Homosexual agenda

[seebs]

Originally posted by Apologist
What would you expect from penguins?

Is this your definition of "gay" or what the public would infer?

In everything I have read in your arguments these penguins would most likely be celebate but have feelings for the same sex which would make it acceptable.

It's my definition - they form mating couples of the same sex. And yes, that includes sexual activity, but no, no eggs result.

My definition is the one that is used for the word in dictionaries and psychological studies; if you want a word for "people who have sex with members of the same sex, whether or not they normally feel attracted to such people", you'll have to invent one.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Apologist
Ahh, the subtle ad-hominum attack.

I'm not attacking you - I'm attacking your translation, which contradicts another one, and showing how I think the other one has a substantial likelihood of being a better one. The sarcasm was, however, uncalled for. Sorry. I can make excuses, but why bother? We both know I was over the line.

I think the substance of the argument is still valid - Saint Jerome's translation should probably be considered very seriously before we dismiss it.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by seebs
It's my definition - they form mating couples of the same sex. And yes, that includes sexual activity, but no, no eggs result.

My definition is the one that is used for the word in dictionaries and psychological studies; if you want a word for "people who have sex with members of the same sex, whether or not they normally feel attracted to such people", you'll have to invent one.

Seebs,

My appologies on that remark my friend.

I just couldn't help myself.

 

[Apologist]

Originally posted by seebs
I'm not attacking you - I'm attacking your translation, which contradicts another one, and showing how I think the other one has a substantial likelihood of being a better one. The sarcasm was, however, uncalled for. Sorry. I can make excuses, but why bother? We both know I was over the line.

I think the substance of the argument is still valid - Saint Jerome's translation should probably be considered very seriously before we dismiss it.

Maybe we can contact Bruce Metzger and get his opinion to settle this?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Apologist
Maybe we can contact Bruce Metzger and get his opinion to settle this?

Heh. Well, if we're patient, we'll find out, because God will tell us. I'm not too worried; He's been very supportive during my long struggle with the interpretation of the Bible.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Apologist
Seebs,

My appologies on that remark my friend.

I just couldn't help myself.

Understood.

Anyway, yes, the "gay" penguins sit around together nesting, and if they don't actually successfully mate, it's a hardware problem, not an emotional problem. In dolphins, you'll see male couples who engage in all sorts of sexual activity, and occasionally one of them will go off and father a child - then come *back* to the partner.

It's pretty common, really; no one has an explanation that everyone will accept. I favor the "helpful uncle" theory, myself - it's not an advantage to be gay, but it's an advantage to have gay relatives, whose best chance in passing on *any* of their genes is to help you raise your kids. There are lots of "indirect" reproductive strategies like this in nature. Curiously, an implication might be that attitudes about homosexuality in a culture are affected substantially by the viability of raising kids without help...

Note that this does not directly have a bearing on the question of sinfulness; rather, it has a bearing on questions such as "is there reason to believe this could have biological roots". That question has little effect (directly, anyway) on our estimations of the sinfulness of given sexual acts - but could have a substantial impact on our estimation of the sinfulness of "being gay".

Personally, I suspect that there are a few exceptions in the mix; my guess would be that the vast majority of apparently-gay people are that way biologically, and have no real chance to change it. Some people may be, for instance, bisexual (and just showing a preference one way or another), and it is possible (though not, to the best of my knowledge, yet confirmed) that some peoples' sexual desires are affected by abuse. Indeed, this is one of the objections to "ex-gay" programs; the only things we can think of that show any hope of changing sexual orientation would be considered "abuse" by any court judging treatment of kids by their parents.

 

[Outspoken]

"He's been very supportive during my long struggle with the interpretation of the Bible."

Just remember to acknowledge the answer he gives you seebs, don't "reinterpret" it, okay?

 

[harpy.of.the.storm.swift]

i guess i've fallen deeply into the homosexual crowd, because one of my best friends is gay, and i love him and i enjoy spending time with him.
accepting a gay person as a friend is not showing support of a 'lifestyle', it's showing love of a human being. being gay or straight is only a small aspect of your life unless you are obsessed with sex. i wish that instead of classifying people by their sexual orientation or preference *however you see it* we accepted each person, even if they thought or did things we disagreed with. who you have sex with or desire is only a small fraction of who you are.

