[John Q. Smith]

well, if there are "so many" things that you do which are wrong, then aren't you leading a sinful lifestyle as well?

[Bluebomber21XX]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
well, if there are "so many" things that you do which are wrong, then aren't you leading a sinful lifestyle as well?

Everyone on Earth except for Jesus is/was living a sinful lifestyle.

The question is, what are you going to do about it? Accept it and move on, or repent and ask to be saved?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Bluebomber21XX:
Everyone on Earth except for Jesus is/was living a sinful lifestyle.

The question is, what are you going to do about it? Accept it and move on, or repent and ask to be saved?

That's a good question for religious people to ask themselves. But it doesn't justify this:

Originally posted by Bluebomber21XX:
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with the majority of you in this thread that condone homosexuality.

And before you pro-homo zealots start flaming me, I am 100% hetero in a very fulfilling STRAIGHT relationship.

Kids do not need to be taught that gays are "ok" or normal. It's a deviant lifestyle, that is NOT okay. Sorry, but someone has to say it. Gays aren't normal.

Whether you think that it's a hormonal imbalance, a choice, a preference, or they just don't have enough game to attract members of the opposite sex, its your call. In any case, it's wrong, and I for one, am GLAD our kids in America aren't force-fed this crap.

Don't get me wrong, however. I don't go around fag-bashing, or trying to interrupt the lives of homos. I don't beat up gays, or yell names when I see some flaming queer walking down the street in San Francisco. They can do whatever they want. I'm not the one that has to live that screwed up lifestyle. But just because not everyone agrees with the way they act doesn't make us heterosexuals wrong.

I'm sure someone is going to call me "intolerant" or "homophobic" or worse just because I can't see what is normal about a dude banging another dude. It's just not right.

It's sad because whenever someone like myself has the cojones to actually speak about how gays aren't normal and why we shouldn't be giving these social deviants rights such as letting them get married and adopting kids (which is a wholly different topic for another thread), I am decried as nontolerant.

BULLSHlT. I believe in God's word and the Bible. Homosexuality is wrong, and if you are gay and reading this, you need to check yourself into a hospital and get treatment to turn back into a normal member of society.

Nor is any of this kind of extremly abusive attitude likely to lead to anyone repenting. Foaming at the mouth rants aren't very persuasive.

[Monique]

Now I do not know of any British 11 years old who are illeterate. And it is a wonderful thing to teach that gay people are not very different from the rest of us. All they want is a good job, a partner that will love and respect them, and basic right that most heterosexual take for granted.

And also, the education in the U.K. is far more superior than anywhere in the United States and Canada and much more opened to new ideas.

Isn't it funny that the U.S. and Canada are supposed to be the new countries opened to new ideas, respecting others whoever you are or you come from. And it is in Europe that you find these ideals in full bloom.

Guess the world is upside down.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Monique:
Now I do not know of any British 11 years old who are illeterate.

That wouldn't have anything to do with not actually being in Britain, would it?

Originally posted by Monique:
And also, the education in the U.K. is far more superior than anywhere in the United States and Canada

Ahahahahahahaha.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
That one's easy.
You must like everyone. If you don't you must have an irrational fear of them. "Everything's good", as they say.
It's simple linguistic mind programming by the lefties (note that the homosexualists aren't to be classed as lefties - as Simey demonstrates - although the term homophobe was probably first coined by a leftie thinking it her duty to defend the minority).
Another recent example would be "Islamophobe" - coined by the lefties yet again - for anyone who doesn't like the mohammedans.

You are so wrong. You projects your fears on homosexuals, foreigners, muslims: you are an homophobe, a xenophobe, an islamophobe - no matter how you put it.

You said here earlier that you would like to see demonstrators shot, among other niceties - it leaves no doubts about your fascistic tendencies, so why the fuss about admitting it?

You don't have to like homosexuals or any other minority/category of people, what they are, what they do or what they look like. But when you dislike them because of that, and wish them away, you are projecting your fears onto them.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
You are so wrong. You projects your fears on homosexuals, foreigners, muslims: you are an homophobe, a xenophobe, an islamophobe - no matter how you put it.

Wrong.
Of course, if you hadn't have taken only the first part of the post we'd be looking from a different angle, wouldn't we.

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
You said here earlier that you would like to see demonstrators shot, among other niceties - it leaves no doubts about your fascistic tendencies, so why the fuss about admitting it?

Yep, I said protestors should be shot for being stupid. It was humour, based on the fact that protestors must be stupid if they think public protests change anything (a fact shown true by the not going to war in Iraq because a bunch of lefties walked through Washington/London).

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
You don't have to like homosexuals or any other minority/category of people, what they are, what they do or what they look like. But when you dislike them because of that, and wish them away, you are projecting your fears onto them.

