Gay-bashing Sucks

[NeverMind]

All these people are running around hating gay people and I don't understand the reason behind it. Especially when they're like "God will smite you for your sins!" as if liking dudes is a sin. Doesn't God love us all? Then why are all these Southern Christians saying such horrible stuff about gays? DO they not count as God's children? WTF? That's just hypocritical.

Also, how can you be a Christian and be pro-death penalty? Do you think Jesus would like the death penalty? He kinda got the short end of the stick on that issue, you know?

[todd]

A true Christian will not be capable of hate, and especially to hate gay people. The problem arise when gay people are trying to import the lifestyle and rules of the straight people- like marriage, children adoption, in-vitro fertilization, etc.
I think most of us agree that homosexuality is a deviation from normality.
Most of us accept and respect them, but when it comes to marriage, this is a strictly straight institution, originally a social-religious and today mostly a social-politic one. The whole concept of marriage is meant to limit the competition and violence in the society, given the natural desire for multiple sexual partners, and to help women raise children – our whole society is based on the family concept.
The gay marriage doesn’t fit anywhere here - nobody is restricting gay people of living together, sharing their possessions and acting in any way they like. The true issue is that the gay people feel the need to be recognized and fully accepted by the rest of the society, and some of them think that the right for an official marriage is part of it.
I think they are profoundly misguided here. Marriage will never justified between gay people, because it doesn’t defend anything, marriage is a self inflicted prison, meant to give weaker men a chance to procreate.
If they really need a protection of their monogamous relationships we should create different institution, similar to marriage but designed for gay people, and then they will be protected. I do agree here that we should make a clear distinction between religious and official marriage, but the official marriage today, in most of the people minds has the same meaning as the religious one, and we shouldn’t try to change that.
When it comes to children, the problem is different. Let’s consider the case of the adoption – is the adoption meant to satisfy the individual pleasure of raising a child, or to provide a child with a proper environment to be raised in, and reduce social costs? We like to think the interest of the child comes first, so we will try to give this already affected child the best chance to succeed in our society, and where will this chance be higher, in the middle of the majority or as part of gay minority?
As per in-vitro inseminations, I am totally against it. How would you feel knowing you were created this way?
Also, how can you be a Christian and be pro-death penalty? Do you think Jesus would like the death penalty? He kinda got the short end of the stick on that issue, you know?
Let’s make distinction between religion and church. Christian believers will never accept death penalty although the Christian church accepted and often used death penalty.
While we cannot create life, we shouldn’t take it, and do not forget – Errare Humanum Est
On the other hand, most people do not know the meaning of the punishment. Of course the point is to protect society, but the punishment is individual, and it represent a compromise between the society and individual interests.

[...]

..hey Todd, what gets infringed by the gay marriage are sets of agreements among people, who set rules for normality. There are not fixed rules for normality, so there can be no I think most of us agree that homosexuality is a deviation from normality.

..what gay marriage is about is the unfair exclusion of people from rights other people do have. This exclusion is based on preference, bigotry and bias and nothing else. Married couples have taxexempts, inheretance laws and hospital visiting rights that can't be covered by a livingcontract. Why would you deny people like you and i rights you and i have?

[todd]

Married couples have taxexempts, inheretance laws and hospital visiting rights that can't be covered by a livingcontract. Why would you deny people like you and i rights you and i have?

I am not denying it. By the contrary, I said they all should have these civic rights, but not as a consequence of a marital status. This why I said they need a different social institution to be defined, similar to a family to defend their rights. But I don’t think they really know what they want, is marriage as we know fit for them or is just the ‘forbidden fruit’? Would a “gay marriage” between 2 people justified? Is “gay marriage” between 3 or more people immoral or acceptable for them? How about a mixed marriage between a gay man, a bisexual man and a straight woman, why this kind of marriage shouldn’t be acceptable?
My opinion is that their community should decide what sort of communion is most accommodating, and if their choose is the known family model we should give it to them, but with a different name, different rules and laws.
Humanity spent thousand of years in creating today’s laws that are far from perfection, and the rules and laws applicable to marriage and family as we know, do not fit the gay marriage requirements.
There was not serious talk and dialog over these issues, mostly because the straight majority avoided it, but in some countries, because of political electoral interests, gay marriage was legalized.


This exclusion is based on preference, bigotry and bias and nothing else.

I do not think this is true. Generally speaking, marriage is a volunteer union between a man and a woman. This union is creating a new set of rights and obligations and if a child is born from this communion, some other rights and obligations will be born too. But most of these don’t apply to gay marriages.
Let’s say gay marriage is legalized, following the same rules as the regular marriage and for example in a gay family between 2 women A and B - A is making $100mil, and B nothing and by mutual agreement they decide to have a child. So B gets pregnant by whatever method with the child C, but after a while A wants a divorce. Now, how about the child? Will he inherit A? Is there any “family” relationship between C and A? What if the agreement was not mutual, and only B wanted the child?
20 years after, may A “straightmarry” C?

As you can see, a whole new set of laws have to be written to cover all possible scenarios, and this is a huge effort and maybe the majority doesn’t consider it necessary to make at this point, so back to individual versus society interests…

what gets infringed by the gay marriage are sets of agreements among people, who set rules for normality

I’m sorry … but all the arrangements in the world will not give me an erection seeing a naked man and this is just nature normality

[thirst4sun]

[QUOTE]All these people are running around hating gay people and I don't understand the reason behind it



Who are "all these people" :think: I understand there are some people who hate gays but there are also people who hate others because of race. There will always be hate issues in the world which we live in.

As for christians hating gays......... :nono: untrue!!!! Just very recently in the state of MA a law was passed which allows gay couples to marry in a Catholic church. The world in which we live is becoming more liberal and less hatful towards gays in my opinion.

[sonrisa]

isn't that the law that has the holy rollers down in Washington throwing hissy fits?

Originally posted by NeverMind@Jul 30 2004, 09:12 AM
Also, how can you be a Christian and be pro-death penalty? Do you think Jesus would like the death penalty? He kinda got the short end of the stick on that issue, you know?
if there really was a second coming & Jesus ever does come back, I don't think he would consider himself a christian.

[...]

..todd,

I said they all should have these civic rights, but not as a consequence of a marital status.

- ..the rights granted by marriage aren't covered in civic contracts. Besides, has it ever occured to you that gay men and woman also like to get married, just as straight people do?

But I don’t think they really know what they want, is marriage as we know fit for them or is just the ‘forbidden fruit’?

- ..come again? I know in the US people tend to dehumanize those they don't understand, but G&L's are people like you and i...

Would a “gay marriage” between 2 people justified?

- ..in the Netherlands gay marriage is legal and people here found it totally justified to allow two persons who love eachother to marry. Not to allow them to get married is unjustified...

Is “gay marriage” between 3 or more people immoral or acceptable for them? How about a mixed marriage between a gay man, a bisexual man and a straight woman, why this kind of marriage shouldn’t be acceptable?

- ..indeed, why not?

My opinion is that their community should decide what sort of communion is most accommodating, and if their choose is the known family model we should give it to them, but with a different name, different rules and laws.

- ..IOW, discriminate...

Humanity spent thousand of years in creating today’s laws that are far from perfection, and the rules and laws applicable to marriage and family as we know, do not fit the gay marriage requirements.

- ..let's change laws then...

QUOTE
This exclusion is based on preference, bigotry and bias and nothing else. I do not think this is true. Generally speaking, marriage is a volunteer union between a man and a woman. This union is creating a new set of rights and obligations and if a child is born from this communion, some other rights and obligations will be born too. But most of these don’t apply to gay marriages.

- ..they don't? Howso?

Let’s say gay marriage is legalized, following the same rules as the regular marriage and for example in a gay family between 2 women A and B - A is making $100mil, and B nothing and by mutual agreement they decide to have a child. So B gets pregnant by whatever method with the child C, but after a while A wants a divorce. Now, how about the child? Will he inherit A? Is there any “family” relationship between C and A? What if the agreement was not mutual, and only B wanted the child?

- ..marriagelaws apply despite the exceptions you can think of. I see no difficulties here...

As you can see, a whole new set of laws have to be written to cover all possible scenarios, and this is a huge effort and maybe the majority doesn’t consider it necessary to make at this point, so back to individual versus society interests…

- ..not really, and only a backwards, stagnant society denies the individual basic rights...

sorry … but all the arrangements in the world will not give me an erection seeing a naked man and this is just nature normality

- ..and lefthandedness can be cured, right? I like seeing a naked man, and find that very natural and normal, so who is right?

[fu*]

>>>I know in the US people tend to dehumanize those they don't understand.<<<

Oh really? How do you "know" this dotty?

[...]

..read here (http://www.webwalker.to/writings/prc_usa.html)

[fu*]

You "know" because you read it?

So I take it that you also think that people from China "tend to dehumanize those they don't understand"?

Any others? Or is this "dehumanization" confined to people of the US and China?

Todd >>>But I don’t think they really know what they want, is marriage as we know fit for them or is just the ‘forbidden fruit’?<<<

What is ignorant in Todds statement is that he paints all gays with the same brush, as if "they" are something other than what Todd is.

Dotty >>>I know in the US people tend to dehumanize those they don't understand,<<<

Yikes! Looks like your thinking is similar to Todd's

So I guess we could say that people from the Netherlands tend to paint all people of other countries with the same broad brush.

[...]

..when was Todd dehumanized? There are many ignorant people on this planet, but none so blatantly than many US citizens. You can take the person out of the culture, but not the culture out of the person. How do you feel about samesexmarriages, FU?

[sahyo]

You can take the person out of the culture, but not the culture out of the person.

ridiculous generalized assumption

[a random hack]

How do you feel about samesexmarriages

i wouldn't do it, my wife might not approve :)

[todd]

For “…”


“…” what culture do you think had the most influence over this world’s civilization?
My opinion – The Roman Empire.
All their philosophers spent one thousand years to create laws, and this is the greatest gift they left us.
Before them it was the law of ‘an eye for an eye’, the law of the strongest, with some small amendments to Torah and Confucius teachings. They created the proper environment for the modern society we live in. Companies, ltd, shares, stocks, are their creation, the property as you understand it today.
They implemented democracy for the first time using the Greek concepts… ever questioned were “senate” is coming from?
They layered the foundation of the international law the whole world is using today (except U.S).
You will say probably that the Saxon common law is a counter example, but in fact it has its roots on the Roman empire ruins in British island, it has evolved in an independent manner, and, as you can see today great efforts are being made to switch to written laws and codes.
The main differences are of a procedural and not conceptual nature.
Thanks to Romans, we don’t kill each other today (sort of).

If you’re thinking that the gay people laws can be written in few years by several ignorants you’re deeply wrong. This is something that should be done as a common and intensive effort by an international organization as UN, because it will completely and essentially change the worldwide accepted ‘family’ concept.
You’re saying that I am discriminating? No I just try not to be ignorant and to identify the implications of a gay family, to try to see how relativity, family members rights and obligations, inheritance will be redefined.
And yes, I honestly think marriage, as we understand from a civic point of view, is not an appropriate union institution for the gay people because it has it’s own characteristics, incompatible with today’s concept of family.

