...how can you have sex with the moon?
Ever heard of the play Salome by Oscar Wilde? It's full of sexually suggestive moon imagery. And Wilde was gay, anyway. So it all relates to the topic!
Don't feed the stereotype that all Christians are bigotted homophobs trying to push our monotheistic morals on an unsuspecting world.
I am actually a Latter Day Saint. The LDS Church rejects all homosexual behavior in spite of political movements that advocate total acceptance. Just ask Tergonaut. I apologize if I seem to be pushing my morals, my real intent is that my morals will be known. The LDS church does not believe in only one God, rather a Godhead consisting of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
Dirk: A piece of the conversation between Vec and I discussed how the Bible proclaims homosexuality as a sin. It is breaking commandment number seven: Thou shalt not commit adultery Sexual relations without marriage. And between two men? That is far worse.
Additionally, the Lord revealed the following to Moses: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). In Leviticus, homosexual acts are labeled not only wicked, as in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrah), but as an abomination, a sin that is immoral and loathed by God.
About the quote by CS Lewis. Thoughtsthose precede action. Action would have to be the final stage in sin. Why would the final stage be less sinful than the first stage, where there was still room to rectify the problem? The final stage is permanent. It happened. Thoughts can be changed.
Not to counter Lewis quote, but to add to the discussion, Spencer W. Kimball (president of the LDS church 1973-1985) said, But let us emphasize that right and wrong, righteousness and sin, are not dependent upon man's interpretations, conventions and attitudes. Social acceptance does not change the status of an act, making wrong into right. If all the people in the world were to accept homosexuality...the practice would still be a deep dark sin
Why do I say all of this? Because one who preaches narcissistic nihilism is asking for trouble.
Rico: All I said was "Cycle, that is a really offensive image." the picture took the Lord's name in vain and had sh*tty in it!
The exclamation mark totally makes this quote. It's as though you're trying to sound shrill and reactionary. Also, you're a damn hypocrite. "Oh no, he said sh-t! I'm so offended, now come save me, preachers of nihilistic narcissism, depraved lovers of psychotically-challenged nutters! To hell with the countless non-Judeaochristian cultures that had no problem with homosexual activity and recognized love between two people as a sacred thing regardless of gender until we came along and started ramming Bibles up their asses! Oh yeah, and if you're not a backwards, right-wing dinosaur like me, then you're not a real Christian and you're going to go to Hell along with the fags, wogs, negroes, wetbacks, injuns and gooks! But anyways, yes, naughty poopy words are offensive!"
I am actually a Latter Day Saint. The LDS Church rejects all homosexual behavior in spite of political movements that advocate total acceptance. Just ask Tergonaut. I apologize if I seem to be pushing my morals, my real intent is that my morals will be known. The LDS church does not believe in only one God, rather a Godhead consisting of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
Half my extended family are Mormons and they don't have any problems with my cousin being gay. And if they do, they don't go around calling him a "psychotically challenged" individual who delves into a "pit of depravity", nor a narcissistic nihilist.
Oh, and would you care to explain any of these linguistic grotesqueries in a fashion that doesn't involve God?
Dirk: A piece of the conversation between Vec and I discussed how the Bible proclaims homosexuality as a sin. It is breaking commandment number seven: Thou shalt not commit adultery Sexual relations without marriage. And between two men? That is far worse.
I spent my younger years growing up in an apartment building in East Vancouver. A lesbian couple, to whom I will refer as K&M because it's easier, moved in about a month before I was born. K is an outgoing, fun-loving woman and M is a charming, interesting woman, and they became fast friends with my parents. I am now eighteen and a half years old and to this day I have watched them enjoy a loving, meaningful relationship which shows no signs of disappearing any time soon. In fact, they got married shortly after it became legal. During this time I've watched several of my straight Mormon cousins marry and divorce in as little as 18 months. Explain how K&M's relationship is a pit of depravity, how their marriage is a lie, and how their love for each other qualifies as adultery.
Additionally, the Lord revealed the following to Moses: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). In Leviticus, homosexual acts are labeled not only wicked, as in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrah), but as an abomination, a sin that is immoral and loathed by God.
Leviticus 11:10 - "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you."
Also, good for the Lord. But there's this thing about Western society. See, those of us who aren't stuck in the eighth century BC kind of got over the whole "letting a specific religion dictate what we as a society do and do not consider acceptable behaviour" thing right around the time we decided to co-exist with people of other cultures, rather than interring them in death camps and gassing them.
