Mosaic law no longer applies to Christians, as per Acts.



1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" shall not inheret God's kingdom. Looking at the original Greek used for these words, Paul speaks of both participants involved with ****sexual intercourse.

Completely incorrect. The original Greek you are translating as "effeminate" is "malakoi", a word which literally means "soft" and is sometimes rendered as "male prostitute" or "catamite" (referring to a boy kept by a pedophile.) The original greek word you are translating as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is "arsenokoitai", which is closest to meaning "rapist" or "sex slave trader", and is never used in any greek texts of the period to refer to ****sexuals in general - words used in that sense include arrenomanes, erastes, paiderastai, paidika, drwntes, and paschontes, none of which ever occur in the bible under any context.



Romans 1:26-27. Paul condemns those who are "without natural affection" and who leave the natural use for "that which is against nature"

As KC already noted, none of the early Christian thinkers interpreted this verse as referencing ****sexuality - it was believed to refer to heterosexual non-procreative sexual acts (by Clement of Alexandria, Anastasios, and St. Augustine, among others.)



Luke 17-34-35: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two [women] shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

This is completely immaterial; it's talking about the Rapture. No credible scholar, even those who believe that ****sexuality is condemned by the church, considers this to refer to homsexuality - it is a reference to people being taken up to heaven when the Son Of Man returns. Which would make NO sense if it were referring to ****sexuals.

KC Elbows
06-08-2005, 11:22 AM
That was a good post, KCE, it explained a lot. Thanks.

No problem, it's always difficult online to truly understand where people are coming from, and thus, where things are leading. I'm hardly religious, but I am hardly a bitter athiest, either.


FWIW, nothing that the Pope says would affect your father being kind & selfless. Worrying about 'looking like a dink' is as immaterial as 'worrying about what other people do that bothers you more than what you are doing for other people'.

The problem is that it's the pope, therefore my father is required to silently disobey a senseless proclomation that inspires no one with the glory of God.


For your father & family, the church itself might be the cross you're intended to bear, who knows? ;)

You need to go to confession for that one.


WRT the nature thing: I suppose thats the risk of long, involved posts.

One risk among many, as I should have been washing the dishes.


I hadn't realized it was in response to another poster. When I got off-line, I reconsidered it. I wondered whether or not that factoid really had a place in the argument, you know?

I wasn't suggesting that you had anything to do with that argument, I should have clarified.


Here's my thinking: Yes, the animal world probably does have evidence of gay sex

Could you run that by me again, I was startled by the neighbor dogs sodomizing each other.


[I've read about it, thanks. I only wonder if the evidence hasn't been exaggerated for the cause]

The science says no at this point, so there's really no way around it.


but we're talking about church law, which is a human construction and quite apart from nature.
Even if we accept that nature has a voice within church law, we have a further issue to be mindful of: Using nature as a source of revelation is a pagan concept. I've already shown that Scripture speaks clearly on the topic. To accept a revelation overturning that from the natural world would be Apostasy.

Exactly, and further, the fact is that civilization is created by the suppression of some natural tendencies.

I would submit that the natural tendency toward intolerance can be shown to have set back the causes of civiliation(Auschwitz, Rwanda, Nanqing, et al), but it's much harder tomeasure whether ****sexuality ever has, since most arguments in support of that are based on hyperbole and bad biology(reproduction is the only use of life, et al). In otherwords, there's a definite lack of serious science regarding the costs of tolerance toward gays, since those most interested in there being such a cost would never buy a book with gay in the title.

Sorry, trolling with that last one. Someone should ban me.

ZIM
06-08-2005, 08:39 PM
Exactly, and further, the fact is that civilization is created by the suppression of some natural tendencies.
I suppose a relation might be found with animals killing/driving off the offspring of other males & child abuse by step-parents, too. Stuff I think about in my off moments. ;)


Sorry, trolling with that last one. Someone should ban me.Ever notice the distinct lack of centrist trolls? Except for possibly merryprankster, they're exceedingly rare. :)

Fatherdog-

I wrote awhile back that I find biblical/early church arguments to be entirely too circular. I still find that to be true. I also wrote that I was done with this thread and I meant that. Since you're addressing me, I'm tying up the loose ends.

I could answer you and I do have answers to at least half of what you're saying and could go into it. None of it would end the discussion either way & to be honest I haven't regarded this particular thread to be about biblical interpretation but about catholic church doctrine & tolerance for the same.

You may view it differently or wish to talk about that. I don't, others might.

In that spirit: You've obviously thought a great deal about the subject & are convinced of your views. I possibly come from a different theological ground than you, and - notably - haven't really gone into what precisely my beliefs are. Both of us, presumably, believe we've interpreted correctly.

I hope & will [if it doesn't offend] pray that you'll find a church or congregation [if you haven't already] that reflects your views. And I'll wish the very best in it.

And, well, this is a kind of tolerance. I'm not about to insist that you believe in the way that I do, nor would I pound you over the head with my beliefs. I could only hope that you'd hear them with respect, as I have heard yours, and afford me the same tolerance, the same space to believe as I would.

======

I can hear the howls already: What about the what the Pope said then?!

I'm not a catholic, but I tolerate catholic views in the same way - I just don't adhere to them, try to understand them and would never insist they change to suit me. To me, doing so is a fundamentalist mindset, whether liberal or conservative in goals.

TaiChiBob
06-09-2005, 04:34 AM
Greetings..


I'm not a catholic, but I tolerate catholic views in the same way - I just don't adhere to them, try to understand them and would never insist they change to suit me. To me, doing so is a fundamentalist mindset, whether liberal or conservative in goals. Good words.. To the degree that someone else's beliefs do no harm, i respect their right to believe as they choose.. this is a great technology that permits us to share our understandings of our beliefs, a potential for tolerant understanding of others.. to use ithis technology to advance personal or religious agendas is a poorly conceived notion.. i do not assert that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is without intentional harm, and i fault them on that point, but i also recognize that many of their faithful do good works, and contribute to the welfare of society.. broad generalizations or myopic focus obscure many of the more subtle but important aspects of a religion's contribution to its culture..

My experience leads me to believe that religions are merely various cultural interpretations of simple spiritual awareness.. subsequently manipulated into the "business" of spirituality.. that each of us has an inherent "knowing" that we are part of some greater process.. that process interpreted according to the cultural context of which we have our reference base.. It is noteworthy that among people that keep spirituality generic, there is little conflict.. those that define it culturally, name it and codify it seem to become intolerant and evangelical.. I say, worship nothing, but.. maintain a sacred reverence for ALL things..

Be well..

KC Elbows
06-09-2005, 07:03 AM
I suppose a relation might be found with animals killing/driving off the offspring of other males & child abuse by step-parents, too. Stuff I think about in my off moments. ;)
Ever notice the distinct lack of centrist trolls?


The reason for that is simple. People with reasonable views wouldn't understand the internet.

FatherDog
06-09-2005, 09:41 AM
I wrote awhile back that I find biblical/early church arguments to be entirely too circular.


Early church arguments are immaterial; the fact is that your interpretation of the Greek is wrong.



In that spirit: You've obviously thought a great deal about the subject & are convinced of your views. I possibly come from a different theological ground than you, and - notably - haven't really gone into what precisely my beliefs are. Both of us, presumably, believe we've interpreted correctly.

I hope & will [if it doesn't offend] pray that you'll find a church or congregation [if you haven't already] that reflects your views. And I'll wish the very best in it.

Since I'm an agnostic, I rather doubt that there exists a church or congregation that reflects my views. I am, however, a student of religion and history, and it irritates me when people make assertions about same that are incorrect.



And, well, this is a kind of tolerance. I'm not about to insist that you believe in the way that I do, nor would I pound you over the head with my beliefs. I could only hope that you'd hear them with respect, as I have heard yours, and afford me the same tolerance, the same space to believe as I would.

I don't have much respect for beliefs that are factually incorrect.

fa_jing
06-09-2005, 11:11 AM
Fatherdog wrote: "Completely incorrect. The original Greek you are translating as "effeminate" is "malakoi", a word which literally means "soft" and is sometimes rendered as "male prostitute" or "catamite" (referring to a boy kept by a pedophile.) The original greek word you are translating as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is "arsenokoitai", which is closest to meaning "rapist" or "sex slave trader", and is never used in any greek texts of the period to refer to ****sexuals in general - words used in that sense include arrenomanes, erastes, paiderastai, paidika, drwntes, and paschontes, none of which ever occur in the bible under any context."

so does "soft" include ****sexuals? Can you prove that it does not? Such language seems to condemn ****sexuality at least in some respects. Maybe Paul thought the correct words for ****sexuality were too vulgar for his writings? I would think it would be specifically excluded if it was not to be criticized, especially given the rest of the text which criticizes all sorts of immorality (as seen by the writer). I certainly don't think you could call someone "Completely Incorrect" for seeing the Bible as critical of ****sexuality.

After all, the old testament dietary restrictions were specifically lifted in the New Testament. So is death as a punishment for breaking morality rules. Yet the restrictions against ****sexual acts are not rescinded AFAIK.

Then again, not much in the Bible makes sense to me. But I think as literary critics of the Bible, we shouldn't fall into the same pattern of behavior that some Christian sects engage in, which is loosely interpreting portions of the Bible to suit some pre-defined agenda such as the acceptance of ****sexuality.

Paul spoke out against these things partly because the expatriate Jew/Christians were surrounded by biblically immoral people ( and immoral by modern standards too ) and some members of the church were being influenced by them or participating in this sort of activity. That was half the reason he wrote most of his letters in the first place, the other was to inspire the faithful to continue in their faith in the face of challenges.

HopGar
06-09-2005, 11:56 AM
Y'all had to start quoting sources from the bible....

"All of which is completely immaterial anyway, since A) Leviticus is instructions specifically for the tribe of Levi, and inapplicable to other Hebrew tribes, let alone Gentiles, and B) Old Testament Mosaic law no longer applies to Christians, as per Acts."

Wrong. Well, partially anyway. While TaNaCh (the bible) doesn't apply to gentiles and christians, Leviticus is NOT only for the tribe of Levi. It's mostly for Levi. Leviticus also has the laws of Kosher, the Shemita year (one year out of seven where all land is left fallow) and Yovel (the 50th year of the Shemita cycle), as well as important laws of purity and impurity, both relating to the temple and the family - All of which apply equall to all Jews.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: it is abomination," and "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..." Also Leviticus, IIRC, states that men wearing women's clothing are in a state of sin, or some such.

Actually those two verses translate literally from hebrew like this:
18:22 "You shall not lie with a man as you would with a woman - it is an abomination."
20:13 "And the man who has relations with a man as he would a woman, they have committed an abomination, they shall die, their sin is upn themselves."

Leviticus doesn't say anything about crossdressing, that's addressed in Deuteronomy and is a big no-no.

Deuteronomy 22:5 "Male garb shall not be on a woman and a man shall not wear a feminine garment, for all who do so is an abomination to G-d."

As for my unsolicited opinion, I'm completely against gay sex, gay marriage, etc.

MasterKiller
06-09-2005, 12:30 PM
As for my unsolicited opinion, I'm completely against gay sex, gay marriage, etc.
Then don't have gay sex and don't marry a guy and let everyone else decide for themselves what to do. That's what living in a 'free' country is supposed to be about.

Design Sifu
06-09-2005, 12:35 PM
Deuteronomy 22:5 "Male garb shall not be on a woman and a man shall not wear a feminine garment, for all who do so is an abomination to G-d."

it's been a while since i'v been to sunday school. Does this mean it's a sin for women to wear pants? :eek: :eek: :eek:

David Jamieson
06-09-2005, 12:39 PM
it's been a while since i'v been to sunday school. Does this mean it's a sin for women to wear pants? :eek: :eek: :eek:

nope, it's just a sin to wear her brother's, husbands, fathers, boyfriend's, grandpas pants.

If they're a snug little pair of 7's, then it's definitely not a sin. :D

Royal Dragon
06-09-2005, 12:44 PM
Ok, please understand the following is based on me being a self proclaimed **** Phobe, and proud of it.

I believe **** Phobia is a natural thing for hetoral sexual males. Now, that being said, **** Phobia is part of the Catholic doctrin, and has been so for as far back as I can see. It's natural, and sometimes, Catholics like to proclaime it as loudly as **** sexuals like to proclaim thier "Gayness" to others.

Now, all THAT being said, and keeping in mind I am a self proclaimed ****phobe, and proud of it, I think if the Catholic church wants to be loud about thier ****phobia to thier own flock, it's all good. The gay community actively promotes thier life style, and belifes too, many of which are anti catholic anyway (and don't tell me they don't).



Now, all *THAT* being said, I could care less what someones sexual preference is, so long as it doesn't include me, and so long as they don't actively promote thier life style to *ME*. I find the loud, overly open Gay message to be offending, and I really believe most heterosexual males do as well, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT!. I have seen guys be cordial, and freindly to gay men, and not discrminate in anyway, but then express to be all grossed out to thier hetero peers as soon as they are gone. I've seen it too many times to think it is something out of the ordinary.

Now, if the Pope wants to openly denounce ****sexuality to his followers, who by the very nature of being Catholic, share his doctrin, then who cares? He's just reinforcing the community ties of belife within his own following. It's part of tightening the commuinty he's the leader of by reviewing, and reaffirming the groups belifes. These Belifes ARE shared by the majority of people on this planet, let alone his own group as well.

Besides, Gays are just as open about thier views (Gay Pride parades etc...), and may be more so. Each group has thier views, and speaks of them with in thier own groups. In this case, the Catholics just happen to be a group thats like a Billion + strong, and world wide, where as the Gays are like at best 12% of the population, and I believe that number is inflated anyway.

The two groups should just ignor eachother, and do thier own thing, in thier own space, and leave it be.

MasterKiller
06-09-2005, 12:50 PM
Ok, please understand the following is based on me being a self proclaimed **** Phobe, and proud of it.
Then how come your Match.com profile says "Heteroflexible"?

mantis108
06-09-2005, 01:04 PM
Then how come your Match.com profile says "Heteroflexible"?

May be it's a PC guesture to address the third gendre - man's mind in a woman body or a woman's mind in a man body? BTW, "Heteroflexible" kinda cool term. lol... :D

Mantis108

David Jamieson
06-09-2005, 01:17 PM
overt ****phobia is generally a declaration of being a closeted gay. :D

you know, like that dude in teh states who wanted to pass all those anti gay laws and it turns out he's gay! Gay as buckets! lol

or that other dude, the bush bootlick that runs talon online the neocon ezine and then it turns out, he too is gay as gay can be.

what with royal's consistent seeking of approval from us in regards to his lovelife with what could very likely be imaginary women, I am almost 99.999% certain that RD is indeed gay.

And ther's nothing wrong with that RD. :D

FatherDog
06-09-2005, 01:29 PM
Fatherdog wrote: "Completely incorrect. The original Greek you are translating as "effeminate" is "malakoi", a word which literally means "soft" and is sometimes rendered as "male prostitute" or "catamite" (referring to a boy kept by a pedophile.) The original greek word you are translating as "abusers of themselves with mankind" is "arsenokoitai", which is closest to meaning "rapist" or "sex slave trader", and is never used in any greek texts of the period to refer to ****sexuals in general - words used in that sense include arrenomanes, erastes, paiderastai, paidika, drwntes, and paschontes, none of which ever occur in the bible under any context."

so does "soft" include ****sexuals?

No.


Can you prove that it does not?

It's never used in any circumstance in any Greek writings to refer to ****sexuals, ever.



After all, the old testament dietary restrictions were specifically lifted in the New Testament. So is death as a punishment for breaking morality rules. Yet the restrictions against ****sexual acts are not rescinded AFAIK.

Read Acts. The Mosaic law as a whole is rescinded.

Royal Dragon
06-09-2005, 01:31 PM
See, that's what I like about this board, you guys just know when to take what I post and run with it!!!















PS, I'm off to double check my profile...just to be sure... :p

MasterKiller
06-09-2005, 01:36 PM
what with royal's consistent seeking of approval from us in regards to his lovelife with what could very likely be imaginary women, I am almost 99.999% certain that RD is indeed gay.

And ther's nothing wrong with that RD. :D

Are you saying that when WaterDragon 'choked' him too hard and 'hurt his throat," that maybe WD wasn't using his arms at the time?

Shaolinlueb
06-09-2005, 01:38 PM
at least the invisible man up above called god (that people believe in) isnt turning them into stone or salt or whatever he did when the group looked back on sodom and gamora. :dunno:

MasterKiller
06-09-2005, 01:41 PM
at least the invisible man up above called god (that people believe in) isnt turning them into stone or salt or whatever he did when the group looked back on sodom and gamora. :dunno:

Which is worse? God turning them into salt, or WaterDragon giving RoyalDragon a salty facial?

Design Sifu
06-09-2005, 02:02 PM
what if the internet where around during the civil war?


Ok, please understand the following is based on me being a self proclaimed Afrophobe (made up word...we could use the N word in front of ___phobe as well or simply say "N*g** hater"), and proud of it.

I believe afrophobia is a natural thing for white males. Now, that being said, Afrophobia is part of the Southern doctrin, and has been so for as far back as I can see. It's natural, and sometimes, Southerners like to proclaime it as loudly as black like to proclaim thier "blackness" to others.

Now, all THAT being said, and keeping in mind I am a self proclaimed Afrophobe, and proud of it, I think if the Southern Government wants to be loud about thier Afrophobia to thier own constituents, it's all good. The black community actively promotes thier life style, and belifes too, many of which are anti Southern anyway (and don't tell me they don't).



Now, all *THAT* being said, I could care less what someones racial preference is, so long as it doesn't include me, and so long as they don't actively promote thier life style to *ME*. I find the loud, black message to be offending, and I really believe most white males do as well, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT!. I have seen guys be cordial, and freindly to black men, and not discrminate in anyway, but then express to be all grossed out to thier white peers as soon as they are gone. I've seen it too many times to think it is something out of the ordinary.

Now, if the Govenor wants to openly denounce black to his constituents, who by the very nature of being Southern, share his doctrin, then who cares? He's just reinforcing the community ties of belife within his own following. It's part of tightening the commuinty he's the leader of by reviewing, and reaffirming the groups belifes. These Belifes ARE shared by the majority of people on this planet, let alone his own group as well.

Besides, Blacks are just as open about thier views (Black Pride equal right etc...), and may be more so. Each group has thier views, and speaks of them with in thier own groups. In this case, the Southerners just happen to be a group thats like a Million + strong, where as the Blacks are like at best 12% of the population, and I believe that number is inflated anyway.

The two groups should just ignor eachother, and do thier own thing, in thier own space, and leave it be.

lada
06-09-2005, 02:08 PM
Have you ever considered that you are being fed lies in order to weaken you or your family or your society? That kind of thing does happen. Read some history books.

I find it interesting that the Catholic Church as been an opponent of other world societies for control of the world. I find it interesting that in the entire world, only the Catholic church seems to have this problem of child abusers in their ranks. What is the liklihood of that?

I think it is much more likely that the Catholic church is the target of a plot to destroy their power. This has already taken place. Look at how much money the Catholic Church has paid out for these claims. Look at how most of the public views Catholics. As child abusers. Millions of people painted with the actions of maybe 20 of them.
.

I would say this tends to corroborate the above claims. I think 1 billion dollars would destroy the power of just about any organization, don't you? All you have to do is look at who owns the media to determine who benefits from the constant attacks on the Catholic Church.


"The cost to the U.S. Roman Catholic Church of sexual predators in the priesthood has climbed past $1 billion, according to tallies by American bishops and an Associated Press review of known settlements.