Let’s say gay marriage is legalized, following the same rules as the regular marriage and for example in a gay family between 2 women A and B - A is making $100mil, and B nothing and by mutual agreement they decide to have a child. So B gets pregnant by whatever method with the child C, but after a while A wants a divorce. Now, how about the child? Will he inherit A? Is there any “family” relationship between C and A? What if the agreement was not mutual, and only B wanted the child?
20 years after, may A “straightmarry” C?todd

If we follow the usual rules, the answer is – Yes, C will always inherit A, and A will be his legal “father”?!
It will not matter if the agreement was mutual or not.
No, a child cannot marry his “father” right?
Doesn't sound quite right isn't it? As you can see, our family laws don’t fit the gay family needs, and this was just a poor example.

[fu*]

Dotty

My question to you wasn't meant to be a debate about which country has the most ignorant people. That would be silly. And ignorant.

It was about you Dotty

Could you tell me in your own words how you "know" so much about the people of other countries? The website didn't really clear it up for me.


>>>There are many ignorant people on this planet, but none so blatantly than many US citizens.<<<

Well, I know ;) , having visited your part of the world, that that seems to be the popular view there. But what if you substituted some other group of people, for the US citizens?
Like
"There are many ignorant people on this planet, but none so blatantly than many black people"
Or
"There are many ignorant people on this planet, but none so blatantly than many polish people"

How's that sound to you Dotty?
Or
"There are many ignorant people on this planet, but none so blatantly than many gay people"

You seem to be pro-gay, and anti-American, so what about the gay Americans? Are they ignorant too?

>>>How do you feel about samesexmarriages, FU?<<<

I feel like I better find self first, before I start judging others.

FU

[NeverMind]

if there really was a second coming & Jesus ever does come back, I don't think he would consider himself a christian.

You think Jesus Christ wouldn't believe in himself? That is the fundamental belief in Christianity. You know, like that he's the Son of God and stuff?

And I wasn't even talking about that in the first place. Jesus would probably not be for the death penalty and if Christians believe they are supposed to follow his example, shouldn't they feel the same way?

[...]

..the mind of a person is formed and influenced by the culture it's brought up in. To claim what Todd claims on samesexmarriages is a result of his culture, and the microculture of family, peers, city, education and so on. The social uproar about samesexmarriages in the USA did not happen in the Netherlands and is indicative of a mindset that does not allow for a change to fixed ideas, beliefs and political systems. However, the USA is not filled with only ignorant people, slowly but surely the voice of reason is heard in places that make policy, and is able to change laws...

..democracy is about protecting the rights of the few from the opinions of the many, which is easily forgotten... oh, and FU*, where do you think you'll find self?

[fu*]

Dotty

>>>..the mind of a person is formed and influenced by the culture it's brought up in.<<<

Gosh, really?

>>>To claim what Todd claims on samesexmarriages is a result of his culture, and the microculture of family, peers, city, education and so on.<<<

Of course what your claiming comes from something higher/deeper, right? Totally uninfluenced by those around you.

>>>The social uproar about samesexmarriages in the USA did not happen in the Netherlands and is indicative of a mindset that does not allow for a change to fixed ideas, beliefs and political systems.<<<

Oh Thank you your POMP-ASS-NESS, now I understand.

>>> However, the USA is not filled with only ignorant people, slowly but surely the voice of reason is heard in places that make policy, and is able to change laws...<<<

Thank you kind judge. You are just overflowing with supreme knowledge aren't you? Rarely have I seen anyone so utterly full of themselves.

>>>oh, and FU*, where do you think you'll find self?<<<

In the Netherlands? Please tell me, god-like spouter of imperial statements.

Since you don't even have the courage to answer questions about your ridiculous statements, I'll leave you to try to convince others of your brilliance and enlightenment. It just might work too, after all, you have truly convinced your "self".

fu

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by NeverMind@Aug 9 2004, 03:15 AM
sonrisa-
if there really was a second coming & Jesus ever does come back, I don't think he would consider himself a christian.
nm-
You think Jesus Christ wouldn't believe in himself? That is the fundamental belief in Christianity. You know, like that he's the Son of God and stuff?

And I wasn't even talking about that in the first place. Jesus would probably not be for the death penalty and if Christians believe they are supposed to follow his example, shouldn't they feel the same way?

NM, I never said Jesus wouldn't believe in himself, I said I don't think he would consider himself a christian.

I don't think Jesus would be for the death penalty either. I don't think he would approve of gay bashing. Or burning crosses on peoples' lawns. Or building WMD's & dropping them on people. Or other acts of hate that these so-called christians do, or support those who do them. Jesus preached love & respect for one another & the golden rule.

I tend to agree with the bumpersticker that sez "god is coming back & he's pissed"

[...]

..guess you're right sonrisa, laughable opinions that deny minorities equal rights in a democratic society is hypocritical, and oozes cynicism. There are no viable arguements against samesexmarriages except for bigotry and homophobia...

[sonrisa]

guess you're right too, dots...

:)

[NeverMind]

NM, I never said Jesus wouldn't believe in himself, I said I don't think he would consider himself a christian.

I don't think Jesus would be for the death penalty either. I don't think he would approve of gay bashing. Or burning crosses on peoples' lawns. Or building WMD's & dropping them on people. Or other acts of hate that these so-called christians do, or support those who do them. Jesus preached love & respect for one another & the golden rule.


Dude, I'm a christian, and so's most of the congregation of the church I attend. And I know I, as a christian, have never participated in any hate crimes or religious fanaticism. I can't believe you're trying to play it off like the KKK is made up of normal church-goers. Those people are CRAZY! That's why they do that crazy stuff!
Don't confuse religion with religion fanaticism or radical fundamentalism. Sure, some christians have done mean, stupid shit. That doesn't mean we all wear little white hoods and lynch african-americans. That doesn't mean we all sit in the oval office pressing the little red button and blowing up the world.
There's messed-up people in every group. Don't confuse the exceptions for the rule.

[thirst4sun]

For those of you who did not read my reply..........Gay Marriages are legalized in the state of MA. ( You must be a resident of MA) Here is an article from the Washington Post.

Massachussetts: Gay Marriage Legalized

Joshua Legg
President, Freedom to Marry Foundation
Monday, May 17, 2004; 1:00 PM


After months of eager anticipation mixed with nagging worries that this day may never come, gay couples across Massachusetts and beyond converged on Cambridge on Sunday night to apply for the nation's first state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage licenses: Gay Couples Line Up for Mass. Marriages, (Post, May 17).



Joshua Legg, president of the Freedom to Marry Foundation and board member of the Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachussetts, was online Monday, May 17 at 1 p.m. ET, to discuss the scene at Boston's City Hall, where he's been this morning, and the continuing debate about same-sex marriage.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Joshua Legg: Happy Marriage Day everyone, and thanks for having us on today. It's a pleasure to join Live Online. I can't tell you how amazing the atmosphere is here in the Commonwealth today. I spent the morning at Boston City Hall (and last night in Cambridge) - we're all filled with such joy and elation today. This is a day is a long time in coming for so many couples and families. It's wonderful to see their love and commitment recognized. I'm looking forward to your questions.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: I'm thrilled that every adult couple, regardless of gender, now has the freedom to marry in Massachusetts. It's about time! But there is one issue that will be a thorn to many. My husband and I are recognized as married in every state and every country. How long do you think it will be before a gay couple married in Massachussetts will sue for the right to be recognized in every other state (like Texas) just like any straight couple?

Joshua Legg: Today, all we're really thinking about is Massachusetts and concentrating on celebrating. I'd imagine that will be our focus for sometime. There are a good number of weddings to get through in the coming months.

It's difficult to figure out what the appropriate course might be to open up marriage across the country and strengthen the institution of marriage at the same time. The relaity is that there are cases pending in three states currently, and I'd expect some possible litigation in places like California and Oregon that might have an impact well before a Massachusetts case might be ready to be heard.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Today is the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Education, and it's the day the first gay marriages in the States are legal.

I somehow find that appropriate.

How similar are the fights for equal rights for racial minorities to those of Lesbians and Gays?

Joshua Legg: Having marriage licenses issue here in the Commonwealth today is such a wonderful way to honor Brown v. Board of Education's 50th anniverary. Goodridge (the case that opened up marriage here), and Brown are both so much about equal access, as much as they were more deeply about human diginity. The decisions in both cases were the right ones for each case, and they were the right, just, and proper decisions for our society. We are still benefiting today from Brown in so many ways, and we'll benefit from Goodridge for ages to come as well.

The struggles for equality -- both for racial minorities and LGBT persons -- are incredibly similar. People of Color leaders like Rev. Sharpton, Coretta Scott King, Carol Mosley Braun, and the leaders at the NAACP have spoken far more eloquently about that than I can. I agree with them though. These struggles that we keep fighting in this nation for equality and liberty and justice for all are about dignity. And, I believe that the prejudices we struggle against come from the same dark places. the LGBT community has benefitted greatly from the lessons and work of the POC community. We're indebted to them for the work they've been doing for generations.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Hi Joshua! Thanks for sharing with us today! I have a question I hope you can answer.

I grew up in the Boston area and would like to go with my partner to get married in front of all my friends and family in Massachussetts. But I know that it would not be legal in my current state. Don't we have to take an oath stating that it's not against the law in our current state? What are our options?

Thanks so much. It's been a tough day today: my home state is performing gay marriages while my current state is trying to invalidate my relationship!

Joshua Legg: Thanks for writing today. Interestingly enough, I'm a native Virginian currently living in Boston. Until a few short weeks ago, I'd always been so proud to be from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Now, I'm ashamed of my home state and the elected officials there. All they did was codify bigotry and hate into that grad Commonwealth's constitution. I'm certain that Mr. Jefferson is not ammused.

As to the legal question, I'm actually going to recommend you contact Gay and Lesbian Advocated and Defenders here in Boston (www.glad.org). I'm not an attorney, I'd rather not mislead you. I can tell you that there are clerks here who are not checking to see if it's legal in your state or not. Also, I know there is question as to whether the 1913 law here can be applied to same-sex marriages. We'll know more in coming weeks and months.

In the meantime, I'm glad to know that groups like EqualityVirginia are still working to find ways for same-sex couples to protect their families in VA.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How long do you think before we will see the first gay divorce?

Joshua Legg: LOL! I don't want to think that far ahead. Today, I just want to think about the joy of celebrating with my dear friends who been together for decades that are now married. Honoring their love today is all that matters.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: More than 12 hours into this whole situation, and my marriage remains intact and happy. Funny, that.

Seriously, this isn't a redefinition of marriage -- it's an extension of the existing definition to more people. Since the "more people" we're talking about are consenting adults, and since the legal and financial implications of marriage can be extended to them without overmuch complication (as would not be true of those seeking to open marriage to polygamy, say), there should be relatively little effect on society as a whole.

The REAL redefinition of marriage (in Western Europe and colonies thereof) happened slowly over the past 500 years, about, and has to do with the move from a primarily economic, male-dominated institution arranged by parents or other authority figures to an equal, love-based partnership arranged by the couple involved. I personally like the new definition a lot better, myself.

Joshua Legg: Thanks that affirmation. And, you're so right. If anything, every marriage license (at least those from Massachusetts) now mean so much more than ever. You are also correct. Marriage as we know it has evolved from nation to nation from the being of the concept of marriage. In fact, the first marriage license in the US weren't even handed out until sometime around 1870. Women used to be the property of their husbands...the list of changes goes on. Marriage has never been a stagnant, immovable thing. I think had it been that lacking in flexibility, that institution may not be here today.

_______________________

Zanesville, Ohio: I just wanted to say congratulations to all of the couples in Massachussetts who are FINALLY going to be able to enjoy many of the same legal rights and priveleges my husband and I have. Our thoughts and prayers are with those families and with those waiting for legal recognition in other states and by the federal government.