Essentially, illum, you have yet to explain:
* How two guys f**king is harmful in any way to those not involved in said f**king.
* How such behaviour is unnatural and should be banned, as we continue to allow people to eat sugarless junk food filled with aspartame; and smoke cigarettes, which are filled with such natural substances as acetone, ammonia, tar, benzene, hydrogen cyanide, pyridine, formaldehyde, aluminium trihydroxide, carboxy methyl cellulose and its sodium salt, and other favourites.
* Why a multicultural society such as the United States, which is built upon a Constitution that promotes its citizens' rights to privacy and association, should ban or condemn homosexuality just because your religion forbids it.
* Why linking to articles written by other right-wing blowhards who happen to agree with you somehow makes your moaning any less insane.
* Exactly what point you're trying to make here, or what conclusion you're trying to reach.
Oh, and Jimro, what was that about "Christianity=New Testament"?
since when was adultery defined as people having sex before marrage?
let us consult the dictionary for the official defination.
"adultery Audio pronunciation of "adultery" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-dlt-r, -tr)
n. pl. adulteries
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse."
that commandment is for those ALREADY in a relationship or marrage and then cheats on that person by entering a sexual relationship with another.
it has nothing to do with two unattached people having a sexual relationship.
I swear I already quoted thatone and linked to a nice pic of Lina eating a fish alive...
Musta the been one of the other tyraids. They're all starting to look the same. :[
Illuminator, I've got a lot to say about what has been said so far, but not enough time to say it. I have not read most of this topic because I'm not interested in the debate. But I'm posting now so I can get a word in before this goes too far.
Please don't use me as a reference without talking to me first. Please don't try to bash homosexuals. By taking this method, you are hurting the very church that you are trying to support, because you're taking a hateful stance.
I'll clarify my standpoint later today when I get the chance, but I want to make it clear that while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not approve of homosexual behavior, we also believe that everyone is given agency to make their own choices and that God loves us all as his children. That doesn't mean that homosexuals are justified in their behavior - just means that nobody has the right to try to bash them or hang them or hurt them. They are God's children too and should be treated as such, rather than as mere "deviants" or "non-people."
I have a couple other things to say about this, but that should suffice for now. And who knows, maybe this will do right here.
www.mormon.org is the official LDS website to learn more about our standpoint on various issues.
See Lum? Just because I'm not considered "good" in the eyes of mormon beliefs, and just because he's not considered "sane" by science beliefs doesn't mean we treat each other like lower life forms. We respect each others beliefs and that they ARE beliefs. Evolution is a scientific mythos just like Creation is a religious mythos.
Do I think christians are lunatics? Not really, not anymore than anyone else with a free mind and beliefs. Does Tergonaut think gays are evil immoral filth? I really don't think so, they're just people that don't believe like he does.
I guess I'll fire off one serious post since I don't think I've told this one in these many, many, many threads yet. I'll leave out all details since some of you who are on a lot of webcomic sites may know him. He's gay, and christian, you do not know (nor can you know) how hard it is to fight how you are. On one side you have the people of your faith telling you to just be strong, on the other side you have your friends telling you not to try to fight who you are. It's a tough decision to decide between your faith and yourself. But some people get into the position that they have to.
The result is dependant on the person. I believe that both your sexuality and your faith are decided by close to the same methods. A mixture of brain predisposition and experiences throughout youth cause your brain to form certain pathways that decide everything about you from your personality to your facial expressions.
We have free will. Psychology and Religion agree on that. Our brain, whether it be by God or Nature, is a blank slate with the hue of our parents that fills with our experiences. Granted the pathways of our parents might be easier to fill, that doesn't mean they are.
We have choices. And our brain forms as a result of those choices into our adult form. Once a pathway is formed its very hard to change it, it's not impossible especially when you're younger, but it is hard. Someone my age would have an easier time choosing between who I am and my faith more easily than someone who is 30 or 40 years older.
In the end its stupid to blame someone for who they are. Making laws against certain kinds of people is even more stupid. Laws exist to bring peace, not oppress.
You once called us dictators, illuminator321. But at least neither Tergonaut nor Rico Underwood are attacking people that have done nothing to them.
~Rico
Quote:
Oh, and Jimro, what was that about "Christianity=New Testament"?