And the figure is guaranteed to rise, probably by tens of millions of dollars, because hundreds more claims are pending.

Dioceses around the country have spent at least $1.06 billion on settlements with victims, verdicts, legal fees, counseling and other expenses since 1950, the AP found. A $120 million compensation fund announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., pushed the figure past the billion-dollar mark."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050609/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse

TonyM.
06-09-2005, 02:31 PM
That's about the most retarded crap I have ever read. Let's get scores of people to pretend they've been molested so they can sue the RC church to destroy it.

ewallace
06-09-2005, 02:36 PM
I condem all of you. If you post on this forum you are going to hell. Unless you are a hot chick. All hot chicks go to heaven.

fa_jing
06-09-2005, 04:01 PM
No.

It's never used in any circumstance in any Greek writings to refer to ****sexuals, ever.


in my uneducated mind ****sexuals are "soft" so whether it was directed towards them or not, they would be included at a high rate along with "soft" heteros.





Read Acts. The Mosaic law as a whole is rescinded.


Fair enough.

Anyway, Paul tells women to cover their hair and that men shouldn't have long hair, that a woman should obey the man yadda yadda, he's far from my favorite Biblical writer. FWIW

To all - the actual percentage of active ****sexuals in this country is 2%, according to a military study that appeared in Time or Newsweek a few years back during the "don't ask, don't tell" years. Those that had had any ****sexual experience in their life was 7%. They found a number of personal cleanliness issues that are statistically more prevelant among ****sexuals but I personally will judge on a case-by-case basis - and the contributions some ****sexuals have made to the arts is irreplaceable.

fa_jing
06-09-2005, 04:06 PM
well, I have had some uncomfortable moments with ghay men where I felt they crossed the line, but I have to be very grateful for the ghay. I was hanging out with a couple ghay guys and a chick I was trying to mac. And they goaded me into dancing and later making out with another chick at the same club, while the first chick was in another room. I went back to look for second chick the next day and ended up re-meeting a third chick who made a date with me 3 weeks before but stood me up. That lady is now my wife. Go Ghay!! :)

lamakwoklee
06-09-2005, 05:32 PM
I don't know about Benedict the XVI condemning gays. I just know that I'm tired of starting threads about Plum Flower, or Secret Door Praying Mantis, only to have them hijacked by some twink (not that there's anything wrong with that), who wants to brag about how "HAAARD" his Shirfu is! :D

ZIM
06-09-2005, 07:18 PM
in my uneducated mind ****sexuals are "soft" so whether it was directed towards them or not, they would be included at a high rate along with "soft" heteros.

Sure. The terms are variously translated (http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12636.htm). I'm not sure of fatherdog's sources, but he's stating them perhaps too definitively [and yes - I'm guilty of the same]. Could be he's a linguist. I'm not.

FatherDog
06-09-2005, 07:42 PM
Could be he's a linguist. I'm not.

Nope - which is why when I was researching this, I asked linguists - specifically, a couple professors who teach classical greek. Always go for the linguists rather than the Biblical scholars - they're the ones without an axe to grind.

TaiChiBob
06-10-2005, 05:00 AM
Greetings..

Considering the subjective nature of morallity and preference.. considering the obviously politicized versions of "God's Word".. i return to my Taoist conclusions, that design and function of the human body are fundamental elements of nature.. Taoists, accordingly, respect and follow the "natural" course of things.. to point out the exceptions to the rule in the "natural" world as a means to justify unnatural uses of the bodies we inhabit is not a valid persuasion for the notion.. the preceeding statement is not an indictment against the gay community, it is a statement of my own understanding of things.. i try to measure preference against pragmatism and desire against consequence.. As for biblical perspectives, dang good marketing, for one.. but, to derive meaning requires the individual to do substantial research and formulate their own opinions.. the greatest mistake of the "faithful" is to abdicate their personal relationship with their chosen deity in favor of someone else's interpretation (Priest, Preacher, Guru, Rabbi, etc...).. the "truth" is within each of us, the "illusion" is to search elsewhere for it..

Be well...

David Jamieson
06-10-2005, 05:58 AM
I would say this tends to corroborate the above claims. I think 1 billion dollars would destroy the power of just about any organization, don't you? All you have to do is look at who owns the media to determine who benefits from the constant attacks on the Catholic Church.


"The cost to the U.S. Roman Catholic Church of sexual predators in the priesthood has climbed past $1 billion, according to tallies by American bishops and an Associated Press review of known settlements.

And the figure is guaranteed to rise, probably by tens of millions of dollars, because hundreds more claims are pending.

Dioceses around the country have spent at least $1.06 billion on settlements with victims, verdicts, legal fees, counseling and other expenses since 1950, the AP found. A $120 million compensation fund announced last week by the Diocese of Covington, Ky., pushed the figure past the billion-dollar mark."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050609/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse

Boo hoo. Don't be screwing the kids then.

What's even worse is that the Catholic church can buy it's way out of it and still have enough left over to keep benny in gold popemobiles in perpetuity.

The vatican surely makes a disgusting display of wealth in context to those it pities or is outraged by their poverty.

Is that a lie? :cool:

TonyM.
06-10-2005, 07:06 AM
Besides. Who's gonna design our clothes and gardens? Wouldn't want any of the NASCAR folks doing it. No one single would ever score.

5Animals1Path
06-10-2005, 07:30 AM
Without something on the outside to fight against, the only thing they'd be able to do is fight amongst themselves. This is hardly a new tactic among any human establishment that is nearing the end of it's power base. You create enemies to keep the cash flowing, to keep the population looking outwards and not inwards, and to keep yourself firmly planted where you are. Tiger claw guys aren't the only ones known for keeping a strong grip.



Takes all kinds, even the bigots.

lada
06-10-2005, 11:31 AM
Some people don't want to hear reality. For personal reasons they cannot accept reality. Or because someone has filled them with lies and false concepts they will not accept reality.

I think the Catholic church and others are against gay because it is bad for people physically and mentally. The Catholic Church and others are trying to save people from themselves. Just like saving a drug addict from heroin addiction, the people doing the saving get nothing but grief for their goodwill.

If you look at the idea of gay, it is trivial to explain why gay is bad for people.

Do you know what redundant means? It means when something is designed with a backup in case the first one goes bad. A submarine has redundant air systems so if the first one goes bad, the second one takes over and keeps the submariners alive.

The human body is redundant. This is a trivial idea. The human body has 2 sides, everyone knows that. If the right side goes bad, the left side can still keep you going. If the left side goes bad, the right side can still keep you going.

I think it is common sense to accept that a human being using both sides would be superior to a human being using only one side. The human body has two sides for a reason. Newton's laws of motion tell us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you right side moves, your left side HAS to move according to Newton's law.

What happens to a person who is only one sided? They can still move sure. The human body is an amazing piece of machinery. But will it work 100%? No. Will it work 90 or 80 or 70 or 60 percent? No. The body would only work at 50% because one half, either the right or the left half, is not working right.

Do you think a person who is only 50% is a healthy person? No. This person will be in pain all of the time. They have pain from the stong side of the body dragging the weak side of the body everywhere. Is a person in pain a healthy or happy person? No. Do they contribute to society? Yes they do but in a limited way. In a lesser way than a person who is 100% and uses both right and left sides of the body.

You are not going to like this but as a grown adult who faces the consequences of their actions, you must accept it whether you like it or not.

****sexual means one sex doesn't it? It is used to mean same sex usually but the prefix **** means one, right?

A ****sexual person is a person how is using only one half of their body. That is why the term ****sexual was invented. **** = One = One side of the body. The term tells you exactly how gay people will end up crippled.

People are allowed to do whatever they want. If a person chooses to be gay and have their body damaged like this, that is their choice as adults. But to go around telling people, especially gullible children, "Go Gay, there is nothing wrong with it", is an irresponsible and outright malacious thing to do.

If someone said, "Being gay can cause you to end up with only one strong arm ,one strong leg and one strong eye. You will suffer Alzheimers symptoms, heart problems, breathing problems, you might develop a lisp in your speech", no one would listen to them. Who in their right mind would voluntarily become crippled? There would not be any TV shows making heroes out of crippled people would their? No one would want to hold up crippled people as role models for balanced people to emulate, would they?

People like me or the Catholic church want what is best for society as a whole and what is best for the individual. Going gay and maybe becoming a cripple, a burden to society or yourself, is not good.

We don't say what we do because we are haters, or ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about. It is not because we are intolerant or that we want things our way. It is because we care and want what is best for you that we say what we do.

This is easy to prove to an open minded person. Please don't start yelling hater and that other stuff. Any open minded person can prove to themselves that many gay people are crippled as described. There are other causes for the same symptoms but I have found the most common correlation is with gay people.

TaiChiBob
06-10-2005, 12:11 PM
Greetings...


Some people don't want to hear reality. For personal reasons they cannot accept reality. Or because someone has filled them with lies and false concepts they will not accept reality... We don't say what we do because we are haters, or ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about. It is not because we are intolerant or that we want things our way. It is because we care and want what is best for you that we say what we do... Now, what supports the notion that you know what is best for anyone? If you offer the "cure" and someone politely declines, it is concluded.. or, it should be.. persistence to the point of annoyance is a trademark of evangellicals.. You claim tolerance, but reject someone's right to freely choose their own destiny.. this is a contradiction.. while i may not agree with someone's choice, i will defend their right make that choice if it does no harm..

"Or because someone has filled them with lies and false concepts they will not accept reality..." i certainly hope this is not a statement made by a Catholic, that would simply fly in the face of absurd..

Be well..

Design Sifu
06-10-2005, 01:08 PM
Speaking of Reality . . .

according to the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=****) "h o m o" means SAME not one.

that whole post of yours is loaded with a bunch of ignorant assumptions and a fundimental lack of understanding at least one word that could easily be looked up.

Glass houses and thrown stones and all that. It seems like you crafted a line of arguement specific to your assumptions and attempt to dress it up as some sort of objectively developed piece of reasoning. I challange you to find ONE source for the claim that
"If a person chooses to be gay and have their body damaged like this, that is their choice as adults"

Or is this along the lines of Masturbation will make you go blind?

"Being gay can cause you to end up with only one strong arm..."

Puuuuleeese . . . Well, there's only one activity I can think of that would make one arm stronger than another and it's an exercise I hear both "Hetero" and "h o m o" adolecent boys partake in . . .


So you're h o m o sexuals are 50% people?

is think like when slaves and former slaves where considered twothirds of a man?

how about gender? how about people who are left handed?

If a left handed black woman was gay would she then fall into negative percentages? -30% human. :eek:

Then you using Newtonian physics to explain how someone's hand and arm moves? WTF?

So.. how about smoking. Is smoking a sin? it is certainly something that humans do that you won't find anywhere in nature? Certainly the human body was not designed to process inhaled smoke. While it's proven that doing so will cause damage to the human body does this mean that people who choose to "smoke" anything are "lesser" people? What % do thay loose per cigerette?

man . . . I better stop here. I got better things to do. :rolleyes:

rogue
06-10-2005, 05:45 PM
Gay is so over it's not funny.
BTW Did anybody see Tom Cruise on Oprah? That was funny.

anton
06-11-2005, 07:46 AM
I think it is common sense to accept that a human being using both sides would be superior to a human being using only one side. The human body has two sides for a reason. Newton's laws of motion tell us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you right side moves, your left side HAS to move according to Newton's law.

The symetry of the human body has little to do with Newton's law's of motion


What happens to a person who is only one sided? They can still move sure. The human body is an amazing piece of machinery. But will it work 100%? No. Will it work 90 or 80 or 70 or 60 percent? No. The body would only work at 50% because one half, either the right or the left half, is not working right.

OK still following you here...


Do you think a person who is only 50% is a healthy person? No. This person will be in pain all of the time. They have pain from the stong side of the body dragging the weak side of the body everywhere. Is a person in pain a healthy or happy person? No. Do they contribute to society? Yes they do but in a limited way. In a lesser way than a person who is 100% and uses both right and left sides of the body.

OK


You are not going to like this but as a grown adult who faces the consequences of their actions, you must accept it whether you like it or not.

****sexual means one sex doesn't it? It is used to mean same sex usually but the prefix **** means one, right?

Incorrect. the prefix means "same" and comes from the greek ****s meaning "same".


A ****sexual person is a person how is using only one half of their body.

Even if **** did mean one, your conclusion would not follow. Why would a "One-sexual" be, by definition, using only one body? But that error in logic is irrelevant as your definition of the word was wrong in the first place.


That is why the term ****sexual was invented. **** = One = One side of the body. The term tells you exactly how gay people will end up crippled.

Again why does one = one side of the body and not any other of the myriads of possible sentences beginning with "one" ? It sounds awfully like someone's been feeding you bad etymology and you are believing it blindly without questioning it or checking its accuracy.


If someone said, "Being gay can cause you to end up with only one strong arm ,one strong leg and one strong eye. You will suffer Alzheimers symptoms, heart problems, breathing problems, you might develop a lisp in your speech", no one would listen to them.

I haven't heard of any scientific or medical data to back this up. In fact I haven't heard of any respected scientist or academic that has put forward thi hypothesis previously.


People like me or the Catholic church want what is best for society as a whole and what is best for the individual. Going gay and maybe becoming a cripple, a burden to society or yourself, is not good.

Again I've never met anyone who has been crippled by their gayness... It's sounding more and more like you've been brainwashed.


We don't say what we do because we are haters, or ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about. It is not because we are intolerant or that we want things our way. It is because we care and want what is best for you that we say what we do.

It clearly does show that you are ignorant... You boldly state as fact hypotheses that are unsubstantiated and based on assumptions that are clearly fallacious. It takes almost no reasearch at all to show that these assumptions are fallacious, yet you hold to your beliefs and don't bother to do something so simple as to look up **** in the dictionary... THis would seem to suggest that your hypothesis is constructed to justify an a priori position of hate.

Please start questioning what people teach you. Try to lok at situations with TRUE open mindedness. If you look at things without expecting a particular result and if you try to find the simplest explanation to a given situation (that would be one that doesn't require you to invent some kind of weird pseudo-science based on false linguistics) you'll find people will stop seeing you as ignorant or closed-minded.

ZIM
06-11-2005, 08:20 AM
Speaking of Reality . . .

is think like when slaves and former slaves where considered twothirds of a man?
Speaking of reality :)

That's not really a good comparison. The reason that particular piece of legislation hasn't been remembered rightly.
At the time, the anti-slavery congressmen hoped to defeat it by law rather than war. The Southern states wanted slaves counted in the census [although they couldn't vote] so that they could get more members of congress than their Northern counterparts, and the Northerners wanted to exclude them so their numbers would be higher & thus lock the House vote in favor of Abolition. 2/3rds was a compromise, but it failed.

Too much ph33r of the gay on this thread (http://rd01.t-bn.de/ramgen/ondemand/viva/ondemand/stars/abba/abba_waterloo_viva_dsl.rm). woewoewoewoe

cerebus
06-11-2005, 12:23 PM
Wow! There are some really weird, messed up people here. How about letting consenting adults do what they want? If people want to rant and fight against someone and it has to involve sex, why not direct your anger at child molesters or any kind of forced sexual acts? If two adults want to have sex with each other, let 'em! If two adults are in love with each other and want to get married, let 'em! No one is being harmed, no one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do, it's not YOUR life, so it's not YOUR business! Some people need to GET a freakin' life and leave other people's lives for them live the way they see fit.

And the whole point Tai Chi Bob brought up earlier about gays trying to "recruit" straight people... :rolleyes: . I asked some people I know (who are gay) about this and they said that it's a bunch of BS. Which only makes sense. Afterall, how many straight people on here think they could be "recruited" into becoming gay? If you're not already gay (but maybe denying it) or bi, then there's no way you can be "recruited" into gayness. It's not like the straight population is in any danger of being "recruited" into non-existence or anything. The whole idea is just ridiculous.

So many atitudes straight out of the Dark Ages. So much for the progress of Mankind... :rolleyes:

unkokusai
06-11-2005, 01:06 PM
If two adults want to have sex with each other, let 'em! If two adults are in love with each other and want to get married, let 'em! :


The problem is that those two things are not the same. The former may just involve two people, but the latter involves the community.

cerebus
06-11-2005, 01:18 PM
Really? In what way? I mean, of course, in what way would the "community" have to do anything for a gay married couple which they would NOT have to do for a straight married couple? How would it be any more of a strain on the "community"?

TaiChiBob
06-11-2005, 01:41 PM
Greetings..

cerebus: Perhaps you don't know the right gay people, or they weren't too eager to disclose the darker side of gay culture.. i have an acquaintence that refers to herself as a "faag hag", she enjoys the company of gays.. at one of her parties i was privy to a conversation between several militant gays and i assure you their intentions were to influence young people to consider alternative lifestyles (gay) favorably.. this is a subject i do not ponder lightly, if you have no knowledge of this aspect of the darker side of gay culture it doesn't make the reality of it go away.. the conversation i refer to implied that the interest was in younger people that may not yet have a good grasp on their sexual identities.. i agree that to recruit adult straights would be an exercise in futility.. I have no quarrel with someone's sexual preferences, in as much as they do no harm.. but, to influence youth to consider something that they might otherwise reject on merit, is harmful by my standards..

How about gay adoption? Is it sensible to put a child into a situation that promotes a lifestyle contrary to the design and function of human anatomy? Is it responsible to put a child in an environment where ridicule and peer opinion may affect their otherwise natural instincts? Those notions were elaborated in the conversation(s) which i have heard, that there were ways to replenish the gay community since HIV and other side effects of the gay culture do not keep their population up with regular population growth..

That was an interesting attempt to insinuate that i may be in denial.. which i am about certain things (our friendly gov't; social security; ocean pollution; death; etc...), but.. my sexuality isn't one of those things.. The potential of spiritual insights gained from the ecstatic union of male and female (Yin and Yang).. that union being as much spiritual as physical, is a reward i would not relinquish to experiment with alternative uses of this magnificent body we were given.. As male and female we unite to form a greater whole, a higher being, like the Taiji Symbol seen as a whole.. we open a portal into a broader experience of the universe.. of course, i recommend a study of Taoist Tantra to get a truly in-depth understanding of these concepts.. and, yes, it is my understanding that Yang/Yang or Yin/Yin unions do not elevate the spiritual experience to the potential of the Yin/Yang union..

I rely on common sense and a study of anatomy for my conclusions.. that someone else has a sense contrary to mine is of no concern to me, personally.. unless they intend harm, or even unknowingly cause harm.. and, the best defense against such harm is education.. educating all youth that each person has the right to choose their direction in life and should be afforded respect in the measure they give it.. that there is a natural design and function to the human anatomy, but.. to choose another use is not cause for discrimination in so much as that alternative use remains a personal decision and is assimilated into society with no less nor no more fanfare than anyone else.. it comes down to respecting the equallity of all people.. no more would i recruit gay people into the straight lifestyle as i would expect otherwise from their lifestyle.. we are who we are, and we should let nature take its course..

Be well..

cerebus
06-11-2005, 02:06 PM
Hello Bob. First let me say that no insinuation about your own sexuality was intended. If it came across that way, you have my apologies.

As for adoption by gay couples and the "resposibility" of allowing it: It is far more irresponsible for us to allow children to be adopted into families where they are beaten, bullied, abused emotionally and sexually and sometimes even worse, than it is to allow gays to adopt. So far, every gay couple I've met who has expressed a desire to adopt or have children would be much better parents than the abusive straight parents of many of the children in this country (many of whom go on to become abusive parents themselves... if they survive childhood). I say put the children with parents who will love, nurture and care for them so they can develop into good human beings. That, in my mind, would be the responsible thing to do.