My explanation stands. Assume it means something completely different to what was actually written if you wish. Your leftie-style attempts of accusing me of being *phobic simply because I stated a truth which lefties don't like to hear are futile.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Of course, if you hadn't have taken only the first part of the post we'd be looking from a different angle, wouldn't we.

No. Your tirade about B. Spears is nothing but a straw man. The contempt for gays, foreigners and muslims you express reveals your phobias clearly enough.

And I really can't understand this trend among extreme right-wingers on this board to make 'jokes' about killing people. It's not only unfunny, it's stupid and disgusting.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Bluebomber21XX:
KarlG, I do that every day. I'm always trying to better myself. I've got to ask, what is false about what I've said? The fact that you disagreee with my beliefs on gay people? There are others who have similar opinions as me and use far worse language than I have here. However, I apologize if my choice of words offends you or makes you come to the conclusion I have a fear of you. I'll try to be more "professional" in the words I'll use from now on.

I do find it humorous however that you mention MY "graphic language and sexual descriptions", and then from your own post here, I find this:



I'm not unable to distinguish between love and lust. This topic has nothing to do with a homosexual relationship that is lustful or loving. It's wrong either way.



Ambiguous, you say? They seem pretty concrete to me. Where shall I begin? How about we start with Romans and continue down the line? I have conveniently highlighted in red the Bible verses I spoke of earlier for your convenience. I suggest you read some of these instead of trying to condone homosexuality by a couple of books written by the above authors.

Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor-- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

This looks to me as if homosexual relationships, and adultery between heteros to be equally as repugnant.

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

The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word �effeminate� is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The �abusers of themselves with mankind� are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men � homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished � homosexuality. The quote is below, but let me know if you'd like more clarification on why S&G were taken out.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin?" Look, I don't hate anyone. I don't hate gays, either. Just because I post my beliefs and discuss how I feel them to be wrong (and back it up with actual reasons, not just writing "GAYS ARE TEH DUMB", or something equally stupid), doesn't mean I hate gay people. Nor am I "afraid" of them as some of you like to point out.

Gays are living a morally and socially (in most parts of the world) unacceptable lifestyle. I'm not here to judge them because that's not my job. God will love homosexuals even though they are gay and going against His word, just like He loves all sinners. It's part of our nature to sin, but it doesn't mean it's all over just because we are sinners. It's up to them to make a change for the better, and ask for forgiveness so they can change.

This is a great article on homosexuality and being able to change: http://www.probe.org/docs/ex-gay.html

Edit: Added Jude 1:7

I did not come to the conclusion that you have a fear of me, as I am straight, although it does not surprise me that you come to that conclusion, as you obviously can not fathom how anyone could defend something that's "just wrong". I do come to the conclusion that you have a fear of homosexuals. My posting of the graphic language was an attempt to illustrate how you, and others, typically reply to these discussions, and that really shows what's on your minds. For whatever reason, you're hung up on sexual issues, and can't (or more correctly, don't want to) look at more than one dimension of an issue.

If you read the books I referenced above (although I doubt you will, because "it's just wrong"), you would see where the bible verses you quote are easily rebutted, and explained in context, not in the convenient and simplistic ways the "religious" like to quickly point to. The Bible is a very complicated document, which has been transcribed into many languages, and interpreted many ways, by many people of many cultures, and as such, serves as a guide, not as a concrete manual. I know something about it as well; I've taught Sunday school and been very active in church affairs, in two different denominations.

Up until 30 years ago, it was still "just wrong" for interracial couples to marry in the State of Virginia, and there were people who could find passages in the Bible, including "educated" preachers, who would point that out.

Up until the beginning of the last century, it was "just wrong" for women to vote, and to be considered inferior to men, and, in many instances to be considered the property of men, and there were people who could find passages in the Bible, including ministers, who used those passages as ammunition for their discriminitary behavior.

Up until the late 1800s, there were many people who argued that it was "just wrong" to allow blacks the inalienable right of freedom, and who believed that blacks were nothing but property, to be sold, whipped, executed, or otherwise dealt with as they would with any other property they owned, including breaking up families, by selling members to whomever they pleased, without regard whatsoever for the emotional scarring these sales produced. There were people in the religious communities who could easily produce Biblical verse pointing out how correct they were in their assertions that blacks were nothing but property. For that matter, I do not doubt whatsoever that there are still people today who hold those beliefs, although thankfully (or should I say, hopefully) there aren't many.