The punishment for homosexuality in the OT was death by stoning.
The punishment for homosexuality in the NT is that you are "shunned" or ignored by the rest of believers.
And to the Christians who think that homosexuality is ok, defend your position biblically to prove that homosexuality is not a sin and we'll talk here p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum . By strict interpretation only male homosexuality is mentioned in the old testament, in the NT "sexual perversion" is used to reference homosexuality for both sexes.
Jimro
The punishment for homosexuality in the OT was death by stoning. The punishment for homosexuality in the NT is that you are "shunned" or ignored by the rest of believers.
It's not that. Earlier you responded to a quote from Leviticus by saying we were confusing Christianity with Judeaism and that "Christianity = New Testament". Meanwhile we have this guy over here firing off quotes from Leviticus left right and centre. Now I realize the Mormons kind of have their own thing going and are rather different from other protestant denominations, but how do you explain that?
Cycle,
Paul wrote "all scripture is useful for doctrine and correction" which means that Christians read the Old Testament and apply it to their life through the teachings of Jesus.
The woman taken in adultery would be put to death by the OT, but Jesus gave mercy because sin is sin, and we are all sinners.
Simply put the Old Testament defines sin and what to do about it in a physical mannner. The New Testament keeps the same laws that define sin, but apply them in a spiritual manner. This is why we "shun" a believer if they persist in their sin, it signifies spiritual death from the community of believers and yet gives them a community to come back to once they turn from sin.
This is why we don't kill people for adultery, fornication, etc.
This is also why Christians don't offer physical sacrifice, because we are to offer spiritual sacrifice.
If you really want to get into Christian doctrine we can discuss it, but you'd probably do best to read the New Testament completely and then I can answer specific questions that you have. Altho most of your questions will be answered by reading Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. Different sects of Christianity have different answers. I've done my best to learn each major denomination's theology but no one can know it all.
Jimro
Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God.
That said, it is the practice and the acting on the desire, not specifically the homosexually-inclined.
Those who have a desire for homosexual relationships should never act on them, effectively leaving themselves justified before God on that matter.
However, the same holds true for heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. Don't do it and remain justified before God.
OK, I'm gonna add some comments in here. First off, I'll freely state I haven't read this whole thread, because frankly, when you've read one thread on this topic you've read them all.
First off. illuminator, as a fellow Christian and one who's been through this kind of topic loads of times before, I'm gonna advise you to please shut the hell up. Or rather more specifically, stop being so damned confrontational and judgemental sounding with everything you're saying. From the first post I read of this thread it looked as though the sole reason you were making it was to have a rant about homosexuality, rather than a discussion. That's what LiveJournal's for.
Seriously, all that's being done here is having a bad name made for Christians as a whole, which frankly I don't think is really gonna have people going nuts to swell the ranks, is it?
Anyway. With that aside. I might as well place my view here as well, seeing as I already barged in. Unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe what we Christians are supposed to do is despise the evil that people do. NOT the people themselves. "Hate the sin, not the sinner", you know? It's good motivation for talking to people about changing their ways, but by no account should you be being all in their face and confrontational about it, unless God's specifically telling you to do that.
Oh, and it may come as somewhat of a shock, but I was always taught (and the Bible does seem to back this up) that no sin is worse than any other. All sin is equally bad. That means it's just as evil for you to go out and kill someone as it is for you to tell a lie. Or, in this case and on topic, to engage in sexual perversion. See where I'm going here?
Basically what that means is, it doesn't matter how "bad" you think a sin is, what matters is that it's sin - so if it weren't for divine intervention you'd be off straight to Hell either way.
I personally can't understand why it is some people obsess so much over one particular type of sin more than another. I mean good grief, when was the last time you saw tonnes of protestors in the streets because someone coveted his neighbour's donkey? But that's what's written is that it's still sin. So it's right there next to all the other shapes of evil. It's a shame there are so few people willing to grasp that fact, if we'd all learn to recognise that sin is sin no matter it's shape or form, we might actually get along better collectively. Oh well, that's the world we live in I guess.
~LightStrike, aka SilverShadow.
Just to clarify, I am not a Christian. It is highly debatable that all sin is equal, so that is best saved for a new thread.
Just to clarify, I am not a Christian.
Yeah, because the Mormons are so much different.