We're just tickled pink that this is finally happening! May all of those unions be blessed with peace and prosperity (and the expansion of their legality).

Joshua Legg: I really appreaciate your wishes for those married here. And, I join your prayer that all couples will soon know this blessing. Being a man of faith, I and lots of folks around the world have been praying for this day. Many of us feel like a lot of prayers were answered today. Thank you.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Congratulations to all of the newlyweds! Are there any estimates as to how many marriage licenses will be issued in the first 24 hour period?

Joshua Legg: There's no way to guess. In Cambridge last night there were 260+ applications filed. By the time I came back from Boston City Hall to join this chat, there'd already been 84 here in Boston today. And, remember, every community in Massachusetts started taking applications today. Who knows how many we'll see by the end of the day. And, we know licenses will continue to issue for a long time. So, I don't think we'll have a sea of folks this first week, but the numbers will still be exciting.

_______________________

Kendall Park, N.J.: People opposed to gay marriage say it will hurt the sanctity of marriage. I can't quite figure that one out. How does two people of the same sex getting married have any impact on my marriage or whether my children decide to get married? Don't things like adultery and quickie marriages/divorces and reality TV shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" do much more to harm marriage than two loving people who happen to be gay getting married?

Joshua Legg: So true. Having couples who are committed and loving (some of whom have been together 50+ years) can only strengthen the institution and sanctity of marriage. It is a wonderful day.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: There is legislative movement in Pennsylvania (and I presume in other states as well) that our state would not recognize another state's gay marriage. At a time when Philadelphia is actively marketing for gay tourism and urban areas are seeking attempting to attract gay homeowners, doesn't this seem to be economically counterproductive?

Joshua Legg: I'd imagine that this will be counter productive economically for PA. We're already seeing an impact in Virginia. There are major calls for tourists to boycott the state because of the extent to which the Legislature there decided to infringe on the civil rights of the citizens. I'm not certain just how much of an impact that boycott will have on the opinions of the Legislature, but if it's anywhere close to the success that the boycott had in Colorado in the 90s, there could be a real economic impact. Pa and other states may face the same issue, particularly if the state is trying to capture the gay dollar.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Given that polygamy has a much more extensive sociological and historical precedent and acceptance than same-sex "marriage," isn't it rational, if we're changing the definition of marriage, to extend that freedom of choice to plural marriage?

Joshua Legg: Absolutely not. We are not talking about numerousity here. We are only talking about two human beings who love one another, and their rights as citizens to protect one another through their lives.

Polygamy was a major concern in the late 60s as we were ending marriage discrimination for interacial couples. And, 36 years later, polgamy still hasn't taken over the mainstream.

The sky didn't fall after Loving v. Virginia, and it hasn't fallen so far today.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I seem to remember reading an article about when San Francisco was granting marriage licenses to gay couples, there were people volunteering at the scene to hold people's places in line, hand out coffee/donuts/etc., and generally cheer the happy couples on, and that people were sending flowers from across the country addressed to "any gay couple getting married today." Is anything like that going on in Boston and other Massachussetts cities today, and if someone wanted to send their wishes in the form of flowers or something similar, how would one go about that? Thanks. I'm so happy for everyone who can get married now!

Joshua Legg: Thanks so much for that thought. And yes. Folks all over the state have been incredible. I'm hearing about people taking food and coffee, and lots of flowers, wedding cakes -- you name it -- to the city halls. The communities are being so supportive here. It's been beautiful. I'd imagine you could send flowers right to the mayor's office in Boston. They've been so incredible. They might be willing to take the flowers out to the folks in line.

_______________________

Central New Jersey: Do you think states putting anti-gay marriage initiatives on the November ballot is merely a ploy to motivate conservatives likely to vote for Bush to the polls in November?

Joshua Legg: Unfortunately, yes. The more they can pad the ballot, the more likely they are to create voter turn out. And, what an incidious way to do so -- by attacking American families.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: When gay marriages were performed in San Francisco, it was quite a surprise and there were many "spontaneous" weddings. Given the long lead time people in Massachussetts have had in anticipation of this day, are many people having big celebrations?

Joshua Legg: I think there are as many answers to this as there are couples getting married. Since so many of these couples who'll marry in the first few months have been together for decades, many of them had their religious ceremonies, or commitment ceremonies, ages ago. For them, they may prefer a smaller way to mark their civil marriage. Others have waited decades for this day to have any kind of ceremony and will do it up big. I'm going to a few ceremonies of each kind.

_______________________

Virginia: No question, just a comment. I think it's absolutely absurd for gays to equate their "struggle" with the civil rights movement. Blacks were enslaved, lynched, denied equal access, and a slew of other atrocities because of their skin color -- a visible, outward factor of which they had no control. No one will know someone is gay by looking at them; everyone knows you're black/brown at first glance.

Joshua Legg: You know, I have to say that I always carry this debate on in my head. I know full well that there are differences between the struggles. But just as I am writing this, I'm thinking about Matthew Shepherd and a host of otheres who've been killed in some really horrid ways in the last decade because they were LGBT. Just because emotional/sexual attraction or gender orientation can't be seen physically doesn't make hatred any easier to deal with, or the struggle any less real. And, when respected People of Color leaders tell me that our struggles are similar, then I respect that. And, I appreciate their support.

_______________________

Joshua Legg: Thank you all so much -- I really enjoyed chatting. I appreciate all the questions, and I'm sorry I didn't get to everyone. Have a great day.

_______________________


© 2004 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

[evan]

This topic has indeed been lying dormant for some time, and perhaps it would have been best that way, but i just can't help it.

it is true. "There are no viable arguements against samesexmarriages except for bigotry and homophobia..."

Todd, I think what's key here is that you have a very specific idea about what mariage is, and what it is supposed to represent, and I think it is that perseption of the institution of mariage itself that is fundementally different from, say, "dotty's" (sorry to have to call you dotty, but then, i don't know your name, and it works). The difference seems to be that you view it as being this symbolic idea which defines our "world wide conception of the family unit". On the flip side, I'm going to make a stab in the dark at guessing that dotty is going to say that mariage is primarily a symbolic way for two people to express the fact that they care for each other. in other words, mariage is simply about love, and nothing else. what follows, of course, is that in our political system we grant certain rights to those individuals who have decided that they love each other. Now, if i were to tell you that because you were black, or because you were christian, or because you have brown hair, that therefore you can go ahead and live with someone, or do whatever you want with them, but that since we don't like your kind, we're not going to give you those same rights that we give everyone else.. how would that feel? would you feel discriminated against?

another issue that i think has permeated this discussion is that you seem to view gay people as being of an almost entirely different breed. such as talking about an "institution for the gay people because it has it’s own characteristics, incompatible with today’s concept of family.. The issue here is that there isn't really any difference between gay people and straight people beyond sexual preference. there are now different rules that aply to guys who like guys. when girls like girls, that doesn't suddently make laws aply differently. You just (conciously or inadvertantly) paint this picture of this whole "gay people world" which really doesn't exist. There is no huge city of gay people where things work differently. Where would that city be? San Fransico? the state of MA (as illustrated by that lovely article)? We can probably (though i make no permanent assumptions) both agree that many citizens of both SF, and MA would likely not quallify there respective homes as some giant "gay-topia".

nor is it abnormal to be gay. when i look at a naked dude (even a REALLY hot naked dude), i think "oh. a naked dude." like you, i am not suddenly overcome with sexual excitement. why does that seem normal? because that's the way it's always been for me. i've always only thought: "oh. a naked dude." but who's to say that simply because it's 'our' way, that it is therefore the normal way. that's like saying that it's normal for American's to be white, whereas "blackness" in America is abnormal. Does that not sound odd to our contemporary ears? And speaking of the ancient cultures (i.e. Romans supposedly being our biggest influence), homosexuality among the Greeks, especially the spartans, was very common.. common = normal. Homosexuality among Roman soldiers was very common. common = normal. Homosexuality among sailors throughout ALL ages up until possibly even the present was common. common = normal..,. just a thought on normality. So who decides what normal is?

How is it anything but discrimination?
______________________________________________
and Mr/Mss FU* -- I am really having a hard time following how you suddenly became so seemingly offended by so-named dotty... i just read through this entire topic, and there is really never anything in there that is particularily "pomp-ass-ness" warrenting. I think you may just be responding overly-hostile-ly. :)
______________________________________________
and sonrisa - you officially rock.

[fu*]

Evan

There might be a bigger issue than "gays".

I was trying to point out that Dottys blanket judgments about a group of people is no different than anti-gay peoples(or racists, or Christians, or etc. etc.) judgments about another group of people. Trying to convince people that some "others" are "ignorant" reeks of the kind of military brainwashing to get the soilders in the mood to kill others. As in, they are not humans, they are "gooks", and so see how easy it is to hate or kill them, after all, they are not truly like "us". Seems a growing world view about "Americans", and I am afraid that the re-election of our present "compassionate conservative" (as if), may just cement that view. Yes, Americans are mediated, but so is the world. Different media, different message, but still believed.
Maybe we can get this "anti gay" thing settled, then move on to maybe "anti Christian", or "pro Christian", then move on to "anti capitalism", then move on to maybe "state rule", then maybe "racism" and get that settled. Then lets move on to "animal rights" or "blue M&Ms". Great! We have got all those settled. Now we just have to get thru about a billion/trillion more and we will have this human thing all figured out................Maybe there is another way. You think?

I think you may just be responding overly-hostile-ly.

I admit that my response seemed/was "overly-hostile". It was a last effort to get a real conversation in this regard out of Dotty, and it failed.


fu

[sonrisa]

ain't that the truth, Fu* :thumbsup:


Evan-- and sonrisa, you officially rock

-- :D B)



now Nevermind--

NM- Dude

-- first off, I am not a dude....


NM--I'm a christian, and so's most of the congregation of the church I attend.

--most of the congregation? and the rest of them are...



NM-- And I know I, as a christian, have never participated in any hate crimes or religious fanaticism.

--well that's good


NM--I can't believe you're trying to play it off like the KKK is made up of normal church-goers. Those people are CRAZY! That's why they do that crazy stuff!

--I'm not & that's a good observation



NM--Don't confuse religion with religion fanaticism or radical fundamentalism. Sure, some christians have done mean, stupid shit. That doesn't mean we all wear little white hoods and lynch african-americans. That doesn't mean we all sit in the oval office pressing the little red button and blowing up the world.
There's messed-up people in every group. Don't confuse the exceptions for the rule.

--are you so sure they are the exceptions?

NM, Evan is right, this topic as been lying dormant for some time. I meant to respond to your post last month, but I wanted to include a link to an article Jimmy Carter, a true man of faith, wrote about these so-called (please note operative word) christians. But apparantly I deleted the link from my hotmailbox without saving it anywhere else & I was unable to find the article via search engine. Then I got busy & forgot about this topic until Evan ressurrected it. My point is that the word "christian" is getting a certain bad rap. When folx hear the word, they are starting to associate it with a number of certain thngs, some of them downright evil, none of them having anything to do with what Jesus taught. This is what I meant when I said if Jesus comes back, I don't think he would consider himself a christian, since these so-called chrisians don't practice what Jesus preached.

There are some folx of faith out there who are taking back the word "christian" (click here) (http://www.sojo.org) Jesus might align himself with them. :)

[...]