Your link to evidence of people being "changed" from homosexuals to straights, offers one thing, and one thing only; anecdotes of a few individuals who, for whatever reason, had some emotional issues that were supposedly resolved by being "saved" from their "erroneous" ways. There is much more literature available to counteract the belief that being a homosexual is something you practice, as opposed it being what you are, and this is where I suspect you and I are going to part company, as you believe that being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, and I do not. I certainly don't remember at what point in my life I chose to be a heterosexual, and I know my daughter doesn't remember what point in her life at she chose to be a lesbian, nor do any of my gay friends remember when they "chose" to be gay. I suppose that perhaps, according to your view, one wakes up one day and says, "Gee, today looks like a good day to become a gay person, and put myself in the path of physical and emotional harm, for the rest of my life, from being ostracized from family and friends, forever. Yup, today is the day!" Most of the scientific and mental health community subscribe to the theory that there is at least some genetics involved, and, while I don't know with certainty, any more than you do, based on my studies of the issue, I subscribe to that belief.

You are entitled to your beliefs that homosexuality is "just wrong." No one can take your beliefs away. No government, however, can discriminate against those who are "different," when the actions and beliefs of those do no harm to anyone else.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
No. Your tirade about B. Spears is nothing but a straw man.

No. The term "straw man" was invented by people who can't actually think. My reference to Britney was integral to the meaning of that post.

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
The contempt for gays, foreigners and muslims you express reveals your phobias clearly enough.

Please show me where I express anything even approaching contempt for foreigners.

Come on, quote me - we'll see how solid your argument is.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I did not come to the conclusion that you have a fear of me, as I am straight, although it does not surprise me that you come to that conclusion, as you obviously can not fathom how anyone could defend something that's "just wrong". I do come to the conclusion that you have a fear of homosexuals. My posting of the graphic language was an attempt to illustrate how you, and others, typically reply to these discussions, and that really shows what's on your minds. For whatever reason, you're hung up on sexual issues, and can't (or more correctly, don't want to) look at more than one dimension of an issue.

If you read the books I referenced above (although I doubt you will, because "it's just wrong"), you would see where the bible verses you quote are easily rebutted, and explained in context, not in the convenient and simplistic ways the "religious" like to quickly point to. The Bible is a very complicated document, which has been transcribed into many languages, and interpreted many ways, by many people of many cultures, and as such, serves as a guide, not as a concrete manual. I know something about it as well; I've taught Sunday school and been very active in church affairs, in two different denominations.

Up until 30 years ago, it was still "just wrong" for interracial couples to marry in the State of Virginia, and there were people who could find passages in the Bible, including "educated" preachers, who would point that out.

Up until the beginning of the last century, it was "just wrong" for women to vote, and to be considered inferior to men, and, in many instances to be considered the property of men, and there were people who could find passages in the Bible, including ministers, who used those passages as ammunition for their discriminitary behavior.

Up until the late 1800s, there were many people who argued that it was "just wrong" to allow blacks the inalienable right of freedom, and who believed that blacks were nothing but property, to be sold, whipped, executed, or otherwise dealt with as they would with any other property they owned, including breaking up families, by selling members to whomever they pleased, without regard whatsoever for the emotional scarring these sales produced. There were people in the religious communities who could easily produce Biblical verse pointing out how correct they were in their assertions that blacks were nothing but property. For that matter, I do not doubt whatsoever that there are still people today who hold those beliefs, although thankfully (or should I say, hopefully) there aren't many.

Your link to evidence of people being "changed" from homosexuals to straights, offers one thing, and one thing only; anecdotes of a few individuals who, for whatever reason, had some emotional issues that were supposedly resolved by being "saved" from their "erroneous" ways. There is much more literature available to counteract the belief that being a homosexual is something you practice, as opposed it being what you are, and this is where I suspect you and I are going to part company, as you believe that being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, and I do not. I certainly don't remember at what point in my life I chose to be a heterosexual, and I know my daughter doesn't remember what point in her life at she chose to be a lesbian, nor do any of my gay friends remember when they "chose" to be gay. I suppose that perhaps, according to your view, one wakes up one day and says, "Gee, today looks like a good day to become a gay person, and put myself in the path of physical and emotional harm, for the rest of my life, from being ostracized from family and friends, forever. Yup, today is the day!" Most of the scientific and mental health community subscribe to the theory that there is at least some genetics involved, and, while I don't know with certainty, any more than you do, based on my studies of the issue, I subscribe to that belief.

You are entitled to your beliefs that homosexuality is "just wrong." No one can take your beliefs away. No government, however, can discriminate against those who are "different," when the actions and beliefs of those do no harm to anyone else.

well said.

[Bluebomber21XX]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I did not come to the conclusion that you have a fear of me, as I am straight, although it does not surprise me that you come to that conclusion, as you obviously can not fathom how anyone could defend something that's "just wrong". I do come to the conclusion that you have a fear of homosexuals. My posting of the graphic language was an attempt to illustrate how you, and others, typically reply to these discussions, and that really shows what's on your minds. For whatever reason, you're hung up on sexual issues, and can't (or more correctly, don't want to) look at more than one dimension of an issue.