With the matter at hand, yes, 'mormons' are extremely different in their viewpoints/enforcement of same-sex attraction as opposed to most dedicated Christians. I'm glad you agree.
Quote:
Just to clarify, I am not a Christian. It is highly debatable that all sin is equal, so that is best saved for a new thread.
Quote:
With the matter at hand, yes, 'mormons' are extremely different in their viewpoints/enforcement of same-sex attraction as opposed to most dedicated Christians. I'm glad you agree.
I hope you realise saying something like that could be taken in any number of ways. Saying that you're not a Christian and saying that you are a mormon implies that mormonism is some form of cult. I'd think very carefully before making such sweeping statements if I were you: fact still remains that most people will still associate you with the general term of Christianity, thusly anything you do and say around here will reflect (be it positively or negatively) on others who are also Christian. That, and I'm sure any other members of the same religious group as yours wouldn't like being branded as members of a cult, which is effectively what you're getting other people to do here.
Also, as to your statement about whether all sin is equal... that's rubbish. Go have a good look through the Bible and you'll note that sexual perversion is listed right alongside stuff like gluttony and at no point is it stated that one is worse than the other, apart from by laws we humans create. Perhaps we'd see one as being far worse than the other, but from God's point of view, any sin is still sin. So it's just as bad. It's not that difficult a concept to understand, is it?
Quote:
'mormons' are extremely different in their viewpoints/enforcement of same-sex attraction as opposed to most dedicated Christians.
I'd be interested to see if our resident LDS Missionary agrees with that statement. (Or if you're blowing out your ass) As far as I knew from my few weeks as a mormon I was never told that, their background is different but their views are didn't seem to be.
Tergo?
~Rico
While we do accept the nickname of "Mormons," derived from the Book of Mormon, which is another testament of Jesus Christ which we accept as canon along with the Bible, the proper name of our church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (underlining put in for emphasis). We believe in Jesus Christ, we believe that he is the Savior and Messiah, we believe that he leads and guides our church today through the Holy Ghost and through revelation to a prophet. So to claim that we are NOT Christians, is silly. Being a "Mormon" should be synonymous with being a Christian, never separate.
And frankly, Rico, I personally do not think we are really that much different from other Christian churches in this particular matter. I agree with what LightStrike said about homosexuals, we do not believe they should act on their impulses but we don't hate them or judge them for it. We have a different understanding of why it is that homosexuality is wrong, perhaps - that goes into our theology of why we're here, where we came from and where we're going once we die.
I've gotta go, but hopefully this puts this down for now.
Thats what I figured Terg. Sorry to keep dragging you in here but Lum keeps waving your religion around like it's some kinda flag.
~~~
Yeah.. I can do that too, Lum. I'd be more inclined to agree with this guy where I a man of faith.
www.ldsresources.info/lea...ngers.html
I don't see in yours where it says homosexuality is a worse sin than others. Can you quote it for me?
~Rico
It is above many, but I did not say it was the worst.
"President Spencer W. Kimball:
Homosexual conduct is serious sin. ... The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.
Next to the crime of murder comes the sin of sexual impurity as expressed in its many manifestations: adultery, fornication, homosexuality and related transgressions.
Let it therefore be clearly stated that the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality is equal to or greater than that of fornication or adultery; and that the Lord's Church will as readily take action to disfellowship or excommunicate the unrepentant practicing homosexual as it will the unrepentant fornicator or adulterer"
That quote came from the portion "The Degree of Sin That Homosexual Behavior Represents"
That's true, Lum - but nothing in your quote from President Kimball justified hatred or bigotry toward homosexuals. It is serious, yes, but I'll address that in another point, as apparently the issue of whether all sin is equal in badness or if there are "heavier" or "weightier" sins than others, is really something that should be discussed a bit separately.
He was also talking more about people inside the church who know that what they are doing is wrong and are responsible for their actions. If someone becomes a member of the church, they agree to follow by the standards of the church; if they do not abide by them, then they are subject to judgement and possible excommunication or disfellowship.
Now, on the issue of whether homosexuality, or any sin, is a "greater" or "worse" sin than another; frankly, all sin is bad, it damns us and separates us from God. And without Jesus Christ, we would all go to hell, because we need his grace to overcome death and sin.
However, I'd like to point out that the reason that some sins are considered worse than others or more serious than others, is because of the effect or impact of the sin. Murder or rape, to take those as an example, are serious because they affect people so directly and drastically. But an unrepentant liar is just as bad as an unrepentant murderer in the sense that they both refuse to seek repentance and God, and hence damn themselves.
