Quote:
Whereas attempts to find a 'gay' gene have yet to survive official scientific review.
Slight correction: Attempts to find a "sexuality" gene have failed--yes. No one can definitively prove that any form of sexuality (homosexuality/heterosexuality/bisexuality/asexuality) is or isn't partially genetically inclined. The only reason so many people do believe that genetics do play a role to some degree is due to discovering so many things people do (whether it's be violent/passive/shy/outgoing/etc.) are partially genetic and partially development.
Didn't you know Kat? Being shy is a mental illness too!
Does being shy take over a decade off your life?
Decade and half in my case. 
Depending on your research source it can. There's research out there concerning how your personality does affect how long you live. However, I think it's the aggressive-types that supposedly die sooner.
Y'know, True Red already covered it, but regardless, I'll answer myself as well.
Quote:
Yes, homosexuality is a psychological disorder. It was dropped as such due to social pressure in the 70's per the APA.
You say this as though I asked whether it was a psychological disorder or not. I did nothing of the sort. Think you could actually address the questions I asked you, or are you just gonna avoid the issue because you can't actually justify your answer?
Quote:
"People do harmful things to themselves all the time by choice. It's only when that choice can harm others (i.e. driving while drunk) that people get up in arms over it."
Which homosexual behavior tends to do, especially to their families (parents, siblings, cousins, grandparents). Not physically per se, but mentally.
In some societies, a daughter pursuing a career instead of marrying and becoming a housewife can cause extreme mental anguish to family members. A son marrying a girl of a different religion or caste or race can cause serious mental anguish to the family. Should those all be outlawed, or are you able to recognise the difference between intentional physical/mental torment and a difference of opinion?
Quote:
"I hope you do realized that you used an example of a girl/boy sex comment appearing randomly as an example of homosexual inclinations here when responding to Jimro."
The topic is starting to turn to lascivious behaivor in general. That was the real intent of my post.
Were that true, you should have named the thread differently.
Quote:
My standpoint on homosexuality comes from a moral and religious standpoint (which doesn't really count to most people on this forum),
How arrogant to assume that others here aren't religious because they disagree with your point of view, or that non-religious people have no morals.
Quote:
How arrogant to assume that others here aren't religious because they disagree with your point of view, or that non-religious people have no morals.
Pardon me, but what?
When I say 'forum', I mean as in Marble Garden, which is where most matters concerning politics, religion, and philosophy occur anyway.
And in my time being here, I've noticed that a lot of times a Christian standpoint on certain issues are regarded with less seriousness or - in some cases - outright mocked. The abortion thread is a more recent example; I can't think of any Christian who would willingly snuff out an innocent life. But that's going off-topic. My point is, I'm not assuming people aren't religious because they disagree with me. What I'm saying is that my Christian viewpoint is disregarded because it is just that: a Christian viewpoint.
And where did I say non-religious people have no morals? You're just putting words in my mouth.
It's not arrogance; it's simply what I've learned through experience on this forum.
By saying your standpoint comes from a "morla and religious" point, you seemed to be tying the two together and implying that those who oppose that standpoint have neither. If that wasn't your intention, my apologies.
"You say this as though I asked whether it was a psychological disorder or not. I did nothing of the sort. Think you could actually address the questions I asked you, or are you just gonna avoid the issue because you can't actually justify your answer?"
Sorry, but you need to phrase your questions better. I had a hard time enough trying to decipher what you had typed.
"In some societies, a daughter pursuing a career instead of marrying and becoming a housewife can cause extreme mental anguish to family members. A son marrying a girl of a different religion or caste or race can cause serious mental anguish to the family. Should those all be outlawed, or are you able to recognise the difference between intentional physical/mental torment and a difference of opinion?"
It's a selfish decision, the family won't even have kids unless they're adopted. The closure of such an event can be hard to handle. If they went on to college instead of marrying, there is still the opportunity for them to marry and have kids.
"Were that true, you should have named the thread differently."
In retrospect, I'm glad I pursued such a specific deviant behavior because it still seems to be a major problem.
"What I'm saying is that my Christian viewpoint is disregarded because it is just that: a Christian viewpoint."
I'm getting the same feeling as well.
Quote:
Sorry, but you need to phrase your questions better. I had a hard time enough trying to decipher what you had typed.