I'm not "hung up on sexual issues", despite the fact that this whole debate's underlying theme has been sexuality. I don't have any problems with my sexuality nor a fear of anyone else's, I am merely telling why I feel that homosexuality is wrong, with Biblical references to back me up. I'd appreciate you stop calling me names that aren't true.

Originally posted by KarlG:
If you read the books I referenced above (although I doubt you will, because "it's just wrong"), you would see where the bible verses you quote are easily rebutted, and explained in context, not in the convenient and simplistic ways the "religious" like to quickly point to. The Bible is a very complicated document, which has been transcribed into many languages, and interpreted many ways, by many people of many cultures, and as such, serves as a guide, not as a concrete manual. I know something about it as well; I've taught Sunday school and been very active in church affairs, in two different denominations.

Good for you, glad to hear you're helping spread the word of Christ, even though we don't seem to agree on some points. I agree that the Bible is complicated, but I have yet to see any Scriptures that condone homosexual behavior. I have laid out 6 examples that condemn it however.

I am interested in reading about how the quotes I provided are "easily rebutted" by the book titles you've provided. I've done extensive research on this matter, and I've heard both sides of the story regarding those quotes. I have yet to see any evidence that was provided that would make the Biblical quotes "ambiguous", as you said earlier.

Please also explain to me how any of the quotes are taken out of context. I am not being sarcastic, and I would honestly like to hear why I am wrong with more solid examples than just telling me I am flat out wrong.

I also beg to differ with you that the Bible is nothing more than a guide. Do you believe the words of Jesus to be true? I would say that His words provide quite the concrete manual for living, both on Earth, and in Heaven. I'd venture to say it's the *only* concrete manual that exists. The word of God... how can that be refuted?

Originally posted by KarlG:
Up until 30 years ago, it was still "just wrong" for interracial couples to marry in the State of Virginia, and there were people who could find passages in the Bible, including "educated" preachers, who would point that out.

I don't agree that this law was just, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with this topic. I'd like to see some of these quotes if you have them handy.

Originally posted by KarlG:
Up until the beginning of the last century, it was "just wrong" for women to vote, and to be considered inferior to men, and, in many instances to be considered the property of men, and there were people who could find passages in the Bible, including ministers, who used those passages as ammunition for their discriminitary behavior.

I'm not talking about women's suffrage here, either. Again, another law I don't agree with, but it's unfair to lump me in with racists and sexists because ministers from days past used the Bible to justify their laws. I have nothing to do with them.

Originally posted by KarlG:
Up until the late 1800s, there were many people who argued that it was "just wrong" to allow blacks the inalienable right of freedom, and who believed that blacks were nothing but property, to be sold, whipped, executed, or otherwise dealt with as they would with any other property they owned, including breaking up families, by selling members to whomever they pleased, without regard whatsoever for the emotional scarring these sales produced. There were people in the religious communities who could easily produce Biblical verse pointing out how correct they were in their assertions that blacks were nothing but property. For that matter, I do not doubt whatsoever that there are still people today who hold those beliefs, although thankfully (or should I say, hopefully) there aren't many.

I have nothing to do with slavery, so please don't attempt to link me to such acts. I see the point you are hinting at: that people throughout history have mangled the Bible's words to suit their own purposes. I am not denying that. However, I have given 6 examples where the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts! I would really like to hear how these quotes were taken out of context.

Originally posted by KarlG:
Your link to evidence of people being "changed" from homosexuals to straights, offers one thing, and one thing only; anecdotes of a few individuals who, for whatever reason, had some emotional issues that were supposedly resolved by being "saved" from their "erroneous" ways. There is much more literature available to counteract the belief that being a homosexual is something you practice, as opposed it being what you are, and this is where I suspect you and I are going to part company, as you believe that being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, and I do not. I certainly don't remember at what point in my life I chose to be a heterosexual, and I know my daughter doesn't remember what point in her life at she chose to be a lesbian, nor do any of my gay friends remember when they "chose" to be gay. I suppose that perhaps, according to your view, one wakes up one day and says, "Gee, today looks like a good day to become a gay person, and put myself in the path of physical and emotional harm, for the rest of my life, from being ostracized from family and friends, forever. Yup, today is the day!" Most of the scientific and mental health community subscribe to the theory that there is at least some genetics involved, and, while I don't know with certainty, any more than you do, based on my studies of the issue, I subscribe to that belief.

You are entitled to your beliefs that homosexuality is "just wrong." No one can take your beliefs away. No government, however, can discriminate against those who are "different," when the actions and beliefs of those do no harm to anyone else.