 

[seebs]

The more gay people I know, the more I think that the idea of a "gay lifestyle" shows massive ignorance of gay people. It's like talking about the "straight lifestyle", which includes everything from celibacy to marriage to adultery to casual sex to polygamy to people who have been engaged for two years and are planning to get married, but aren't ready to have sex yet. That's the "straight lifestyle", and the "gay lifestyle" looks just like it.

 

[Angel75]

Originally posted by Apologist
Homosexual animals? Now I've heard it all.

http://www.geocities.com/baggylevis/gay_nature.html

just one found with a quick search. Dolphins have shown lifetime homosexual relationships. and when a mate dies, the dolphin continues with a homosexual "lifestyle" (to use yalls fave word )

 

 

[stray bullet]

Originally posted by Smilin

They were the ones to sign the treaty in 1835. Not saying it was legal, but it was signed by over a hundred members of the tribe.

You left out some details._ The treaty was signed without the consensus of all the leaders._ You also ignore the fact that we petitioned the Supreme Court (and won)

You choose to ignore history._ You keep passing over the historical part that removal wasn't even discussed until gold was discovered in Northern Georgia on Cherokee land._ Greed brought on the events.

You're also from Oklahoma, so I'm guessing you're familiar with that sect of the Cherokee Nation._

I currently live in the 'Creek nation', although I've spent a lot of time in Cherokee country, in fact, I basically go to college in the tribe's capital. My Grandad even married a cherokee, so I know a few things about them.

Nothing I said was untruthful. I clearly said that members of the tribe signed the treaty, not the tribe itself as a whole or their leaders. I agree with what you said and it goes along with what I've been saying.

The problem I have with a lot of the way American Indian history is being treated is that it is too much of a one-way blame game. The Amerinds were in perfect harmony until the whites came, stole all their land and killed all the animals they needed to survive.

It's missing a more important lesson humanity can learn from. The thing is, American Indians had all the flaws and ills the rest of humanity does. They fought amongst each other, they killed many of their own animals to sell to whites in order to get booze, many of them were overcome by greed and so on.

Don't get me wrong, they were victims, but not all of them. Many of the tribes were victims of their hatred of other tribes, victims of their obsession with alcohol and victims of all the other things humanity suffers from. I went to school in Oklahoma, growing up. Many of the students were Amerinds, whites or usually mixed.
What were we taught? Basically nothing more than the 'white man' came in, took all of the land away from the 'indians' and that's that. I've come to realize such teaching is a disservice to our children.
We must all learn we as people are inheriently weak, and can have our weaknesses used against us.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by seebs
The more gay people I know, the more I think that the idea of a "gay lifestyle" shows massive ignorance of gay people. It's like talking about the "straight lifestyle", which includes everything from celibacy to marriage to adultery to casual sex to polygamy to people who have been engaged for two years and are planning to get married, but aren't ready to have sex yet. That's the "straight lifestyle", and the "gay lifestyle" looks just like it.

This is a significant point, in my opinion. I've run across people who think that all (or virtually all) gays are promiscuous, drug abusing, alcohol abusing people, and that a monogamous relationship cannot exist between two gay people because their love isn't truly real. Most people who talk about some sort of "gay lifestyle" get their rhetoric from groups like the American Family Association and other like-minded organizations which deliberately look for the worst in the homosexual population.

What's interesting is the lack of attention toward heterosexuals. People claim heterosexuals are so much more responsible and capable of a truly loving relationship, but at the same time they ignore places like college campuses where dance clubs and frat houses are notorious for public and promiscuous sex among heterosexuals. People also fail to look at the divorce rate in this country when claiming that heterosexuals are only actually capable of love and homosexuality is a useless perversion. Why is there no attention paid to these aspects of the "straight lifestyle" which are evidently far more prevalent than objectionable behavior from a fraction of a fraction of the population who is homosexual?

The so-called "gay lifestyle" is exactly equivalent to what I'll simply call the "straight lifestyle". They both come in many, many forms, and it seems like the people who group gays into a single "lifstyle" do not know many gay people/about gay people/or want to know about gay people. Sometimes, in defense, people claim to have that one gay friend, but I find that suspect. That person, if he or she actually exists, is probably a collegue, not a friend (a word whose meaning is so often butchered). What gay person would want to reveal their sexuality to or be around a person who would so strongly disapprove of them, in any case? But the point is, and I guess I'm just repeating seebs here mainly because I agree and feel strongly about this topic, but a gay person's lifestyle is not soley determined by their sexual orientation. It might not even involve sex at all. Gay people are people. It's more convenient for people to see gays otherwise as deviant perverts who are bringing down society and group them into one "lifestyle".