Again about the "recruiting" thing, I don't doubt that there are some such groups out there, but I don't think they are representative of the gay community in general. There are also militant "straight" groups out there who advocate such extreme actions as murder of gay people. Does that mean that straight people overall have an aggenda to exterminate gays? Of course not. As for advocating the favorable consideration of alternative lifestyles, I fail to see the problem with that. There would be less fear and h.omophobia in the world. I don't see the lessening of fear and hatred as being threatening to me as a straight male (or any other straight person) in any way, shape or form.

To consider gays as "dark" or "dangerous" just because there are some gay groups which are, is like considering straight people to be so for the same reason.

unkokusai
06-11-2005, 02:16 PM
Really? In what way? I mean, of course, in what way would the "community" have to do anything for a gay married couple which they would NOT have to do for a straight married couple? How would it be any more of a strain on the "community"?


Marriage is a recognition and endorsement of a union by the community. It is in fact a legal status and as such reflects the values of the people represented by the applicable laws. If the community doesn't endorse the union its not a legally sanctioned marriage.

Its no longer just about two people. Its two people seeking a stamp of approval from the community.

Community values, not just the individual wishes of the two people, apply.

unkokusai
06-11-2005, 02:20 PM
As for adoption by gay couples and the "resposibility" of allowing it: It is far more irresponsible for us to allow children to be adopted into families where they are beaten, bullied, abused emotionally and sexually and sometimes even worse, .


If you can't support the position without referring to unrelated factors, then you haven't defended your point.


You don't get out of a speeding ticket by telling the police officer that there is probably someone stealing a TV somewhere across town.

cerebus
06-11-2005, 02:29 PM
"If you can't support the position without reffering to unrelated factors, then you haven't defended your point."

And violating traffic laws is, of course, related to gays adopting children? Ooookay... :rolleyes:

PS: I do, however, agree that you are a long way from defending your point. ;)

unkokusai
06-11-2005, 02:46 PM
"If you can't support the position without reffering to unrelated factors, then you haven't defended your point."

And violating traffic laws is, of course, related to gays adopting children? Ooookay... :rolleyes:

PS: I do, however, agree that you are a long way from defending your point. ;)


hoho haha ok, great. Now seriously, can you defend the notion of gay adoption without referring to abusive straight parents?

cerebus
06-11-2005, 03:06 PM
Sure. It's pretty simple (and it was even contained in my last post, though you seem to have missed it). Children who are up for adoption should be raised by whoever will be the best parents and will do the best job of raising and caring for them, regardless of whether those parents are gay or straight.

ZIM
06-11-2005, 06:35 PM
The problem is that those two things are not the same. The former may just involve two people, but the latter involves the community.
Not the only argument, though. We've been covering here the argument from orthodoxy, but there's also the argument from paradoxy (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html) [as it were].

links kinda looong, sorry :cool:

cerebus:

from a purely "why does the government concern itself at all with marriage in the first place" point of view, I'd agree with you. However, it goes deeper than that. The above link contains one such argument against the idea, but there more that haven't yet been broached.

I don't have any idea if you've familiarized yourself with the arguments against, but they've been around for some time and they're not merely tradition/patriarchy/religion. Every time I read someone who writes "why the heck not marry them?" I wonder if they're even listening.

You could, perhaps, come up with better, more positive reasons for if you're read up on the reasons against. And, of course, your position might modify from where it is - but such is the danger of keeping an open mind. ;)

cerebus
06-11-2005, 07:18 PM
Well, I can't say her article was at all convincing. She's comparing apples & racecars (so to speak). She basically says "the conservatives were right about these specific things, so they are probably right about gay marriage too." Of course she rambles in a way that tries to make it seem all connected and tied together, but it really isn't.

And yes, the argument that people try to say "well, I wouldn't change the way I do things if such legislation was enacted, so I doubt anyone else would" is quite a stupid way of thinking about it. However, except for her article I've never heard anyone give that as a reason for supporting gay marriage (and it certainly has nothing to do with my own reasoning).

She talked alot, but said very little...

ZIM
06-11-2005, 08:26 PM
I wasn't really looking for it to convince you, and she wasn't taking a stand either way, in truth. The comparisons were by way of illustration - thus not truly comparison - of what can occur after a social change is made & why its important not to blithely disregard the arguments of your putative opponents. Like her quote said: The person who can't see the point of something is the last person who should alter it.

Thank you for reading it, by the way. You've shown you gave it some thought. You got the point about 'not changing behavior' when its very possible some will and thats certainly food for thought, IMHO.

cerebus
06-11-2005, 08:35 PM
Well,yes she does CLAIM not be taking sides. Then she goes on to show why the conservative view is "correct" (seemingly, in her opinion...though she claims to have no opinion).

Basically, what she did could have been done in exactly the same way by a libertarian or liberal to "prove" the opposite of her "claims". Just find 4 or 5 things the conservatives were wrong about that liberals (or libertarians, or any other group you're standing up for) were right about, tie them into the argument about gay marriage and it becomes "obvious" that THEY were the ones who were really correct. It's just word juggling. Like I said, she's comparing apples & racecars.

cerebus
06-11-2005, 09:40 PM
:D :D ;) Common sense is nice.

cerebus
06-11-2005, 09:44 PM
Oh and Chris, when I get to hell, I'll look ya up. We can have a beer as we listen to all the good rock bands that've ever existed (you didn't figure any of THEM were gonna get into the pearly gates, did you?). Oh yeah and all the hot chicks (heaven's gonna be full of the fugly ones, have fun holy rollers). :D

unkokusai
06-11-2005, 09:52 PM
Sure. It's pretty simple . Children who are up for adoption should be raised by whoever will be the best parents and will do the best job of raising and caring for them, regardless of whether those parents are gay or straight.


Ok, and what do you say to those who claim that ****sexual parents are not those who will do the best job of raising and caring for them?

unkokusai
06-11-2005, 09:53 PM
Well, I can't say her article was at all convincing. She's comparing apples & racecars (so to speak)..


Kind of like what you do?

cerebus
06-11-2005, 10:01 PM
In response to the first question: Explain in what way one set of potential parents is better than the other. If the deciding factor is simply your own ****phobia, that's not much to base such a decision on, now is it?

In response to the next remark: In what way? How is choosing the best parents for a child to be adopted by NOT relevant to the subject of gays adopting children? Please explain if you're able.

lada
06-12-2005, 04:45 AM
Religion: a bunch of people wearing funny hats, ingesting the dregs of other people's repast (that is, overreliance on written text as a means of living your own life) arguing / killing over who gets to have the best imaginary friend (see my "disrespectful" post on the dead former pope for more on this); question: why do we need God and Sin and the threat of Hell to treat others with decency and compassion? maybe because people are fundamentally sheep and don't walk together well unless they are told something that scares them straight? look, if someone wants to believe in God, that's their business, and I respect their right to do so - but I also have the right to have absolutely no respect for them as an intelligent individual:

you can be just as irresponsible with either one; and that crap from TC Boob about the human body not designed for it - gimmie a break! how can you possibly substantiate that claim? what basis is that coming from? and gay adoption as bad: also a load of hooey -

so again - why is h o mo sexsuality a bad thing, ntrinsically? and again, what is the criteria for something being "natural"? quite frankly it varies greatly in definition depending on who/when you look at it - i..


Getting kind of worked up there aren't you? For someone that doesn't care one way or the other about ****sexuality? ;)

The stuff about God. You are picking out the bad things associated with religion. Those things are done by people with their own agenda who have twisted religion to suit their needs. That description does not apply to the goals of religion at all.

You don't respect those that believe in God? That is because you have been brainwashed. Your outlook on life is false because you have been filled with lies.
I think evil is on the ascendance. I think that the world is slowly, purposefully being destroyed. You can see it all around you in the news or on the TV. I think those lies that your head is filled with are part of the plot. You are being cut off from a source of power because someone has convinced you that religion is junk. The less power you have, the less able to defend yourself you are, the less of a threat you are.

That stuff about the human body not being designed for gay is absolutely correct. It is easy to substantiate the claim. The human body is designed to be bilaterally symmetric from left to right. Two opposing sides conforming to the laws of physics so that the human body can function as it does. Many ****sexual people will show signs of having only one strong side to their body. The other side has atrophied and become weakened. The explanation for why this takes place is very complex and very easy. I can show you why it happens with a simple conceptual drawing. To make you understand why those simple drawings can be used to explain the actions of the complex human body would take a long time.

The claim is easy to prove if people accept the evidence of their own eyes. I can provide you with photos that will verify the claim above. I can provide them until you are convinced. The symptoms are obvious and I can find them anywhere. I have a ****sexual art book I picked up for reference. The artist, unknowingly, documented what I describe. About 80% of the art in this book depict men showing the signs of ****sexuality that I described. One strong side and one weak side. There are probably 60 or 100 drawings in this book I could post as corroborative proof.

****sexuality is an intrinsically bad thing because it usually causes ill health in people. It can be the cause of both mental and physical illness.

As an example. This picture is of a rock star.

http://www.happeh.com/Images/MarilynManson.jpg

He is a self professed gay person. If you look at the picture, his head is clearly misshapen. One side of his head is about 8 inches tall while the other side is about 4 inches tall. Yes his head is tilted but that is not the reason for what is going on. His right side has shrunken and become weak. He tilts the right side of his head downward until it contacts the shrunken stump of the right side of his neck. His tongue is stuck out at an odd angle which is another one of the symptoms. The right hand is not really tipping the hat. Because the arm has shrunken, it wants to stay in that particular position, shrunk up close to the head like it was when he was a baby in the womb.

(Very simply, when you are baby in the womb, something makes you open up and grow. This something is evenly distributed on both sides. In a gay person, this something either dies or becomes weak. When it does the affected area of the body will tend to shrink back to the position it had when the person was a baby. The same position a dead body will assume, the foetal position. In a dead body, that something has completely died so there is nothing to spread the body outward.)

This man is a hard rock singer. I think that it would be possible to make the case that this man has mental distortion. If you look at photos of him or read about him, I think most people would personally feel that this person is mentally off.

Mr Punch
06-12-2005, 05:05 AM
The human body is designed to be bilaterally symmetric from left to right. That's right, you just vent your...

spleen.

I think you wanted a

colon

after that sentence.

I think you're a bit jaundiced in your opinions, maybe you should get your

liver

checked out. Or maybe you're just gay!
















































Holy dumb sh!ts, you must be winding us up! Even if what you said had the slightest bearing on reality, there are many pictures of Marilyn Manson moving his equal-length arms when he's not wearing a tilted hat!

Here's one! (http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/azraeel/images/mansonmech.jpg)

Oh MY GOD, you're right, the man has NO ***** and BREASTS! Sorry, my mistake.

5Animals1Path
06-12-2005, 05:53 AM
Asymetricallity=Gay?



Gee, that's kinda funny. Most of the gay guys I know are so **** symetrical they make geometerists scratch their heads. Take a look at half of the male models out there. The ones who're staring at you from a cologne ad. Guess what?

Some of them are gay. :rolleyes:

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 08:00 AM
In response to the first question: Explain in what way one set of potential parents is better than the other..

I guess it would refer to the kind of environment that the parents can provide for the child to ensure he/she has a safe, healthy, positive space to grow in.



In response to the next remark: In what way? How is choosing the best parents for a child to be adopted by NOT relevant to the subject of gays adopting children? Please explain if you're able.


A few pages ago someone offered you a list of possible concerns with ****sexual parents. You ignored every point and said "what about straight parents who do bad stuff?"

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 08:03 AM
see, we who advocate for gay adoption, we are the ones being logical and consistent - those who aregue against it are being illogical and reactionary - ...


Well, who can argue with that? :rolleyes:

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 08:11 AM
The human body is designed to be bilaterally symmetric from left to right. Two opposing sides conforming to the laws of physics so that the human body can function as it does. Many ****sexual people will show signs of having only one strong side to their body. The other side has atrophied and become weakened. The explanation for why this takes place is very complex and very easy. I can show you why it happens with a simple conceptual drawing. To make you understand why those simple drawings can be used to explain the actions of the complex human body would take a long time.

The claim is easy to prove if people accept the evidence of their own eyes. I can provide you with photos that will verify the claim above. I can provide them until you are convinced. The symptoms are obvious and I can find them anywhere. I have a ****sexual art book I picked up for reference. The artist, unknowingly, documented what I describe. About 80% of the art in this book depict men showing the signs of ****sexuality that I described. One strong side and one weak side. There are probably 60 or 100 drawings in this book I could post as corroborative proof.

****sexuality is an intrinsically bad thing because it usually causes ill health in people. It can be the cause of both mental and physical illness.

As an example. This picture is of a rock star.

http://www.happeh.com/Images/MarilynManson.jpg

He is a self professed gay person. If you look at the picture, his head is clearly misshapen. One side of his head is about 8 inches tall while the other side is about 4 inches tall. Yes his head is tilted but that is not the reason for what is going on. His right side has shrunken and become weak. He tilts the right side of his head downward until it contacts the shrunken stump of the right side of his neck. His tongue is stuck out at an odd angle which is another one of the symptoms. The right hand is not really tipping the hat. Because the arm has shrunken, it wants to stay in that particular position, shrunk up close to the head like it was when he was a baby in the womb.

(Very simply, when you are baby in the womb, something makes you open up and grow. This something is evenly distributed on both sides. In a gay person, this something either dies or becomes weak. When it does the affected area of the body will tend to shrink back to the position it had when the person was a baby. The same position a dead body will assume, the foetal position. In a dead body, that something has completely died so there is nothing to spread the body outward.)

This man is a hard rock singer. I think that it would be possible to make the case that this man has mental distortion. If you look at photos of him or read about him, I think most people would personally feel that this person is mentally off.


Wtf?! :eek:

Ok, I think we can all agree that people as freakin' nutso as the person who posted this mess would also not make ideal parents.

Royal Dragon
06-12-2005, 09:29 AM
True, but his "Aflictions" could also be more simple explained by use of DRUGS!

cerebus
06-12-2005, 12:06 PM
Unkokusai, my point (which you again seem to have missed... or ignored, as the case may be) in bringing up the negative things which are all too common with straight parents, is simply that the hypothetical concerns which T.C. Bob has about "possible" problems which children of gay parents "may" encounter is nothing compared to the very REAL and prevalent problems which DO really happen with "straight" adoptive parents (of course, both sides of the equation are generalizing, neither sets of these problems are guaranteed to happen, they are simply things which may and/ or do happen from time to time) . So Bob can bring up his "hypothetical" concerns about problems with gay parenting, but when I contrast it with the very real problems seen in "straight" parenting, you say I'm comparing apples to racecars (to use my own analogy)? You're not making any sense.

You still remain vague about what the "dangers" or negative aspects of gay parenting "might" be. You mention the kind of "environment" the child will grow up in. If by that you simply mean (as I've said before) who will "be the best parents" for the child and raise them properly (that's how it seems in your last post), well then, yeah, that's what I've been saying should be the primary requirement for adoption all along. The parent's sexual preferences should have nothing to do with the matter, as long as they're not pedophiles. If, however, you are implying that being raised in a household which teaches tolerance of sexual orientation will somehow be psychologically "unhealthy", well, obviously not everyone agrees with you.

jun_erh
06-12-2005, 12:20 PM
the new pope should condemn the gastineau girls, meet the barkers, and lizzie grubman

TaiChiBob
06-12-2005, 12:24 PM
Greetings..

cjurakpt:
and that crap from TC Boob about the human body not designed for it - gimmie a break! how can you possibly substantiate that claim? what basis is that coming from? Okay, what were you doing in basic biology class.. what i suggest, and supported by clear science and simple observation, is that male and female are designed and function to procreate.. that there are "entrances and exits" on the human body and to violate those natural conditions should have some natural consequences.. that's just a natural observation.. Male genitalia and female genitalia fit and function with purpose and design.. Yang/Yang "unions" have no biological purpose.. Yin/Yin unions, however titilating, achieve no biological result.. i make no claim as to mental health and the satisfying of inherent imperatives due to preference, those are issues we can't quantify or even judge.. my sole point is that there are naturally occurring conditions of biological functions, and there are deviations from those conditions.. the results or consequences of such deviations should be considered in life choices.. but, not judged when no harm is issued beyond the consenting parties.. harm may be also cost to the public for certain consequences.. and, yes, that applies to much more than alternative lifestyles..


and gay adoption as bad: also a load of hooey - so, if gay couples raising kids will prodce only gay adults, shouldn't that mean "straight" (dumb term) couples will only produce hetero kids? and is it better to have a man/woman who are both alcoholics abusing their kid (my wife) than a stable, loving gay couple (people I know) raising someone with compassion and tolerance? as for recruitment, I've known gays who are not interested in it, and I've also know those who have tried to recruit others, including me - and rather agressively at that, and when I was still a teenager; and guess what? it didn't work; why not? I don't know, but it seems to have something to do with the fact that I just happen to like t*ts and p*ssy and that I don't like d#ck (already got one anyway, so don't need another) or taking it up the Hershey Highway - it just doesn't interest me; First, i only asked questions, hoping for intelligent dialogue.. second, you obviously missed both those points as evidenced by the rest of the quote cited above.. your colorful descriptions show your own disguised phobias.. in no way do i advocate abusive or neglectful parenting from any lifestyle.. the concern i raise is that the same potential for abuse exists in either lifestyle, and the gay lifestyle has an unavoidable situation of the child being faced with explaining the unique parenting situation.. whether society should or shouldn't accept it is not the issue, it is what it is..
so again - why is h o mo sexsuality a bad thing, ntrinsically? and again, what is the criteria for something being "natural"? quite frankly it varies greatly in definition depending on who/when you look at it I do not judge the gay lifestyle to be "bad", in so much as it is confined to consenting adults and advances no harmful consequences to others.. "natural" is pretty dang easy to define, its not a matter of opinion or preference, it is how the body works.. if you can't accept that, no further dialogue is useful..

lada:
Two opposing sides conforming to the laws of physics so that the human body can function as it does. Many ****sexual people will show signs of having only one strong side to their body. The other side has atrophied and become weakened. Please stop whatever it is that contrives such nonsense.. My assertion of design and function has nothing to do with such unsupported nonsense.. If the "God" you believe in has any sense it will call you to the kingdom of glory before you can do more harm.. it is the unfounded rhetoric you spew that turns people against any good you may have to offer.. it is, in fact, you that have been "brainwashed"..

Please do not assume that i have a prejudice against those that choose the gay lifestyle.. only against whatever unsolicited harm that choice may bring to others.. we each have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters and the world we live in, to make it better for the next generation.. i ask questions and hope for good responsible dialogue to consider the many consequences and help form a consensus to move toward a better future.. our childern are the future..

Be well..

TaiChiBob
06-12-2005, 12:41 PM
Greetings..

Further clarification: I have raised both of my children (18 & 21) to be respectful and tolerant of everyone's right to choose their lifestyles.. i have explained that nature offers us a model for the most beneficial life experience.. i have explained that there are deviations in every aspect of nature as there are in every aspect of life.. and, that deviations are not, of themselves, harmful.. that only when harm is caused toward others is there cause for corrective action or corrective philosophy.. My children are a great joy to me, my best contribution to our future..

cerebus
06-12-2005, 12:52 PM
Hello Bob. I can see your point, but to believe that gays should not be allowed to adopt children because of "such and such" potential problems would mean that we should also not allow straight people to adopt because of the problems which occasionally happen when they do so.