I do like your theories on the genetics of being gay. I also agree with you that it is (partly, at least) a genetic defect. And it is partly a social defect, not being helped in the least by the fact that gays are now being accepted into society as being "normal". "Queer Eye", "Will and Grace" and other TV shows that seem to glorify ebing gay are part of the problem as well. I'm sure it confuses children to have to grow up in a society where people think that homosexual acts are normal or healthy behavior. I'm sure there are few that choose to be gay for whatever reason, but I still believe that gays can be helped regardless of any mental or physical abnormalities they may have.

[OldManMac]

I don't consider my daughter, or my friends who are gay, as being defective, and I never stated that it was a defect (those are your words, not mine); I consider their sexual orientation as being different than mine, but, other than that, they are 100% part of the human family, which is comprised of untold numbers of people who are different. I see no defects, nor am I in a position to judge that what someone else believes or practices is defective, unless it harms someone else, and my daughter's sexual activity with her partner doesn't harm (nor bother) me, nor anyone else. Some of us accept differences; some of us are bothered, for unfathomable reasons, what others believe and practice, when it should matter not to them.

The TV shows you reference are nothing but spoofs, and are not representative of the lives most gays live; Simey's already pointed that out. They are a handy argument for those who need quick ammunition to point to, by saying, "See, I told you these people are dangerous." You give the human race, and children, little credit in not being able to discern the difference between TV shows that are spoofs, and reality. Will and Grace never made anyone gay; I can assure you. No one is confused about their sexual orientation because of a television show. Will and Grace aren't telling anyone that what happens on their show is "healthy and normal." If anyone believes that, it isn't because they were convinced by a television show.

quote:
__________________________________________________ ____________________
I am interested in reading about how the quotes I provided are "easily rebutted" by the book titles you've provided. I've done extensive research on this matter, and I've heard both sides of the story regarding those quotes. I have yet to see any evidence that was provided that would make the Biblical quotes "ambiguous", as you said earlier.

Please also explain to me how any of the quotes are taken out of context. I am not being sarcastic, and I would honestly like to hear why I am wrong with more solid examples than just telling me I am flat out wrong.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

I gave you the titles of the books, both of which I've just read. These books will add to your extensive research, and will explain quite clearly why your quotes from the Bible were used out of context, as well as how they can be used to insinuate more than one position on the subject. Being the father of a gay daughter, and having more than a passing interest in psychology, I too have done extensive research, as well as having been directly affected by this issue. I also take the position that gays don't need my, or anyone else's help, and that I need to worry more about my physical and mental "abnormalities" than I do about someone else's. If it doesn't affect me, I don't concern myself with it. I am not the ultimate Judge.

[Bluebomber21XX]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I am not the ultimate Judge.

Indeed, and neither am I. I've said my piece, I'm done. It seems pointless to argue, because everyone is going to have their own opinions. It seems doubtful that anyone here arguing for either side is going to be convinced by the other side, so really, what's the point? John Q. made a good point earlier that maybe we all just need to be more like Jesus. I have to admit that I never read anywhere or Jesus condemning homos. It's not my call, I suppose. God has a plan for all of us, and I can't question that. I don't understand it, and I don't think I ever will, but there are bigger problems to worry about than gays.

I'll just leave the judgment to the one above us.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Monique:
And also, the education in the U.K. is far more superior than anywhere in the United States and Canada and much more opened to new ideas.

No, it really isn't.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No, it really isn't.

LBK, even though you are a blonde...good answer.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
LBK, even though you are a blonde...

Only in your dreams.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Dude, why are you being such a d!ck. LBK is NOT homophobic. All her questioning has not been about the "rightness" of teaching kids about homosexuality, they have been about the appropriateness of teaching it in a school setting as opposed to teaching it in the home.

Pay attention.

Word.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Kodachrome:
i.e. the above post: (which has now been editied somewhat)

Moderators, what are the guidelines on posting graphic sexual remarks?

Quit crying!

Someone posts a picture of ssome guy grabbing ghis pee-pee and you get mad because of my post? Ridiculous! Just another example of left wing hypocrisy.

[John Q. Smith]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No, it really isn't.

LBK, you neocons think that america is ALWAYS the best, and that bush is right about EVERYTHING. I think it's time to ease up on your jingoism and anti-gay prejudices

[dcolton]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
LBK, you neocons think that america is ALWAYS the best, and that bush is right about EVERYTHING. I think it's time to ease up on your jingoism and anti-gay prejudices

Leave lbk alone. She may have the incorrect political philosophy, but at least her moral compass points in the right direction.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
LBK, you neocons think that america is ALWAYS the best, and that bush is right about EVERYTHING. I think it's time to ease up on your jingoism and anti-gay prejudices

You're an idiot.