Now Lum, I don't know your background in the LDS church or how active you've been, but you've said some things so far that are not consistent with how a Latter-Day Saint typically views themself. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you should stop trying to twist LDS doctrine to justify hounding homosexuals and branding them with labels like "deviants."
I was not trying to justify hatred or bigotry towards homosexuals with that quote.
"but you should stop trying to twist LDS doctrine to justify hounding homosexuals and branding them with labels like "deviants." "
I was not branding homosexuals as deviants, I was merely labeling the behaivor. Sorry if you misunderstood my intents.
I was not branding homosexuals as deviants, I was merely labeling the behaivor.
Technically, you labelled homosexuals as "psychotically challenged" people who "live in shame", "delving into a pit of depravity". Earlier you said they have a "psychological disorder".
A psychological disorder, yes. But it can be overcome as any behaivor can be, but it is up to the patient to have the will to do so, certainly.
This is a question for Terg and Lum, because I'm curious.
Your Church believes that the homosexual orientation itself is not a sin, but to act upon those urges by having sex with another person of the same gender is a sin.
What if two gay men, driven by their God-given need for companionship, entered into a romantic yet completely chaste relationship? Would that be sinful?
I think the best way to answer this question is to refer to "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" which is an official document that the First Presidency of our church put out back in 1995 to address the issue of the family.
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
We believe that God created marriage between a man and a woman, not only as an expression of love, but as a way to create a good environment for raising families. That's why while I personally do not hold it against someone if they choose to be gay though I don't agree with it, I am adamantly against marriage being redefined as merely a coupling between two people (or as recent news has reported, a coupling between a person and an animal or even inanimate object) - it is specifically meant for a man and a woman who love each other and want to be with each other.
I've been asked before, "What about two homosexuals who are good people who want to adopt, but are turned down for a heterosexual couple who aren't good parents? How can you argue about them not being allowed to have the opportunity to do that?" And I didn't have an answer at that time. But I believe that God has a plan for us, but it's up to us to follow that or to choose a different path.
That's what I have to say about it.
But that doesn't really answer the question as I meant to ask it. I didn't mean anything so complicated as starting a family. What I really meant was more like this:
If two guys dated for a while but nothing sexual happened at all, and then after a couple of months they stopped seeing one another, was their romantic-but-chaste relationship sinful?
Yes, it would be. They acted on their homosexual thoughts, which led to homosexual behavior-dating the same gender.
Yes, it would be. They acted on their homosexual thoughts, which led to homosexual behavior-dating the same gender.
Essentially you're saying that two men are sinning by even being in the same room together.
No he ain't Cyc. You're jumping the gun more than just a little bit there, don't you think? That's an exaggeration on what he said and you know it. He said the sinful part was dating.
By what you just said, you're implying that being in the same room as someone, you're dating them. REVELATION! IT ISN'T! =O
Seriously. Engage your brain before using your fingers next time.
No he ain't Cyc. You're jumping the gun more than just a little bit there, don't you think? That's an exaggeration on what he said and you know it.
Not really. Dirk asked him if two guys dating for two months, during which time "nothing sexual happened at all", was a sin, and he said it was. The only difference between two gay guys going on a date and two straight guys going to the bar is what they decide to call it, and maybe chemistry.
To answer the question in the context of LDS doctrine, Dirk, in that situation the two guys probably did not sin by doing that. You leave a lot of room for interpretation for what they would do on a date, like whether or not they held hands, kissed, or other intimate displays of affection that aren't necessarily sexual, but even with that included they have not technically broken the Law of Chastity (which is simply put, do not have sexual relations with anyone before marriage, maintain complete fidelity with one's spouse after marriage; we also keep our thoughts and actions in keeping with this law, like avoiding pornography, or dressing modestly) because no sex or sexually-stimulating behavior was done.
If it got to the point where they started touching each other's private parts and/or stimulated each other sexually, then they have definitely committed sin. But since this situation already assumed this didn't happen, again, probably no sin was involved.
Does that answer the question?
Poor Tergo, I know Acrio sexually stimulates him. XD
Oh... on topic... kinda...
Quote:
Re: Homosexuality and its deviancy.