Sorry, I assumed you had at least average reading comprehension. I'll try to make it simple for you.
You were asked how it's anyone's business what people do in their own homes if it hurts no one else. You replied with "Would you want psychotically disturbed people doing things privately in their house and then coming out in the open to interact with normal people?" I pointed out that people do strange things in private all the time, but it's not an issue because it's just that - private.
So here's the question for you. If they act fine in social situations and hurt no one, why do you care what people do within the privacy of their own home? Or do you suggest that people be discriminated against for doing things you most likely would never have known about?
Quote:
It's a selfish decision, the family won't even have kids unless they're adopted. The closure of such an event can be hard to handle. If they went on to college instead of marrying, there is still the opportunity for them to marry and have kids.
The fact that plenty of straight couples choose to not have children (plus the fact that, as you said, adoption is an option) makes that argument invalid. Unless you care to bring up an argument about whether people should live their own lives or live to appease their parents' desires, that's all to say of that.
Quote:
"What I'm saying is that my Christian viewpoint is disregarded because it is just that: a Christian viewpoint."
I'm getting the same feeling as well.
This is interesting, because I can't find where you stated that your opinion was from a Christian standpoint.
Heck, I warned ya.
This is their house. Ultra and I are the most vocal conservatives here, and you cannot argue morality with a Liberal. I think twice now someone has called for me to be banned, altho it was the same person each time. I don't know if anyone has ever requested Ultra be banned, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The Liberal Philosophy of "moral relativism" makes it impossible to not sound like a fascist when talking about issues like homosexuality, abortion, or any other sticky political hot potato. If you don't know what "relativism" is go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
If you say homosexuality is deviant, you had better have darn good proof to back up your claim. But since a relativistic worldview (Liberal) does not have a "normal" with which to judge "deviant" against you can't win this argument here. The best you can hope for is that the other side will say, "I understand your argument, but I believe it false".
Christians and conservatives are the minority here. There are interesting people saying interesting things that will often challenge your worldview.
Jimro
"I'll try to make it simple for you."
No, I was at college level reading in junior high. You even still use the hackneyed phrase "the fact that". In addition, it turns out that I did read your post right. What they do in their homes does affect us. They live in shame, where their psychotically challenged heads can only delve further into the pit of depravity. The brain's pleasure chemicals decrease because of all the unnatural external motivation and they become desensitized, only lusting after bodies of the same-sex and very little else.
"The fact that plenty of straight couples choose to not have children (plus the fact that, as you said, adoption is an option) makes that argument invalid. Unless you care to bring up an argument about whether people should live their own lives or live to appease their parents' desires, that's all to say of that."
Ever think the parents aren't very happy about that decision as it is? It's not like their parents gave birth to them and raised them.
Homosexuality is usually regarded by Christians as sinful.
Jimro, there are certainly going to be opposing viewpoints wherever you go. I'd rather not submit just because I'm going to be a minority. I'm surprised that you aren't happy I'm on your side. That is the very weakness of liberals. They are inflexible and believe in only themselves, nobody else or any divine power. In fact, having no 'normal' viewpoint is an utter rejection of history and what we have learned in the past. They're like babies who know nothing.
Quote:
If that wasn't your intention, my apologies.
No harm done.
Quote:
I don't know if anyone has ever requested Ultra be banned, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I think the closest I came to being banned - in terms of my political leanings and viewpoints - would be the gay marriage thread in MF Central 2.
Quote:
I'm surprised that you aren't happy I'm on your side.
That's not what Jimro's saying. He's saying that the best way to argue against moral relativists/Leftist liberals would be to back up your viewpoints with facts and historical data to back up those facts. Then again, sometimes facts just aren't enough.
In any case, I'm looking forward to debating alongside you if you stick around.
"I think the closest I came to being banned - in terms of my political leanings and viewpoints - would be the gay marriage thread in MF Central 2."
That's unfortunate, I bet it was excellent.
Needless to say, it was locked before I had the chance to post any further rebuttal. Which was irritating.
They do that often, don't they?
The only thread aside from that that I can recall being locked was a thread on Alaskan wolf hunting. It was locked by the same mod who locked the gay marriage thread (and rather prematurely, considering if you read the responses by people and then read VCP's final post). For the aftermath of that thread, go here.
Do you have MSN? If you do, get me your screen name.