LBK saying that British education "really isn't better" is nothing to do with her thinking that "America is always the best".

Why? 'Coz LBK is British, not American.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
LBK, you neocons think that america is ALWAYS the best, and that bush is right about EVERYTHING. I think it's time to ease up on your jingoism and anti-gay prejudices

LBK is a neocon? When the hell did that happen? I didn't see that in the last newsletter.

Damn, you're such a goob.



MacNStein (dedicated Zionist Neocon)

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by John Q. Smith:
LBK, you neocons think that america is ALWAYS the best, and that bush is right about EVERYTHING. I think it's time to ease up on your jingoism and anti-gay prejudices

.....

Wow dcolton, Sherwin AND MacNstein defending me?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:


.....

Wow dcolton, Sherwin AND MacNstein defending me?

red letter day!

how is logic?

[chris v]

Time to move on to John R. Smith, methinks. Not too many letters in the alphabet left for him, thankfully.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:


.....

Wow dcolton, Sherwin AND MacNstein defending me?

Not to be a me too, but "me too". LB, we may not agree on the Israel/Palestine issue, but I think we see eye to eye on the fact that education should NOT be teaching morality.

Kids should certainly be taught that they should get along with people regardless of how they live their lives. Yes, they can be taught that people engage in homosexual activity. No, they should NOT be taught that it's okay. I reserve the right to define for my son what is right and what is wrong.

I'd also like to add that I'm embarrassed for some of the people who claimed to be Christians and acted like heathens. They hurt rather than help our cause. They truly do NOT represent the majority OR the true religious beliefs.

[John Q. Smith]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
LBK is a neocon? When the hell did that happen? I didn't see that in the last newsletter.

Damn, you're such a goob.



MacNStein (dedicated Zionist Neocon)

LBK is the biggest right-wing zealot on this forum.. enough is enough.. all I wanna say is that she don't really care about us. don't worry bout what she says, we know the truth. enough is enough of her garbage!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dcolton:
red letter day!

how is logic?

How is logic? He's still around... ask him yourself.


*cough*Curios Meerkat*cough*

[kmkkid]

Originally posted by Bluebomber21XX:
I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with the majority of you in this thread that condone homosexuality.

And before you pro-homo zealots start flaming me, I am 100% hetero in a very fulfilling STRAIGHT relationship.

Kids do not need to be taught that gays are "ok" or normal. It's a deviant lifestyle, that is NOT okay. Sorry, but someone has to say it. Gays aren't normal.

Whether you think that it's a hormonal imbalance, a choice, a preference, or they just don't have enough game to attract members of the opposite sex, its your call. In any case, it's wrong, and I for one, am GLAD our kids in America aren't force-fed this crap.

Don't get me wrong, however. I don't go around fag-bashing, or trying to interrupt the lives of homos. I don't beat up gays, or yell names when I see some flaming queer walking down the street in San Francisco. They can do whatever they want. I'm not the one that has to live that screwed up lifestyle. But just because not everyone agrees with the way they act doesn't make us heterosexuals wrong.

I'm sure someone is going to call me "intolerant" or "homophobic" or worse just because I can't see what is normal about a dude banging another dude. It's just not right.

It's sad because whenever someone like myself has the cojones to actually speak about how gays aren't normal and why we shouldn't be giving these social deviants rights such as letting them get married and adopting kids (which is a wholly different topic for another thread), I am decried as nontolerant.

BULLSHlT. I believe in God's word and the Bible. Homosexuality is wrong, and if you are gay and reading this, you need to check yourself into a hospital and get treatment to turn back into a normal member of society.

You are a sinful liar. You obviously don't turn the cheek on gays when you come into a pro-gay thread to spew homophobia and hatred.

I think you're the one who needs to be checked into a mental hospital, you have a disgusting outlook on life.



Chris

[eklipse]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
How is logic? He's still around... ask him yourself.


*cough*Curios Meerkat*cough*

Not even close - and he doesn't even disguise himself that well.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
How is logic? He's still around... ask him yourself.


*cough*Curios Meerkat*cough*

Nope. Try the crusader:



(edit: fixed broken image)

[Curios Meerkat]

I'd love to play poker with some of you guys.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Anyone who goes out of his way to attack gay people has issues with their own sexuality that they are in denial about, masking this denial with an attack on others.

This is the most immature argument I have ever seen. Anyone who doesn't 100% support gays just must be gay themselves. Those words sound like they would be uttered by some high school student.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
LBK is a neocon? When the hell did that happen? I didn't see that in the last newsletter.