Quote:
I was not branding homosexuals as deviants,
Lawl chicken. :3
~Rico
Yep, I was branding the behaivor, not the people.
Thats one thing I won't ever get about people. If you hate something about someone, doesn't that mean you hate them?
When we're little we learn that differences make us who we are. make us unique, and thats a good thing. You shouldn't try to change just because someone wants you to. blah blah blah. But in the real world that only applies if someone is trying to change AWAY from a blond haired blue eyed christian. If someone's trying to change you TOO what is "normal" then what they told you when you were little doesn't apply.
I will never understand "I hate the sin, not the sinner." It makes as much sense as, "I hate what Hitler did, not him."
Going by those rules I can say Christianity, and to a lesser for LDS, is an immoral plague on this earth that will cause all all their followers to send themselves to hell.
And you would be fine with me because I don't hate you. I hate what your are. Even if we say religion, sexuality, personality, etc are conscious choices. That still makes NO sense to me. Why on earth would I hate that someone was black, female, christian, muslim, gay, etc? It's not hurting them. Well not REALLY.
And even if I believe some big invisible guy and waiting behind them with a pitchfork to rend them the the moment they die, why should that affect how they are treated? It's my belief, not theirs.
~Rico
So what you're saying is, we should hate anyone who ever violates our moral code? Because in that case, we'd have to go through life hating pretty much everyone. My best friends have wronged me in some way or another. SOme of them have traits or qualities that I can't stand. But they're my friends, and I love them anyway.
Christ taught that you must love people. But, to paraphrase the words of Jesus in Matthew 5, 43-48, it's not enough to merely love your friends. Anybody can do that. His challenge is to take that love one step further, to love your enemies, and pray for your persecutors. According to the Gospel, he did just this as he hung on the cross, begging his father to forgive those responsible for his death.
Yep, I was branding the behaivor, not the people.
Christianity is a stupid religion.
What? I was only talking about your beliefs. I'm not trying to insult you personally.
Dammit Cycle, stop wrapping my long posts up into convenient one sentence slurps.
~Rico
I completely agree that what he said was fair.
But I don't see any connection between your post and his?
Then you didn't read my post.
~Rico
Quote:
I completely agree that what he said was fair.
That must mean you've dropped your argument, then.
No, he agrees that you can insult everything about a person and everything should be fine as long as you don't do it directly.
I can see God beating his head on his desk going, "Why. Do. They. Take. Every. Thing. Out. Of. Context." Then, faced down in a muffled voice, "Next time I'm using foxes."
~Rico
I haven't dropped my argument, what Cycle said was fair, though I certainly do not agree with it. It was opinion.
Quote:
Christianity is a stupid religion.
What? I was only talking about your beliefs. I'm not trying to insult you personally.
I think Scientology is a stupid religion.
Did I just insult scientologists? Yes. I did. If insulting people is inherently wrong, then you are a terible person, Cyc. But it isn't, so you aren't.
But note this Rico: even though I think scientology is stupid/wrong, I don't hate scientologists. ::gasp:: Cyc was talking about insults and you were talking about hatred. They're two entirely seperate concepts.
If I were to say "lying is wrong," have I insulted everyone who's ever told a lie? I suppose in some ways I have. But does that necesarily mean I hate them? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Most people I know have lied at one point or another. So when Lum says that homosexuality is wrong, he's insulting you perhaps, but he's not saying he hates you.
Who the could hate Rico, anyway?
I imagine the difference here is that sexuality and identity are intrinsically linked - that is to say, you can't pick and choose sexuality like you can a religion. It's easier to hate someone for their religion because that's something they've specifically chosen, and you can disagree with a religion without involving people at all; religion is an institution itself. On the other hand, sexuality is something all about people - it's more about what we do than who we are, and there's no changing it. That's why it is so freaking moronic to drag up these blatantly bigoted arguments again and again and again just to justify your own insecurities.
The rule is against insulting people. I really don't give a rat's ass if Lum hates me.
Re-read my post, AGAIN. This time slllooowwwlllyyy. You obviously missed it as you're repeating what I said almost word for word.
And I swear to the bouncing chicken if you give me that "it depends on what your definition of IS is," I'll feed you Cycle's tongue.
~Rico
And I swear to the bouncing chicken if you give me that "it depends on what your definition of IS is," I'll feed you Cycle's tongue.
Whoah, now. You of all people should know I don't swing that way.