It's simply my assertion that gays should have the same rights as non-gays. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as well as "liberty and justice for all". Though I don't like to bring up the parallells between sexual preference discrimination and racial or religious discrimination, it can easily be seen that those parallells are strikingly close.

People who say (and I'm not referring to you Bob, just saying this in general) "I have no problem with people BEING gay, as long as they don't have gay sex, get married or raise children" are basically saying they don't mind people being gay as long as they remain second-class citizens.

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 01:59 PM
Unkokusai, my point (which you again seem to have missed... or ignored, as the case may be) in bringing up the negative things which are all too common with straight parents, is simply that the hypothetical concerns which T.C. Bob has about "possible" problems which children of gay parents "may" encounter is nothing compared to the very REAL and prevalent problems which DO really happen with "straight" adoptive parents (of course, both sides of the equation are generalizing, neither sets of these problems are guaranteed to happen, they are simply things which may and/ or do happen from time to time) . So Bob can bring up his "hypothetical" concerns about problems with gay parenting, but when I contrast it with the very real problems seen in "straight" parenting, you say I'm comparing apples to racecars (to use my own analogy)? You're not making any sense. .


And you are missing my point. If you cannot make your case without referring to straight parents, you aren't going to get anywhere. Straight folks are the great majority and ****sexual couples are seen as offering a deviant and questionable home environment to the majority of people. Unless and until you can overcome that impression you are not going to make your case. Pointing the finger at straight parents and saying "you're not so perfect yourself!" is not going to achieve your goal. That's all I'm saying.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 03:21 PM
*Sigh* And I keep asking (but not receiving any response), other than religious reasons, WHAT makes gay parents unfit to adopt? Will they neglect the child? Will they mistreat the child? Will they not be making enough money to properly care for the child?

The problem you have, Unkokusai, is in trying to completely separate gay people from straight people as if they are not even included as "people". One could easily replace the word "gay" with the word "black" (as in, black & white mixed marriages and them having/ adopting children) and this would be a near exact copy (minus the death threats and foul language) of arguments that took place in the 50s.

You trying to tell me that, if I can't make my case about one group of people without referring to the way another group of people is treated, that this invalidates what I'm saying altogether is disgusting. Such could only even be "considered" to be so if we were speaking of something other than human beings and I were trying to relate it to human beings. We're talking about people here, so YES the way one group of people is treated IS directly related to the way another group is.

To say that because they (gay people) are a minority and so, cannot receive the same treatment as non-gay people is.... well, I'll stop there. So far this has been a nice, civil, heated discussion and I'm not going to make it otherwise. But discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against race, religion, sex OR sexual preference, and refusing to accept that will not change the fact.

David Jamieson
06-12-2005, 03:34 PM
cerb-

you are correct, it is simply discrimination built upon reasons that are unknown or unfounded.

no one will ever be able to give you a solid and data proven reason why gay people wouldn't make good parents. Mostly, it is one's own fear and intolerance and inability to accept that which is different from their small perception and world view.

they will raise roadblocks by making comparisons that are so far of the mark but suitably outrageous and the dialogue will end more often than not.

simple fact is that we are all human beings and no matter what we do, everything we do falls into the bounds of human behaviour. If no harm is done, there is no foul in my eyes. Gay people make loving parents and nurturing parents and they also make crappy parents who couldn't nurture a turd into the ground, more or less the same as any other parent model.

What I find interesting is the whole angle of protecting family values that I hear about. I don't see a lot of those family values in the so called majority population. there are so many kids up from adoption from, so many people who are medicating themselves to deal with the world, so many children that live with emotionally distant parents and an incredible number of children who live in abject poverty even in fully developed nations such as our own.

The demons(and I call them that because they are achetypal ideas) that plague us all really do plague us all, straight, gay, or otherwise.

People have great difficulty in accepting those things which they fear whether rationally or irrationally. Such is life, but in terms of the laws of the land, then it's a matter of a vote really and that vote in a democratic model should be untarnished by fear and look towards the truth of whether there is or is not going to be harm in the passing of it.

Once the law passes, people will come and go and get over it.

Children today and like every other generation before rarely hold onto the same views as their parents or the same values with the exception of rigidly closed communities where they are unexposed to the differences in the way people live.

Black+white=grey. Or, there really is no black and white except in the individuals mind. Also, we as humans for the most part incapable of definig anything without comparing it to something else. That's part of being human.

Judge Pen
06-12-2005, 03:48 PM
I don't see where he condemned gays. He condemned gay marriages. And good on him, too. I'm opposed to them as marriages as a default position.

IRT: mantis108- Being gay is not. Gay sex, otoh, is a sin. Its not a forever-****ing sort of thing, though.

Seculars have the view that being gay is a permanent, inborn thing [not arguing that] and that if one is, the of course one will go out & have gay sex [not necessarily so. There's straights who are celibate by inclination, just as there are gays who are. But at this point we get into the "is it an act or a gender?" thing].

To the church, its a sin. All of us are sinners, and all of us have our own peculiar temptations, and thats what Confession is for - to gain forgiveness. My point is- no, it isn't easy being a gay catholic, but neither is it to be a straight catholic.

Last- all of you who're moaning- are you catholics? Why does what he says matter to you?

I'm not catholic, but I appreciate this reasoning.

Anyway, if you are gay, and not catholic, why would you care what the pope says anyway? It shouldn't bother you nor should it come as a surprise.

As for adoption etc., in this day and time you should look at the content and character of a person and the stability of their life and not their sexual orientation. Maybe, at some point in time, heterosexual marriages were more stable than ****sexual relationships, but all you have to do is watch a little talk t.v. to see that isn't the case anymore. Maybe it never was.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 03:58 PM
Yes, you're right David. It gets a bit infuriating though. I've actually heard similar arguments from racists about why people of different races shouldn't marry or have kids ("It's not natural, if God wanted them to be together he woulda made 'em the same color..." "Think about the effect it'll have on the children, they'll be ridiculed their whole lives..." etc, etc). I'm quite familiar with the race issue since many of my friends (and several girlfriends) have been African-American (and African-Italian when I was in Europe) and discrimination of any kind pizzes me off..

I just can't figure out how Unkokusai and Tai Chi Bob don't see that discrimination against gays isn't as different as they would like to believe it is. It's discrimination against a minority for something which is part of their nature and which does not intrinsically harm anyone else. Oppression of that minority is NOT going to help anyone.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 04:03 PM
Why does what the Pope says affect non-Catholic gays? Uuummm, how about because it influences religious lawmakers and politicians (kinda like our president) and helps to deny them the same rights to marriage and (in some cases) adoption as non-gay people. That's kind of what several of my posts have "subtly hinted" at.... :confused:

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 04:13 PM
*Sigh* And I keep asking (but not receiving any response), other than religious reasons, WHAT makes gay parents unfit to adopt? Will they neglect the child? Will they mistreat the child? Will they not be making enough money to properly care for the child?.

The problem is that people will see them as 'teaching' or perpetuating the ****sexual lifestyle. For all the PC protestations of those too cowed to say what they really think, most folks see that lifestyle as something that can be tolerated by the small minority of ****sexuals in society but that will not (and if push comes to shove I reckon it would get ugly) be accepted as anything to be promoted for the majority of people (and certainly not children). This is the reality. I'm not saying any particular position is right or wrong. I'm just telling it like it is.



*The problem you have, Unkokusai, is in trying to completely separate gay people from straight people as if they are not even included as "people". One could easily replace the word "gay" with the word "black" (as in, black & white mixed marriages and them having/ adopting children) and this would be a near exact copy (minus the death threats and foul language) of arguments that took place in the 50s. .

The problem you have is in assuming any position for me personally in this matter. I'm trying to point out the flaw in the way you are presenting the case for your people. And just as I knew you would, you raise the false comparison with anti-black racism. Folks who are black, are black. It is, when you come right down to it, a matter of physical condition. Folks who are ****sexual are ****sexual, but what defines them is not a function of what they are but what they do. It is a behavior, not a color. Say what you want about how unfair it is to deny the expression of human sexual desire for only certain people, but the way most people see it is as a matter of what they do, not what they are.



*You trying to tell me that, if I can't make my case about one group of people without referring to the way another group of people is treated, that this invalidates what I'm saying altogether is disgusting. Such could only even be "considered" to be so if we were speaking of something other than human beings and I were trying to relate it to human beings. We're talking about people here, so YES the way one group of people is treated IS directly related to the way another group is..

This kind of hyperbole doesn't further your cause at all, and ignores the simple logic that you don't justify one behavior by pointing to another.

I'm not imposing my own value judgements, I'm just trying to look at the situation realistically, not idealistically.

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 04:26 PM
Yes, you're right David. It gets a bit infuriating though. I've actually heard similar arguments from racists about why people of different races shouldn't marry or have kids ("It's not natural, if God wanted them to be together he woulda made 'em the same color..." "Think about the effect it'll have on the children, they'll be ridiculed their whole lives..." etc, etc). I'm quite familiar with the race issue .


Then you should be able to distinguish between a condition (such as race) and a behavior (which is the aspect of ****sexuality that sets normal folks off)

cerebus
06-12-2005, 04:47 PM
Ah. Well here's one of the problems right away (other than you seeming to think that I'm gay just because I'm against discrimination. Why do you need to say I'm sticking up for "my" people? I don't own them). You seem to believe that h.omosexuality is simply an "action" or "decision" and not something people are born with. Life would be so simple if that was true. I guess you've never heard about the various situations publicized over the years where gay teenagers have committed suicide because they could not change the fact that they were gay (despite actually TRYING to do so) and couldn't stand the thought of facing the future in a world which they knew would dicriminate terribly against them. No, being gay isn't an "action" or a decision, it's just the way some people are.

The whole "****sexuals will never be accepted so just realize that and stop fighting for their equal rights" argument sounds an awful lot like a similar argument, once popular in the U.S. (oh, that's right, I'm forbidden by you from mentioning that. Guess I need to realize that I don't have any rights either, eh? :rolleyes: ).

"the simple logic that you don't justify one behaviour by pointing at another"
how is this "simple logic"? Straight people are allowed to get married and have kids. Therefore.... gay people shouldn't be allowed to? How about this for simple logic: PEOPLE (not "straight", not "gay", not "black, white, Hispanic, Oriental", etc. Just "PEOPLE") should be given the same consideration, the same rights as each other. You obviously do not agree. I honestly feel sorry for you because of this.

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 05:00 PM
You seem to believe that h.omosexuality is simply an "action" or "decision" and not something people are born with. .


I didn't say that, did I?

cerebus
06-12-2005, 05:09 PM
Not in those exact words, which is why I didn't put it as a quote. It does seem to be one of the points you are making though. So, are you saying then that you DO realize that h.omosexuality is something people are born with, and not just a "behavior"?

FatherDog
06-12-2005, 06:13 PM
Ok, and what do you say to those who claim that ****sexual parents are not those who will do the best job of raising and caring for them?

I would say, "Prove it."


Folks who are black, are black. It is, when you come right down to it, a matter of physical condition. Folks who are ****sexual are ****sexual, but what defines them is not a function of what they are but what they do. It is a behavior, not a color. Say what you want about how unfair it is to deny the expression of human sexual desire for only certain people, but the way most people see it is as a matter of what they do, not what they are.

Actually, this is untrue. What defines folks that are ****sexual is that they are sexually attracted to and aroused by people of the same sex, not that they have gay sex - you can be ****sexual without ever having had sex, just like you can be straight and a virgin.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 06:25 PM
And he actually did say that ****sexuality is a "behavior". Guess I didn't misunderstand him afterall. ;)

ZIM
06-12-2005, 06:47 PM
Why does what the Pope says affect non-Catholic gays? Uuummm, how about because it influences religious lawmakers and politicians (kinda like our president) and helps to deny them the same rights to marriage and (in some cases) adoption as non-gay people. That's kind of what several of my posts have "subtly hinted" at.... :confused:
Hmm.

General question: As a proposition, do you think a person's religious beliefs are to be excluded from consideration when making political decisions? Do you think that persons who have strong religious beliefs which they base all decisions on should be disenfranchised or otherwise blocked from certain spheres? Or should all arguments from religion be merely discounted?

unkokusai
06-12-2005, 06:49 PM
So, are you saying then that you DO realize that h.omosexuality is something people are born with, and not just a "behavior"?


It sure seems that way. But its not the condition that raises hackles; its the behavior.

Christopher M
06-12-2005, 06:52 PM
So, are you saying then that you DO realize that h.omosexuality is something people are born with...?

He shouldn't say that, because it's not true, as twin studies have conclusively and repeatedly shown. See for example Kendler, et al. (2000) Sexual Orientation in a US National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs in The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1843-1846 and Kirk, et al. (2000) Measurement Models for Sexual Orientation in a Community Twin Sample in Behavior Genetics, 30, 345-356.

'****sexuality' can refer to a behavior, a sexual preference, and a social phenomenon (though all of these are different definitions and should not be conflated).

However, I really think this is a moot point, since something being psychological and/or social doesn't mean it was a conscious choice.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 07:02 PM
And so, one's sexuality, like one's race, is NOT generally something that one has control over. It is the way a person is born. Which is why I say that the argument over sexual preference diversity and rights is quite similar to the argument over racial diversity and rights.

Some people are offended by the thought of hom.osexuals having gay sex (as long as they're not doing it in public, it's not even the ACT of doing it, but the anti-gay peoples' THOUGHTS of it happening which are offending them) just as many people were once offended by the sight of a bi-racial couple (and the THOUGHT of THEM having sex). If there is such a great difference between these two examples (in principle) please point the difference out to me.

Christopher M
06-12-2005, 07:07 PM
<Sexuality> is the way a person is born.

No, it's not, as twin studies have conclusively and repeatedly shown. See for example...

Mr Punch
06-12-2005, 07:14 PM
With regards to the is ****sexuality a natural condition or a behaviour question, it is both.

Not talking about abuse cases and the like but generally ****sexuality is not a matter of choice, it is a genetic quirk. For the people that have that quirk, it then follows that it is natural and a natural condition to want to have sex in the only way that makes sense to them.

As for those who are maintaining that because the human arse is not designed to take things inwards that this backs up the supposition that it is unnatural and/or against God, I take it you are similarly against any kind of buggery, and therefore judging by any American porn you may be unfortunate enough to see you are probably against the vast majority of your countrymen who seem obsessed with women taking it up the ass. [shrugs]

cerebus
06-12-2005, 07:14 PM
Christopher M, any links?

Mr Punch
06-12-2005, 07:15 PM
I love the way this ****phobic censor contraption stops you saying ****-sapiens, but allows you talk as you like about taking it up the arse/ass or whatever...! :D

Mr Punch
06-12-2005, 07:17 PM
Christopher M, any links?These I've got to see.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 07:20 PM
I've seen this whole discussion over whether h.omosexuality is physiologically determined or just a choice quite a few times. I've seen the anti-gay alliance post their "scientific studies" and also seen those who had researched the pro-gay side put up their "scientific studies". Funny thing about "studies", scientific or otherwise, they can often be made to "prove" what the person conducting them wants them to prove....

Christopher M
06-12-2005, 07:22 PM
****sexuality is not a matter of choice, it is a genetic quirk.

"No, it's not, as twin studies have conclusively and repeatedly shown. See for example... However, I really think this is a moot point, since something being psychological and/or social doesn't mean it was a conscious choice."

To elaborate on why this is a moot point: there are lots of things which are 100% genetic which we nonetheless would agree are undesirable and try to change. And there are lots of things which are 100% conscious choices which we nonetheless don't have any problem with, and even would encourage people to do.

So this point about genetics doesn't help either side's case.

Christopher M
06-12-2005, 07:32 PM
Funny thing about "studies", scientific or otherwise, they can often be made to "prove" what the person conducting them wants them to prove....

Firstly, you have to distinguish between real science and pseudo-science. There's alot of ridiculous claims about ****sexuality being self-published by interest groups (on both sides of the debate), that aren't worth the paper/hard disk space they're published on.

However, this doesn't the diminish the utility of rigorous, professional science. If people are interested in scientific research on this (or any other) topic, don't do websearches -- go to your local library and do medline and scientific journal searches.

The implication that all scientific research is bogus seems rather silly; and, moreover, would refute the original claims about ****sexuality being genetic, as it leaves us with no alternative to make such a claim.

Moreover, as I have pointed out, this issue is entirely moot.

Christopher M
06-12-2005, 07:50 PM
also, i checked the abstract for this study - (2000) Sexual Orientation in a US National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs in The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1843-1846 and Kirk, et al
according to the authors, it would appear that homm0sexuality is genetic, although they say environmental factors may also play a role

What they claim (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/11/1843) is that "estimates of the heritability of liability of sexual orientation ranging from 0.28 to 0.65." Everything has a heritability, it's a measure of correlation. Thing which "are genetic" have heritabilities of 1. For comparison, alcoholism has a heritability of 0.6 and 'big five' personality profile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_five_personality_traits) has a heritability of 0.4.


so if it's genetic, does that make it unnatural?

I think you're mixing up my comments with someone else's.

Mr Punch
06-12-2005, 08:02 PM
"No, it's not, as twin studies have conclusively and repeatedly shown. See for example... However, I really think this is a moot point, since something being psychological and/or social doesn't mean it was a conscious choice."The funny thing about twin studies is that they are useful for some things in the absence of scientific testing alternatives, but hey often don't prove anything. Twins don't have the same DNA. I mean, sure they have the same DNA, but of the functioning DNA we've identified, humans and bananas share about 90% of the same DNA... The fact is we still don't have a known function for 80-95% of DNA coding.

And while we're having fun altering the 5% we do know, we discovered last week that antosexual behaviour can be induced by altering one allele pair. That's the change of one allele pair to get a male fruit fly to behave like a female in mating rituals. So, if a twin has different coloured hair, or a shade different coloured eyes or a slightly higher percentage of say, moles on their skin, there is also a fair chance that they could have a genetic difference big enough to make them ****sexual.


To elaborate on why this is a moot point: there are lots of things which are 100% genetic which we nonetheless would agree are undesirable and try to change. And there are lots of things which are 100% conscious choices which we nonetheless don't have any problem with, and even would encourage people to do.

So this point about genetics doesn't help either side's case.That's why I said that the natural condition is what sparks the behaviour. Of course, if a psychopath is caused by an imbalance of serotonin and others to murder someone (which would be a natural behaviour for his condition) we shouldn't allow it, right? But then, should we judge them with the death penalty? No, because we accept that it's a product of their 'natural' defect.

But with a ****sexual, whose 'natural' inclination is to have sex with another guy (not to kill anyone, or interfere in any way with others' behaviour necessarily) it should be no-one else's business, and therefore any attempt to curtail their rights should be attacked as an expression of prejudice.

Maybe... gotta go now so no time to discuss this any further... ! :(

Christopher M
06-12-2005, 08:33 PM
The funny thing about twin studies is that they are useful for some things in the absence of scientific testing alternatives, but hey often don't prove anything.

Where did you get this idea? Twin studies are considered the golden standard in behavioral genetics. (You can look up Fulker & Cardon's 'What can twin studies tell us about the structure and correlates of cognitive abilities?' in Twins as a Tool of Behavior Genetics <Bouchard & Propping, ed.> for a reference on that remark).


The fact is we still don't have a known function for 80-95% of DNA coding.

This is completely moot. The correlations observed in comparing people of identical and varying degrees of similar genetics are the exact same regardless of how much we understand about DNA coding.


there is also a fair chance that they could have a genetic difference big enough to make them ****sexual... That's why I said that the natural condition is what sparks the behaviour.

It turns out you're wrong here, "as twin studies have conclusively and repeatedly shown. See for example..."


