'That's So Gay!'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!

What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.

HOWEVER

If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.

So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.

Until 1975, homosexuality was defined by the APA as a mental illness. Then $$$$$ came in and changed the tune.

If this was the 1950’s, you’d probably not be gay. Only when perversion got mainstreamed did people with a slight case of the mental illness feel free to get into these things.

Give me an explanation of why you hate homosexuality that doesn’t quote the Bible or commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Prove homosexuality is normal without quoting modernistic science, or commit non-tradition folly. Go away '09

What do you even mean? Obviously, the great majority of people aren’t gay, but then, the great majority of people aren’t stamp collectors or hockey fans or weightlifters, yet there’s nothing wrong with being any of these things.

Perhaps you meant “prove that it’s not bad?” It’s an immutable trait that has no effect on third parties, like race or blood type or height. In every moral system I’m aware of, traits like these are accepted.

I said normal, not common. And god does not hate gay’s, he hates sin. And men laying with men as they would lay with women, is a sin.

Again, explain why you hate gays (or the defining characteristic of gays) without resorting to religious babble. You haven’t yet.
[/quote]

Hmm, yet you have not followed what I have said, you must be short because it was definitely not meant to go over your head.

Well, I’m not a sociologist, but sociology explains that the corner stone of the survival of a country is the institute of marriage. Committing acts of adultery, and sexual acts outside wedlock deteriorate that institute.

42

[quote]borrek wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I harbor no hatred for homosexuals. They are simply mentally ill people.

The people actually qualified to judge who is or is not mentally ill disagree with you.

They do however find those with narcissistic personality disorder to be mentally ill.

[/quote]

Those people who are qualified, are qualified by people diagnosed with narcissistic personalities, as well as the people qualified to judge are diagnosed, with a slight case of God syndrome.

43

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
Babies, no less.

There is my objection to gay marriage right there.

I don’t think all that many babies get gay marriages, so I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.

That is because you do not pay attention.

Obviously gay birds steal other birds eggs and breed them.

So, and this is, like dhuh!, completely inevitably, married gay guys would steal babies to play family.

Dude, it is like, so obvious,

I cannot support baby stealing.

Pretty sure you’re not serious, but if you are, you are aware that there are lots of unwanted babies in the world and that gay couples who adopt (which isn’t their only option, lesbians can get a sperm donor and gay men can get a surrogate mother) will take care of one of these, yes?

[/quote]

I know you’re gay, obvious from your avatar, but with one of your modernistic fad’s it is said that homosexuals raising a child have produced a harder life for that child. This is of course caused by the child’s of the up bringing and views of the child after being raised by homosexuals as well as the child usually being anti-social.

44

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
orion wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!

What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.

HOWEVER

If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.

So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.

Plus, people are not born Christian, they are made that way.

They could choose to not be Christian but they live it anyway and make um, special, posts on the interwebz.

I think Christianity is unnatural and I want it to stop.

Well, sense the Invisible One created this world, and sent his only begotten son, I’m pretty sure you just committed heresy.

How so?

I never questioned that Herakles is indeed the son of Zeus?

hah win.

So says the guys that do not know that The Invisible one is one in the same as the name God, since before Moses, God had no name so was sometimes called The Invisible One, YWHW, I Am, etc.

You could at least get your own bullshit straight.

The phrase “invisible one” appears nowhere in any edition of the Bible I can find.

The Tetragrammaton (YHWH) IS (in orthodox Christianity and Judaism) the name of God, so it’s nonsensical to say people used it when “God had no name.” It was only revealed at Sinai, to Moses.
[/quote]

Exactly, they used YWHW after Sinai, but between Abraham and Moses, there was no name for God, so once Israel was close to agreeing on a name, they would ban the use of the word for fear of idolatry. I am not sure if you know what Oral Tradition is, but maybe you should. I never said the “invisible one” was used in the Bible, I said it was a name of God, since before Moses, God had no name. They just knew of Him. Get it, or do you still not understand.

45

[quote]Dustin wrote:
GrandpaButch copied and pasted a bunch of crap from the Book of Jewish Fairy Tales.

Great job using the Bible as scientific evidence! :([/quote]

I’d rather use the Bible as scientific evidence, then a modern fad.

46

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!

What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.

HOWEVER

If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.

So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.

Until 1975, homosexuality was defined by the APA as a mental illness. Then $$$$$ came in and changed the tune.