MacNStein (dedicated Zionist Neocon)

You have to read the Who's Who column, silly! The whole feature was on her and her dedication to the New American Century-- and she's not even American!

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by deej5871:
This is the most immature argument I have ever seen. Anyone who doesn't 100% support gays just must be gay themselves. Those words sound like they would be uttered by some high school student.

What I said: "Anyone who goes out of his way to attack gay people has issues with their own sexuality that they are in denial about, masking this denial with an attack on others."


Reread what I said.

There is a difference between support and attack.

What follows is quoted from The Psyciatric Times
for the full article:
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p0410s11.html


The Closet and Gay-Bashing

For some gay men, "Hiding and passing as heterosexual becomes a lifelong moral hatred of the self; a maze of corruptions, petty lies, and half truths that spoil social relations in family and friendship" (Herdt and Boxer, 1993). There are many gay men who, before they came out, were either "gay-baiters" or "gay-bashers" themselves.

Attacking those perceived to be gay serves several functions. One penile plethysmography study indicated that men with strong antihomosexual beliefs actually had significant homosexual arousal patterns (Adams et al., 1996). Strong antihomosexual feelings may represent an effort to control perceptions of a gay-basher's own sexual identity. This might translate as, "If I attack gay people, no one will think I am gay." Psychoanalysts call this defense "identification with the aggressor" (Freud, 1966). It may represent intrapsychic efforts to maintain a psychological distance from one's own homoerotic feelings. In other words, it is an effort to strengthen dissociative tendencies.

[OldManMac]

Well said!

Some people think denial is a river in Egypt.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Well said!

Some people think denial is a river in Egypt.

Thanks KarlG!



I can only imagine what that person's plethysmographic arrousal pattern would indicate.

[OldManMac]

I know it's been said before, but I am always amazed at the amount of FUD being spread over this issue, and how much energy and resources at being used to address an issue that affects such a consistently small percentage of the population. I guess it's because gays are an easy target (it's an easy bandwagon to jump on, and it doesn't require one to do anything but repeat what they're told by some "expert"), and it helps a lot of people forget that their own houses aren't exactly spotless.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
I'd love to play poker with some of you guys.

Well, you signed on at about the same time that he "quit", have the same pro-Arab/anti-US views, and have similar debating styles (and sources). HOWEVER, your spelling is better... that's what left me guessing.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
What I said: "Anyone who goes out of his way to attack gay people has issues with their own sexuality that they are in denial about, masking this denial with an attack on others."

Reread what I said.

There is a difference between support and attack.

I read what you said, and you're right. You did say "out of his way to attack", and I apologize (although, you weren't the only one who made this kind of comment). I still think it's an immature attitude and argument, even if it can be backed up. I also doubt you had the psychiatric support for your comment in mind when you wrote it.

What follows is quoted from The Psyciatric Times
for the full article:
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p0410s11.html

The Closet and Gay-Bashing

For some gay men, "Hiding and passing as heterosexual becomes a lifelong moral hatred of the self; a maze of corruptions, petty lies, and half truths that spoil social relations in family and friendship" (Herdt and Boxer, 1993). There are many gay men who, before they came out, were either "gay-baiters" or "gay-bashers" themselves.

Attacking those perceived to be gay serves several functions. One penile plethysmography study indicated that men with strong antihomosexual beliefs actually had significant homosexual arousal patterns (Adams et al., 1996). Strong antihomosexual feelings may represent an effort to control perceptions of a gay-basher's own sexual identity. This might translate as, "If I attack gay people, no one will think I am gay." Psychoanalysts call this defense "identification with the aggressor" (Freud, 1966). It may represent intrapsychic efforts to maintain a psychological distance from one's own homoerotic feelings. In other words, it is an effort to strengthen dissociative tendencies.

I'd like to see some real numbers. The first sentence of the excerpt says "some gay men", but then the last sentence of that paragraph says "many gay men", so I really have no idea how many men who are actually gay (or, as the article puts it, "homosexually self-aware") exhibit this kind of behavior. I wonder about this because that section of the article talked about men being stuck in the closet, and the ways that they dealt with it, and this was only a small expansion on one of their main ideas: dissociation.

But even with that, and this is kind of dodging the main point, would anyone acting as described in your excerpt do so on an internet forum? I can see it being plausible in real life, but would anyone who's taking an effort to post on a forum where their sexual preference isn't likely to be attacked maintain this kind of cover? I don't think so. The crap I see people say on here and IRC (among other places) are things I don't think they would ever tell their real-life friends. An article from your Psychiatric Times puts it well (although the article is more about dating via the internet, you get the main idea):

From Delights and Dangers of the Internet:
"The Internet is like being in another world- you can pretend to be everything you ever wanted to be. There are no rules and no sense of time. In one hour you can tell each other all about yourselves. It's so interactive- question and answer and so quickly. No limits." Exhilaration was the expression of a 49-year-old divorced male gynecologist with the password "lady's doc."