Nope. But I do have my personal inbox activated. Just click on my screename to send me a private EzMail.
Quote:
No, I was at college level reading in junior high. You even still use the hackneyed phrase "the fact that". In addition, it turns out that I did read your post right. What they do in their homes does affect us. They live in shame, where their psychotically challenged heads can only delve further into the pit of depravity. The brain's pleasure chemicals decrease because of all the unnatural external motivation and they become desensitized, only lusting after bodies of the same-sex and very little else.
You used the hackneyed phrase "it turns out that." For shame!
Regardless of how you seem to somehow be able to read the mind of every homosexual out there and make generalizations of their thoughts and feelings, I don't see how that affects anyone else. Frankly, I find your contempt for human beings whose sexual orientation does nothing to hurt others appalling. This is a forum for discussion and debate, and most of your arguments amount to little more than "I'm right, you're wrong because this is what I claim to be true."
Quote:
Ever think the parents aren't very happy about that decision as it is? It's not like their parents gave birth to them and raised them.
Let's read that last line again, shall we?
"Unless you care to bring up an argument about whether people should live their own lives or live to appease their parents' desires, that's all to say of that."
I never said that the parents would necessarily be happy about the decision, hence the comment about appeasing the parents' desires.
Quote:
Homosexuality is usually regarded by Christians as sinful.
Other religions hold the same view. Some without a religious standpoint do as well. I'm sure you know what they say about making assumptions.
Quote:
That is the very weakness of liberals. They are inflexible and believe in only themselves, nobody else or any divine power.
"Inflexible and believe only themselves" sounds like something that could very well apply to you. I find it ridiculous that you also generalize that no liberals believe in a higher power. I suppose you've gone and done a survey on the matter, the same as you've apparently done regarding the happiness of all homosexuals?
I didn't read any minds, I read books, interpreted results, researched.
If you don't think it affects anyone else, then I suppose you have also avoided reading about the Mere Exposure Effect.
"I never said that the parents would necessarily be happy about the decision, hence the comment about appeasing the parents' desires."
That's why I brought it up. There are more people involved than just the homosexuals.
""Inflexible and believe only themselves" sounds like something that could very well apply to you. I find it ridiculous that you also generalize that no liberals believe in a higher power. I suppose you've gone and done a survey on the matter, the same as you've apparently done regarding the happiness of all homosexuals?"
They might say they do, but in actuality do not. When one believes only in their own knowledge, they set aside God, it is that easy. If one thinks they know everything, why would they believe in a God?
Quote:
I didn't read any minds, I read books, interpreted results, researched.
You've claimed multiple times to know the thoughts, feelings and opinions of huge groups of people. You make broad generalizations. Books and research don't account for the feelings and opinions of that many people in such cases.
By your logic, I could say all conservatives like steak best, because some research shows vegetarianism to be more common among other classes of thought. They might say they like hotdogs better, but in reality they do not.
Quote:
That's why I brought it up. There are more people involved than just the homosexuals.
And I essentially said that it comes down to a matter of difference in opinion. Some decisions may upset others, but you can't always please everyone.
Quote:
They might say they do, but in actuality do not. When one believes only in their own knowledge, they set aside God, it is that easy. If one thinks they know everything, why would they believe in a God?
Yep, you're not generalizing the thoughts and opinions of others at all. If you're not a conservative, that means that you only trust your own knowledge, and that means you don't believe in God. Books and research, especially those that aren't cited, account for the unanimous opinions of millions of people.
Illuminator,
I appreciate that you are here.
However you must realize that you are an ambassador for your faith. So far you managed to tick off most of the mainstream members of this board. Stereotypes exist because there is a kernel of truth at the core. Don't feed the stereotype that all Christians are bigotted homophobs trying to push our monotheistic morals on an unsuspecting world.
God loves deviants, because at some level, we have all fallen short of God's standard. Whether the sin is homosexuality or idolatry, sin is sin. The consequences are different, but sin is still sin.
I applaud your zeal, but you need to temper that enthusiasm with wisdom.
Jimro
Quote:
The best you can hope for is that the other side will say, "I understand your argument, but I believe it false".
Actually, that is what has been implied by all debates. The only exception I can immediately think of is if someone is a horrendous communicator via words in which case you may not understand the point the other person is making.
Quote:
Christians and conservatives are the minority here.