..it is always easy to downplay bigotry when you're not on the receiving end of it, and call it different kinds of things, making it seem that the subject of bigotry must be so different that they're entitled to it. This issue is very simple, aside from personal bias, there's no reason to deny samesexmarriages. Ignorance is a word that's used by me to show how people can turn a blind eye to the obvious out of personal reasons. When the majority of a society does this, and by that denies other's the rights they have, i see no problem calling it what it is, ignorance. However, fair is fair, Massachusetts ruled differently: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex....arriage.ruling/ (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/)

[rich]

I do not think that the life style you choose is my business, whether I agree or disagree with the style you have chosen. :uninvolved:

I also am aware that life would not go on if it were not for male and female relationships. :tao:

[...]

..'they' estimate that 10% of the population experiences themselves to be homosexual/lesbian and they too can concieve and raise children, because a kidwish isn't limited to heterosexuals :P

[evan]

to FU*

we just have to get thru about a billion/trillion more and we will have this human thing all figured out.....

I know that quote was taken out of context, but was I was hearing you say, in part, was "everybody has they're own little issues here, and everyone's bithcing about all of them", and that quote above was pointing out the rediculous effort of trying to work out everybody's issues.

To me, it's kind of like voting. you know you're not going to change the world by voting.. but if you don't do it, then do you really have any right to bitch when your candidate loses? no! everybody at least has to do their part. And with all these other issues, it's just like that. One has to at least stand up for oneself in their own right, else how is s/he to have any self-respect?

Now I understand that another part of what you were saying slash upset about was that everybody seems to vilify Americans, while raising up the rest of the world, and that 1. you don't think that's fair bec. we're not the only ones that discriminate/dominate, etc, and 2. it's a scary thought having the whole world pissed off at us, and we shouldn't encorage it.

But what i think has to be noted, is that we genuinely are the most powerful nation in the world right now.. but a farily large margin. And that's not some "ooh.. we're so freekin' great" remark, it's just an issue of fact. One that has serious ramifications. What it means is that we will be vilified, simply because those on top always are. And we can either get defensive about it, and spread more conflic, or we can use it as an opportunity to examine the degree to which it speaks about the impression we're giving to the rest of the world. clearly not everything people say or generalize about americans is true.. but there are also probably elements of truth somewhere within those critisisms. take this issue at hand:

when there is such a focus in DC about about the gay mariage issue, and protecting family values, and this kind of military brainwashing to get the soilders in the mood to kill others. As in, they are not [normal families], they are "[gay]"
...and when our national leader is talking about amending the document which codifies the soul of our country in order to write in that kind of "military brainwashing".. can we really be surprised at the impression forigners have of Americans?? And sure, that only one source of information about us.. but then, how many American's even know who the national leader of the Netherlands, for instance, really is??

How many different perspectives of the iraqies did we get before people started just saying "****ing iraqies.." ??

Now.. understand i'm not endorsing this by any means.. and i agree: the factless judgement and generaliztion should be changed. but it's useless to simply rail against it, because it will only increase the hostility/conflict.. So if the goal is really to bring about less anti-american sentiment.. then we really just have to demonstrate: "hey.. we're not all *******s. i mean.. is everyone in the netherlands a huge stoner/pothead? no? exactly the point. or is everyone in america is a fundementalist or a war hawk."

So i understand your goal.. and i'm with you all the way, i think. it just seemed that your apparent goal (less blanket judging).. and your methods (i.e. postings) were running somewhat counter to each other.
_____

sonrisa - i'm going to apologise in advance.. as i call everyone from my mom, to my dad, to my sister.. brother.. cats.. (friend's dogs).. teachers.. to girlfriends.. "dude." in my frequently habitual vocabulary.. dude has lost all gender acomplishment. and though frued might well be disapointed in dude's lack of gender security.. it's just the way it has become for me. so early warning "sorry!!!!" :)

and.. congrats on not being a dude, dude!! :cheers:

(teehee.. :))

[sonrisa]

no apology necessary- you did not call me a dude. Nevermind did.
oh ok I see what you're getting at. Apology accepted in advance.

:)

[evan]

yaya!

(i think i just had to make use of it, dude.)

:lol:

[NeverMind]

Sonrisa- (i know this was a while ago)

when i said MOST of my congregation was chrisitan, i meant that there were some who were there for their first time, or just go a couple times. Pnklphnts goes to my church sometimes and he's atheist for example.

there's millions of christians all over the world. Considering that the crazy KKK neo-nazi whatevers are in the minority, i would say that IS the exception.

There are people who say they are christians but act otherwise. I accept that. The christian church has done some f-d up things. I know. But I'm still gonna consider myself a christian and I'm betting Jesus would too because christianity is about following Jesus and his teachings. People have twisted that message to their own sick means and I accept that. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[evan]

NM -

I know you weren't talking to me.. but I do see where you're coming from, of sorts. At the same time, I understand the aforementioned comment about Jesus possibly not ascociating w/ the christian church these days.. I think that that proposition really points to the belief that jesus was about almost nothing but pure love.. Just love everyone, and that's it. almost ALL christian goes beyond that, engaging in unavoidable interpretation. therefore, if the jesus of pure, and nothing but love were to come back.. the various levels of interpretation would turn him off to the institutions of the church, even if not to the people..

:unsure: e :think:

[NeverMind]

Many christians struggle with trying not to judge people. I know me and my friends do. To combat that, we decided to start "the Niceguys", trying to be nie to everybody and hold each other accountable for our faults. Yeah.

[sonrisa]

Hi Neverind :)


NM-when i said MOST of my congregation was chrisitan, i meant that there were some who were there for their first time, or just go a couple times. Pnklphnts goes to my church sometimes and he's atheist for example.

--I was just funning with you. Churches are associated with Christianity, no matter what the denomination, if any. Other religions have other names for their houses of worship (temple, mosque, synagogue, etc..) So people who would go to a church, even on a very irregular basis, even if it's just a couple times (barring going to somebody else's wedding, christening, funeral, etc..) would consider themselves to be christians, even if only nominally. So I thought it was amusing when you said that most of the members of your congregation consider themselves christian. I forgot about your friend pnklphnts who goes to church so he can collect his allowance. No I'm not funning this time, I was the same way at that age. I went to church so I wouldn't have to hear it from my Mom, but I got nothing out of it (church, I mean, I got my allowance :) ) I finally quit going when I got my own place & moved out of her house.

NM--there's millions of christians all over the world. Considering that the crazy KKK neo-nazi whatevers are in the minority, i would say that IS the exception.

-- what about the folx who approve of what these crazies do? What about the ones who don't stand up & call these crazies on their actions? Hasn't anybody ever told you there's no such thing as an innocent bystander? Infact, that's the worst thing somebody can do- stand by while evil is being done & do nothing


NM--There are people who say they are christians but act otherwise. I accept that. The christian church has done some f-d up things. I know. But I'm still gonna consider myself a christian

--good for you. People of faith need to start taking back the word "christian". Your Niceguy group sounds like a start


NM--People have twisted that message to their own sick means and I accept that. Do you see what I'm getting at?

--sure do, do you see what I'm getting at?

[NeverMind]

Yeah i see what you're getting at. Like Christians who may not tar and lynch blacks but hate them in their hearts and stuff. See, i go to chruch on my own volition, im in a small group and the church youth group. I havnt been forced to go to church in years. I like it there. I'm always excited to learn about Jesus and his teachings and stuff.
I mean, if you're not forced to do something, its a lot more enjoyable. Like school, when the school year is over, every child wants to get home and do nothing for the next 3 months. But by august they're all complaining about how bored they are.
I'm not saying you're gonna have some emptiness in your life without Jesus or anything. But I can see the reason you dont go to church and stuff.

[Ronagon]

NeverMind,

I don't think that people hate gays... I think that a lot of people hate and fear anything they perceive as "infectious weakness".

Both males and females worship strength, you see. The male must display it, the female must cling to and manage the male who displays it.

And if you look closely, it's not the hard-charging bull queers who get bashed, only the soft-spoken, less-than-pit-fighter types who do. Why? Because the bull queers exude strength, and that's all people wanna see.

I think they fear that the weakness of the non-hard type is a potential blight on them, that they might become weaker in its presence.

[evan]

i think that's true to a certain extent.. but not completely.

i think there are still people who simply think it's wrong or gross, simply because it's the other, or because they have some notion that god is against it, depsite the fact that the bible, as one source, only barely mentions it.. and much of what it is saying is simply that guys shouldn't rape other guys. well of course... no one should rape anybody.

So I agree with you, but i think that may be limited to mainstream gay-bashing in the pop-culture sense. i.e. the degrading of quote "fairies".

[a random hack]

And if you look closely, it's not the hard-charging bull queers who get bashed, only the soft-spoken, less-than-pit-fighter types who do. Why? Because the bull queers exude strength, and that's all people wanna see.

I think they fear that the weakness of the non-hard type is a potential blight on them, that they might become weaker in its presence.

and like some women get bashed? <_<

[NeverMind]

I, for one, do not hate gays at all. I spent an entire week on a school backpacking trip sharing a tent with one of my gay friends. While I am a little grossed-out at the idea of butt sex, I don't HATE him for it and I can't think of a reason anyone would. There is a website, a rather large one, called godhatesfags.com
The kind of people that do that are really stupid. God loves all his creations. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.
I just dont understand why people would hate gays.

As a christian, I believe that men having sex with other men is a sin. I also belive lying, stealing, cheating, and lusting are sins. If my buddy is making love to another guy, to me he is sinning. But I sin whenever I look at a girl in a lewd way, whenever I tell my parents I already did my homework so I can play X-Box. All sins are equal in the eyes of God. That's my view.

[evan]

NM -

I guess I am guilty of assuming.. but I had sort of already assumed the above (about how you felt about gays, sins, etc.). but maybe it just was apparent from your posts.

this thing is, you say "as a christian" you believe all these things.. but i know a whole lot of people who consider themselves christian, and would completle disagree with you..

part of what's going on of course is a difference of interpretation of what it says in the bible, and the other part is people simply not knowing what the bible says, and accepting whatever their church tells them. i'm not assuming anything about you in this regard.. i'm just stating what i think genreally happens. but i mean, do you know which passages in the bible even talk about men having sex with each other? do you know what it specifically reads?

..just a thought.

:unsure: e :think:

[NeverMind]

Well yeah, I just thought I'd clearly define my stance.

People who consider themselves christian and believe gays who will go to hell just for being gay are hypocrites. That's how I view them.

People do tend to believe whatever their minister or whatever tells them. In most cases what they say is true, but some people are too lazy to find out if they are or not.

In the book of Leviticus (i dont remember the exact chapter or verse, I think it was chapter 13 or 17) it says something like "If a man lies with a man in the way man lies with woman, the blood is on both of their heads." or something. Now you must remember, this is the Old Testament God and he was pretty strict with them Jews.

I know Jesus said some stuff about gays as well I just can't think of where it was.

[Ayres]

NeverMind said,
All these people are running around hating gay people and I don't understand the reason behind it. Especially when they're like "God will smite you for your sins!" as if liking dudes is a sin.
I'm going to take this as if you were talking about Roman Catholicism. If I'm right, then let me tell you you have absolutely no idea about Catholicism.

Doesn't God love us all? Then why are all these Southern Christians saying such horrible stuff about gays? DO they not count as God's children? WTF? That's just hypocritical.
To start:
Equal rights for all men is senseless.
Pius VI, Quod Aliquantulum

What Southern Christians are you referring to? European? I sincerely hope so. In the Commandments it says "Love Thy Neighbour", not "Love Everyone". Perhaps you should ask yourself who is your neighbour. And contrary to popular belief post-Vatican II, Christ is NOT in all men.

