Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
866

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Yet again, you are attempting to support your own situation. You mean to say, even if it is bad, other people are doing it, so it is OK? This is the selfishness I have been talking about.

Where did I say that I participate in aggressive anal sex (as if it were your business if I did)? My point was that if you plan to criticize behaviors, you should apply the same criticism to everyone that demonstrates those behaviors, whether they are gay or straight.
[/quote]

Agreed. Let it be noted that anal sex is dangerous in homosexuals and heterosexual realationships. This appears to be the first thing we have seen eye to eye on :slight_smile:

867

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
You are trying to create a scenario that will never happen. Everyone is treated differently because of sexual orientation, looks, age, rece, religion, etc… If you have figured out a way to control for everything, then let us know. But, I don’t believe you have.

You could look at the psychological health of gays living in more liberal countries (like Europe) as opposed to in more fundamentalist countries (like the U.S. and the Middle East) as a start. In fact, psychological and sociological research along these lines has been conducted. Would you be surprised to learn that once you control for those other variables, gays are the same as heterosexuals on all measures of psychological health?

One of the first studies in that regard was conducted by Evelyn Hooker in 1957:

Hooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.

Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.

Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexual and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.

Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. For example, in 1971 Freedman used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Reiss, 1980).

Although some psychologists and psychiatrists may personally hold negative attitudes toward homosexuality, every major medical and mental health organization now considers homosexuality to be unrelated to psychopathology.

[/quote]

I suppose you could look at more liberal countries, but then you are still changing many of the variables that you felt so strongly about keeping consistent. And, when you cite studies of only 30 participants, the margin for error is much larger. I bet there is more to this Hooker gal, but I don’t have time to research her. Anybody here know?

868

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
You mention Buddha and Ghandi, but you still dodge the change in Saul. Buddha and Ghandi were not brutal murderers and killers. They did not experience a radical change. So, again, I ask, how do you explain the change Saul experienced when he coverted to Christianity? [/quote]

So your argument is that the objective truth of a religion is proven when someone converts to that religion from depravity? Just to pick a random example, what about the conversion of Khalid-ibn-Walid, the Quraish general that massacred Muslims and attacked Mohammad himself? Much like Saul, Khalid later converted to Islam, and lent his considerable talents to the cause.

That proves nothing, except that a religious system of belief can help certain people to live a moral life. There are numerous examples of people that live moral lives outside of religion entirely.

869

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
I suppose you could look at more liberal countries, but then you are still changing many of the variables that you felt so strongly about keeping consistent. And, when you cite studies of only 30 participants, the margin for error is much larger. I bet there is more to this Hooker gal, but I don’t have time to research her. Anybody here know?[/quote]

You’re right to be concerned about studies with a small sample size. Hopefully you apply the same criticism to small studies showing gays that have supposedly been made straight.

Hooker’s study was only one of the first. Literally decades of research has been conducted since then, with an accumulated total of thousands of subjects. Gonsiorek’s research looked at numerous studies, and concluded that there is systematic evidence that gays are no different from heterosexuals on measures of psychological health.

Based on this accumulated research, every major medical and mental health organization (American Medical Association, World Health Organization, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers, etc.) UNIVERSALLY agrees that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness.

870

[quote]forlife wrote:

The existence of a historical Jesus is debatable [/quote]

You say you were a Christian missionary and you think that the fact that Jesus lived is “debatable?”

The following is from another post by a very knowledgable individual “aslater.” Who posted this on another thread.

Why don’t you read it and get back to me:

"The following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”

The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante?Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”

Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.”

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

You can find people that still believe the world is flat so just becuase you can find a few in a google search doesnt mean that they hold much credit, regardless the above listing should answer your question."

871

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
You mention Buddha and Ghandi, but you still dodge the change in Saul. Buddha and Ghandi were not brutal murderers and killers. They did not experience a radical change. So, again, I ask, how do you explain the change Saul experienced when he coverted to Christianity?

So your argument is that the objective truth of a religion is proven when someone converts to that religion from depravity? Just to pick a random example, what about the conversion of Khalid-ibn-Walid, the Quraish general that massacred Muslims and attacked Mohammad himself? Much like Saul, Khalid later converted to Islam, and lent his considerable talents to the cause.

That proves nothing, except that a religious system of belief can help certain people to live a moral life. There are numerous examples of people that live moral lives outside of religion entirely.[/quote]

You may have missed the boat with this analogy. In your example, Khalid as a person did not change. He was militant before, and he was militant after. Paul, on the otherhand had a complete transformation - a complete rebirth - due to his experience with Jesus.

Example of moral life are not what we are questioning here. We examining the destructive nature of gay sex.

872

[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I suppose you could look at more liberal countries, but then you are still changing many of the variables that you felt so strongly about keeping consistent. And, when you cite studies of only 30 participants, the margin for error is much larger. I bet there is more to this Hooker gal, but I don’t have time to research her. Anybody here know?