That depends on how you're defining the terms "Christian" and "conservative."
There are many Christians that are "fine" with homosexuality (and many other "liberal" viewpoints) just as there are Christians that aren't. Each demonination as well as individual churches have different ideas as to what is/isn't acceptable and how those things should be handled.
As for conservative, it again depends on how you define the term. Social conservatives in terms of what should/shouldn't be legal are definately a minority around here, but not necessarily in how people live or what they do. Other types of conservatives really aren't whether they participate in debates or not.
Other than that, I think I'm mainly "done."
Poster A: Fags Suck
Poster B: No they don't.
Poster C: BIGOT!
Poster A: I have a .com that says that do!
Poster B: I have a .com that says they don't.
Poster C: 
Rinse.
Repeat.
How every one of these topics goes. Noone can prove one way or another. Simply throw mounds of crap into the fray. It's a christian held belief, real christians don't hate gays anymore than they do smartaleck kids (also a sin), unfaithful husband/wives, jealous teenagers, jaywalkers, furries, etc etc etc. All sins are equal ladies, time to stop squawking about this one. kthx?
In conclusion:
Quote:
It's a christian held belief, real christians don't hate gays anymore than they do smartaleck kids (also a sin), unfaithful husband/wives, jealous teenagers, jaywalkers, furries, etc etc etc. All sins are equal ladies, time to stop squawking about this one. kthx?
Of course. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that. Doesn't mean you can't try and help them.
And if they don't want help? Well, then that's their decision.
And what's with you and dead horses lately Rico? Don't tell me you've become a necrophile! :O
<admin>I want to emphasize that as Rico said you don't respond to a flame with a flame. Actually, I don't know where illuminator flamed Cycle, but I haven't read all of illuminator's posts.</admin>
Quote:
Would you want psychotically disturbed people doing things privately in their house and then coming out in the open to interact with normal people?
Yes. Are you saying psychotically disturbed people shouldn't have privacy or rights?
Quote:
In that case there is NOTHING unnatural because EVERYTHING occurs in nature. Duh.
Come up with a better argument.
Everything is natural, otherwise it wouldn't exist. I've said this before but haven't analyzed the meaning explicitly. Since logically everything is nature, we're left with the definition of natural as spontaneous, expected, etc. This is behind many bad human assumptions and a lot of bigotry (especially cultural), because most people insist on using naturality to make judgements. Unless you say that everything learned is unnatural, unnaturality is subjective and mostly related to taste. And even what is learned is almost impossible to determine in some cases.
As you've pointed out, people fear unnatural crops, and many of these fears are exaggerated or baseless. That doesn't mean that some things people do to crops aren't dangerous, but the natural distinction doesn't make a lot of sense.
Many of us thought illuminator was being impersonated by a troll, because of his off-topic spam in MFC, bizarre claims, and mass spamming in SPA. But I talked to illuminator on AIM and it's all a big misunderstanding. He's not intentionally trolling.
(17:23:15) GameMusic: about your post
(17:23:36) GameMusic: what do you mean that it isn't natural?
(17:25:10) illuminator32: there is no such thing as a gay gene-or at least hasn't been proven effectively, scientists believe homosexuality comes from external influences
(17:26:10) GameMusic: i believe it probably does
(17:26:40) GameMusic: i have a preference towards learning in explanations of psychology
(17:26:53) GameMusic: genetics does matter, but i think it's overblown
(17:28:00) GameMusic: do you have an english gene?
(17:28:04) illuminator32: yeah, definitely, just like mathematical statistics
(17:28:13) illuminator32: an english gene?
(17:28:21) GameMusic: you're speaking english
(17:29:43) GameMusic: so is that unnatural?
(17:30:17) illuminator32: for where I live, it isn't
(17:31:20) illuminator32: and that would definitely have to be an adaptive thing
(17:32:13) GameMusic: most people who debate issues make a big deal about genetics vs. environment as if it actually influences validity
(17:32:53) GameMusic: here is where some debaters would say it is adaptive because of overpopulation
(17:32:56) GameMusic: i will not
(17:33:06) GameMusic: what is the relevance of adaptability?
(17:33:25) illuminator32: being able to fix the problem
(17:33:35) illuminator32: if it was gene related, it would be nearly impossible to repair
(17:34:03) GameMusic: but people do apparently unadaptive things all the time
(17:34:23) GameMusic: why is sexuality different?