Christ is not in all men.
St. Pius X, Enchiridion Symbolorum:2013

Homosexuality is an heresy, thus those who endorse such things is considered an heretic, and by continuation, not God's children.

The Holy Spirit does not give life to heretics.
Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum:18

Heretics are sons of the Devil.
St. Clement I, Epistle to the Corinthians:42,46

Heretics are our enemies.
St. Clement I, Epistle to the Corinthians:42,46

And a long list after this...

Also, how can you be a Christian and be pro-death penalty? Do you think Jesus would like the death penalty? He kinda got the short end of the stick on that issue, you know?
Homosexual Marriages
Condemned by Pope Pius XIII

In recent times, civil governments, local magistrates and politicians, have begun the horrific concept of performing marriages of homosexuals. This goes completely against the laws of God and His Church. We hereby condemn homosexual marriages, as We also condemn any sin against the laws of God and His Church.

As long as Bible History accounts continue to be told, men will know that God hates homosexuality and punishes homosexuality most severely. In Genesis 13, 11-12, it is written:

“And Lot (the brother of Abram) chose to himself the country about the Jordan, and he departed from the east: and they separated one brother from another. Abram dwelt in the land of Cana, and Lot abode in the towns that were about the Jordan, and dwelt in Sodom.”90

Closely associated with city Sodom is the city of Gomorrah, and these 2 cities were punished together. The sin of homosexuality, called Sodomy, derives its name from the city of Sodom. Let those who practice the sin of Sodomy in the present time consider that God’s justice will prevail, just as it did when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone.

We are urged to speak out against homosexuality at this time because the ugly and boiling caldron of sodomy is boiling over in state recognized gay marriages. We remind you of the words of Our predecessor, Pope St. Pius X, who said, “Error is approved by non-resistance, and truth is suffocated by not defending her.” Hence, We both defend the sanctity of lawful marriage, and We condemn all sins of impurity against lawful marriages and their proper use.

We would presume that all those who read these words know what constitutes lawful marriage. However, in these days when liberals call the obvious into doubt, We must define what God set up in holy marriage. When God created Eve from a rib that He took from the side of Adam, He made her to be Adam’s helpmate, not his equal. Hence, in the unit of husband and wife there is a hierarchical order, which makes the husband-wife union into a single unit of human society.

In his Epistle to the Ephesians 5, 22-25 St. Paul writes:

“Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord. Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it.”

When God united Adam and Eve in holy matrimony He made it that the bond of marriage lasted until death of one of the parties. During His life on earth Christ confirmed that mandate, a mandate that had been loosened temporarily during the Old Testament, when a man could have multiple wives.

There was never any situation where two men or two women could enter matrimony. All such unions were sinful, and society was to forbid any such public concubinage.

The purpose of marriage is the generation and education of children, to populate the earth and to fill heaven with saints. This is not a treatise on lawful marriage, but it is treatise on the Sixth Commandment, which is violated when those who enter homosexual unions obtain the pleasures of sex (however depraved) outside of lawful marriage. Lest the acceptance of gay marriages by civil law lead men into looking upon those marriages as lawful before God, We must speak out. All homosexuality in a civil marriage union and outside of a civil marriage union is a sin against the Sixth Commandment of God. No circumstances can ever permit such sexual unions.

God ordained that children be brought into this world only through lawful relations between husbands and wives. Children who are brought into this world by single parents see the immorality of their parents. They do not grow up where father and mother train them in natural knowledge and above all in the science of the saints, that is, being taught how to live in this world in order to gain heaven. Children who are adopted by two persons in a state-sanctioned homosexual union also see the immorality of their caretakers and will likely grow up thinking that such behavior is normal. How sad for these children! Their eternal soul is in great danger. In Matthew 18, 6, Our Lord said, regarding those who would give scandal to young children:

“But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

The pleasures of sex are permitted and good only in the context of lawful marriage. Even in lawful marriage the pleasures of sex are permitted only in the lawful use of marriage. Hence, unnatural acts are also forbidden to married couples. They may not frustrate the effect of the marriage act by any form of birth control, which would be in effect taking the pleasures of sex without accepting the responsibility of parenthood. That is a topic for another treatise in moral theology.

We shutter when a person tells Us that he or she is “gay.” It is amazing such people would portray themselves as being honorable in that state. The innuendo that comes through is that the person was born to be that way, just as a white man was born to be a white man and a black man was born to be a black man. We are what we are in our color, and there is nothing we can do about it. It is God-given. We cannot admit that the tendency towards living as a homosexual is anything else than an expression of the fall of Adam in paradise. By his original sin, Adam lost not only sanctifying grace but he also lost the preternatural gifts. Holy Writ records that after the fall, Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness. That was not the case before the fall. It is recorded that they made garments of leaves to cover themselves, and later God also clothed them. It is clear that the tendency to take unlawful sexual pleasure is the result of original sin. Sexual pleasure alone or with others outside the proper use of marriage is generically one problem. When a man lives with a woman without the contract of marriage, it is a violation of the Sixth Commandment. When a man lives with another man in a homosexual situation (or a woman with a woman), it is also a violation against the Sixth Commandment. Even if the state sanctions gay marriages, the sin of sodomy continues to be the same.

It is important to understand that God and His Church deals with the tendency toward sins of the flesh between persons of the same sex just as with all sins of the flesh, whether that be fornication, adultery, self-abuse or any other sexual behavior, in thought, word or deed.

Since sodomy is a sin, it must be dealt with as a sin. No matter how much one is attracted to a person of the same sex (an unnatural mindset to be sure), he can never do anything that will make such a relation a good one. A single man who is attracted to a single woman can proceed to get married to her. After marriage their rightful relations in marriage are good and honorable before God and man. A gay marriage which is sanctioned (wrongfully so) by the state always remains a non-entity before God. Their life is one continuous series of violations of the Sixth Commandment.

Gay marriages are destructive of human society. They produce no children of themselves. When they adopt children, they destroy them by their bad example. Children need the setting of a father-mother partnership. The father generally secures law and order in the family. The mother provides a special love for the children. All live in obedience to the father. We see a wonderful example of this in the Holy Family: Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

When the Christ child was twelve years old, the Holy Family went to Jerusalem for a customary worshiping rite. As recorded in Luke 2, 51, after Mary and Joseph found the child Jesus in the temple, and from there

“… he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them.”

The God-Man, Jesus Christ, placed Himself in a position where two human beings, husband and wife, directed Him during His human development.

The state is made up of individuals and societies that have God-given rights prior to the existence of the civil society. God establishes the family of one man and one woman, and God commanded Adam and Eve to increase and multiply. The homosexual unions of two men or two women can never fulfill of themselves the command to increase and multiply. Hence, before God it has no right to exist, and the state cannot give such persons the right to get married or even to live together. The state has no right to attempt to violate God’s commands. The state has no right to sanction any sinful behavior. If and when the state interferes with the natural rights of legitimate families, the state contradicts its own end.

Just what should be done with regard to the present menace where governments around the world are permitting homosexual marriages? As that immoral practice develops, it spreads like a prolific virus. The citizens must curb that evil by establishing laws that are in accordance of natural and divine law. The citizens must elect officials who uphold God’s laws rather than trample them under foot. God has made it that there are two perfect societies. One is His Church, and the other is the civil government. The Church is set over the state because the spiritual power is over the material power. Hence, the Church has the obligation not to interfere with the state when it does well, but it has the right and duty (plus the obligation) to veto civil operations that are evil.

When the general citizenry happens to be Catholic, the state will receive directions from the Church. One can see this unfold as he reads history. The more pagan the citizens are, the more terrible are their civil laws. Today We raise Our voice in condemnation of homosexual marriage. Such unions are always sinful. They work for the destruction of good order in the state. They work for the general lowering of all morals standards, and they proliferate souls who generally live their lives in the state of mortal sin. The likelihood that they die that way is great. Hence, the purpose of God’s creation is frustrated, because human beings who are destined for heaven will instead go to hell. This world was made by God to produce human beings who in turn were to be elevated by the state of sanctifying grace. In that state alone can persons enter heaven. All those who do not enter heaven, of necessity, will go to hell.

[...]

..you just gotta love 'm, those loving christians. If heaven means spending eternity with the likes of Ayres, i'll be more than happy to burn in hell...

[Ayres]

... said,
..you just gotta love 'm, those loving christians. If heaven means spending eternity with the likes of Ayres, i'll be more than happy to burn in hell...
I expressed my opinion on the matter with several quotes and articles. I would appreciate you to respect my opinion as I respected yours, even though I don't agree.

Paraphrasing one of the few great Americans: I may not agree with a single word you say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it.

The thread creator brought up the Christian talk, that's why I brought up the Church's views on the matter.

http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...act=ST&f=7&t=23 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=23)
(1) Respect each other.

[...]

..it's opinion galore on this board Ayres, i just voiced mine in respons to your post. All the scripture and the pope's opinion aside, there really is no reason to deny samesexmarriages. I assume you read the thread and know how i feel about it, so let me ask you a question: seeing that samesexmarriages are legal in several West European countries without effecting any adverse symptoms, how are you personally affected by such marriages?

[Ayres]

... said,
..it's opinion galore on this board Ayres, i just voiced mine in respons to your post. All the scripture and the pope's opinion aside, there really is no reason to deny samesexmarriages.
Your opinion, not mine.

I assume you read the thread and know how i feel about it
No I haven't, just the first post.

so let me ask you a question: seeing that samesexmarriages are legal in several West European countries without effecting any adverse symptoms, how are you personally affected by such marriages?
Ok, religion aside, and btw, in my country it is illegal, i just wished all gay people married each other, as you probably know, the genes that carry homosexuality are inherited, so, thinking that nature itself denied Mankind the possibility of giving birth in homosexual relations, those genes will not be inherited, thus homosexuality will, in the long run, be extinct.

It's not the marriages but in the people themselves that I worry about, most European countries nowadays suffer from several "attacks" if i may say so, from low birth rates to high immigration. So, one can easily see that in the long run, the native population is to become extinct, and replaced by foreigners, destructing that way the culture existent there. This is directly related to several social problems, including homosexuality.

Don't bring me the colonial stuff as i also don't agree with it.

[...]

QUOTE
..it's opinion galore on this board Ayres, i just voiced mine in respons to your post. All the scripture and the pope's opinion aside, there really is no reason to deny samesexmarriages.

Your opinion, not mine.

..well, there's opinion, and then there's logic...

QUOTE
so let me ask you a question: seeing that samesexmarriages are legal in several West European countries without effecting any adverse symptoms, how are you personally affected by such marriages?

Ok, religion aside, and btw, in my country it is illegal, i just wished all gay people married each other, as you probably know, the genes that carry homosexuality are inherited, so, thinking that nature itself denied Mankind the possibility of giving birth in homosexual relations, those genes will not be inherited, thus homosexuality will, in the long run, be extinct.

..i'm glad we don't have to go through the 'homosexuality is a choice' thing seeing how you agree that it's genetic. But as i said earlier in this thread, gay and lesbians are people just like you and i and might wish to have children. Mankind has always been ingenious in finding ways to overcome little problems like that, and this will be no different...

