"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[Braunwyn]

This has never been true of homosexual relationships, in that they are drawn together by eye attraction, sexual performance and through the total sensual "experience".

I wrote out a buch of replies to a number of your posts but forget it. This post of yours is so depressing. I can't even bother.

As long as christians in my real life stay the hell a way from me, I'm all good.

 

[TheManeki]

I wrote out a buch of replies to a number of your posts but forget it. This post of yours is so depressing. I can't even bother.

As long as christians in my real life stay the hell a way from me, I'm all good.

Hopefully this will make you feel better -- many of us believe evolutionary theory is correct and are for gay marriage. LN in no way speaks for all of us.

 

[Baggins]

Homosexuality is an abomination, unproductive, and very unhealthy. The body, soul and spirit become infected.

However infected you believe a homosexual's soul is, yours must be worse or you wouldn't be able to spout evil like this.

You are one of the saddest individuals I have ever met on these forums and that is one stiff competition.

 

[IrishRockhound]

Let's step back a second here. LN is saying all kinds of horrible things about gay relationships, not the least of which is that they're all about the sex, etc. The bigger answer to this argument is not 'gay relationships are not like that' but 'so what if they are?'

Let's say there are gay relationships that are mostly about sex. Let's say there are straight relationships that are mostly about sex, and there are, no doubt about it. Why is it wrong to have a casual relationship? Why demonise sex in this way, and demonise anyone who desires sex and not a serious and deep relationship?

As long as people are consenting and hurt no one, you have no right to judge how they like to keep themselves happy. If two people, regardless of sexuality, are happy just screwing each other it is none of your business, and passing judgement on their happiness based on your morality is ridiculous. It's not as if they're going to stop just because you personally are offended by their actions, especially when they do not affect you in any way.

Similarly, LN can spout as much vitriol and hate as he wants here, but that will not split up the many, many happy gay relationships around the world. They don't care about opinions like his, or they wouldn't be together in the first place. I also believe gay marraige is just a matter of time, in spite of the anti-gay sentiment we see today from people like LN. Times change, people's attitude changes, and the unacceptable becomes acceptable in the normal course of things. So rather than let ourselves get bogged down in arguments over hate speech, we should look to the future and the happiness it undoubtedly will bring for gay couples.

IRH

 

[Nathan Poe]

Homosexuality is an abomination, unproductive, and very unhealthy. The body, soul and spirit become infected.

I think you've confused homosexuals with zombies

 

[Braunwyn]

Hopefully this will make you feel better -- many of us believe evolutionary theory is correct and are for gay marriage. LN in no way speaks for all of us.

Sometimes the kind and tolerant seem to be few and far between but maybe the negative christians are just louder and get more attention. You're correct though and I'll try to keep that in mind.

 

[LittleNipper]

I wrote out a buch of replies to a number of your posts but forget it. This post of yours is so depressing. I can't even bother.

As long as christians in my real life stay the hell a way from me, I'm all good.

You're depressed now, think about how depressing a CHRISTLESS eternity will be....

 

[LittleNipper]

I think you've confused homosexuals with zombies

I think you believe in zombies but not GOD.

 

[LittleNipper]

Let's step back a second here. LN is saying all kinds of horrible things about gay relationships, not the least of which is that they're all about the sex, etc. The bigger answer to this argument is not 'gay relationships are not like that' but 'so what if they are?'

Let's say there are gay relationships that are mostly about sex. Let's say there are straight relationships that are mostly about sex, and there are, no doubt about it. Why is it wrong to have a casual relationship? Why demonise sex in this way, and demonise anyone who desires sex and not a serious and deep relationship?

As long as people are consenting and hurt no one, you have no right to judge how they like to keep themselves happy. If two people, regardless of sexuality, are happy just screwing each other it is none of your business, and passing judgement on their happiness based on your morality is ridiculous. It's not as if they're going to stop just because you personally are offended by their actions, especially when they do not affect you in any way.

Similarly, LN can spout as much vitriol and hate as he wants here, but that will not split up the many, many happy gay relationships around the world. They don't care about opinions like his, or they wouldn't be together in the first place. I also believe gay marraige is just a matter of time, in spite of the anti-gay sentiment we see today from people like LN. Times change, people's attitude changes, and the unacceptable becomes acceptable in the normal course of things. So rather than let ourselves get bogged down in arguments over hate speech, we should look to the future and the happiness it undoubtedly will bring for gay couples.

IRH

It is hate to tell it exactly like it is, but it is love not to care? Live as you wish but consider yourself forewarned. The only hate I see is from people like yourself directed towards those who are not hurting you but simply saying things you don't want to hear.

 

[LittleNipper]

However infected you believe a homosexual's soul is, yours must be worse or you wouldn't be able to spout evil like this.

You are one of the saddest individuals I have ever met on these forums and that is one stiff competition.

In the Latter days men will call good bad and bad good.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hopefully this will make you feel better -- many of us believe evolutionary theory is correct and are for gay marriage. LN in no way speaks for all of us.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with being happy and gay. Even the homosexual Spartans didn't marry men with men. And your belief in evolution and likely abortion rights, only serves to be a warning to how low a society making up it's own morals will stoop.

 

[LittleNipper]

Then we have met very different people.

It seems to me that the people who are obsessed the most with sex are fundamentalists, just as those who are obsessed most with doughnuts are those on diets.



Then don't do it. However, not everyone shares your opinion. Should they then be denied legal rights just because you disagree on moral grounds (even though it doesn't affect you).

Become a monk and prove me wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

I would love for you to back this up with empirical evidence.

