This is Why Homosexuality is Wrong. . .

[LittleNipper]

So you are saying that the false gods of idol worshippers are really the devil in disguise? That is in direct contradiction to Paul, who says that idols are nothing:[bible]1 Corinthians 8:4-6[/bible]

The aphorism that you are mangling reads: "Idle hands are the devil's workshop."

Thank you and that works.... and I heard it in the Music Man.

 

[TheManeki]

Thank you and that works.... and I heard it in the Music Man.

Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for homosexuality.

Hmmm....The meter doesn't fit. Something's wrong here...

 

[RealityCheck]

Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for TEH GAY!

Better?

 

[RealityCheck]

Thank you and that works.... and I heard it in the Music Man.

Right - that would be Harold Hill, con-artist and swindler supreme.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for homosexuality.

Hmmm....The meter doesn't fit. Something's wrong here...

Try "G and that stands for 'gay'!"

EDIT: OH NOEZ, BEATEN.

 

[RealityCheck]

Try "G and that stands for 'gay'!"

EDIT: OH NOEZ, BEATEN.

That's it, I forgot to change the P to a G.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Anyone see Conan O'Brien's version of the song at the '06 Emmys? Classic.

 

[MarcusHill]

Off topic...

We may gripe about the NHS here in the UK, but it's infinitely better than the barbaric mess you have in the US. I've never understood why some idiots see free universal healthcare as a bad thing!

 

[LittleNipper]

Off topic...

We may gripe about the NHS here in the UK, but it's infinitely better than the barbaric mess you have in the US. I've never understood why some idiots see free universal healthcare as a bad thing!

Because unless you are the king or queen, you may not get the operation after you turn fifty. It is not profit able enough to consider saving the life of a common worker who will retire soon anyway. The money is better spent on the young.

 

[MarcusHill]

Because unless you are the king or queen, you may not get the operation after you turn fifty. It is not profit able enough to consider saving the life of a common worker who will retire soon anyway. The money is better spent on the young.

I don't understand how this is an argument against free universal healthcare. The number of joint replacement operations performed on elderly people with arthritis in the NHS gives the lie to your first sentence. Or are you actually advocating withholding medical treatment from older patients?

 

[TheManeki]

I don't understand how this is an argument against free universal healthcare. The number of joint replacement operations performed on elderly people with arthritis in the NHS gives the lie to your first sentence. Or are you actually advocating withholding medical treatment from older patients?

Don't feel bad, Marcus. I'm still confused regarding LN's assertions about homosexuals and insurance in the US:

On one hand, he was complaining that homosexuals with AIDS would gain benefits through access to spousal insurance and drive up costs. Then he complains that homosexuals with AIDS already are driving up costs.

I don't know if he's talking about directly increasing the costs of healthcare, or directly increasing the costs of health insurance, or both.

You would think that someone (gay or straight) who had health insurance in the US prior to contracting HIV/AIDS would not be dropped by the insurer, because it would not have been a preexisting condition when coverage was granted. If this person with HIV/AIDS changed jobs and insurance providers, he could not be denied coverage because of a preexisting HIV/AIDS condition unless there was a period of more than 60 days without insurance.

So you'd figure that a lot of people with HIV/AIDS already have health insurance. If they married and changed to their spouse's plan, they'd still have insurance.

If they didn't previously have insurance and tried to get coverage via their spouse, they would probably be denied (or have some kind of penalty) because HIV/AIDS was a preexisting condition. (Yeah, Marcus, that is ethically screwed up, but we probably need to just start a thread on the ethics of health insurance in the US.)

LN also didn't mention that many corporations (and local governments) extend benefits to non-married "domestic partners."

 

[RealityCheck]

If they didn't previously have insurance and tried to get coverage via their spouse, they would probably be denied (or have some kind of penalty) because HIV/AIDS was a preexisting condition. (Yeah, Marcus, that is ethically screwed up, but we probably need to just start a thread on the ethics of health insurance in the US.)

That incorrectly presumes that ethics even exist in the health insurance system.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The point is HOW they got the disease. Was it by an acident or was the person doing drugs, or had to have some form of sex no matter what? Actually, I feel that people who spread diseases they knowingly have are murderers and should be treated as such.

Quite possibly.

This has NOTHING to do with homosexual marriage though

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Children are being forced to talk and act the "adult," younger and younger. There are growing numbers of men who prey on children through Internet contacts. Some of those children are already more aware of body functions than their parents were at the same age. Now, they are being encouraged to practice and experiment. Once someone gets a disease, he/she my have it for life. Some cancers are now being recognized as being the result of viruses acquired during "casual" sex. When I was 18 I didn't even know what oral sex was. I never even imagined anyone would want to do such things. Today, young children are encouraged to be preoccupied with sex through ads, the Internet, older kids, relaxing of social mores. Kids know more today; however, they are not either more intelligent nor less hormonal. A very bad combination.

your isolated, oversheltered upbringing aside, this has NOTHING to do with homosexual marriage, or indeed anything to do with homosexuality

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Because unless you are the king or queen, you may not get the operation after you turn fifty. It is not profit able enough to consider saving the life of a common worker who will retire soon anyway. The money is better spent on the young.

utter nonsense.