(17:35:3
illuminator32: it has been proven in the past that that adaption is unhealthy
(17:36:10) illuminator32: and when it has the ability to affect others as well, prevention would seem like the right thing to do
(17:36:52) GameMusic: it's easy to argue reasons that it is or isn't healthy
(17:37:13) illuminator32: and that's probably where the debate is at the mofo
(17:37:24) GameMusic: but my point is, relevance
(17:37:35) GameMusic: healthy, adaptive, whatever
(17:38:06) GameMusic: i don't want people telling me not to eat ice cream because it isn't healthy or adaptive
(17:38:21) illuminator32: well once again, that could be applied to anything
(17:38:26) GameMusic: yup
(17:38:2 illuminator32: like who cares about math
(17:38:35) GameMusic: people who can use it
(17:38:45) GameMusic: if you can't, and don't need to
(17:38:47) GameMusic: well
(17:39:10) GameMusic: i would think you'd be better off getting math, but i'm not about to be gung ho about it
(17:39:13) illuminator32: oh man, that's a another rant of mine haha
(17:39:29) illuminator32: yeah...
(17:40:03) illuminator32: but it has rendered superflous jobs unnecessary
(17:40:41) illuminator32: and by not leaving the math up to 'math people' we avoid the chance of the 'math people' doing corrupt things with our money etc
(17:41:05) GameMusic: my overall point is that this debate tends to be centered around putting different standards on sexuality
(17:41:21) illuminator32: yes, it does
(17:41:40) GameMusic: mayonnaisse is gross
(17:41:49) GameMusic: do not make me eat it
(17:42:01) GameMusic: but if you eat it, i'm not going to hate you
(17:42:19) GameMusic: or even complain about it, except as a joke
(17:43:25) illuminator32: that's kind of a trivial thing with how big of a change homosexuality is...
(17:43:32) GameMusic: it is?
(17:43:3 illuminator32: but my problem does have to deal with the jokes about it
(17:43:51) GameMusic: that's because society makes sex a big deal
(17:43:54) illuminator32: have you read about the Mere Exposure Effect?
(17:44:07) GameMusic: no but i know the principle and it is true
(17:44:42) illuminator32: so it could be applied to 'gays' as well
(17:44:50) GameMusic: absolutely
(17:44:54) GameMusic: and straights
(17:44:57) illuminator32: especially if they promote their deviancy through example
(17:45:02) illuminator32: yeah
(17:45:14) GameMusic: and people who like ice cream
(17:46:07) GameMusic: issues tend to be issues because of the rules and values people put on them
(17:46:17) GameMusic: i like to try to be universal
(17:46:24) illuminator32: exactly
(17:46:36) GameMusic: step back, to the point of view of an outsider
(17:46:40) illuminator32: really? don't you find yourself kind of lost?
(17:46:50) GameMusic: a robot examining the world
(17:46:54) GameMusic: yup i do
(17:47:12) illuminator32: then what?
(17:47:13) GameMusic: it's hard sometimes
(17:47:22) GameMusic: because i know i'm lost
(17:47:5 GameMusic: but then i'd be lost anyway, if i accepted the obvious i just wouldn't know it
(17:49:07) illuminator32: yeah, letting go of the known to know the uknown
(17:49:26) GameMusic: the values that make the most sense to me are liberty and happiness
(17:53:43) GameMusic: so, murder isn't wrong because it breaks rules, but because it violates liberty
*insert religious discussion*
(18:39:49) GameMusic: but my point is that other people's sexuality is pretty much a lame thing to worry about
(18:40:42) illuminator32: I still have to disagree
(18:41:05) illuminator32: especially when you're forced to be around them
(18:41:14) GameMusic: why?
(18:41:16) illuminator32: and I'm talking real life as well
(18:41:46) illuminator32: oh man, you want to hear of one of my experiences?
(18:41:54) GameMusic: you do realize that most of the straight people you meet are also doing things that are even more biblically condemned
(18:42:22) illuminator32: actually, biblically speaking, homosexuality is one of the worst sins
(18:42:47) illuminator32: it's worse than adultry and barely below murder
(18:42:56) GameMusic: where does it say that?