If a psychopath is caused by an imbalance of serotonin and others to murder someone we shouldn't allow it, right? But then, should we judge them with the death penalty? No, because we accept that it's a product of their 'natural' defect.

Even if we accept this argument, it's still a moot point since it apparently defends, not critiques, the idea of disallowing something that is "natural."

cerebus
06-12-2005, 08:41 PM
So Christopher M, just to make it clear where you stand on the issue which was under discussion, are you in favor of discrimination against gay minorities which would prevent them from getting married, having children, and even (legally) having sex with the person they are in love with? And why, or why not? Thank you.

Christopher M
06-12-2005, 08:56 PM
If you mean 'What do I think about gay marriage?' ...

I think that the state shouldn't be marrying anyone, regardless of their sexuality, because marriage is none of the state's business. And I think that any voluntary organization can choose to conduct actions limited to their membership any way they please, because it's no one else's business.

If you mean 'What do I think about laws limiting voluntary sexual relationships?' ...

I think that there shouldn't be any whatsoever.

If you mean 'What do I think about gay couples adopting children?' ...

I think we should be conducting research to establish if there are any undesirable effects of being raised in such an environment, because I think that we don't currently have enough evidence to make any reasonable claims about this issue at all, and because I think child-raising is an important enough activity to warrant such an effort. If we find evidence that an environment (this or any other) is sufficiently harmful to the child, that that environment should be restricted from adoption. If we don't find such evidence, and/or until we do, I think that the state should allow all parties involved -- the child, the adopting couple, the birth parents, the adoption agency -- to handle the matter in whatever arrangement they can all agree to.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 09:05 PM
Thank you for your response. I do believe I agree with you on the points which you mentioned.

ZIM
06-12-2005, 09:19 PM
And so, one's sexuality, like one's race, is NOT generally something that one has control over. It is the way a person is born. Which is why I say that the argument over sexual preference diversity and rights is quite similar to the argument over racial diversity and rights.

Some people are offended by the thought of hom.osexuals having gay sex (as long as they're not doing it in public, it's not even the ACT of doing it, but the anti-gay peoples' THOUGHTS of it happening which are offending them) just as many people were once offended by the sight of a bi-racial couple (and the THOUGHT of THEM having sex). If there is such a great difference between these two examples (in principle) please point the difference out to me.
Just to be clear - you're introducing the idea of a 'thought bias' here. Nobody else has brought anything near this concept up at all. Except, perhaps, lada - but I don't know precisely what he's on about.

Unless you'd like to go into the implications of such, please cease making wild speculation of present company.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 09:27 PM
Just to be clear, which of the two concepts quoted in your post are you referring to?

ZIM
06-12-2005, 09:33 PM
Just to be clear, which of the two concepts quoted in your post are you referring to?
The second paragraph.

cerebus
06-12-2005, 09:48 PM
Well what I am actually introducing is an analogy. If it is incorrect, please point out exactly in what way this is so.

As for the statement that it is not the ACT (which anti-gay people are presumably not even witnessing) but the THOUGHT of that act which is bothering people, well that's just a fact. Unless, of course, you want to start bringing up sex in public. This, however, is illegal in the U.S. regardless of sexual orientation. As long as the same rules apply to everyone and they are reasonable, I certainly have no problem with them.

FuXnDajenariht
06-13-2005, 12:29 AM
geez. reading this debate is like reading a court transcript...

wheres the fire and brimstone!? :D

TaiChiBob
06-13-2005, 05:00 AM
Greetings..

cjurakpt: Sources? Start with the biology class you claim to make "A"s in.. my only scientific reference is to the biological function of the human anatomy.
yes, very simple observation, as in simple minded - duh, obviously we are designed to do that - we are also designed to be able to do other things - like have sex with people of the same gender - if the design didn't allow it, it wouldn't happen - that's simple observation... LOL.. so, by that reasoning, since there is rape and abuse, we must have been designed to do that, too..
WHAAT? what "natural consequences" are you referring to? your're starting to sound like the Bible thumpers...and I think that a lot of gay couples would take umbrage with your use of the word violate - what a pre-suposition that is... Geeze, you are really touchy on this issue.. any number of potential consequences.. and, no, this is not a moral issue for me, i'm only asking questions.. i take as much of an issue with "thumpers" as i do with many other people too bent on personal agendas to see "the big picture"..
excuse me? purpose and design? according to who? God? the Bible? you? these terms are inhently arbitrary - sure they function that way - they also can function lots of other ways that on't involve procreation Of course they can function in other ways, that is not what i was suggesting.. they can be tatooed, pierced, used with animals, and forced upon another, alternative uses do not always benefit the individual or society.. back to science class for you, arbitrary alternative functions differ from simple biological function..
yes they do - they make people feel good, make them happy, satisfied - and then they can go out and lead more well-adjusted lives to the benefit of society as a whole - that sounds like a pretty good biological purpose No contention, here.. so much as no harm is advanced on others..
if you think that mental health is not a function of biology than I don't know if there is any point in continuing this discussion...and quite frankly these can be quantified (ever heard of sociological research?); and we sure do judge them - as in making the behaviors illegal; I said "i make no claim as to mental health and the satisfying of inherent imperatives due to preference".. as to imply that if it works for someone, so be it.. i am not suggesting there is no connection between mental health and biology.. your categorizing of "we sure do judge them - as in making the behaviors illegal" is a broad use of "we", i do not agree with making anything illegal that causes no harm..
if you step back for a moment and consider that hom0sexual behavior has been going on for the whole length of human history and probably before that, how, pray tell, is it deviant? I know, you've got your whole little 'if it's not for procreation it's deviant' thing, but that is an arbitrary distinction and again very narrow minded LOL.. and, rape, oppression, murder, etc.. has been going on for the same duration.. tenure is not a qualification for your arguement.. and, to be clear, one can deviate from a situation and not be "deviant" as commonly used to imply a negative condition, in no way did i intend or imply "deviant".. that is YOUR interpretation..
you seem to be tap dancing around something - are you trying to intimate something about the AIDS crisis? if so, you don't get no argument from me that unsafe sex practices are harmful, both to the individual and society (NOW you start looking at the big picture, when it's convenient for you) - and no argument that cerrtain aspects of gay lifestyle of the last several decades has precipitated that - of course, in Africa the majority of transmissions are hetero sexual in nature, but anyway... I have been looking at the big picture all along, not my special interest.. HIV/AIDS is not the topic, though it is a pertinent aspect.. particularly if the high-risk inherent to the gay lifestyle affects adopted children..
can you explain why the colorful descriptions would be an indicator of this? LOL.. "up the Hershey Highway".. now there's a lovely expression that i'm sure all your gay friends adore.. insensitivity is not an indicator of acceptance..
certainly a lot more difficult for them to explain that than to explain why my straight daddy rapes me or why my drunk mommy beats me, etc. - point being that your "concern" is emphasized because of the parents' lifestyle - eveyone has something "unique" to explain away - why my folks are poor, or why my dad's crazy or whatever Pay attention, here.. there's some simple math involved.. the issues you cite can occur with gay parents as well, i am suggesting that, considering the already awkward situation of drunk mommies or abusive daddies, is it wise to impose gay into the equation as well?

I'm only asking questions.. sometimes, the answers reveal more than one might suspect..

Be well..

Golden Tiger
06-13-2005, 05:53 AM
While I don't feel like reading the whole thread to see if this has been mentioned, there was a recent paper published in Cell (one of the top peer reviewed journals) about the discovery of a gene which infact determined sexual preference depending on if the gene was expressed or not. There was also a recent study done on reaction to smells and phermones in both straight and gay men.

So, regardless of your bias, this new evidence of a genetic link is hard to ignore.

Thats said, its also ok not to agree or like that sort of lifestyle. Just because there is a genetic link doesn't mean that one must agree with the behavior. There have also been studies that link genetic traits with sociopaths, murders and other less than desireable behaviors. Just because it is caused by an inherited gene doesn't mean it has to be acceptable to all.

Judge Pen
06-13-2005, 07:05 AM
What defines folks that are ****sexual is that they are sexually attracted to and aroused by people of the same sex, not that they have gay sex - you can be ****sexual without ever having had sex, just like you can be straight and a virgin.

Which, from a religious perspective, is the difference between status and sin.

While some may "choose" to be gay in the sense that they enjoy the shock value of either the status or the act, I think (not based upon scientific data) that the majority do not choose. Logically, why would you chose to be something that has such a large social stigma unless you are somehow pre-disposed to be attracted to the same sex? The "choice" is in the act, just like a straight person giving up their virginity or taking part in any consensual sexual act.

And I always try to keep my religious views, if any, seperate from my political views. I think our country works best if the government doesn't legislate religion or morality. That's up to the individual.

ZIM
06-13-2005, 07:44 AM
Very well.

Well what I am actually introducing is an analogy. If it is incorrect, please point out exactly in what way this is so. I hadn't seen an analogy in what you'd wrote. I did see accusation.


As for the statement that it is not the ACT (which anti-gay people are presumably not even witnessing) but the THOUGHT of that act which is bothering people, well that's just a fact.
This is what I've a problem with, because you've stated it as a pre-existent "fact".

By this logic, anyone who argues against gays, proferring studies from sociology, psychology, anthropology, biology, or medicine or who takes a stand from a religious point of view, is providing proof of their hom0phobia. QED

Furthermore, studies of any nature which are not confirmatory of gays would be suspect and therefore disregarded as biased. Only pro-gay persons could be trusted to discuss gays dispassionately.

And, by extension, only persons confirmatory of gays could distinguish what is or isn't confirmatory of gays.

Turning it around by equivalent logic, this is exactly the same thing as someone anti-gay stating that:
-Supporters of gays have hom0sexual tendencies as a matter of course
-Studies which support gays are tainted by this obvious preference &
-Given that they can't be trusted to forego their uncontrollable lusts, their critics should determine what is true or false.

Christopher M
06-13-2005, 07:47 AM
there was a recent paper published in Cell about the discovery of a gene which infact determined sexual preference

Not quite. The paper showed that splicing a female gene into male fruit flies eliminated it's courtship behavior, and splicing the male gene into female fruit flies produced male courtship behavior. This is very, very different from the suggestion of "a gene which in fact determined sexual preference."

Mr Punch
06-13-2005, 08:07 AM
Since the effect was that of substantial change in the mating dance I would say that while it can't necessarily be said to alter sexual preference, the gene replacement can be said to have have altered sexual behaviour. In a simple organism like a fruit fly, there cannot be said to eb a sexual preference, but IF these results are applicable to humans, the gene alteration MAY have that effect.

ZIM
06-13-2005, 08:12 AM
Not quite. The paper showed that splicing a female gene into male fruit flies eliminated it's courtship behavior, and splicing the male gene into female fruit flies produced male courtship behavior. This is very, very different from the suggestion of "a gene which in fact determined sexual preference."
Thereby proving that hom0sexuality is caused by scientists. :D

Mr Punch
06-13-2005, 08:26 AM
Where did you get this idea? Twin studies are considered the golden standard in behavioral genetics. (You can look up Fulker & Cardon's 'What can twin studies tell us about the structure and correlates of cognitive abilities?' in Twins as a Tool of Behavior Genetics <Bouchard & Propping, ed.> for a reference on that remark).I studied a lot of twin studies in Psychology years ago, and more than a few different scientific models when I studied genetics as part of my bachelor's course. I'm aware of the implications and significance of twin studies. I just don't share everyone's optimism, as our knowledge of DNA and functionality of various specific alleles is a particularly embryonic field.


This is completely moot. The correlations observed in comparing people of identical and varying degrees of similar genetics are the exact same regardless of how much we understand about DNA coding.No, I don't believe it is completely moot, nor that the observations can be validified fully if we don't know more about DNA coding. The reason I believe this is that while we know some DNA sequences can be isolated, we don't know if they work in isolation in the same way as in part of a sequence. Plus we don't know the full interactions between different alleles.


It turns out you're wrong here, "as twin studies have conclusively and repeatedly shown. See for example..."Hmm, repeating it doesn't make it any stronger!


Even if we accept this argument, it's still a moot point since it apparently defends, not critiques, the idea of disallowing something that is "natural."Sure, but my point was that we don't punish these people, we prevent them from harming others with a law that disallows everybody. In fact, rather than punish them, they get special dispensation, and get treated in secure hospitals.

So, if we use similar standards for gays they should not be punished by disallowing their natural behaviour as long as it doesn't harm others.

I don't think I'm going to carry on this discussion, though I'll continue to read it; I confess I've lost the 'point' if there was any, and I agree with your positions if not your particular scientific viewpoint. If I have anything relevant to say, I'll join in again!

I will go back to saying that I don't agree with the Catholic church's proclamations about many things and that I believe these statements affect everybody in some way whether we like it or not. Personally I find the idea of gay marriages distasteful but I recognise that as prejudice and don't believe in forcing that down anyone's throat, which is where I think the Catholic church is ultimately coming from.

David Jamieson
06-13-2005, 08:33 AM
By this logic, anyone who argues against gays, proferring studies from sociology, psychology, anthropology, biology, or medicine or who takes a stand from a religious point of view, is providing proof of their hom0phobia.

um, where would you find examples of anti-gay studies in the above fields. I would think that those fields would merely be observational in content as opposed to judgemental.

Now, religion on the other hand...there is where you will find the anti gay stuff, and not even in the new testament but rather in the old testament in particular leviticus, which also states it's ok to own slaves and to kill your neighbour who eats shellfish and so on.

Also, you will find the negative view in those who hold to the complimentary views drawn from religious texts as opposed to the study of humans as a biological entity.

If the catholic church is going to take a stance against gays, then it perhaps only be within the context of whether or not they are willing to perform the marriages of gays in their church. Which, if they don't want to, they have the right not to in my opinion. It would indeed be a direct conflict with their beliefs whether those beliefs are misguided, misinformed or not.

I do not think they have the right to slam being gay as a lifestyle and they certainly have not much if anything to say about h0m0sexuality as a biological process. I mean, we are talking about the same church here that only recently made it's apologies to Galileo. :rolleyes:

In my view, the whole thing comes down to fear. People fearing others because of their chosen lifestyle. I also haven't read anything in here that explicitly says what those fears are based on.

seems pretty irrational. To me anyway.

fa_jing
06-13-2005, 08:54 AM
Too much focus on the rights of gays to be parents and not enough on the rights of the adopted child who has no say in the matter. Personally, I'd be pretty ****ed if a gay couple adopted me, versus having to wait longer for a hetero couple. A child who is adopted already has so many issues and difficulties to surmount, both in terms of finding his/her place in society and in forming a bond with the adoptive parents. Allowing gays to adopt is likely to make it harder, we have to acknowledge that. If the goal is to get the most kids adopted possible, then gays as well as non-ideal ( but not terrible ) heteros should be allowed to adopt with twice the support services normally offered. It's like that.

And what's with the references to abusive/alcoholic hetero parents who no one considers qualified to adopt? I can't see the relationship here. Society is trying to find fit parents for orphans/wards of the state.

Now if they study the crap out of the situation and come up with another conclusion, then we should abide by it. If they make the acceptance process different requiring coursework and psychological testing then we could go with that. But I'm saying that given the current state of affairs, it is reasonable to prohibit gays from adopting.

ZIM
06-13-2005, 08:56 AM
um, where would you find examples of anti-gay studies in the above fields. I would think that those fields would merely be observational in content as opposed to judgemental.To clarify: I was referring to any person using studies from those fiields to support a position labeled 'anti-gay', not to the studies themselves in that particular sentence.

Still reading the rest. :)

OK- done. No problems with the rest except for this:
In my view, the whole thing comes down to fear. which is a re-statement of what I was arguing against. If we pass over this as true, we allow the rejoinder towards thos who support gays
In my view, the whole thing comes down to hom0sexual tendencies which is not a premise I would support, either.

ewallace
06-13-2005, 09:13 AM
Too much focus on the rights of gays to be parents and not enough on the rights of the adopted child who has no say in the matter. Personally, I'd be pretty ****ed if a gay couple adopted me, versus having to wait longer for a hetero couple. A child who is adopted already has so many issues and difficulties to surmount, both in terms of finding his/her place in society and in forming a bond with the adoptive parents. Allowing gays to adopt is likely to make it harder, we have to acknowledge that. If the goal is to get the most kids adopted possible, then gays as well as non-ideal ( but not terrible ) heteros should be allowed to adopt with twice the support services normally offered. It's like that.
Being adopted myself, I totally agree with that. I think some of us forget how mean kids can be in late elementary thru middle school. Luckily I was usually the second or third largest kid in class, and caused enough black eyes and bloody noses to make others think twice about the insults. :p

Christopher M
06-13-2005, 09:44 AM
In a simple organism like a fruit fly, there cannot be said to eb a sexual preference, but IF these results are applicable to humans, the gene alteration MAY have that effect.

But this suggestion has nothing to do with the study, which was an investigation of genetically preprogrammed behavior; things like the rooting reflex in humans.


I'm aware of the implications and significance of twin studies. I just don't share everyone's optimism.

Ok. But you're at odds with the entire scientific field in question on this point.


No, I don't believe it is completely moot... The reason I believe this is that while we know some DNA sequences can be isolated, we don't know if they work in isolation in the same way...

None of what you mention here has any impact upon, or any relation to any part of the methodology of twin studies. That's why it's a moot point -- this observation is true, it just doesn't effect twin studies. Indeed, this is one of the central reasons why twin studies are so powerful.


Hmm, repeating it doesn't make it any stronger!

It's repeated because it was ignored. It doesn't need to be any stronger; it already refutes the claims made.


Sure, but my point was that we don't punish these people...

I know that was your point. But the argument you gave to defend that point wasn't tenable, for the reason given originally and again below:


So, if we use similar standards for gays...

The standard you described was that we "shouldn't allow" psychopathy. Using the same standard for ****sexuality therefore means that we "shouldn't allow" ****sexuality. Insofar as this is contrary to the conclusion you wanted, your argument collapses.

ZIM
06-13-2005, 09:59 AM
Being adopted myself, I totally agree with that. I think some of us forget how mean kids can be in late elementary thru middle school. Luckily I was usually the second or third largest kid in class, and caused enough black eyes and bloody noses to make others think twice about the insults. :p
I have encountered one lesbian couple with a boy they intended to raise as gay and a gay man who wished very much to adopt an asian girl because 'they're so cute, like a doll'. It was quite apparent that he intended to work out his own issues of unpopularity with a girl he didn't quite regard as a human being.

But these are just anecdotal, not anything approaching a rule. Still, they exist & calling for screening for fitness to adopt is a good thing generally.

I'm also adopted, but never had that advantage you had. The amount of grief given me by both siblings & strangers was pervasive. It took a great many years of struggle with morbid self-loathing to get past it & I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy. Being adopted is hard enough, but I can't even imagine having gay parents adopt me.

fa_jing
06-13-2005, 11:01 AM
I'm not adopted, but I am a step-parent. Kids are cruel and kids will be kids, but I would think that even besides the grief an adopted child gets from other kids there is the general question of establishing one's identity, sense of self, place in society, etc. that would be made more difficult all things being equal with gay parents.

lada
06-13-2005, 08:19 PM
In my view, the whole thing comes down to fear. People fearing others because of their chosen lifestyle. I also haven't read anything in here that explicitly says what those fears are based on.

seems pretty irrational. To me anyway.

I am still reading the other replies. This constant reference to fear sticks in my craw. It is not fear. What gay boils down to in the most basic terms among humans as a tribal animal is submission and dominance.