No you wouldn't, or you would check out the facts from unbias sources yourself and not wait to pounce on what others have to say that you simply choose to disagree with.

 

[LittleNipper]

In your eyes, perhaps.



Unreproductive, but other than that, no.



Not inherently so.



Again, in your eyes, perhaps. I've had personal experience with gay couples that says wholeheartedly otherwise.

In GOD's eyes biblically.

 

[LittleNipper]

Christian conservatives have no high horse to sit on when it comes to divorce.



Funny how you'll make that assumption about heterosexual couples, but make the opposite about homosexuals.



"Significant other" is generally understood to mean a long-term conjugal partner of either sex.



Neither is the 50 year-old man seeking out the 28 year-old woman. Does the phrase "trophy wife" ring a bell? How about "arm candy"?



1. See above example.

2. You don't suppose this might have anything to do with people like you working to deny their relationships recognition and basically make their lives hell, do you?



Did you think Christianity is the driving force behind that?



More of a way of preserving the virginity of girls until marriage, since women could still be treated as commodities back then, complete with a freshness seal. The only other way of preserving female virginity, historically, has been to divide women into the "marriageable" class and the "disposable" class. Higher-class girls had to remain virgins (or else keep it secret) but the boys could go sow their wild oats with the harlots, the outcasts, the servant girls, what have you. Everyone would then revile said harlots and outcasts so no one cared what became of them. You can still see this dynamic in action today.



Your ideal society, huh?

Spiritually fed Christian ethic effectively ended organized overt slavery in both England and the United States. One popular tune for the Women's Sufferage Movement was "Onward Christian Soldiers." The Women's Sufferage Movement and the Temperance League were historically linked to the Revival Movement of the second half of the 19th century.

 

[atomweaver]

It is hate to tell it exactly like it is,

It is hubris to pretend to know another person's soul. You're pretending you're God here, with your judgements about the basis of others' relationships, the basis of which you simply don't know, if you were truthful with yourself. You aren't. Instead, you presume to be the Judge of others as a Proxy for your deity, and worse, you think you or your ilk should have the legal right to act upon that Judgement.

but it is love not to care? Live as you wish but consider yourself forewarned.

Not enough fire, not enough brimstone. Pep this section up a bit, please LN.

The only hate I see is from people like yourself directed towards those who are not hurting you but simply saying things you don't want to hear.

*Boggle* You've been saying LN, that you'd would like to have the legal right to eject the people who offend your personal sense of morality from your community;

I feel that the job of the government is to protect its citizens from foreign invasion. Its job is not to legislate moral standards, but to allows its citizens the ability to establish their own without interference of any kind. That means that if the majority of a community of individuals are against homosexual sex, then they should be able to make it difficult for openly contrary individuals to remain part of the community. They need to find their own place and attempt to sink or swim on the merits of their own beliefs/feeling. It such does not work or causes problems for them, it is not for society at large to bail them out.

That's is the point where "I'm only saying" fails to hold as an excuse for hate speech.

From wikipedia;
"To speak so as to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or predjudicial action against another group" = hate speech.

from http://www.historycentral.com/Civics/H.html

Hate speech
"type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them."

Your ongoing comments about the lack of emotional attachment in homosexual relationships certainly fulfills the "condemn and dehumanize" portion of the above...

It is your protected First Amendment right to speak it, but that doesn't make it anything other than hate speech, one of the vilest exploitations of the First Amendment possible. You are a poor American for choosing to exercise your rights in this fashion, and this shows exactly why our government is structured the way it is; people like you would be acting on their prejudices against a minority if it weren't for a federal government which can prevent you.
Saaay, no wonder you want a federal government which only protects from foreign invasion... that's exactly the sort of weak central government you would need in order to enact a plan to ship off whatever minority citizenry offends your personal morality... Too bad its pure fantasy, you live in the United States, Jack. We have rules against that sort of thing, here.

 

[Baggins]

In the Latter days men will call good bad and bad good.

and they will call vile homophobes vile homophobes as well

Your debased desires to control other peoples lives is noted and dismissed, it is the sort of fantasy that powerless individuals have if they haven't the maturity to accept that world doesn't revolve around them and the world isn't set up to pander to their whims.

I will concentrate on the kind words of Christians on this thread from now on, not the bile and threats that you spew.

 

[Baggins]

Spiritually fed Christian ethic effectively ended organized overt slavery in both England and the United States. One popular tune for the Women's Sufferage Movement was "Onward Christian Soldiers." The Women's Sufferage Movement and the Temperance League were historically linked to the Revival Movement of the second half of the 19th century.

The Pro-Slavery movement and the anti-women's suffereage movements were also lead by a "Spiritually fed Christian ethic", and one that is a darned site closer to your Christianity than either of the two movements that you cite.

How you have the nerve to claim the success of the liberal Christian movements as your own when you would have been slavering on the other side of the barricades is beyond me.

 

[TroubleShooter43]

...Moslim [sic] children need moslim [sic] parents. Christian children need a Christian example. Buddhist children need Buddhist parents...

To draw upon one of my modern heroes, Prof. Richard Dawkins: “There is no such thing a muslim child! There is no such thing as a christian child! There is no such thing as a buddhist child! There are however children of muslim/christian/buddhist parents.” If you, LittleNipper, had been taken from your parents when you were young and given to a family that practices a different religion, then you would be as much a member of that other religion as you are of the christian religion now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No you wouldn't, or you would check out the facts from unbias sources yourself and not wait to pounce on what others have to say that you simply choose to disagree with.

So, you have nothing, then? How unsurprising.