(18:43:55) illuminator32: the story of sodom and gomorrah
(18:44:04) illuminator32: most men were homosexual
(18:44:33) illuminator32: as well as the ten commandments
(18:44:55) GameMusic: not in the ten commandments
(18:45:22) GameMusic: and sodom and gomorrah is an example, not a law
(18:45:23) illuminator32: 7. Do not commit adultery
(18:45:27) illuminator32: sex without marriage
(18:45:3 GameMusic: yes, well that was my point
(18:45:50) GameMusic: that adultery is at least equal
(18:46:22) illuminator32: but God obviously did not intend for two men to do such things to themselves
(18:46:4 GameMusic: he didn't intend for elvis impersonators to marry people
(18:46:57) GameMusic: are you going to shur down vegas?
(18:47:22) GameMusic: and you can use religion as a reason why you don't approve of it. but it's not going to convince somebody who isn't already convinced
(18:47:36) illuminator32: yeah he did
(18:49:14) GameMusic: the elvis part is a joke, insert whatever you want that he didn't intend
(18:50:11) GameMusic: what's funny is you rarely hear about jewish anti-gay movements
(18:50:56) GameMusic: just like muslims who want to say god is sending them to be terrorists, while other muslims don't
(18:51:21) GameMusic: religion is, for most people, what they want it to be
(18:51:24) illuminator32: I don't condemn homosexuals
(18:51:50) illuminator32: because I kow they are people of a loving heavenly father who wants them to be happy
(18:52:02) GameMusic: the interpretations are usually based on cultural bias
(18:52:11) illuminator32: and I know that happiness is achieved by abiding certain commandments and teachings
(18:52:22) GameMusic: niot that i don't believe it's against homosexuality
(18:52:47) GameMusic: but people tend to apply their culture to their interpretive priorities
(18:53:15) GameMusic: for example, my point that adultery is mentioned way more yet gets almost no attention
(18:59:57) GameMusic: many americans who are anti-gay don't treat adultery and homosexuality the same
(19:01:10) GameMusic: so i see it as a cultural bias
I saw this topic was thrown into Marble Garden. And I knew I didn't want to touch it with an eleven-and-a-half-foot pole, because I had a long day at work yesterday and I was tired. And I figured it wouldn't have grown much by the next time I checked on it. After all, Marble Garden is usually pretty inactive. Boy was I wrong.
I won't read this whole topic, but there are a few things that I want to respond to:
Illuminator said on the first page, when I refused to look at his file on YouSendIt:
Then everything you have said is negligible, or at the most, opinion.
In response to this, the fact that I don't want to download an unknown file recommended to me by a known troll is mere common sense. Doesn't that only lend credibility to my opinion?
And darling Jimro said:
This is their house. Ultra and I are the most vocal conservatives here, and you cannot argue morality with a Liberal. I think twice now someone has called for me to be banned, altho it was the same person each time. I don't know if anyone has ever requested Ultra be banned, but it wouldn't surprise me.
And what about me? I am a Christian and most people would describe me as extremely conservative, although I prefer the term "very not liberal." My political views are strange and probably don't make sense to anyone but myself, but most people I know see me as a conservative. I'm not hated (I hope) and nobody on the MoFo has ever called for any disciplinary action against me (at least not in EVC or the Staff Forum, although it could have happened in chat or elsewhere, but I doubt it).
People have asked for you to be band because you ave... well... "greatly offended" them. Same for Ultra, and because he posts naughty pics. But that's beside the point.
Anyway, the point is: if I can get along with liberals, anyone can.
Vec said:
(17:41:40) GameMusic: mayonnaisse is gross
(17:41:49) GameMusic: do not make me eat it
(17:42:01) GameMusic: but if you eat it, i'm not going to hate you
(17:42:19) GameMusic: or even complain about it, except as a joke
Personally, I not only despise mayonaise, but I actually have a phobia of mayonaise. So, if you eat it around me it will make me uncomfortable and I will complain.
Quote:
(18:42:22) illuminator32: actually, biblically speaking, homosexuality is one of the worst sins
Um, no. If homosexuality is a sin (and I still say it isn't), then it is a sin of the flesh. Sins of the spirit are worse than sins of the flesh.