Men are naturally dominant. They fight with each other to determine the ranking of their dominance. More importantly, when a man needs sex, what does he do? He goes to the female and intimidates her into acceding to his desire. We are talking primitive human, not modern society.

Gay is bad because who does a gay want sex with? Another man. Gay sex is about domination. The gay man wants the other man to submit and allow him to perform sex with him. A straight man is going to interpret this sexual aggressiveness as a challenge to his dominance and will react violently. Quite rightly. Not out of fear.

If a man comes up to you and punches you in the face, you stand up for yourself or you lose your ranking in the tribal dominance structure. If some man comes up to you and starts pushing you into gay sex, if you do nothing and allow it to happen, do you think you still have respect in the eyes of the tribe? No. The tribe thinks you are a weakling who cannot even defend himself from the advances of a womanly man. Or doesn't want to.

(This happened to me personally. As a young kid, I got a job at a corporation. There was the yearly christmas party to attend. One of the big bosses from over at the main building comes over and is talking to me. Then some other boss is talking to me. I am a stupid kid, I talk to them, thank them, bull**** with them. I want to do good, make money.

Then later on, all these people start saying gay stuff to me. "oh you are like that huh?" and other comments. It turns out these two bosses were both gay. They used their boss position to obtain sex from young new hires like me. Good thing I was so naive and stupid. I didn't have a clue what they wanted. If I would have known I would have made a big scene so no false rumors got started.)

Men force women to submit to sex. Therefore women are lesser, weaker, lower on the dominance scale. If a gay man is forcing or pushing another man into sex, that man is weak. He is playing the woman's role by allowing the gay man's advances. Unless he fights back, calls the gay man names or physically accosts him, it looks to outsiders as if he is allowing the seduction of the gay man.

This is all kind of ugly. But if you look past civilization, we are still tribal animals down deep. In our personal relationships and emotional interactions, we still act primitive. Only technology makes people seem to be advanced.

You can see how people really are in the TV shows we watch. All of those people are human beings. What they do can in general be applied to us.

I watch reality TV shows where there is competition between 2 teams. In almost every one of these shows that I watch, there are gay members of the teams. In these shows, the gay person is always they odd one out and always one of the first people to be chosen to leave. No matter what people say or how openminded they are, gay people do not fit.

The women want to have sex with the men. The men want to have sex with the women. The men don't want sex with the gay man. The gay man doesn't want sex with the woman. Where does the gay man belong? He doesn't want women, the men don't want him, Boom, out the door he goes. What good is he to the team?

KC Elbows
06-13-2005, 09:29 PM
I am still reading the other replies. This constant reference to fear sticks in my craw. It is not fear. What gay boils down to in the most basic terms among humans as a tribal animal is submission and dominance.

Men are naturally dominant. They fight with each other to determine the ranking of their dominance. More importantly, when a man needs sex, what does he do? He goes to the female and intimidates her into acceding to his desire. We are talking primitive human, not modern society.

Gay is bad because who does a gay want sex with? Another man. Gay sex is about domination. The gay man wants the other man to submit and allow him to perform sex with him. A straight man is going to interpret this sexual aggressiveness as a challenge to his dominance and will react violently. Quite rightly. Not out of fear.

If a man comes up to you and punches you in the face, you stand up for yourself or you lose your ranking in the tribal dominance structure. If some man comes up to you and starts pushing you into gay sex, if you do nothing and allow it to happen, do you think you still have respect in the eyes of the tribe? No. The tribe thinks you are a weakling who cannot even defend himself from the advances of a womanly man. Or doesn't want to.

(This happened to me personally. As a young kid, I got a job at a corporation. There was the yearly christmas party to attend. One of the big bosses from over at the main building comes over and is talking to me. Then some other boss is talking to me. I am a stupid kid, I talk to them, thank them, bull**** with them. I want to do good, make money.

Then later on, all these people start saying gay stuff to me. "oh you are like that huh?" and other comments. It turns out these two bosses were both gay. They used their boss position to obtain sex from young new hires like me. Good thing I was so naive and stupid. I didn't have a clue what they wanted. If I would have known I would have made a big scene so no false rumors got started.)

Men force women to submit to sex. Therefore women are lesser, weaker, lower on the dominance scale. If a gay man is forcing or pushing another man into sex, that man is weak. He is playing the woman's role by allowing the gay man's advances. Unless he fights back, calls the gay man names or physically accosts him, it looks to outsiders as if he is allowing the seduction of the gay man.

This is all kind of ugly. But if you look past civilization, we are still tribal animals down deep. In our personal relationships and emotional interactions, we still act primitive. Only technology makes people seem to be advanced.

You can see how people really are in the TV shows we watch. All of those people are human beings. What they do can in general be applied to us.

I watch reality TV shows where there is competition between 2 teams. In almost every one of these shows that I watch, there are gay members of the teams. In these shows, the gay person is always they odd one out and always one of the first people to be chosen to leave. No matter what people say or how openminded they are, gay people do not fit.

The women want to have sex with the men. The men want to have sex with the women. The men don't want sex with the gay man. The gay man doesn't want sex with the woman. Where does the gay man belong? He doesn't want women, the men don't want him, Boom, out the door he goes. What good is he to the team?


First, you make an exception clause for cases of men not dominating woman in civilized relationships, but fail to make such a clause for gays.

Second, you say they hold no place in team environments, but totally miss that a large chunk of our culture was shaped by them from the ancient greeks on.

Western thought owes an inordinate amount to gay thinkers and rulers compared to their overall numbers in the population. Examine the key thinkers covered in any western civ class and this should be clear.

Also, in nature, in any group of males, it is only one male's destiny to dominate, the alpha male. The rest, while perhaps finding the chance to dominate, will still be dominated by the alpha. Assuming we're all canines. I don't happen to be, but it sounds like those in your area are. Congratulations on mastering the whole typing thing. Have a snausage.

By the way, if having it called fear sticks in your craw, is it any worse when you reply with an argument based entirely on the fear of being dominated? :D

ZIM
06-13-2005, 09:32 PM
I am still reading the other replies. This constant reference to fear sticks in my craw. It is not fear. What gay boils down to in the most basic terms among humans as a tribal animal is submission and dominance.

etc
Erm. This is a tough one.

First, you're right about dominance/submission getting acted out with hom0sexual acts, and you're right about how it works. In a rape or victimization situation, anyway.

And just pure dominance, too. I've seen simulated 'gay' aggression acted out - in front of a woman - in order to dissuade the woman from dating the submitter. I asked 'why the h3ll didja do that?' and the guy was like 'I dunno'.

So, yeah, hard-wired for sure. Now that I think about it, its far more frequent than that kind of thing.

While its possible a man could get victimized to the point of being gay [theoretically. I've not heard of it] what we're discussing is freely chosen/inborn hom0sexuality.

Just thinking this particular might be exclusive to another topic. :confused:

ZIM
06-13-2005, 09:35 PM
Western thought owes an inordinate amount to gay thinkers and rulers compared to their overall numbers in the population. Examine the key thinkers covered in any western civ class and this should be clear.

See, I thought it was the Muslims. Or the Africans. The Jews? Whatever...I *know* it wasn't them dead white guys - they're fuggin' useless wankers...

KC Elbows
06-13-2005, 09:45 PM
Erm. This is a tough one.

First, you're right about dominance/submission getting acted out with hom0sexual acts, and you're right about how it works. In a rape or victimization situation, anyway.


You do realize that that paragraph stands if you replace the word "****sexual" with the word "heterosexual", right?

Either way, it being a rape situation should be the first part of the sentence, not the afterthought.

And if he's not speaking of fear of being dominated, I'm a well hung black man.

KC Elbows
06-13-2005, 09:48 PM
See, I thought it was the Muslims. Or the Africans. The Jews? Whatever...I *know* it wasn't them dead white guys - they're fuggin' useless wankers...

Not useless. Remember, it was a dead white guy who found a way to get cheese in a pressurized can, though at that point, it ceases to be cheese, becoming simply, wh1z...

Golden Tiger
06-13-2005, 10:34 PM
Not quite. The paper showed that splicing a female gene into male fruit flies eliminated it's courtship behavior, and splicing the male gene into female fruit flies produced male courtship behavior. This is very, very different from the suggestion of "a gene which in fact determined sexual preference."

"demonstrate that this behavior relies on a single splicing of the fruitless transcript, and on a specific olfactory-based neuronal circuit. "

It is actually being refered to as the "lesbian" gene but I thought it would apply here.

Another recent study dealing with olfactory related behavior pretty much concludes the same thing.

""Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study. -published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden."


While saying that a single gene or allele is responsible is over simplifing it, there is a pretty strong case being made that it is biological and not environmental.

The bottom line is that the Pope doesn't like gays, thats his right. Heck, I don't like MK but I try to co-exist with him. If you all don't want to like the Pope, thats fine too. I just can't figure why everyone has their panties (pun intended) in a wad about it.

David Jamieson
06-14-2005, 06:30 AM
(This happened to me personally. As a young kid, I got a job at a corporation. There was the yearly christmas party to attend. One of the big bosses from over at the main building comes over and is talking to me. Then some other boss is talking to me. I am a stupid kid, I talk to them, thank them, bull**** with them. I want to do good, make money.

Then later on, all these people start saying gay stuff to me. "oh you are like that huh?" and other comments. It turns out these two bosses were both gay. They used their boss position to obtain sex from young new hires like me. Good thing I was so naive and stupid. I didn't have a clue what they wanted. If I would have known I would have made a big scene so no false rumors got started.)

Now, if I was a psychiatrist, or even if I played one on television, I would say that this is a highly relevant statement from you in context to your position on the matter.

Just saying.

imo there are really two types of fear:

irrational
and
rational

irrational fear is the fear of the unknown, the fear of things we assume or presuppose and yet have not been fully exposed to. And so on.

Rational fear on the other hand is that device which prevents us from driving our cars off of cliffs, or prevents us from going to close to teh edge of the roof on a highrise.

Fear can be our friend and protector or it can be our enemy and make us an enemy to the peace and well being of others.

In short, consensual sex in any relationship can get weird and spicy and lots of girls do anal to. :D

If two people love each other on many levels and have an unconditional positive regards for each other, is that in any way shape or form a bad thing?

ZIM
06-14-2005, 07:36 AM
You do realize that that paragraph stands if you replace the word "****sexual" with the word "heterosexual", right?

Either way, it being a rape situation should be the first part of the sentence, not the afterthought.

And if he's not speaking of fear of being dominated, I'm a well hung black man.
Pretty much, yes. With one caveat: I've never seen nor heard of women engaging in sexual 'punking' of one another [exceptions for prisons, perhaps] in the same manner men - hetero men - do.

That last bit - hetero men - is actually important. The majority of male rapes & victimizatiions [harassment along the order of my above anecdote] are done by hetero men, not hom0sexuals, according to a rape crisis center I volunteered at.

And, yes, that only shows that 1] rape & victimization is about power & dominance and 2] a straight man approached by a gay can very well interpret advances as a bid for dominance.

No real surprise, but lada's right in that it isn't something generally discussed & that it is ugly & wrong.

David Jamieson
06-14-2005, 07:47 AM
And, yes, that only shows that 1] rape & victimization is about power & dominance and 2] a straight man approached by a gay can very well interpret advances as a bid for dominance.

it has been determined that rape is about power and dominance for some time. It certainly ain't about sex.

the second point apllies to a lot of scenarions that have nothing to do with one's sexual preference.

a straight woman approached by a straight man for purposes of a sexual encounter that the woman is not open to falls into the same category don't ya think?

Or how about your co-worker trying to get you to do his or her work for them by approaching you with an attitude to that effect?

Or what about the guy who runs the parking lot who insists that you move your car over another three inches because it is not within the yellow lines as he sees fit?

If one were just slightly more opne minded the scenarion of a gay approaching a non gay would likely go like this.

gay guy: hey there handsome, would you be interested in hanging out, drinking wine and maybe going to a pistons game?

straight guy: no thanks, I'm more of a spurs fan.

gay guy: oh, I see, so it's gonna be like that eh?

straight guy: that's right suzy, your team sucks! But hey, how about a beer?

:p

ZIM
06-14-2005, 08:45 AM
a straight woman approached by a straight man for purposes of a sexual encounter that the woman is not open to falls into the same category don't ya think? There isn't an exact equivalence. Outside of prison rape, male rape is something of a substitution for murder/elimination. The terms used to describe motivations are the same but they hold differing import/weight.

Design Sifu
06-14-2005, 04:37 PM
:eek:

from the Pope condeming gay marriage to Prison rape...

I dunno if I should be dissapointed or impressed.

ZIM
06-14-2005, 05:39 PM
:eek:

from the Pope condeming gay marriage to Prison rape...

I dunno if I should be dissapointed or impressed.
:D
Well, I was going to get into the fine-point philosophical argument regarding "is" versus "ought", as in:

If you mean 'What do I think about gay marriage?' ...

I think that the state shouldn't be marrying anyone, regardless of their sexuality, because marriage is none of the state's business. And I think that any voluntary organization can choose to conduct actions limited to their membership any way they please, because it's no one else's business.
As an ideal statement, this "ought" is solid, but because the "is" of current law renders the entirety moot, one needs to explore further for practical reasons.

Even the latter half of the statement has problems currently. Canadian gay 'activists' [can I call these guys extremists, please?] are arguing that, since the church won't allow/perform gay marriages, the church should be required to relinquish it's tax exemptions.

lada
06-15-2005, 07:08 AM
F

Western thought owes an inordinate amount to gay thinkers and rulers compared to their overall numbers in the population. Examine the key thinkers covered in any western civ class and this should be clear.

By the way, if having it called fear sticks in your craw, is it any worse when you reply with an argument based entirely on the fear of being dominated? :D

A fear of being dominated is part of being a man. No fear of domination is an invitation to penetration.

What if I told you that those men thought the way they do because they are gay? They are "geniuses" or whatever because they are gay? It is not "they are gay and genius". It is "they are genius because they are gay".

I have said previously that the act of being gay can change you physically. It also changes you mentally. I said that **** means one and that mean a person had only one side, right or left. That includes the brain.

What is the right side of your brain for? Logical thought isn't it? Or do I have it backwards? Anyways, one side of the brain is logical while the other is intuitive. What if being gay means that the logical side of your brain became real big while the intuitive side became small. The brain is out of balance. We could view it as the right brain becoming extra smart because it now has most of the left brain's power.

If the logical side of your brain was real big, you would be a genius at logical things. Like mechanics, mathematics, technology. Curiously enough, all of those subjects are the basis of the current dominance of Western Society. Curiosly enough, Western Society is really really really big on ****sexuality. Thruout history.

Contrast that with the other world cultures. Tribal cultures, African cultures, Asian cultures. All of these cultures are usually considered more intuitive, more human friendly. That is because they are either balanced, or they are shifted more towards the humanistic, intuitive left side of the brain.

I think people have been purposefully proselytized to be gay so that they think in a certain way. I think the most successful examples of this proselytization are the men you speak of. The ones who have the right side of their brain so distorted with power that they have invented all of these mechanistic inventions that go counter to life. That actually hurt life.

I talk about this in "what if" terms. There is no doubt. I can prove to anyone willing to look that many ****sexuals display very identifiable physical distortions of their body. It is a product of how the human body is designed and the process of sex.

Don't you wonder what sex is? Peope think their dingaling is hanging outside their body and that is all that is involved in sex. This is completely false. Your entire body is involved in the process of sex in a cut and dried, describable way. Sex affects your arms and legs and head as much as your dingaling. Since that is true, the type of sex will affect your arms and legs and head.

I say that gay sex will frequently, not all the time, but frequently cause distortions of the phsical body and distortions of the mental process. All it takes is practice to learn to see what these signs are. Just like learning to pick out the good vegetables from the bad at the supermarket.

If you are curious, you probably wonder why someone would go to the trouble of turning an entire society to the gay side. Didn't you ever hear the left side of your brain is associated with magic? If you are all right brained, how can you do magic?

Seriously.

lada
06-15-2005, 07:20 AM
Lotta people think I talk foolishness. I kind of like it because I know better. There is nothing more satisfying than having a crowd of people saying you wrong, then you turning out to be right.

Instead of listening to all my words, think for yourself.

Ask yourself what kind of person you are, right brained or left brained, intuitive or logical.

Now go feel up your testicles. Which one is bigger? The right one or the left one? Does it match which type of person you think you are? Big left testicle, intuitive person, Big right testicle, logical person?

Now go look in the mirror in the bathroom. Look at and feel your head. Including your cheeks and face if you feel like it. Is one side of your head smaller than the other? Which is which?

There are lots of possible combinations.

logical, big right side of the head, big right testicle
logical, big right side of head, small right testicle
logical, small right side of head, big right testicle
intuitive, big left side of head, big left testicle
intuitive, big left side of head, small left testicle
intuitive, small left side of head, big left testicle

You need to read what I wrote about sex involving the entire body. You need to ask yourself if I would really ask you to examine your testicles and head just because I am bored. You need to look at the results of the examination and ask yourself what they mean.

I will give you a clue in the hopes of stopping those who want to react. You might find that whichever testicle is big? That side of your head is smaller. You might want to ask yourself why.

Golden Tiger
06-15-2005, 07:32 AM
Lotta people think I talk foolishness

Nuff said..........

unkokusai
06-15-2005, 10:00 AM
There is nothing more satisfying than having a crowd of people saying you wrong, then you turning out to be right.

.


And you've been waiting all your life for that second part to kick in.

Mika
06-15-2005, 01:37 PM
I'm not catholic, but I appreciate this reasoning.

Anyway, if you are gay, and not catholic, why would you care what the pope says anyway? It shouldn't bother you nor should it come as a surprise.

As for adoption etc., in this day and time you should look at the content and character of a person and the stability of their life and not their sexual orientation. Maybe, at some point in time, heterosexual marriages were more stable than ****sexual relationships, but all you have to do is watch a little talk t.v. to see that isn't the case anymore. Maybe it never was.

:eek:

I was calling for you on page 1, and now you appear (did I miss you before, though?). Wow, did I misjudge you, mister Judge (based on the case of that teacher having sex with that 13-year old boy or something like that). Wow, I am impressed :)

Y'all, this is just too darn funnee :D

Cerebus and all, keep at it, you have a long way to go. When y'all need a break, come on over, it's a lot easier here. Well, these freaking freaks do offer some entertainment value, don't they, though? :D

Nothing surprises me anymore. It's the responsibility of us, however, to educate some of these peeps. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

BTW, if I was to say everything I wanted about this topic and some of the posts, it would undoubtedly be the longest post ever at KFO.

:cool:

lada
06-16-2005, 07:33 PM
ok - let me condense this into the bottom-line take-home message



I think that about sums it up...

BTW, the whole morphological symmetry / asymmetry thing is dealt with much more realistical in the book "On Form and Function" by D'Arcy Thompson - it is the seminal text on the matter, written back in the 1940's or so, about 1,000 pages, really sets the stage for later developments such as complexity theory, which explains why you can't have an overally simplistic view of the body.
Example: in the manual therapy world, there is a lot of attention paid to how people have postural asymmetry, analyzing this to try to figure out why they have symptoms (the idea is that if you are aymmetrical, it's related to your pain); well, guess what - all the actual studies done on the correlation of asymmetical landmarks show absolutely no correlation to incidence of symptoms; what the take home message is, is that if external bilateral symmetry has no bearing on something as strutural as pain, then how in the heck can you extrapolate it to something behavioral such as sexual orientation?
The other problem with this approach is that it's reverse engeneering - it's like, we have this thing we want to explain away, let's go looking for something that's easily identifiable and ascribe it to this phenomenon; very sloppy...