Universal healthcare in Australia... we don't turn people away based on their age... people who need life saving operations and immediate trauma surgery get them.

In the US, this is not true. Why is providing health care services to the poor something you want to avoid???

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't understand how this is an argument against free universal healthcare. The number of joint replacement operations performed on elderly people with arthritis in the NHS gives the lie to your first sentence. Or are you actually advocating withholding medical treatment from older patients?

It does depend on the type of operation. Organ transplants (kidney) is an example. The reality is that if someone has lead a modestly clean life & that person needs help, he should get it to some degree. People who smoke like a chimney and get lung cancer, get stinking drunk every other night and get liver disease, get hepititus from a myraid of tattoos,, wants to dump a baby, and gets AIDS from dirty needles or knocking up everybody with a death wish ---- costs money. NOTHING IS FREE! The next time I visit the United Kingdom, can I stay a week or two FREE in your house? Let's face it, charity is something someone provides because THEY WISH to. Charity is not a right. And I what to provide charity to whom I feel it is deserving and not anyone whom the government selects for political gain. Sorry, if that insults people, but I know of very few people who would lend a stranger their car, simply because they say they need it. If people are unwilling to have strangers use their personal posessions without stipulation, why would they imagine that governmental handouts and healthcare should be FREE and cost them nothing......

 

[RealityCheck]

It does depend on the type of operation. Organ transplants (kidney) is an example. The reality is that if someone has lead a modestly clean life & that person needs help, he should get it to some degree. People who smoke like a chimney and get lung cancer, get stinking drunk every other night and get liver disease, get hepititus from a myraid of tattoos,, wants to dump a baby, and gets AIDS from dirty needles or knocking up everybody with a death wish ---- costs money. NOTHING IS FREE! The next time I visit the United Kingdom, can I stay a week or two FREE in your house? Let's face it, charity is something someone provides because THEY WISH to. Charity is not a right. And I what to provide charity to whom I feel it is deserving and not anyone whom the government selects for political gain. Sorry, if that insults people, but I know of very few people who would lend a stranger their car, simply because they say they need it. If people are unwilling to have strangers use their personal posessions without stipulation, why would they imagine that governmental handouts and healthcare should be FREE and cost them nothing......

Please read the chapter in Luke concerning the Good Samaritan, then get back to us.

 

[LittleNipper]

Please read the chapter in Luke concerning the Good Samaritan, then get back to us.

The LIBERALS keep saying that there is a separation of CHURCH and STATE. When it comes to garnering votes, it becomes convenient for them to play at being the "good Samaritan" (especially with the money of others) and touting "christian' values. When it comes to the promotion of religious virtue suddenly they all become agnostics and say, "We cannot talk about such things in public government run institutions...... GO FIGURE! The LORD looks on the heart. HE is not impressed with rainy day friends.

 

[RealityCheck]

Let's face it, charity is something someone provides because THEY WISH to. Charity is not a right. And I what to provide charity to whom I feel it is deserving and not anyone whom the government selects for political gain.

My point, LittleNipper, is that by your own words you admit that you find the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" as well as all the other commands to charity that Christ gave in the Gospels mean very little to you. Jesus says you do NOT have a choice as to whom you give charity to - you are commanded to be charitable to all, even your enemies, whether you really wish it or not.

Read it again, LittleNipper. You've pretty much missed the point of the central commandment of the Gospels.

 

[LittleNipper]

utter nonsense.

Universal healthcare in Australia... we don't turn people away based on their age... people who need life saving operations and immediate trauma surgery get them.

In the US, this is not true. Why is providing health care services to the poor something you want to avoid???

There is an old saying, "What you don't know can't hurt you." This has to do with imagination. If a person is not constantly hit in the face with SEX, he/she will develope other more important interests and sex will find its appropriate place. From little up, if you are going to nag on SEX and trying this and trying that, most people will not try it. Perfect example: Tattoos----how many had them until they became "popular." They didn't become popular until friends, relatives, and co-workers began to copy a few movie/TV idols. Prior to that only old marines and sailors had them hidden under their shirts.

Homosexual, homosexual, homosexual. Keep spotlighting it and it becomes the "norm" or the thing to try on a bet. Get hooked and instant homosexual. "Oh, oh, I always thought I was different." Yes, and so did everyone else ...