It's not the marriages but in the people themselves that I worry about, most European countries nowadays suffer from several "attacks" if i may say so, from low birth rates to high immigration. So, one can easily see that in the long run, the native population is to become extinct, and replaced by foreigners, destructing that way the culture existent there. This is directly related to several social problems, including homosexuality.

..i live in Holland and i fail to see how low birthrates correlate with the legality of samesexmarriages. 50 years ago it was the norm to have large families, the pastor would visit and ask when the next ones due if it had been awhile. Secularisation came due the disgust many people experienced at the hand of such a nosy church. Most of them knew better, and nowadays the Church of Rome often proves the secular Dutch right by remaining anachronistic in it's views. Throughout history the population of countries have not been static, 400/500 years ago the dutch republic saw a great influx of people from Flanders, Italy and Germany who came to work. Today is no different. As one in the midst of it, i don't share your opinion of the situation...

[Ayres]

... said,
..i'm glad we don't have to go through the 'homosexuality is a choice' thing seeing how you agree that it's genetic. But as i said earlier in this thread, gay and lesbians are people just like you and i and might wish to have children. Mankind has always been ingenious in finding ways to overcome little problems like that, and this will be no different...
I'm sorry, but for me homosexuals having/adopting children is pretty repulsive.

..i live in Holland and i fail to see how low birthrates correlate with the legality of samesexmarriages. 50 years ago it was the norm to have large families, the pastor would visit and ask when the next ones due if it had been awhile. Secularisation came due the disgust many people experienced at the hand of such a nosy church. Most of them knew better, and nowadays the Church of Rome often proves the secular Dutch right by remaining anachronistic in it's views. Throughout history the population of countries have not been static, 400/500 years ago the dutch republic saw a great influx of people from Flanders, Italy and Germany who came to work. Today is no different. As one in the midst of it, i don't share your opinion of the situation...
First of all, I'm a Traditionalist Catholic, that means that i don't agree with most things Post-Vatican II.

Well, what you said is somewhat contraditory to your affirmation. It had a great influx by that time, but it was balanced by high birthrates. If the birth rate was higher than what it is now, even though i discourage immigration on a large scale, i would have no problem with it. Also, what was then a great influx is nothing compared to nowadays' influxes.

[...]

I'm sorry, but for me homosexuals having/adopting children is pretty repulsive.

..keeping your beliefs in mind, i expect no less from you. Ultimately this comes down to all kinds of subjective issues packaged in a religious format, and it has nothing to do with an actual condemnation from some god. Believe what you will, even if that means entertaining homo- and xenofobic ideas. Do you act on those ideas, Ayres? When 2 [wo]men marry out of love and respect for eachother, to enjoy the benefits from being married and play a part in society, how does that make you feel? What threat is it to you, except this ridiculous fear for racial interbreeding?

[Ayres]

... said,
..keeping your beliefs in mind, i expect no less from you. Ultimately this comes down to all kinds of subjective issues packaged in a religious format, and it has nothing to do with an actual condemnation from some god.
My opinion on this matter is based on sociological happenings, not in religion, I know how to differentiate things.

Believe what you will, even if that means entertaining homo- and xenofobic ideas. Do you act on those ideas, Ayres?
I'm kinda neo-reactionary, if that's what you meant.

When 2 [wo]men marry out of love and respect for eachother, to enjoy the benefits from being married and play a part in society, how does that make you feel? What threat is it to you, except this ridiculous fear for racial interbreeding?
Religion apart, racial interbreeding, yes. And I have no problem with it as long as they don't start with the usual attitude of "Look at us, we are so gay, and so fashion".

As to answer how that makes me feel, extremely repulsed.

I'm usually not that selfish, as I don't think what threat it is to me, but rather what threat it is to my people.

[...]

QUOTE
..keeping your beliefs in mind, i expect no less from you. Ultimately this comes down to all kinds of subjective issues packaged in a religious format, and it has nothing to do with an actual condemnation from some god.

My opinion on this matter is based on sociological happenings, not in religion, I know how to differentiate things.

..first, i appreciate your honesty, and second, altough i don't consider myself to be gay, i've no problems with the whole phenomenon whatsoever. There is no adverse emotion about it, no judgment attached and i'm all for everyone having the same rights. This opinion is the opposite from yours, and yet you say you know how to differentiate things. How do we determin which opinion is better, or more humane, or compassionate even?

QUOTE
Believe what you will, even if that means entertaining homo- and xenofobic ideas. Do you act on those ideas, Ayres?

I'm kinda neo-reactionary, if that's what you meant.

- .. don't know what neo-reactionary means, explain?

QUOTE
When 2 [wo]men marry out of love and respect for eachother, to enjoy the benefits from being married and play a part in society, how does that make you feel? What threat is it to you, except this ridiculous fear for racial interbreeding?

Religion apart, racial interbreeding, yes. And I have no problem with it as long as they don't start with the usual attitude of "Look at us, we are so gay, and so fashion".

..i have a difficult time relating with your mindset Ayres, at some level i can understand what you mean with 'the usual attitude' but find it simplistic to leave such feelings/thoughts unattented. I'm sure you have no problem feeling what you feel about gay's, but it does sound exhausting to me <_<

As to answer how that makes me feel, extremely repulsed. I'm usually not that selfish, as I don't think what threat it is to me, but rather what threat it is to my people.

..and you have no idea why you feel extremely repulsed?

[Ayres]

... said,
..first, i appreciate your honesty, and second, altough i don't consider myself to be gay, i've no problems with the whole phenomenon whatsoever. There is no adverse emotion about it, no judgment attached and i'm all for everyone having the same rights. This opinion is the opposite from yours, and yet you say you know how to differentiate things. How do we determin which opinion is better, or more humane, or compassionate even?
Actually, we don't. I have mine, you have yours, I'm happy with mine, you are happy with yours. :)

- .. don't know what neo-reactionary means, explain?
Well, reactionary means conservative, i attached the "neo" part because i still think nowadays some things need to be revised.

..and you have no idea why you feel extremely repulsed?
Not really. I watch them, and I feel repulsed.
There are many cultural factors that can lead to this.

[NeverMind]

Ayres-

I'm not talking about Catholics. I'm not talking about the Pope. I'm not talking about Latin, and Saints. I'm talking about people I KNOW. There are people I KNOW. Presbyterians like me, who think this way.

I do realize that the commandment is "Love your neighbor"
You said that did not mean "Love everyone"
What is the difference?
Are you saying God is only talking to people who don't live near gays? Are you saying that it is my duty, as a christian, not to let gays live near me?

When I talked about the SOUTH, I was talking about the Southern United States. I thought this was a mostly American forum since most of the political posts were about Bush and Kerry.

I realize you are probably more educated than I am, and obviously have a more extensive knowledge of the scriptures and the writings of Saints, Popes, etc. than I do.

Then again, I am not catholic and do not honestly care about the Pope or the Saints views. I do respect them as religious figures but do not agree with much of what the catholic church says or does as well as what it has done and said in the past. I believe Jesus, whether the Saints or Popes agree, made it pretty clear that we should love everyone despite their sins.

You may know the passage where there is a group of townsfolk about to stone a prostitute to death. Jesus says "Those among you who are clean of sin cast the first stone."
You are not sinless, neither are gays, what gives you the right to "stone them?"


Another passage quoted Jesus saying something like "How can you point out the splinter in someone else's eye while ignoring the plank in your eye?"
I believe it is up to God to judge, and we do not have the right to condemn gays, or anyone else.

[...]

QUOTE
..first, i appreciate your honesty, and second, altough i don't consider myself to be gay, i've no problems with the whole phenomenon whatsoever. There is no adverse emotion about it, no judgment attached and i'm all for everyone having the same rights. This opinion is the opposite from yours, and yet you say you know how to differentiate things. How do we determin which opinion is better, or more humane, or compassionate even?

Actually, we don't. I have mine, you have yours, I'm happy with mine, you are happy with yours.

- ..would you agree that your opinion can lead to alienation of specific groups of people? Would you prefer gays to be segregated? Do you feel like this about other people who a different from the masses?

QUOTE
- .. don't know what neo-reactionary means, explain?

Well, reactionary means conservative, i attached the "neo" part because i still think nowadays some things need to be revised.
- ..which country do you live?

QUOTE
..and you have no idea why you feel extremely repulsed?

Not really. I watch them, and I feel repulsed. There are many cultural factors that can lead to this.

- ..ehmm Ayres, there are many psychological factors that can lead to this, for instance, the attitude your father had towards gays. A very early memory of something you didn't understand. Or for instance, reaching out to someone and then being ridiculed for it. When you're happy feeling like this about gays, and perhaps other's, you won't be inclined to have a look and get clear why you actually feel what you feel about it. No change will come from that...

[evan]

NM - while I (after reading all of your posts, etc.) feel that you still are on a path to understanding your feelings on this issue in total, and haven't yet reached that complete understanding (i.e. i think you feel a certain way about gays/etc., but have grown up in an environment not conducive to such opinions)... i still think that, after that last post, you are on a brilliant path, and have good intentions. rock on. :)

Aryes - first off, just as one shouldn't bitch about a TV show w/o having watched it.. it is more respectful to enter into a conversation only after having read the whole conversation. that way one is aware of the previously expressed opinions and bias already posted by the participant... just a note of personal opinion.

"neo-reactionary" can be defined as "new" "reactionism" . Reactionist thinkers typically advocate a return to "the way things were" they are indeed extreme conservatives, of a sort, but specifically with regard to returning to some "golden era" of civilization. neo-reactionism refers a brand of "returnist" thinkers that are typically even more extreme, because they don't feel that the present form of reactionism is strong enough. Ayres, given your professed opinions on Vatican II, as well as your boarder-line racist sentiments on gays and lesbians, I would take no issue whatsoever in your labeling yourself a neo-reactionary.

Please do not talk to me about the need to respect your proverbial opinion, as i did not call you a racist: i only said you were boarder-line. And opinion is not always carry a capacity for universal respect. I will never respect the opinion of the officers at Auschwitz.

Frankly though, you sound to me as on who views himself as a protector of "his people". You might do well to honestly reflect on how many of those people genuinely feel protected by you minority, neo-reactionary opinion. You might also do well to consider the true nature of your so-desired traditionalist catholic church. As NM just pointed out, and as your aforementioned quotations bare witness to, you clearly have a sectionalised view of christianity and of love.

How does it better the world for me to only love my "neighbor"? Where do i draw the lines of who is "neighbor" and who isn't? At the edge of my neighborhood? Should I tell everyone on the other side of my town to **** off? ..Or maybe it's my whole town? Should me and my townsfolk do only what is in our little towns best interest, and not worry if some near by town is in trouble? Or maybe it's as a nation-state... Americans should do only what is best for Americans, because god commanded us only to love our neighbors, and by that s/he certainly couldn't have meant "love everybody"...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea is inescapably similar to that of the nation-state. it's called "self-interest" and is how all nations run themselves. This isn't some great profound opinion.. just simple fact: nations operate out of self-interest for their nation and people. Now here's a frightening idea: it seems as if this traditional, exclusionary, pre-Vatican II catholic mentality is fantastically similar to the mentality of supposedly secular nation-states... could this possibly be result the hundreds of years during which the catholic church was a virtual state of it's own? Remember the Papal States..? Remember Pope Julius II.. the proverbial warrior pope..?

As ... has said, your opinion is your own: but it is each individual's own duty to speak out against what he feels to be a detriment to society. And this sectionalised world-view that you seem to be professing is, in my humble opinion, an unimaginably atrocious detriment to society.