Look at John 8, 2-11. In that gospel, the woman is guilty of sins of the flesh (the sin of adultery), and the men are guilty of sins of the spirit (as shown by their eagerness to condemn the woman). Someone once siad "we are most scandalized by sins of the flesh. Jesus was most scandalized by sins of the spirit." I don't recall who, but when I have a moment I'll look it up.
EDIT: Haven't found the right quote yet, but here's a good one in the same vein:
C S Lewis said in his book Mere Christianity:
The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing;. . . the pleasure of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute.
I don't really see you around here. Either that or I'm too busy trying to counter Cycle to pay much attention in whatever topic I happen to be in.
Quote:
People have asked for you to be band because you ave... well... "greatly offended" them. Same for Ultra, and because he posts naughty pics. But that's beside the point.
The pictures were due to a lack of good judgment, my dear amoeba. Now be a good single-celled organism and go devour a bacterium or something. 😛
Quote:
In response to this, the fact that I don't want to download an unknown file recommended to me by a known troll is mere common sense. Doesn't that only lend credibility to my opinion?
In defense of illuminator, it would've been a better idea for him to simply link to similar pages on the Internet (for instance, Googling 'Homosexuality and the Brain', or something like that). However, I understand where you're coming from.
(just had to remove lmh00b from his system) Accursed spyware.
Wow...this certainly went into a long post. I've been keeping up on this one for some odd reason (I need to come here more often). I'll say my two cents and get outta here:
I'm a christian, I have no problems with homosexuality, I don't think it's sinful, so there.
Punch,
You still need a better argument.
Unnatural doesn't mean "not natural" it means, "not normal"
1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSE b : lacking ease and naturalness : CONTRIVED <her manner was forced and unnatural> c : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected <an unnatural alliance>
A good example is that there is the natural way, and corrupting the natural way makes it unnatural. Such as homosexuality, the "normal" by historical standards and population statitics, is heterosexual orientation. This is what makes homosexuals a minority.
The "natural way" to go about life is boy meets girl, which is why even when we find homosexuality elsewhere in the animal kingdom it is a small minority.
Just like Uranium and Plutonium are "naturally occuring elements" but it takes a long complicated extraction process to make a most unnatural nuclear weapon. The bulk of the material on this planet is NOT in fissional form.
So, back to the drawing board.
Jimro
Quote:
I'm a christian, I have no problems with homosexuality, I don't think it's sinful, so there.
seconded.
i'd add more, but going into a long discussion of my beliefs and my love for everyone i know regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual direction and how i've no idea what you all mean by 'liberal', 'left-wing' or 'conservative', isn't quite my peice of cake. i know full well that i can't easily argue a point.
my parents think that people who love another of the same gender can be together, but not sleep together.
i feel that everyone should be allowed to do what they darned well please (as long as it isn't killing anyone, breaking the laws of that country or doing things without another's consent. *shrug*), as god put us on this world with free will.
I talked to God. He told me he had no problems with gay's. But those idiots running around berating and killing people in his name pissed him off.
*laughs* true, that. 😛
see? photographic evidence!
Quote:
I talked to God. He told me he had no problems with gay's. But those idiots running around berating and killing people in his name pissed him off.
Funny how cartoons...oops wrong thread.
Jimro
Cartoons my ass, see we have photographic evidence! It's even on a .com! Like all true things.
Rico.
YOU STILL HAVEN'T REFUTED THE CHARGE OF BEING A NECROPHILE! }:O
A what? 
If you want to get technical, I think it's "necrophiliac."
...
Hold on.
Okay.
Silly Lea. I was being technical from the beginning! 😛
And Rico...WHAT'S WITH THE DEAD HORSE.
You sillies keep beating the poor thing!
How else are you gonna tenderize it?
Jimro
A slow boil? <.<
...
Quote:
Figures that the "NO U" guy was God all along.
...maybe not, but still.
It's topics like this which inspire me to commit adultery with roosters.
...wait a second. How'd we get from homosexuality to beastiality? o.o
Quote:
...wait a second. How'd we get from homosexuality to beastiality? o.o
we are easily distracted by shiny objects and photoshop doctored images 
But heck, sin is sin.
Jimro
I typed "chickens" at first, Ultra, but then I changed it to "roosters". There you go. =D
That doesn't really answer my question. o.o
It's a boy chicken. We're still with homosexuality.
What do you have a problem with beastiality now too? >= LETS BAN THE MOON NEXT.