BTW, has anyone thought that this moron Lada is a big ol' lip-smackin' troll trying to get people riled up with his ridiculous theories? sounds a lot like that other guy who got banned off this Forum about 2 months ago - I forget his name, but he had similar explanations for things, had his own really weird web-site also...



That you unokutare? Up to your old tricks. I can tell it is you because you cannot express yourself without calling people names. If you would have left off the "moron", I might not have recognized you.

Look people. You can believe a study by an old 1940's white guy if you want. 1940 was the pinnacle of science right? Nothing has been learned since 1940 right? So that means there is no new information to be learned, right?

And of course white guys know everything, right? There is no need to check with Hispanics or Asians or Blacks or any other race right? What the white man says, goes.

And if you believe that, I got some WMD in Iraq for ya. I got some Vioxx for your pain that will only give you a little more risk for heart attack. I got some Ibuprofen for you that will fix your pain, but may give you more chance of stroke.

If you choose to believe an "expert" over your own two eyes, or over someone whom you can question, (I am right here to answer any question you got, the author of that study is dead and buried), then you deserve to stay where you are.

lada
06-16-2005, 07:53 PM
wow. I have that effect on a lot of threads. I tell the truth and the threads go silent.

That is a kung fu principle you know? One of those imaginary things I make up according to some.

When you tell someone an undeniable truth, they will fall silent and usually physically freeze up. My instructor called this "the spirit is descending".

I want you guys to think about that. The ones saying I am full of baloney. You ever had one of your instructors tell you "the spirit is descending?". You ever have some one full of **** give you instructions on how to examine yourself for various phenomenon? What troll do you know that is as insistent as I am? I can and will answer any question put to me in depth.

I am the real deal. If you can find an insightful question, I will do my best to answer it. If we have different frames of reference, that doesn't mean I am wrong. It means we have to work until we have a common frame of reference, then I can explain better.

This is so obvious it feels stupid to spell it out. If you as whatever level you are go to a Tai Chi master of 50 years and he explains something to you that you don't understand, is he stupid? Or do you not have the necessary 50 year Tai Chi background to understand what he is saying? The answer depends on your ego. If you are egotistical you will feel you can understand anything and the Tai Chi man must be stupid. If you are a realist, you will admit that it is hard to understand anyone with 50 years of experience in a field you have not studied before.


Look guys. You are tested everyday in this life to see if you are suitable. If you are not suitable, you are ignored. No one cares if you are suitable or not. It is up to you. No one will cajole you to be better, except maybe me. There are millions of people in the world. If you don't pass the test, your neighbor might.

Part of the tests are the jeering, troublemaking people. We see this in every success movie every made. The crowd of people telling the kid "you will never learn to fight". Then the kid practices and wins the fight. The message is, don't listen to people who yell and jeer. Shooting your mouth off is easy. Remaining patient in the face of attack, continuing with your education and practice while being berated by everyone you come into contact with is part of the test. Is your will strong enough to hold your interest together or does your will break and you cannot focus on what you want? If jeering people can break your focus, you will never be good at anything.

These conversations are a test for you. Can you see past the people calling names, being negative, attacking people.....and see the possiblities that are in front of you?

I am absolutely right about my comments on physical body distortion connected to ****sexuality. If anyone cares to test me, they can. I said before, I can provide photo after photo after corroborative photo. After seeing 20 or 50 or 100, you will be forced to admit they all show similarities. Then after that, we can argue if the cause is being gay, or some other cause.

Understanding is based on how you view the body. I tried to tell you a more helpful body view in the "guess kung fu principles" thread but no one will play. It really is childishly simple how it all works. I can show it with a human body model and 2 rectangles. The problem is getting you to trust me, to believe that what I show you is reality.

ZIM
06-16-2005, 08:55 PM
I think he's Robert Underdunk Terwilliger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideshow_Bob)

And as for his testicle advice, get to it! (http://www.rachelgetsfruity.com/flash.html) [NWS, probably] :D

TaiChiBob
06-17-2005, 05:02 AM
Greetings..

There is an interesting variable in the asymetry observation.. if, and it's a big if, there is a correlation between asymetry and gay.. the question arises, does one develop asymetry due to being gay, or.. does pre-existing asymetry lend itself to gay choices due to perceived differences.. like the coffee drinkers having a lower incidence of prostrate cancer.. does the coffee inhibit the cancer.. or, does having a lower risk of prostrate cancer enhance the desire for coffee?.. in either case, there is a prejudicial quality here that i find inappropriate.. that, upon observation, asymetry could prejudice someone's beliefs about another's lifestyle.. regardless of actuallity..

Lada's rhetoric is consistent with so much other fundamentalist propaganda, that it is discounted without due consideration.. but, upon due consideration, it is clear that there are agendas not consistent with harmonious co-existence among peoples of differing beliefs..

Postural asymetry is observable in everyone in varying degrees.. so, the decisive issue would be the subjective observation of at which degree does the asymetric postural condition become indicative of gay tendencies.. but, i sense we are being trolled and further response only feeds the troll.. no rational mind can logically support this contrived theory.. it is assigning traits to a particular set of standards that are, by no means, conclusive or consistent.. i sense that Lada thrives on controversy, and this subject creates the controversy.. regardless of merit..
When you tell someone an undeniable truth, they will fall silent and usually physically freeze up. My instructor called this "the spirit is descending". "Undeniable truth"? Hardly! i deny it, and can support that with science.. "descending spirit", would be an accurate description of someone that would introduce such nonsense into a rational discussion.. further attention to Lada's ill-intended posts advance no cause worthy of this forum..

Be well...

TaiChiBob
06-17-2005, 07:13 AM
Greetings..

cjurakpt: The sentiment is mutual, i enjoy our banter as well.. it is refreshing to respectfully disagree AND gain insight by doing so.. many thanks..

Be well..

unkokusai
06-17-2005, 09:05 AM
wow. I have that effect on a lot of threads. the threads go silent.

You are tested everyday in this life to see if you are suitable. If you are not suitable, you are ignored. .



You haven't put these two things together yet, have ya?

Ou Ji
06-17-2005, 09:21 AM
POPULATION Control - gays generally don't bred. A smaller world population is easier to control (easier to keep the riff-raff out of your neighborhood and makes visiting your 'heritage sites' much more enjoyable).

Population CONTROL - substitue the beliefs, values, laws with the ones you want by destroying what existed before (family values, current religeous beliefs, re-write history). The Cultural Revolution in China happened quickly and was bloody. No need for that these days as it can be accomplished over time with a well laid out plan.

I haven't researched this yet myself but have heard that the marriage license was originally meant for inter-racial marriages. Why would I need approval from the state, or the community? Marriage is between myself and my partner. We can publicly proclaim it any way we wish.

Most of our lives seem to revolve around legal constructs (D.amn lawyers, sorry JP). Lawyers write the laws that determine what we can and cannot do, how we can behave, what we can eat, drink, sniff, snort, smoke, read, and now even think. When you do something legally 'wrong' you get to face your accuser, another legal construct called the 'state'. No, the people don't decide, unless a politician is afraid he won't get re-elected. The Supreme Court just kicked the States in the nuts (what 10th Amendment?) on the medical marijuana issue even though the majority of 'the people' made their decision known (see, they just say it's a democracy). Sorry, going off on a tangent.

Current PC paranoia and legalese is creating a multiclass system while at the same time screaming 'can't we all just get along?'. We're all one, right? Unless you're a hyphen American, a gay, a religeous right wingnut, a liberal, a h.omophobe, etc.

The Catholic Church is losing control. No sweat off my nuts. Rather not have their lawyers calling the shots as I think (in my limited experience with Catholics) they're just another set of crackpots. They can denounce gays all they want, just don't make changes that negatively impact my life and I'll support your right to believe what you want.

Keep the 'I have 2 Catholic Parents' books in the library if anyone is interested but out of the required reading at my kid's school. It's bad enough having Jehovah Witness guys banging on my door. I don't need Catholic Day at the local theme park or Catholic Day parades down my town streets.

Didn't some southern state recently make (or attempt to make) lynchings illegal? You would think that it would fall under the category of murder but since it was Black's that were lynched in the past (hmmm, don't remember hearing any controversy over cattle rustlers being lynched in the past) it must be neccessary to address this 'hate crime' issue.

Wow, different sentencing guidlines depending on the social status of the victim and the perpetrator. Let's see, was it a white killing a black? A black killing a gay? Maybe a hispanic killing a cop? Whoa, triple death sentence for that one I'm sure.

I don't want to see, or have my kids see, 'I'm Gay' t-shirts anymore than I want them to see 'I Like P.ussy' t-shirts.

Gay marriage? Another, apparently neccessary, legal construct. They just want the same alimony and inheritance protections the other lemmings got with their stamp-of-approval from another legal construct that's found value in selling pieces of paper for well more than the original investment.

Here it is honey, I have state approval to tear off your clothes and phuk the sheet out of you unless you say no sometime before I climax. Gee, I could have done that before and saved a few bucks.

So now the gay lemmings want the same scam pulled onthem that the straight lemming have.

F* the state, the lawyers, the career politicians (actually they fall under the 'lawyers' category) and the tons of bs constructs. Common law only asks that you not infringe on the rights of others. Do no harm to others. Others meaning persons, physical persons. Legal persons are bs, like states or corporations.

Smoke a joint, bang someone the same sex as you, whatever. Keep it out of my face and I'll keep my stuff out of yours.

lada
06-18-2005, 05:47 PM
Greetings..

There is an interesting variable in the asymetry observation.. if, and it's a big if, there is a correlation between asymetry and gay.. the question arises, does one develop asymetry due to being gay, or.. does pre-existing asymetry lend itself to gay choices due to perceived differences.. like the coffee drinkers having a lower incidence of prostrate cancer.. does the coffee inhibit the cancer.. or, does having a lower risk of prostrate cancer enhance the desire for coffee?.. in either case, there is a prejudicial quality here that i find inappropriate.. that, upon observation, asymetry could prejudice someone's beliefs about another's lifestyle.. regardless of actuallity..

Lada's rhetoric is consistent with so much other fundamentalist propaganda, that it is discounted without due consideration.. but, upon due consideration, it is clear that there are agendas not consistent with harmonious co-existence among peoples of differing beliefs..

Postural asymetry is observable in everyone in varying degrees.. so, the decisive issue would be the subjective observation of at which degree does the asymetric postural condition become indicative of gay tendencies.. but, i sense we are being trolled and further response only feeds the troll.. no rational mind can logically support this contrived theory.. it is assigning traits to a particular set of standards that are, by no means, conclusive or consistent.. i sense that Lada thrives on controversy, and this subject creates the controversy.. regardless of merit.. "Undeniable truth"? Hardly! i deny it, and can support that with science.. "descending spirit", would be an accurate description of someone that would introduce such nonsense into a rational discussion.. further attention to Lada's ill-intended posts advance no cause worthy of this forum..

Be well...


You sense that I thrive on controversy? Did you do that while levitating in mid air? Thanks for the laugh. My face is hurting.

I was with you up until you said the fundamentalist and troll stuff. I am surprised at you TaiChiBob. Are you demonstrating your Tai Chi here? I could swear that you were on the side of gay was not healthy or proper. Suddenly you see you are the odd man out in the crowd. Then I present an unpopular opinion. You turn and realign yourself with the group by joining them in castigating me. Now you are one of them. They have forgotten that you were saying similar things that I am saying. They never saw you turn and switch sides. Isn't it easy to manipulate people when you know kung fu?

Yes it is true that there are other causes for bodily asymmetry. A person can be born this way. Many children will display asymmetry. Becoming balanced only when they begin to mature.

Can asymmetry lead a person to gayness? - Yes.

Can gayness cause asymmetry? - Yes or it exacerbates the condition.

No rational mind can logically conceive this theory? That is only because your mind is stuck in Western thought, or you are still trying to convince the gang you are one of them and not against them. If we could have a slow, plodding, methodical conversation where people looked at evidence and judged it, we could settle this in a week. Instead people just want to do all this talking about who I am personally and what I think. It is that mental programming they put out on the TV. Never debate an issue with a person, always attack them personally.

You know TaiChi Bob. I respected you. I read your posts in other forums. You seemed thoughtful and considerate. You are just another blow hard. I can't believe that you really said this

"descending spirit", would be an accurate description of someone that would introduce such nonsense into a rational discussion.. further attention to Lada's ill-intended posts advance no cause worthy of this forum.."

That tells me immediately you don't know real kung fu. It would never happen because he would not react to you. This man would kill you. Easily. Or he would make you his slave. You are an ant to this man whom you so cavilierly dismiss as speaking nonsense. Your disrespect is making my stomach churn.

You have no clue Bob. Someone should remove the Tai Chi moniker from your name. You are a poseur.

sean_stonehart
06-18-2005, 08:02 PM
Most of our lives seem to revolve around legal constructs (D.amn lawyers, sorry JP). Lawyers write the laws that determine what we can and cannot do, how we can behave, what we can eat, drink, sniff, snort, smoke, read, and now even think. When you do something legally 'wrong' you get to face your accuser, another legal construct called the 'state'. No, the people don't decide, unless a politician is afraid he won't get re-elected. The Supreme Court just kicked the States in the nuts (what 10th Amendment?) on the medical marijuana issue even though the majority of 'the people' made their decision known (see, they just say it's a democracy). Sorry, going off on a tangent.

F* the state, the lawyers, the career politicians (actually they fall under the 'lawyers' category) and the tons of bs constructs. Common law only asks that you not infringe on the rights of others. Do no harm to others. Others meaning persons, physical persons. Legal persons are bs, like states or corporations.

Smoke a joint, bang someone the same sex as you, whatever. Keep it out of my face and I'll keep my stuff out of yours.

OG,

No apologies necessary. I have thick skin even if I disagree with you legal analysis on the recent California case. All it said was that the state law authorizing medical mj didn't invalidate the federal law banning it (based upon the commerce clause in Article I). I doubt that anyone will be prosecuted federally for "using" mj (traditionally they haven't anyway--not federally), just dealing it in bulk. So smoke away CA. And quit blaming the lawyers. Lawyers wrote the law legalizing it too you know. :D

Signed JP in Atlanta.

KC Elbows
06-18-2005, 09:25 PM
Okay, hate to reply to trolling, especially when it's an older member's troll id who cleaerly recognizes me, but anyway, lada responded to one post by beginning



This constant reference to fear sticks in my craw. It is not fear.



Then put forward a theory that I ascribed to fear, and he responded



A fear of being dominated is part of being a man


Now, given that your response confirmed it was fear, lada, shouldn't you defer to the poster who said it was your fear that drove your post?

[patiently waits for hell to freeze over]

To Judge's Pen:

your posts on this have been reassuring. Aside from my folks, I often despair of the moral convictions of christians. You have proven to join them in being a pleasant exception, and considering your proximity to my folks, I wonder if you may know them. Are you catholic?

anton
06-18-2005, 11:16 PM
A friend of mine lost a testicle to cancer. This has caused an asymetry in his body... I am afraid that this will inevitably cause him to become gay, which will in turn exacerbate the condition so the remaining testicle will grow to such monstorous proportions that his skeletal structure will no longer be able to support its weight... Later the sheer amount of blood required for the testis horribilis will rob his brain of oxygen, leading to his sad demise (whereupon he will surely go to hell for his mortal sin). Tell me Lada, should I remove the remaining testicle while he sleeps to prevent these catastrophic events from befalling him?

This is all clearly observable. Some of you narrow minded people will never b able to appreciate my friend's predicament nor understand the principles that prove it is inevitable unless I intervene. You are as Chuang Tzu's frog living in a well, incapable of comprehending the Tao. Cjkurapt can understand us but not join us he is as Odysseus sailing between Scylla and Charibdis. The rest of you are stuck in viewpoints constructed by your Western upbringing with its "science", "common sense" and "reality". Me and my friend lada are free from the restrictions of reality - we live well outside its stifling confines, a place I call La-da-land.

KC Elbows
06-18-2005, 11:19 PM
A friend of mine lost a testicle to cancer. This has caused an asymetry in his body... I am afraid that this will inevitably cause him to become gay, which will in turn exacerbate the condition so the remaining testicle will grow to such monstorous proportions that his skeletal structure will no longer be able to support its weight... Later the sheer amount of blood required for the testis horribilis will rob his brain of oxygen, leading to his sad demise (whereupon he will surely go to hell for his mortal sin). Tell me Lada, should I remove the remaining testicle while he sleeps to prevent these catastrophic events from befalling him?

This is all clearly observable. Some of you narrow minded people will never b able to appreciate my friend's predicament nor understand the principles that prove it is inevitable unless I intervene. You are as Chuang Tzu's frog living in a well, incapable of comprehending the Tao. Cjkurapt can understand us but not join us he is as Odysseus sailing between Scylla and Charibdis. The rest of you are stuck in viewpoints constructed by your Western upbringing with its "science", "common sense" and "reality". Me and my friend lada are free from the restrictions of reality - we live well outside its stifling confines, a place I call La-da-land.

If my third nipple is in the middle, am I straight?

anton
06-18-2005, 11:22 PM
If my third nipple is in the middle, am I straight?

Depends on the color. Consult master lada. He is a master of symmetry... I am merely a master baiter.




:confused:


I'm starting to frighten even myself.... is ignorance infectious? :eek:

KC Elbows
06-18-2005, 11:34 PM
It's black.

TaiChiBob
06-19-2005, 09:03 AM
Greetings..

cjurakpt:
I mean, look what it did to poor TC Bob: made him go completely bonkers and start having the same opinion as me! What's next? Well, the therapy is beginning to work.. the Shaman says i will likely return to normal TCB sometime this millenium.. but, he is very concerned that the asymetry (736 hairs in my left eyebrow vs. 741 in my right) could bode horribly for my sexual orientation.. he suspects that my current preference for tall leggy Nordic ladies may descend to a preference for diminutive but well endowed Island women.. i am horrified at the news, but.. as i understand it, such is the will of "God".. so, i will try to control my grief and accept my asymetric fate with resolve.. "Oh!! the inhumanity of it"..

Be well..

lada
06-19-2005, 09:52 AM
Greetings..

cjurakpt: Well, the therapy is beginning to work.. the Shaman says i will likely return to normal TCB sometime this millenium.. but, he is very concerned that the asymetry (736 hairs in my left eyebrow vs. 741 in my right) could bode horribly for my sexual orientation.. he suspects that my current preference for tall leggy Nordic ladies may descend to a preference for diminutive but well endowed Island women.. i am horrified at the news, but.. as i understand it, such is the will of "God".. so, i will try to control my grief and accept my asymetric fate with resolve.. "Oh!! the inhumanity of it"..

Be well..

Bob. You can't believe the satisfaction I feel. There is nothing that makes me feel more triumphant than exposing poseurs.

You are trashing me. You are trashing my knowledge. You tell people you are a Tai Chi master so they should beleive you over me.

Since you want to take that route, I must destroy you. To be honest, I am going to enjoy it. You insulted my teacher and you will pay for that.

You claim to be a Tai Chi master that knows more than I do. If that is true, then you are an insightful person who can make judgements about people based on a picture of them and nothing more.

Bob, prove what you say. Let's cut the crap. You look at this photo and present us with your analysis of it. Using that superior Tai Chi knowledge of yours that puts me to shame. Go on and do it you incompetent poseur. Show us what you got.

http://www.happeh.com/Images/ComeOnBob.jpg

You should know that I have already done this to many other "experts" such as yourself. And each one of them has gone down in flames. No one will ever respect those men again because I irrefutably proved that I know what I am talking about and they were nothing more than aggressive blowhards. The flock they had collected around them with their lies fluttered away once I exposed them.