You’re right to be concerned about studies with a small sample size. Hopefully you apply the same criticism to small studies showing gays that have supposedly been made straight.

Hooker’s study was only one of the first. Literally decades of research has been conducted since then, with an accumulated total of thousands of subjects. Gonsiorek’s research looked at numerous studies, and concluded that there is systematic evidence that gays are no different from heterosexuals on measures of psychological health.

Based on this accumulated research, every major medical and mental health organization (American Medical Association, World Health Organization, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers, etc.) UNIVERSALLY agrees that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness.

[/quote]

Again, I have not said homosexuality is a mental illness. I have just said that gay sex is destructive.

873

[quote]forlife wrote:

Do you want me to post the thread on why anal sex (yes even with a condom) is dangerous?

More specifically, aggressive anal sex can be dangerous. [/quote]

Um, wrong answer!

Anal sex can be dangerous. PERIOD

And I should have known that you wanted to read this again so here you go:

“At the lower end of the bowel, there are two distinct circular bands of muscles, sphincters, one is located about an 1 ?” above the other. These clamp down tight to prevent the passage of feces or gas. The mucous membrane lining of the rectum is not as heavy as the lining of the vagina, so it can tear quite easily and it does not heal as quickly as the vagina. Because feces, loaded with bacteria, are passing by, any tear is vulnerable to infection.

The vigorous thrusting that may occur during anal intercourse can tear the mucous membrane. This can develop into an anal abscess that can become infected - more about that in a moment. Also, if your partner has any of the sexually transmitted infections (STI’s), then you could get infected through the tear. So we are talking about gonorrhea (treatable); venereal warts (treatable if external, difficult if up in the rectum); syphilis (treatable); herpes (treatment, no cure); yeast infection (treatable); and HIV and AIDS (treatment but no cure.) You do not want any of these STI’s.

But wait, there’s more bad news. A “fissure” is a tear up in the rectum and can develop into a crack, and become infected.

It can gradually extend out through the wall of the bowel and form a channel across, through and into a nearby organ. That’s called a “fistula”, and it would allow feces to flow from the rectum causing infection.

Repairing tears, fissures and fistulas is delicate surgery and recovery can be long and painful.

Many doctors will warn you that hemorrhoids (piles) could also result from anal sex, and although I have no medical research, I have heard people say that the rectum “gets sloppy”, stretched. (sounds healthy huh?)

The best prevention is “don’t go there”."

As I have stated a few times in the past on this matter, the recutm is not built for sex. Sure you can use it for that. A man can (theoretically) place his penis in a number of orifice’s but that does not mean it is wise, or in any way healthy.

But this is America if that’s what you want to do and you have someone who will share this act with you willingly have at it.

874

[quote]forlife wrote:

You want me to talk about the homosexuals who live a really really long time and are perfectly healthy both physically and emotionally?

No, I want you to stop stereotyping and realize that sexual orientation is not inherently “right” or “wrong” by any objective standard. As long as homosexuals avoid the specific habits you have listed, why would you be opposed to homosexuality? Unless, of course, you have a religious agenda…[/quote]

We have been over this one too. But I will continue to school you if you like.

I’m not quite buying this “sexual orientation” phrase you like to throw around.

You have skillfully avoided answering the following question:

“87% of male homosexuals have stated that they have had sex with a female.”

Now if someone is truly “homosexual” how is it that they can have sex with a female?

How many heterosexual men can say that they have had sex with another male? How many would even be capable of doing such?

Sure, some have, but 87%? Um…not hardly.

This blows a hole in the standard politically correct lie: “homsexuals are born that way.”

You have two children how could that be if you have zero attraction to the opposite sex?

It seems that being homosexual is indeed a choice at some point. You had sex with some women, you then had sex with some men, and you liked better with men.

So…what is “orientation” again?

The second part of your question is very easy to answer.

I am more opposed to gay marriage than the act of homosexuality. As an American you have a right to engage in that activity with whomever would join you in it willingly and is over the age of 18.

I would not take that right away, no more than I would take away the right of someone to have a beer.

People also have a right to drink themselves to death, or eat themselves to death.

As I stated in my prior post “have at it.”

There are plenty of people making really bad choices everyday in America.

You happen to be one of them. :slight_smile:

875

[quote]forlife wrote:

If your actions are challeneged by anyone you are allowed to lash out and pretty much say what’s ever on your mind.

You made this a personal discussion when you crossed the line and passed judgment on my life. I was happy to keep it at a respectful academic level until you made that mistake. Don’t expect to exercise that kind of arrogance without getting burned in the process.[/quote]

Ha ha…“burned?” Um…Ooookay. It that’s what you want to call it.