:unsure: e :think:
___________________
p.s. sry if i use words that people don't understand - i'm not trying to be pretentious: it's just what i'm used to.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm

[a random hack]

as you probably know, the genes that carry homosexuality are inherited, so, thinking that nature itself denied Mankind the possibility of giving birth in homosexual relations, those genes will not be inherited, thus homosexuality will, in the long run, be extinct.
Ayres,

how long you expecting this to take?

[NeverMind]

Basically here's what's up:

I learned about gay people and decided that I accepted them completely before I got really into church and stuff. Once in church, I found that homosexual actions are considered a sin in God's eyes. While I belive homosexuality is perfectly fine, I also believe that it is not my place to question God's judgement. I do, however, still believe a gay person can, just like heterosexuals can, confess and be forgiven of their sins.

So yeah: my beliefs do somewhat differ from those of my surrounding environment in that there are people in my church who believe homosexuals are all going to burn in hell. My family and friends, on the other hand, believe pretty much the same things I do.

[evan]

What I'm saying, though, is that I don't think the bible really says it's a sin.

Sorry to run counter to what you're church is saying: but the church is not the end all be all on theological christian wisdom..

Does that make sense?

:unsure: e :think:

[NeverMind]

Yeah that totally makes sense. I accept that you don't think homosexuality is a sin, but at this point in time I do not know enough to really question the people I know who have been through seminary and stuff. I generally trust him.
:ph34r:

[Ronagon]

The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin, in Leviticus 18:22... at least male homosexuality is:

Do not lie with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Think what you will, it's right there.

[NeverMind]

Yeah thats the verso I was looking for.

I don't really agree with the wording in tha verse. I mean, the Old Testament tending to be pretty vengeful and angry.
But still, its the word of God.
But again, he's saying the VERB is detesable, not the people.

[...]

..a loooong post on christianity and homosexuality by JWRichards, taken from another forum to illustrate how different interpretations make for totally different meanings:

>>"Hearken unto me EVERY ONE OF YOU, and UNDERSTAND: There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him"
>>17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. <<

You are overlooking a MAJOR issue. Jesus had SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED the words that HE said EVERYONE was to hear and understand. According to Jesus Christ, THOSE were the words EVERYONE needed to follow. And, naturally, those are the ones you want to deny because they shoot a huge hole through your favorite reason for hating people.

After making a HUGE deal about the fact that THOSE EARLIER words were for EVERYONE, he turns his attention to the Apostles, who don't understand that Jesus has just made a MAJOR and ALL-ENCOMPASSING statement, and do not see how that applies to their individual case.

Now Jesus turns to the APOSTLES. THIS is for THEM. To a large extent, the Apostles represent the Church, and Jesus Christ is telling them that THEY HAVE GOT IT WRONG!

In the first segment of the story, the scribes and Pharisees came out bashing the Apostles with their traditions. Jesus pointed out that they were wrong, and that MANY of their traditions were "Making the word of God of none effect".

In the 2nd segment, Jesus gave the test that could be applied to those traditions to ALL people. He said: "There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him:" This clearly covers homosexual acts as well as many other things, such as the kosher laws and medicine.

In this, the 3rd and final segment, we find that the Apostles themselves still have it wrong. They are so wedded to their own traditions that they cannot recognize the all-encompassing nature of the words of Jesus. This is another important issue. These were the followers of Jesus, but THEY got it wrong. Jesus himself says so. For the most part the Apostles DID accept the traditions of the Pharisees, just as today so many accept the traditions of the Pharisees which Jesus set aside, even if they are Christians. This is a warning that the Church itself would get it wrong at first, in the same way as the Apostles.

Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

Obviously his disciples were really missing it. They should have understood that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. Instead of recognizing this as a test to be applied to the traditions of the Pharisees, they thought it was a parable, and could not understand it. It clearly went WAY beyond the issue of washing hands, but they were having trouble seeing beyond that point. They could not see how it applied to their specific case, and THAT is what they were worried about.

Jesus was not happy with them not catching on:

Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

Jesus EXPECTED the scribes and Pharisees to be without understanding. He expected that the majority of people would not really think about his words, and so would limit them much more than they should. His disciples SHOULD know better, and he says so: "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive". He then repeats his all-encompassing statement: "that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him".

Then he continues, showing them that this applies to their specific case as well. Incidentally, in the process he also shows that not EVERYTHING that goes out of a man defiles him by providing an example.

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

It does not enter his heart, his soul, but is physical. In the case of the dirty food, it goes in one end and out the other, but does not enter the person's soul to defile him. Some homophobes have latched onto this passage -- carefully avoiding the words of Jesus where he pointed out that NOTHING that enters a man from without can defile him -- to try and pretend that this is all about food and cannot be about homosexual acts. They have not thought it through, but since they have brought it up, it is necessary to discuss some of the details of the sex act itself.

In male-male sex, something enters a man from without (and therefore does not defile, because NOTHING that enters from without can defile a person). When that occurs, the semen -- protein -- part of "all meats" -- enters the belly, and is later excreted. Jesus described this process and pointed out that this does NOT defile the person, even though it is coming out of him. This would be semen in this case, so semen coming out of a man does not defile him, any more than semen going INTO a man defiles him.

Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

In order to defile the man, it must be evil. Semen is not evil, and does not defile a man, from the earlier example where Jesus discusses it going out in the draught. That example not only shows that there are some things coming out of a man that does not defile him, but the specific example covers homosexual acts in detail.

So since semen does not defile a man when going into him OR when going out of him, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexual acts.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

This shows what should have been obvious to the Apostles. It is the evil intent -- that which proceeds from the heart -- that defiles one.

It is worth pointing out there that the word "fornications" specifically excludes homosexual acts from consideration.

From the Oxford English Dictionary: "FORNICATION: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man (in restricted use, an unmarried man) and an unmarried woman. In Scripture extended to adultery."

The Oxford English Dictionary actually provides the closest approximation to how the word "fornication" was used when it was originally interpreted into English.

This is also pretty much the same in the American Collegiate Dictionary: "Fornication: 1. voluntary sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person with a person of the opposite
sex. 2. (Bible.) a. adultery, b. idolatry

As you can see, the definition specifically excludes homosexual acts. There is *nothing* in the Bible that contradicts this definition. Every instance of fornication mentioned in the Bible is between a man and a woman, doing heterosexual activities.

So no one can legitimately use "fornication" as a tool to smear homosexuality and homosexual acts. It does not apply.

It doesn't apply because God doesn't set up catch-22 situations. Heterosexuals can't legitimately use the argument: "We don't allow you to marry, so you are forced into fornication, and we won't let you get married because you are guilty of the sin fornication" because, as long as they ban gay marriages, gays are not subject to the passages that discuss fornication.

Of course, the word as it originally appeared in the Bible could be more closely interpreted as "prostitution". The Greek word (porne) is derived from the verb "to sell".

And, of course, until gay marriages are allowed, "adultery" does not apply either.

Mark 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

This continues the list, which still does not include anything specific to gays. Those things are all nonphysical, come "from the heart", and defile the person because of the evil intent.

Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

This final statement finishes up with the idea that it is not what enters a man that defiles him (such as homosexual acts), but rather what a person does to others -- what comes from within, from the heart. Gay bashers are promoting an evil message that results in harm to many people and has no redeeming qualities of any kind. By doing so, they are defiling themselves.

John

I see that you are falling into the same trap the Apostles did when THEY did not understand what he said. Jesus had not just given a parable, he had given a TEST to be applied. Jesus chastised them for not seeing the obvious (just as you refuse to see the obvious.)

For intelligent discussion, check out Opinions Unrestrained. Home is where the heart is No matter how the heart lives Inside your heart where love is That's where you've got to make yourself at home Sally Fingerett-©1991 Green Fingers Music, BMI Books of Interest

[Ronagon]

Yes,

and you will notice that, throughout all of this, the "rightness" of this issue is only determined by asking the question, "Did the Bible say it was okay?"

Obviously, that mentality is rubbish. The only things that can ever really determine rightness are a combination of 1) independent, sound logic and 2) whether it works in reality.

Any mind that cannot come up with its own sound conclusions and can only rely upon dictates from arbitrary others, is not a mind, but a parasite.

[NeverMind]

Ronagon,
well we've been talking about the religious definitions
i think mostly because
it remains constant
your views on right and wrong may differ greatly from mine.
also, religious definitions of wrong and right are what most conservative gay-bashers use to bash gays. You see?
We just proved homosexuality acceptable in the eyes of Jesus Christ!
i'd say thats pretty important.

also,
...
thank you, that clarifies what I've been trying to say but have not had scripture to back up.

[Ayres]

... said,
..would you agree that your opinion can lead to alienation of specific groups of people?
Yes, I agree.

Would you prefer gays to be segregated? Do you feel like this about other people who a different from the masses?
Yes, I would prefer. And Yes, i feel like this concerning some other groups, depends on the difference, of course. But this is far more complex than to address just in one sentence or one question.

..which country do you live?
Portugal.

..ehmm Ayres, there are many psychological factors that can lead to this, for instance, the attitude your father had towards gays. A very early memory of something you didn't understand. Or for instance, reaching out to someone and then being ridiculed for it. When you're happy feeling like this about gays, and perhaps other's, you won't be inclined to have a look and get clear why you actually feel what you feel about it. No change will come from that...
LOL, don't give me this psychology auditions.

My father is not really friend of gays. No, I never tried to reach a guy and then being ridiculed for it. LOL (This one is really funny. :D )

Actually, I was like you people some years ago, all that kind of talk "they are humans too", "they have the same rights", and the like. But not nowadays.

As I've said, there are cultural factors, concerning a whole region/population who were raised in a traditional way. This has little to do with psychology, but with sociology.

[Ayres]

evan said,
Aryes - first off, just as one shouldn't bitch about a TV show w/o having watched it.. it is more respectful to enter into a conversation only after having read the whole conversation. that way one is aware of the previously expressed opinions and bias already posted by the participant... just a note of personal opinion.
It's Ayres, not Aryes. ;)

I know, but my time was really limited when i posted the first one. That's why I replied without reading everything.

"neo-reactionary" can be defined as "new" "reactionism" . Reactionist thinkers typically advocate a return to "the way things were" they are indeed extreme conservatives, of a sort, but specifically with regard to returning to some "golden era" of civilization. neo-reactionism refers a brand of "returnist" thinkers that are typically even more extreme, because they don't feel that the present form of reactionism is strong enough. Ayres, given your professed opinions on Vatican II, as well as your boarder-line racist sentiments on gays and lesbians, I would take no issue whatsoever in your labeling yourself a neo-reactionary.
No issue at all. I said neo-reactionary because i have some controversial opinions in some topics that diverge a bit from the conservative point directly, but matches indirectly.

Please do not talk to me about the need to respect your proverbial opinion, as i did not call you a racist: i only said you were boarder-line. And opinion is not always carry a capacity for universal respect. I will never respect the opinion of the officers at Auschwitz.
No problem, I'm no racist, as gay and lesbians are no race apart. I actually hope that every race on the planet lives happily enough, but to each his own.

I don't like Nazis too much, for the bad they did to Europe, however you'll be surprised to see some opinions of some officers at Auschwitz. Quite different from what is thought, i can assure you.