If this was the 1950’s, you’d probably not be gay. Only when perversion got mainstreamed did people with a slight case of the mental illness feel free to get into these things.

Give me an explanation of why you hate homosexuality that doesn’t quote the Bible or commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Prove homosexuality is normal without quoting modernistic science, or commit non-tradition folly. Go away '09

there are many many species of animals that engage in homosexuality. A lot of water birds will form male male pairs and steal eggs from females to raise themselves.

This homosexuality you talk of is the dominate male asserting dominance.[/quote]

Not at all, and not many species show dominance that way. Male animals assert dominance through duels, not mere butt sex. And its not just confined to males, plenty of species show female-female mounting, or even same sex preference even when theres populations of both males and females around.

And how would mounting for dominance still not be homosexuality?

You’re not very good at trolling on this topic, you should leave topics like this to HH.

47

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
GrandpaButch wrote:
However, as one Christian expert has said:

“Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

Grandpa, the copy-and-paste warrior!

What I find funny about this “Christian expert” is that discrimination against gender and race is condemned, while discrimination against homosexuality is condoned.

HOWEVER

If this “Christian expert” bothered to read his holy book, he would find that the bible blatantly advocates slavery and misogeny. Oops.

So much for it being wrong to discriminate based on “what a person is”.

Until 1975, homosexuality was defined by the APA as a mental illness. Then $$$$$ came in and changed the tune.

If this was the 1950’s, you’d probably not be gay. Only when perversion got mainstreamed did people with a slight case of the mental illness feel free to get into these things.

Give me an explanation of why you hate homosexuality that doesn’t quote the Bible or commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Prove homosexuality is normal without quoting modernistic science, or commit non-tradition folly. Go away '09

What do you even mean? Obviously, the great majority of people aren’t gay, but then, the great majority of people aren’t stamp collectors or hockey fans or weightlifters, yet there’s nothing wrong with being any of these things.

Perhaps you meant “prove that it’s not bad?” It’s an immutable trait that has no effect on third parties, like race or blood type or height. In every moral system I’m aware of, traits like these are accepted.

I said normal, not common. And god does not hate gay’s, he hates sin. And men laying with men as they would lay with women, is a sin.

Again, explain why you hate gays (or the defining characteristic of gays) without resorting to religious babble. You haven’t yet.

Hmm, yet you have not followed what I have said, you must be short because it was definitely not meant to go over your head.

Well, I’m not a sociologist, but sociology explains that the corner stone of the survival of a country is the institute of marriage. Committing acts of adultery, and sexual acts outside wedlock deteriorate that institute. [/quote]

Did you read what I wrote? You challenged me to explain why gays are “normal”, without defining the word. I explained that by one definition, gays are of course not “normal” but the same is true of any minority group whatsoever, and that by the other definition, gays are indeed normal.

If marriage is really the foundation of our society, then certainly you’ll support efforts to draw as many people as we can into this institution. Oh wait.

But of course you’ve completely misunderstood the sociologists. The FAMILY, not marriage, is the basic social unit. But that is a broad term, and what you have in mind when you hear that word - a married man and woman and their minor children - is not the norm in most of the world. The most common sort of family for most human societies over history has been a man, his several wives, their children potentially up to middle age, and any of a number of grandparents or siblings or whatever. Given the tremendous diversity of the family, the standard American gay couple - two men or women and their minor children - is actually far closer to your conception of the family than the sociological norm.

48

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
Babies, no less.

There is my objection to gay marriage right there.

I don’t think all that many babies get gay marriages, so I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.

That is because you do not pay attention.

Obviously gay birds steal other birds eggs and breed them.

So, and this is, like dhuh!, completely inevitably, married gay guys would steal babies to play family.

Dude, it is like, so obvious,

I cannot support baby stealing.

Pretty sure you’re not serious, but if you are, you are aware that there are lots of unwanted babies in the world and that gay couples who adopt (which isn’t their only option, lesbians can get a sperm donor and gay men can get a surrogate mother) will take care of one of these, yes?

I know you’re gay, obvious from your avatar, but with one of your modernistic fad’s it is said that homosexuals raising a child have produced a harder life for that child. This is of course caused by the child’s of the up bringing and views of the child after being raised by homosexuals as well as the child usually being anti-social.[/quote]

hah feel free to post some evidence supporting this.