I looked at your name calling as pretty typical of the politically correct when they are confronted. It’s a baic “hissy fit.” I have been through this before (sorry you are not my first).

In the beginning you had some brilliance to your posts and I noted it. Currently you have slumped to the level of the many others who have preceeded you in attempting to rationalize a host of things related to our topic.

I have debated this topic on every level from health aspects, to the Bible, to national polls and referendums, to the history of societal norms etc.

If you have something new to bring, I suggest that you do it!

So far this has been very typical.

As to my specific comments:

This is what I stated in the first post that I commented on regarding your situation:

"Here is what I see: You had a very difficult decision to make either way. And I have been in the position before of having to make a difficult life changing decsion and I can tell you that you have my empathy.

But with that said:

Leaving your wife and kids will be more costly emotionally than you can even imagine…someday."

I stated that you made a bad decision and I stand by it and will repeat it for as long as you care to read it. And I assume, at this point, that reading it is not a big deal to you. So get ready to read more of the same.

You had two ways you could go and you picked the wrong one!

If you want to call it “Passing judgement” I have no problem with that, as long as it is stated clearly. I am passing judgement on an action taken, not the person taking it.

Keep in mind that I also said that you were a “good guy” who made a bad decision.

And I stated “Please, don’t take anything that I’ve said on this thread as something that is personally against you.”

It’s about the decision! Got it yet?

I would have stated the same to anyone who made such a horrendusly poor decision!

876

[quote]forlife wrote:

But while I will be just a bad memory you will still have to deal with the situation that you created by walking out on your two young children.

Do you not even have a hint of conscience about continuing to misportray my statements like this? You can say that I “walked out on my two young children” all you like, but it doesn’t change the facts. Even if I had wanted to stay in the marriage, my wife DID NOT want to stay married.[/quote]

I will not make a determination as to why your wife did not want to stay married. However, I’ll have to [GUESS[/b] that you were just a tad on the unhappy side.

Am I correct?

Am I allowed to GUESSas to why you are unhappy? With this being a message board and all and you telling me your personal life story I suppose it’s fair game to GUESS.

Okay, this is my GUESS:

Instead of focusing on your two children and what you actually did have, you focused on what you thought you were missing.

Because of the above your actions were not conducive to marital bliss and your wife showed you the door.

If Im right and it’s only a GUESS you are no different than other guys who end up estranged from their families because they think the grass is greener elsewhere.

Now please if I GUESSED wrong you don’t have to throw a fit. Keep in mind that this is the Internet and when you throw out personal information you can expect at least someone to GUESS why it all happened.

Let’s get something straight (no pun intended). YOU were half or more of what was wrong!

If you were constantly thinking about having homosexual affairs I can understand why it didn’t work out.

(Keep in mind I am GUESSING that’s what happened.

Actually, if you reread my prior posts I was sort of letting you know that your children would be better off. And in the long term you would also be better off as you would never regret returning to your family in the long run.

And the “long run” will be here faster than you can imagine.

I only know what you have told me. And from every piece of information that you shared with me I am correct on the advice that I have given.

And I will give it again: Go back to your wife and kids if that is at all possible. And I have found that most things in life are possible if you have the will.

As far as the information that you did not share I have had to GUESS.

877

[quote]makkun wrote:

Might be. How about you? Any thoughts were you could be biased?

[/quote]

Me biased? Naw…

Ha ha I Have already said that I am indeed!

We humans are so dang flawed…

878

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

Agreed. Let it be noted that anal sex is dangerous in homosexuals and heterosexual realationships. This appears to be the first thing we have seen eye to eye on :slight_smile:
[/quote]

That’s only partially true my friend. Since there are far more individuals who carry the HIV virus (and many other STD’s) in the “gay community” it would then be fair to say that anal sex is more dangerous for homosexuals.

Keep in mind Two thirds of all new AIDS cases are homosexual men.

It simply raises the odds of contracting a disease.

879

[quote]forlife wrote:
There are numerous examples of people that live moral lives outside of religion entirely.[/quote]

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. However, the exceptions do not prove the rule do they?

880

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Stop saying peace be with you. It’s false and sanctimonious and hardly rings true when you say it. That’s bullshit.
Professor X wrote:
I have stated the same thing early on. It is as if he has convinced himself that it is an honest statement and that everyone else is too blind to see his intention. If his true goal was “peace”, he would be more willing to accept others regardless of the choices they make, even if he doesn’t agree with them.

You know what Professor X? I don’t see you smiting anyone else when they call others @ssholes, bitches, retards, etc. on this thread. I haven’t done any of that but you’d have me crucified for my signature phrase of [b]peace be with you[/b] which I’ve been using on this site for the last few years. All of sudden you know that my salutation is fake (as if you’re God). And you’re trying to school me on the fallacies of judging others? Then you question if my true goal is one of “peace”.