Prepare to lose your flock Bob. You are going down.

KC Elbows
06-19-2005, 10:08 AM
Bob. You can't believe the satisfaction I feel. There is nothing that makes me feel more triumphant than exposing poseurs.

You are trashing me. You are trashing my knowledge. You tell people you are a Tai Chi master so they should beleive you over me.

Since you want to take that route, I must destroy you. To be honest, I am going to enjoy it. You insulted my teacher and you will pay for that.

You claim to be a Tai Chi master that knows more than I do. If that is true, then you are an insightful person who can make judgements about people based on a picture of them and nothing more.

Bob, prove what you say. Let's cut the crap. You look at this photo and present us with your analysis of it. Using that superior Tai Chi knowledge of yours that puts me to shame. Go on and do it you incompetent poseur. Show us what you got.

http://www.happeh.com/Images/ComeOnBob.jpg

You should know that I have already done this to many other "experts" such as yourself. And each one of them has gone down in flames. No one will ever respect those men again because I irrefutably proved that I know what I am talking about and they were nothing more than aggressive blowhards. The flock they had collected around them with their lies fluttered away once I exposed them.

Prepare to lose your flock Bob. You are going down.


Speaking of a gay inducing imbalance.

TaiChiBob
06-19-2005, 10:11 AM
Greetings..

Lada:

That tells me immediately you don't know real kung fu. It would never happen because he would not react to you. This man would kill you. Easily. Or he would make you his slave. You are an ant to this man whom you so cavilierly dismiss as speaking nonsense. Your disrespect is making my stomach churn. Though you may have some fondness for "This man", you know nothing of me or my ways, be careful in your own dismissiveness.. the "descending spirit" comment is directly intended toward you and the rubbish you have posted..
You have no clue Bob. Someone should remove the Tai Chi moniker from your name. You are a poseur. LADA, the door is open.. do feel free to enter, remove my "moniker" or test my Kung Fu..
Then I present an unpopular opinion. You turn and realign yourself with the group by joining them in castigating me. Now you are one of them. They have forgotten that you were saying similar things that I am saying. They never saw you turn and switch sides. Isn't it easy to manipulate people when you know kung fu? I respond according to my own beliefs, peer pressure or popularity has no bearing on my responses, as most here will attest to.. You bring religion to the table and baseless observations that can be manipulated to support any number of conclusions and expect me/us to agree? not so.. For the most part, this forum expects rational and supportable dialogue..

And, just to be clear, i will state my personal opinion.. First, i take no issue with someone's chosen lifestyle, as long as it advances no harm.. Second, that each action or deed or belief we express is a choice we make.. we choose who we are.. we can abdicate this remarkable gift, and accept "genetic fate", or "inherent inclinations", or.. we can choose to be that which is in harmony with nature.. i know this will bring some heat, but.. i have been witness to some remarkable transformations of people that chose to change themselves, to make themselves better (by whatever standards they held).. and the results assure me that the power to change every aspect of our existence is as inherent as anything else.. i take no "sides" on the gay issue, i only state my opinions and they fall wherever they may.. you, asserting something so arbitrary as asymetry being a gay factor just happens to fall in the trash.. statistically, i could contrive many scenarios attributing asymetry to whatever arguement supported my beliefs.. in my first Statistical Logic class the professor said, first, you have to know what you "want" the numbers to say.. then, choose the model that best states it..

I can assure this, Lada, given a week of face to face dialogue.. your religion would crumble in the face of truth.. your prejudices of gays would wither in the face of harmony and compassion.. and, you would find i am a "slave" to no man or woman.. and, you would know the liklihood of such a situation is inconceivable.. i am of the school that would exercise its self-determination in the face of slavery "the old way", by my own hand.. Lada, do be careful when venturing into unknown territory, the "old ways" are still alive..

Be well..

KC Elbows
06-19-2005, 10:18 AM
Lada, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but it appears that the spark is gone for you and Kim Jong Il. Sure, you've got that desparate happy face going on, you're telling yourself nothing's wrong, he's the love of my life, but look at the look on his face, man! He's unhappy, he wants what you can never give him: hot latin love.

TaiChiBob
06-19-2005, 10:32 AM
Greetings..

Lada: First, the post requesting me to interpret a photo was posted while i was typing my last post.. i had not seen it, prior to my last post..

Now, please find any incidence where i have ever claimed to be a "master", you can't.. i have'nt.. This is typical of your type, you say things without any supportable evidence.. you contrive baseless arguements in your feeble mind..

Now, i will interpret the photograph.. i see two people, dressed differently, standing inside a building.. beyond that, i have no experience with the people or the building from which to make assessments..

I must destroy you. To be honest, I am going to enjoy it. You insulted my teacher and you will pay for that.
Prepare to lose your flock Bob. You are going down. LOL.. would someone please refill this moron's prescriptions.. i did not insult your teacher, your teacher insults themself, by tolerating you.. by the way, exactly who is your teacher.. Oh, i have no "flock" to lose, another lame assumption.. so, as i said in my last post, the door is open.. make the journey..

Be well..

unkokusai
06-19-2005, 10:41 AM
Greetings..

Lada:
Though you may have some fondness for "This man", you know nothing of me or my ways, be careful in your own dismissiveness.. the "descending spirit" comment is directly intended toward you and the rubbish you have posted.. LADA, the door is open.. do feel free to enter, remove my "moniker" or test my Kung Fu.. I respond according to my own beliefs, peer pressure or popularity has no bearing on my responses, as most here will attest to.. You bring religion to the table and baseless observations that can be manipulated to support any number of conclusions and expect me/us to agree? not so.. For the most part, this forum expects rational and supportable dialogue..

And, just to be clear, i will state my personal opinion.. First, i take no issue with someone's chosen lifestyle, as long as it advances no harm.. Second, that each action or deed or belief we express is a choice we make.. we choose who we are.. we can abdicate this remarkable gift, and accept "genetic fate", or "inherent inclinations", or.. we can choose to be that which is in harmony with nature.. i know this will bring some heat, but.. i have been witness to some remarkable transformations of people that chose to change themselves, to make themselves better (by whatever standards they held).. and the results assure me that the power to change every aspect of our existence is as inherent as anything else.. i take no "sides" on the gay issue, i only state my opinions and they fall wherever they may.. you, asserting something so arbitrary as asymetry being a gay factor just happens to fall in the trash.. statistically, i could contrive many scenarios attributing asymetry to whatever arguement supported my beliefs.. in my first Statistical Logic class the professor said, first, you have to know what you "want" the numbers to say.. then, choose the model that best states it..

I can assure this, Lada, given a week of face to face dialogue.. your religion would crumble in the face of truth.. your prejudices of gays would wither in the face of harmony and compassion.. and, you would find i am a "slave" to no man or woman.. and, you would know the liklihood of such a situation is inconceivable.. i am of the school that would exercise its self-determination in the face of slavery "the old way", by my own hand.. Lada, do be careful when venturing into unknown territory, the "old ways" are still alive..

Be well..

For goodness sake man, why are you taking this loon seriously enough to reply in such a manner? You know that's what he wants. He's in the 'home' wearing a straight jacket (get it?), rocking back and forth typing with his nose, and giggling with glee at the attention. This nut is worth no other use of your time than outright ridicule. Have fun with that and leave it at that.

TaiChiBob
06-19-2005, 10:48 AM
Greetings..

unkokusai: I agree, but.. this is too much fun.. i'm curious as to just how much nonsense this person can dredge up.. Oh, the "straight" jacket thing got a good laugh.. nice pun!

Be well..

Christopher M
06-19-2005, 12:22 PM
As an ideal statement, this "ought" is solid, but because the "is" of current law renders the entirety moot, one needs to explore further for practical reasons.

Or change the "is" -- that is, the state's role in marriage. Which is being done anyway, so my solution doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.


Even the latter half of the statement has problems currently.

I'm not sure that what you describe is a problem with the statement, so much as simply a case of people disagreeing with the statement (and hence, precisely why the statement needs to be made).

Judge Pen
06-19-2005, 01:23 PM
To Judge's Pen:

your posts on this have been reassuring. Aside from my folks, I often despair of the moral convictions of christians. You have proven to join them in being a pleasant exception, and considering your proximity to my folks, I wonder if you may know them. Are you catholic?

Nope. I'm protestant (I try to not get too hung up on denominations), but I dont' go to church much anymore. Where are your folks?

anton
06-19-2005, 06:17 PM
www.happeh.com
www.angry*****.org

Truly this person lives so far from the constraints of reality that he has lost a grip on reality and no longer knows what it is... this is true enlightenment. Watch the "twirling ***** video" to understand more! Rmember twirling umbrellas can harm your body as can masturbating with one arm held out sideways. This could cause your member to turn into a stripey or checked spinning appendage which is clearly harmful to yourbody. HEED MY WARNING!


Anyone up for a game of Serious Sam 2?




:D :D :D :D :D

anton
06-19-2005, 06:23 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (http://www.happeh.com/Videos/BaggyPantsCompleteSmall.avi)

Shaolinlueb
06-19-2005, 06:33 PM
i dont see why you people are so in an uproar about the catholic church not moving ahead. when have they really moved ahead? in the bible it states the burning of sodam and gomora. so if hes a strict old school catholic thats what happens. no big deal. idealist's should expect the catholic church to be stubborn in the old ways. heck im surprised they stopped charging people for confessionals.

Christopher M
06-19-2005, 07:51 PM
in the bible it states the burning of sodam and gomora. so if hes a strict old school catholic thats what happens. no big deal.

Not really: if he's an old school Catholic, he believes that Jesus' teaching ended the moral code of the Old Testament, from which you draw your example.

Americans tend to misunderstand Catholicism and attribute to it alot of Protestant beliefs, since Protestantism is the Christian religion most familiar to them.

ZIM
06-19-2005, 08:55 PM
Americans tend to misunderstand Catholicism and attribute to it alot of Protestant beliefs, since Protestantism is the Christian religion most familiar to them.True. Catholicism is it's own thing, coming from a different cultural wellspring, in a sense. There's a school of thought saying that, basically, Protestantism is a kind of "Judaising heresy", while the story of the modern Catholics is bound up with responses to the humanism of the Rennaisance & the Enlightenment.
Whatever the case may finally be, the RCs are far more open to things like evolution [for example] than some branches of Protestants, yet they're still tarred with the same anti-science brush.

I hadn't answered you previously:
I can see your point re: making the statement because my example was one where people were violating the case.

I've been in communications since with a Canadian friend. He's pointed out that in Canada taxes are directly levied to support religious institutions, which gives that particular issue an entirely different wrinkle for me.
Here, doing so would be tatamount to Establishment, expressly forbidden under the Constitution [as I'm sure you're aware]. I don't think I'd use public monies as a means to influence a church's beliefs [that violates religious freedom] but instead I'd work - instinctively - for the abolishment of all religious subsidies.
Its telling, I suppose, that the notion hadn't even occured to me & it actually made me reconsider Canada's modernity for a brief moment [absurd, I know]. I thought that sort of thing stopped long ago.

Christopher M
06-19-2005, 09:24 PM
There's a school of thought saying that, basically, Protestantism is a kind of "Judaising heresy"...

Yes. I'm not sure if that would even be contentious, since the Protestant support for Judaizing is generally explicit.


while the story of the modern Catholics is bound up with responses to the humanism of the Rennaisance & the Enlightenment.

And to Protestantism. Although if we go further back, we could say also there's a school of thought saying that, basically, Romanism (Catholicism+Protestantism) is a kind of scholastic/juridicial heresy.


the RCs are far more open to things like evolution [for example] than some branches of Protestants

Yes. I think this is firstly because the former don't adopt scriptural literalism, and secondly because they don't conceive of 'faith' as the belief in a premise without or in spite of reason, and hence do not juxtapose reason and faith. These two issues relate to the two central debates of the Reformation: hermeneutical (Sola Scriptura) and soteriological (Sola Fide).


yet they're still tarred with the same anti-science brush.

In American culture -- from which an understanding of Catholicism is problematic, I think, firstly because there is an identity of Protestantism specifically and Christianity generally, as a result of the former's cultural majority; secondly because of the American heritage of anti-Catholicism; and thirdly from a secular tradition of anti-Christianity which confounds these points.


I hadn't answered you previously...

I think what we're getting at here is that the attitudes I described are not easily contained within the single question of gay marriage, but rather consider broader themes concerning the government's role and how to administer it. This is true, and I must admit complicates implementation quite a bit. On the other hand, I don't think this is a counter-argument. To the contrary, I think this suggests that many of the political problems we face are not the single-issues that they appear, but rather are symptoms of problems in the underlying political structure. This suggests that we need to change that structure, rather than applying progressive layers of superficial single-issue fixes, which will inevitably only result in more problems appearing elsewhere. (</psychoanalyst>)

ZIM
06-19-2005, 10:29 PM
To the contrary, I think this suggests that many of the political problems we face are not the single-issues that they appear, but rather are symptoms of problems in the underlying political structure. Problem is, the solutions proferred seem to be only "more laws" & "more socialism" when it appears you need less of both.
One may argue the latter one, but in a law-abiding society, laws are walls. Too many and you build yourselves a prison. I think the English have done as much in regards to self-defense, unfortunately. They've banned guns, now they're considering banning pointed kitchen knives. Next: Pointed sticks - which means defense against attacks with fresh fruit really will be taught....

Christopher M
06-19-2005, 11:16 PM
The solutions preferred?

Yes -- that's exactly the problem. ;)

The second-order problem, in light of this fact, is deciding whether to stick to our guns on the whole grassroots democracy thing, or start considering benign dictatorship. :D

lada
06-20-2005, 05:48 PM
N
BTW, I've insulted you fr more often than TC Bob, but have not been given nearly as much attention - no one has threatened to de-flock me or remove any lettters from my name - what gives? my insults not excoriating enough for you? Why does Bob get all the attention? Or is this an example of asymmetry (e.g - Bob = big testicle, Chris = little testicle, etc. etc.)?

Anyway, when are you going to go away?


You want it to much. You are like a woman wanting sex. It is good to let you stew for awhile so you get all hot and bothered for me.

lada
06-20-2005, 05:55 PM
For goodness sake man, why are you taking this loon seriously enough to reply in such a manner? You know that's what he wants. He's in the 'home' wearing a straight jacket (get it?), rocking back and forth typing with his nose, and giggling with glee at the attention. This nut is worth no other use of your time than outright ridicule. Have fun with that and leave it at that.

Hey Bob? You might want to be careful agreeing with this person. He is not a nice man.

He follows me around to various forums where he eggs on/deceives the forums people to ban me. He sends me private messages full of filthy talk. Over at one forums he is part of a gang of bullies that pick on everyone, including the women posters. One woman wrote me a message describing how this man had been at the forums for a least a year abusing the other members. The forum mods would do nothing about it because he was their friend.

People judge you by your friends. Agreeing with this person is going to make you as popular as walking around covered with fecal matter.

lada
06-20-2005, 06:10 PM
Now, please find any incidence where i have ever claimed to be a "master", you can't.. i have'nt.. This is typical of your type, you say things without any supportable evidence.. you contrive baseless arguements in your feeble mind..

Now, i will interpret the photograph.. i see two people, dressed differently, standing inside a building.. beyond that, i have no experience with the people or the building from which to make assessments..
LOL.. would someone please refill this moron's prescriptions.. i did not insult your teacher, your teacher insults themself, by tolerating you.. by the way, exactly who is your teacher.. Oh, i have no "flock" to lose, another lame assumption.. so, as i said in my last post, the door is open.. make the journey..

Be well..


My point is proven.

The magnificently informed Bob has said that my talk about symmetry being related to gay or masturbation or other physical problems is a bunch of nonsense.

Yet Bob, who puts the name Tai Chi before his name like he knows something about Tai Chi, can not proffer the smallest insight into the picture that I posted.

So Bob. Let me spell this out real slow. You don't know Tai Chi. If you did, you would have an intuitive understanding of body language. A person with an understanding of body language can make a very concrete observation about that photo.

You are a poseur and a loudmouth. You don't know what you are talking about. I have proven it so I no longer need to address anything you say. You are like the small child that wants to talk about kung fu to the adults. We humor you because we are nice. We even act like we agree with you to make you happy.

All you had to do was make any kind of statement at all. Any kind of insight at all. Anything. But instead you took the pusillanimous route of "I can't tell anything blah blah". You are like the guy that says let's fight, then when it is time to fight, he has an injury.

You are nothing. You deserve no respect. I was only angry with you because I thought you really new kung fu. I thought you owned a pair of testicles and would be courageous enough to either say you didn't know or make a wild guess.

For anyone that wonders about the photo, it buttresses my claims of gay and masturbation affecting people negatively. Ask Bob or Unkokusai or Cjk or any of the other experienced martial artists to explain it. Anyone with knowledge of body language should have no problem at all in explaining what is going on. If you know kung fu, but you don't know how to read body language, I have doubts about how much you have learned. How skilled you really are.

TaiChiBob
06-21-2005, 05:19 AM
Greetings..

Lada: There you have it.. you seem to have some personal knowledge of the people in the photo.. otherwise, you are no better than any other prejudiced right-wing neo-conservatives that tag people with labels but have no knowledge of their actual beliefs or lifestyle.. Now, to be sure, you argue too vociferously, as if to to deflect attention away from your own asymetry..

I am a student of Taiji, i assist those that have less experience or less acquired knowledge than i.. the name i use here was given to me by my mentor, GM Chan Pui, and most locals know me by this "moniker".. i have never claimed any mastery, as you wrongfully assert.. that seems to be your style, asserting unsupported claims.. you have been asked to tell me who your teacher is, why don't you answer? perhaps you fear embarassing your teacher..
You are a poseur and a loudmouth. You don't know what you are talking about. I have proven it so I no longer need to address anything you say. How convenient, when you have proven nothing.. do you even know the requirements for a "proof".. you have no proof of your claims.. provide any scientific study linking asymetry to sexual orientation, please.. provide any scientific study that describes how to interpret asymetric features to sexual orientation, you can't.. You say you will dstroy me, how? You won't..
Let me spell this out real slow. You don't know Tai Chi. If you did, you would have an intuitive understanding of body language. A person with an understanding of body language can make a very concrete observation about that photo. Hmmm.. none of my mentors, and they are among the most widely publicized and authoratative mentors around, have ever taught about interpreting body symetry relating to sexual orientation.. i suggest that those that do have their own latent issues they are dealing with.. you suggest that there should be an "intuitive understanding" of a photograph, hogwash!!! i rely on personal knowledge before asserting matters of such importance regarding the character of someone.. You claim i don't know Taiji, my credentials are a matter of public record.. and yours are what? Demonstrate anything other than the BS you have thus far posted, give us some supportable data that might indicate you have the slightest clue of that which you speak.. you are a disgrace to the arts and to humanity in general, do the honorable thing and remove your objectionable presence from this forum. I don't care who you were, it is who you are representing yourself now that is an offense to rational adults in general, and to CMA in particluar..

unkokusai
06-21-2005, 06:24 AM
He follows me around to various forums where he eggs on/deceives the forums people to ban me. .


Yeah, that's it. It has nothing to do with your lopsided testicle, pointy-toed, cartoon-fu, racist, utterly ridiculous bullsh!t :rolleyes:

What's more, you want to be banned. That's what you have done elsewhere and are trying to do here. Your own little martyr complex. You know that you are completely ignorant of anything having to do with MA and you can only keep this little "I"m angry" drama going for so long, so you are desperate for a way to go out in a blaze of 'glory'.

Just go.