[deej5871]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Well said!

Some people think denial is a river in Egypt.

And I don't suppose people can deny something because it isn't true, can they?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
What I said: "Anyone who goes out of his way to attack gay people has issues with their own sexuality that they are in denial about, masking this denial with an attack on others."

I go out of my way to argue with stupid commies. Does this mean that I'm a closet stupid commie?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I go out of my way to argue with stupid commies. Does this mean that I'm a closet stupid commie?

Depends on how you respond to the plethysmographic arrousal pattern test.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Depends on how you respond to the plethysmographic arrousal pattern test.

I got a positive to Ann Coulter and Lauren Bush, a negative to Teresa Kerry and Barbara Streisand and the results are still pending regarding Michelle Pfeiffer.

As to what that means, I don't know.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by deej5871:
I read what you said, and you're right. You did say "out of his way to attack", and I apologize (although, you weren't the only one who made this kind of comment). I still think it's an immature attitude and argument, even if it can be backed up. I also doubt you had the psychiatric support for your comment in mind when you wrote it.

No I didn't have that specific psychiatric support for my comment but I still knew it was true. I've said the same thing several times in other threads. I'm not the first by any means.

It is just a very well documented fact that those who are gay-bashers are themselves gay and just in denial as evidenced by clinical studies as quoted in my earlier post

As said by others MUCH better than me, it is a fear of themselves being GAY that causes this hatred which has been demonstrated by a multitude of studies.

If somoene does not fear being gay, they would have no reason to feel the hatred which is a mask for their own self denial.

This is perhaps why you don't see "gay" people attacking "heterosexuals" ..."straight bashing" ....because they don't hate straights because they are not in denial about being straight.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
It is just a very well documented fact that those who are gay-bashers are themselves gay and just in denial as evidenced by clinical studies as quoted in my earlier post

As said by others MUCH better than me, it is a fear of themselves being GAY that causes this hatred which has been demonstrated by a multitude of studies.

I still think that's pure unmitigated BS (the studies, not your repeating their "results"). It's in the same class as "*phobia".

Just because someone doesn't like something, doesn't mean they're afraid of it (I'm not afraid of peanut butter, for instance).
Just because someone doesn't like something and attacks it, doesn't mean they're secretly "it" (I might sneer at the jars of peanut butter in the store just to annoy them, but it doesn't mean that I'm trying to disguise the fact that on the inside I'm just a jar of extra crunchy).

Really. It's all BS. Are all the Christian bashers around here secret closet Christians?

[NYCFarmboy]

<snip>

[deej5871]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
It is just a very well documented fact that those who are gay-bashers are themselves gay and just in denial as evidenced by clinical studies as quoted in my earlier post

As said by others MUCH better than me, it is a fear of themselves being GAY that causes this hatred which has been demonstrated by a multitude of studies.

If somoene does not fear being gay, they would have no reason to feel the hatred which is a mask for their own self denial.

While I do think that it can be possible for this to be the reason for some gay bashing, I strongly doubt that it accounts for the majority. Especially when there are other reasons people use, i.e. unnatural, the Bible, etc. I think that someone like Bluebomber probably isn't in some kind of gay denial, he just has his religious reasons.

This "You're in denial!" crap really gets on my nerves; 1) because there's no way to deny being in denial, because then you get "SEE? You're in denial!" (kind of like being accused of whining, which I've said before), and 2) because people act like it's a conspiracy. "He's bashing gay people! There must be some kind of secret psychiatric reason for this floating in his head...He can't actually be doing this for the reasons he says he is!".

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by deej5871:
While I do think that it can be possible for this to be the reason for some gay bashing, I strongly doubt that it accounts for the majority. Especially when there are other reasons people use, i.e. unnatural, the Bible, etc. I think that someone like Bluebomber probably isn't in some kind of gay denial, he just has his religious reasons.

This "You're in denial!" crap really gets on my nerves; 1) because there's no way to deny being in denial, because then you get "SEE? You're in denial!" (kind of like being accused of whining, which I've said before), and 2) because people act like it's a conspiracy. "He's bashing gay people! There must be some kind of secret psychiatric reason for this floating in his head...He can't actually be doing this for the reasons he says he is!".

Again...my emphasis is on those who ATTACK gays, not those who don't support gays...there is a difference.

I'm not a biblical expert by any means but it seems to me that those who use the bible to attack others for whatever reason need to be a bit more careful before throwing the first stone.......

........as I stated earlier in a previous post...when you point a finger at someone else three fingers of your own hand are pointed back at yourself.