Or it could have to do with the fact that there is a pretty large and vocal opposition to homosexuality at all, regardless of marriage or adoption, just simple hatred of them, children see this in adults and assume its a-ok. I’d imagine its harder to grow up in a place where a lot of people think your parents are abominations and that there’s inevitably something wrong with you, regardless of the fact they’ve never met you or your parents.

49

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
GrandpaButch copied and pasted a bunch of crap from the Book of Jewish Fairy Tales.

Great job using the Bible as scientific evidence! :frowning:

I’d rather use the Bible as scientific evidence, then a modern fad.[/quote]

Do you know what the word “science” means?

50

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
GrandpaButch copied and pasted a bunch of crap from the Book of Jewish Fairy Tales.

Great job using the Bible as scientific evidence! :frowning:

I’d rather use the Bible as scientific evidence, then a modern fad.[/quote]

Sense, that makes none.

51

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
Babies, no less.

There is my objection to gay marriage right there.

I don’t think all that many babies get gay marriages, so I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.

That is because you do not pay attention.

Obviously gay birds steal other birds eggs and breed them.

So, and this is, like dhuh!, completely inevitably, married gay guys would steal babies to play family.

Dude, it is like, so obvious,

I cannot support baby stealing.

Pretty sure you’re not serious, but if you are, you are aware that there are lots of unwanted babies in the world and that gay couples who adopt (which isn’t their only option, lesbians can get a sperm donor and gay men can get a surrogate mother) will take care of one of these, yes?

I know you’re gay, obvious from your avatar, but with one of your modernistic fad’s it is said that homosexuals raising a child have produced a harder life for that child. This is of course caused by the child’s of the up bringing and views of the child after being raised by homosexuals as well as the child usually being anti-social.[/quote]

You can’t conceive of how a straight man could support equal rights for everyone? Do you realize that you are the exact ideological descendant of the people shouting “nigger-lover” at the whites on the Freedom Rides or the Selma March? What a sad, pathetic shell of a human being you are.

52

[quote]quidnunc wrote:

You can’t conceive of how a straight man could support equal rights for everyone? Do you realize that you are the exact ideological descendant of the people shouting “nigger-lover” at the whites on the Freedom Rides or the Selma March? What a sad, pathetic shell of a human being you are.

[/quote]

Mate if cannot tell the difference between a genetic attribute and an action please go shoot yourself.

53

[quote]phaethon wrote:
quidnunc wrote:

You can’t conceive of how a straight man could support equal rights for everyone? Do you realize that you are the exact ideological descendant of the people shouting “nigger-lover” at the whites on the Freedom Rides or the Selma March? What a sad, pathetic shell of a human being you are.

Mate if cannot tell the difference between a genetic attribute and an action please go shoot yourself.[/quote]

Wearing a cross is an action. Can I ban you from marriage if I point out the horrible things christianity has caused?

54

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I harbor no hatred for homosexuals. They are simply mentally ill people.[/quote]

Says the man who loves seamen.

55

This.
Thread.
Delivers.

56

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
What on earth is “modernistic science”?
[/quote]

The best part, IMO, of trolling such as this, is the posters who soon come to defend and support these positions. PWI is amazing.

57

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
Babies, no less.

There is my objection to gay marriage right there.

I don’t think all that many babies get gay marriages, so I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.

That is because you do not pay attention.

Obviously gay birds steal other birds eggs and breed them.

So, and this is, like dhuh!, completely inevitably, married gay guys would steal babies to play family.

Dude, it is like, so obvious,

I cannot support baby stealing.

Pretty sure you’re not serious, but if you are[…]

[/quote]

I almost spit out my oatmeal this morning when I read this.

58

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I harbor no hatred for homosexuals. They are simply mentally ill people.

Says the man who loves seamen.
[/quote]

My son will be in the Navy (US Naval Academy, Annapolis) as of 6 PM, 1 July (next Wednesday). If that’s what you mean, then YES, I love my son.

59

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:

Wearing a cross is an action. Can I ban you from marriage if I point out the horrible things christianity has caused?[/quote]

Well I am of the opinion that marriage should have nothing to do with the law.

So it is up to the churches.

If any legitimate religious organisation that has historically performed marriages wants to marry you then yes they can.

60

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
What on earth is “modernistic science”?

The best part, IMO, of trolling such as this, is the posters who soon come to defend and support these positions. PWI is amazing.[/quote]

“Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est”

Francis Bacon was a big believer in “modernistic science”. What’s the problem?