Thanks for not judging me Professor X. Thanks for accepting the decisions that I’ve made regardless if you agree with them. Note the sarcasm.

When you vocalized the fact that you preferred not to be addressed or saluted with the phrase peace be with you, I complied. Initially I said to myself, “who the heck is this guy telling me how I shouldn’t be ending my posts”, but for the sake of compromise and keeping the harmony as in tact as possible, I complied. For all you know, when I say the phrase, I genuinely mean it. Maybe I pray for you and others on this thread. Maybe I actually DO want peace but not if it comes at the compromise of the Gospel and salvation.

The Prince of peace, Jesus Christ, said He came not to bring peace but a sword. For there would be divisions between Christians and non-believers. Peace on earth isn’t the end goal though. Salvation (which radiates peace and joy) is the Christian’s goal.

If you choose to compromise the teachings of the Christian Faith for the sake of peace on earth, or for the world’s applause, or for being accepting because of a false sense of chivalry, then that’s your decision. The devout Christian’s mission, however, does not compromise the teachings of the Bible and the Church.[/quote]

Hey Stellar,

I will confess that I have not read through this entire thread due to time limitations, but I have read enough to see what has happend. It is very typical, but expected.

Thank you for an excellent statement opening this thread as well as your stand for traditional, moral priciples which made this nation great. You have taken a stand for your Lord as well as a sensible stand ON THIS ISSUE that bucks and grates against the liberal “do whatever feels good” political correctness of our time. Moral relativism says that “my truth is good for me,” and “your truth is good for you,” but “my truth may not be your truth, but it’s all good.” What nonesense!

Anytime on this message board you take a stand either for Jesus Christ, for the Bible, or anything against the liberal (and homosexual) agenda, you get hate, hostility, guile, etc. in return.

Keep strong to your excellent convictions and Keep strong for the Lord.

I end with these excellent words of the Lord Jesus Himself as a way of encouraging you as well as others like us on these forums:

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness? sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:10-16

Keep shining the True Light!

881

[quote]ZEB wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

Agreed. Let it be noted that anal sex is dangerous in homosexuals and heterosexual realationships. This appears to be the first thing we have seen eye to eye on :slight_smile:

That’s only partially true my friend. Since there are far more individuals who carry the HIV virus (and many other STD’s) in the “gay community” it would then be fair to say that anal sex is more dangerous for homosexuals.

Keep in mind Two thirds of all new AIDS cases are homosexual men.

It simply raises the odds of contracting a disease.
[/quote]

Thank you for clarifying the point. While anal sex is dangerous in homosexual and heterosexual circles, it is clearly more dangerous in homosexual circles.

The obvious point here is that heterosexuals do not have to participate in anal sex to be intimate. But, it is impossible for a homosexual to be intimate with his partner without anal sex.

I hope anyone else who reads this realizes just how much more AIDS is prevelant in the homosexual circle.

882

This thread keeps on going.

Brokeback just won 4 BAFTAS, maybe a sign for the Oscars?

883

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Example of moral life are not what we are questioning here. We examining the destructive nature of gay sex.[/quote]

Again, the point is that conversion to a particular religion provides no evidence for the objective reality of that religion. Every faith, from islam to christianity to hinduism to buddhism can point to radical stories of conversion.

This only shows that people can change their behavior based on a change in their beliefs. It doesn’t provide an iota of evidence that the actual beliefs are grounded in reality.

My children are very well behaved around Christmas time because they want to be on Santa’s good list. But that doesn’t make Santa real.

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Why should I trade happiness and peace for a life of misery, on the empty promise from you that christianity (and more specifically, your version of christianity) will deliver a greater reward in some future life?

884

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Again, I have not said homosexuality is a mental illness. I have just said that gay sex is destructive.[/quote]

I thought you said that aggressive anal sex is destructive. You do realize that both heterosexuals and homosexuals can engage in aggressive anal sex, right? And you do realize that gay sex doesn’t have to include aggressive anal sex? I’m still waiting for evidence that gay sex is destructive.

885

Zeb, I am going to make one final comment on the personal nature of some of your remarks and I will leave it at that. I have talked with people that disagree with me in this thread and elsewhere, and have maintained a civil discourse throughout. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, as long as we keep our comments focused on the topic rather than making it personal.

Your comments would have more credibility if you avoided giving personal advice except when it is requested. I would never presume to tell you how to live your life.

Your comments have come across as pompous, self-righteous, and judgmental. You have overstepped your bounds by making personal judgments on my life. If your purpose has been to enlighten me, you have accomplished just the opposite. By acting in such a condescending manner, you have only driven me further away. Arrogance is a huge turnoff. I am far more likely to listen to and respect people that actually listen to and respect me.

Any future personal comments by you will be ignored. I made the mistake of descending to your level in some of my remarks, and for that I apologize. If you have comments about the topic itself, I will be happy to respond.