Frankly though, you sound to me as on who views himself as a protector of "his people". You might do well to honestly reflect on how many of those people genuinely feel protected by you minority, neo-reactionary opinion.
I actually remember a poll, made by the State, some years ago -- five, iirc -- where the opinion of the population concerning homosexuality was asked, the results were a resounding no. The same with abortion some months later. So my opinion is really the opinion of the majority, I'm just a bit more extreme on my thoughts.

You might also do well to consider the true nature of your so-desired traditionalist catholic church. As NM just pointed out, and as your aforementioned quotations bare witness to, you clearly have a sectionalised view of christianity and of love.
Nothing to add.

How does it better the world for me to only love my "neighbor"? Where do i draw the lines of who is "neighbor" and who isn't? At the edge of my neighborhood? Should I tell everyone on the other side of my town to **** off? ..Or maybe it's my whole town? Should me and my townsfolk do only what is in our little towns best interest, and not worry if some near by town is in trouble? Or maybe it's as a nation-state... Americans should do only what is best for Americans, because god commanded us only to love our neighbors, and by that s/he certainly couldn't have meant "love everybody"...
I'm pretty sure I've addressed this before.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea is inescapably similar to that of the nation-state. it's called "self-interest" and is how all nations run themselves. This isn't some great profound opinion.. just simple fact: nations operate out of self-interest for their nation and people. Now here's a frightening idea: it seems as if this traditional, exclusionary, pre-Vatican II catholic mentality is fantastically similar to the mentality of supposedly secular nation-states... could this possibly be result the hundreds of years during which the catholic church was a virtual state of it's own? Remember the Papal States..? Remember Pope Julius II.. the proverbial warrior pope..?
Well, if you consider a nation-state a political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language; I'd have to say yes. So many people here and you quickly found that out. :thumbsup:

My country (read above) can be considered a nation-state by the standards above. Some years ago it lived under a fascist regime with a strong emphasis on religion.

Well, I've stated my opinion on this matter ad nauseam, so in order to not repeat myself, I'm out.

[jesupocaplypse]

Self Interest can be a good thing, if your definition of self, is similiar to mine being:
"Me and Mine".
'Mine' being; My species. My people. Humanity. ALL of them. The great nebulous Human Organism. To deny anyone being a part of you is to deny yourself. Yes there is a layer of skin, and a varying distance of air and space and various matter in between me and all the other various me's, but that simply doesn't matter. :P . We are all one. We are not two, or three, or a hundred, or a billion. We are one. One, with Infinite variety. The space and seperation, gives us a sense and awareness of being. Uniqueness, that each individual part may then turn and view the whole from every possible perspective, that we may truly Know Thyself. (or Ourself) and Experience ourself.

I recall a memorable quote from Frank Herbert, in one of the Dune Chronicles books:

What do you despise? By this you are truly known.

I have to laugh at anyone who claims to be Christian, and does not love Everyone. Call your self a Christ-ian, but don't bother listening to his teachings, just the meaningless dogmas of the priests in charge... ermmm... i'm starting to ramble now... shhh. :smoke:

[Ronagon]

NeverMind,

But you missed my point.

MY point is: It's stupid that something is somehow more "right", now that Jesus Christ says it is.

A thing is either right or it isn't, and shouldn't hinge on someone's "stamp of approval"... even Jesus's.

Only sheep think this way.

[...]

..would you agree that your opinion can lead to alienation of specific groups of people?
Yes, I agree.

- ..and ofcourse you're not bothered by this? What when the shoe is on the other foot?

Would you prefer gays to be segregated? Do you feel like this about other people who a different from the masses?
Yes, I would prefer. And Yes, i feel like this concerning some other groups, depends on the difference, of course. But this is far more complex than to address just in one sentence or one question.

- ..is it more complex than your subjective preferences?

..which country do you live?
Portugal.

- ..is your view of gay people the common view in Portugal?

..ehmm Ayres, there are many psychological factors that can lead to this, for instance, the attitude your father had towards gays. A very early memory of something you didn't understand. Or for instance, reaching out to someone and then being ridiculed for it. When you're happy feeling like this about gays, and perhaps other's, you won't be inclined to have a look and get clear why you actually feel what you feel about it. No change will come from that...
LOL, don't give me this psychology auditions.

My father is not really friend of gays. No, I never tried to reach a guy and then being ridiculed for it. LOL (This one is really funny. :D )

- ..your father dislikes gays?

Actually, I was like you people some years ago, all that kind of talk "they are humans too", "they have the same rights", and the like. But not nowadays.

- ..what happened that changed your mind?

As I've said, there are cultural factors, concerning a whole region/population who were raised in a traditional way. This has little to do with psychology, but with sociology.

- ..disagree. Society is of great influence in the forming of the psyche, they are part of the same equation that equals ego...

[...]

A thing is either right or it isn't, and shouldn't hinge on someone's "stamp of approval"... even Jesus's.

..ronagon, many sheep value Jesus' stamp of approval highly, so from that perspective it wouldn't be a stupid thing to say. But from this POV, you're totally correct...

[evan]

it's like valuing the stamp of aproval from a parent that one get's along with: it may not be an absolute necessity, but it would sure as hell be fantastic to have.

I too must laugh (or perhaps despair) at those who call themselves christian, and neglet to follow his teachings.

lastly, Ayres: racism and bigotry are equally cowardly, weak, naive, and despicable traits. My apologies, for you are correct: you are not a racist. you are a grossly self-proclaimed bigot.

[Ayres]

... said,
- ..and ofcourse you're not bothered by this? What when the shoe is on the other foot?
Not at all. Wouldn't it be hypocritical if I complained about that if it happened to me?

- ..is your view of gay people the common view in Portugal?
Yes, it is.

- ..your father dislikes gays?
Yes. And you will really have an hard time to find old people who aren't repulsed by that -- in my country, that is.

- ..what happened that changed your mind?
The process of aging.

[...]

QUOTE
- ..and ofcourse you're not bothered by this? What when the shoe is on the other foot?

Not at all. Wouldn't it be hypocritical if I complained about that if it happened to me?

- ..it sure would, but it is probably unlikely for you to be ostracised, i assume you don't belong to those people on the fringes of society?

QUOTE
- ..is your view of gay people the common view in Portugal?

Yes, it is.

- ..a pity...

QUOTE
- ..your father dislikes gays? Yes. And you will really have an hard time to find old people who aren't repulsed by that -- in my country, that is. QUOTE - ..what happened that changed your mind? The process of aging.

- ..aging tends to be synonimous for mellowing-out, perhaps Portugal is an exception to the rule...

[NeverMind]

I'd say Jesus lived a pretty righteous life. I don't think he's a bad example to follow.
:ph34r:
He was rad.

[Ronagon]

Evan,

You laugh because too many Christians don't follow Jesus's teachings?

Well, how can you follow the teachings of a person who constantly gives contradictory teachings? The man was a charismatic lunatic...

I laugh, because too many Christians choose to follow the teachings of a person who gives contradictory instructions that can never be consistently followed!

[a random hack]

aging tends to be synonimous for mellowing-out, perhaps Portugal is an exception to the rule

dunno dots, seems to me we either mellow, or we become even more rutted, set in our way and beliefs... depends on what we learn from life, i guess :)

[NeverMind]

your mom gives contradictory teachings.

:hahaha:

[sahyo]

dunno dots, seems to me we either mellow, or we become even more rutted, set in our way and beliefs...

maybe neither?

[...]

dunno dots, seems to me we either mellow, or we become even more rutted, set in our way and beliefs... depends on what we learn from life, i guess

..anything is possible ofcourse, and you know i don't like to generalize things :) but when the end of our days nears, people tend to watch re-runs of what happened in the past, and ask what all the effort was about... :dunno:

[a random hack]

maybe neither?

maybe :)

..anything is possible ofcourse, and you know i don't like to generalize things but when the end of our days nears, people tend to watch re-runs of what happened in the past, and ask what all the effort was about...

and then decide they've done a good job, and relax, mellow, or they decide they have failed, and get even more aggresively dogmatic, set in their ways and beliefs?

[...]

and then decide they've done a good job, and relax, mellow, or they decide they have failed, and get even more aggresively dogmatic, set in their ways and beliefs?

..perhaps :P

[a random hack]

shrug :lol:

[Ronagon]

Yes. My mom gives contradictory teachings. Good counter-argument.

[Ronagon]

How do we change where it says "member" under our avatar, to something neat and clever?

[sonrisa]

after you make 250 posts (I think) then you can get into your control panel & change it to something neat & clever.

[NeverMind]

sweet.

ronagon-
Fantasia! :thumbsup:

[sonrisa]

doesn't look like Mickey Mouse to me

:blink:

[NeverMind]

your MOM doesn't look like Mickey Mouse to me!

ZING! :D

[Ronagon]

Well, I definitely think I had over 250 posts, before the site was redone awhile back.

Maybe I should just create a dummy topic string and just post like mad...

[Ronagon]

Well, I definitely think I had over 250 posts, before the site was redone awhile back.

Maybe I should just create a dummy topic string and just post like mad...

[sonrisa]

go 4 it Ron!! :D

[sahyo]

:D ron

[NeverMind]

That had nothing to do with gay people
you should all be ashamed of yourselves :nono:

Australians are awesome. :unsure:

[Ronagon]

I want to raise money, so that we can buy every gay person on earth, a gerbil to put up their ass.

[NeverMind]

Okay, as wrong as that was, i laughed. :D

[Ronagon]

I like gay people, except when:

1) They try to stick their tongue up my ass,
2) They try to spread rumors, or
3) They try to get me to get all neurotic and dance like a circus poodle over not following the latest fashion of the nano-second.

That's when I want to bury a garden rake in their face.

[NeverMind]

Have any of those situations ever happened to you?
Awww. Ronny, have you been violated? :o

poor guy
maybe I'll buy you a piece of toast.

and a garden rake :nono:

[Ronagon]

Mmmmm... toast...

Mmmmm... rake...

[NeverMind]

You can put the remains of the victims of your rake rampage on your toast!

Yummy. They taste like rainbow. :P

[Ronagon]

MMMMM... rainbow...

(whatever the hell THAT tastes like)

[NeverMind]

Rainbow is like candy! From heaven! FROM THE SUN!

[a random hack]

Have any of those situations ever happened to you?
Awww. Ronny, have you been violated? ohmy.gif

poor guy
maybe I'll buy you a piece of toast.

and a garden rake

and a gerbil??? :lol:

[Ronagon]

No, no gerbils... woodchucks, emus and otters are the best.

A regular Noah's Ark, in your colon... *LOL*

[NeverMind]

Don't ask me how I know, but Alligators are the worst.
You get one of those in the ol' sphincter and...oh just die it'd be better for us all

[venom mama]

As overpopulated as the world is people should appriciate gay people because they adopt children instead of reproducing themselves.

[WilliamMckeehan]

gay people ... personally i dont like homosexuals im not trying to offend or make any one angery i just dont them them my self to me its a break in the natural code but this i maybe wrong
for sence there as been humans there as been same sex relationships im not sure on this but in ancient times that stuff was normal so i dont know if its wrong or not its very interesting and confusing subject but for "gay-bashing" it is like making fun of some one for anything but in this case its a little more serious i feel sorry for homosexuals they get a lot of trash throwen there way but in there mind its right and its them so i will respect there ways and be nice to them :D

[fu*]

Hi Bill
I guess you haven't finished spamming your "jesus" site then.
Bill >> ""gay people ... personally I don't like homosexuals""

I think what you meant to say is that you don't like your 'thoughts' of "homosexuals" right?

I wont spend too much time on this post, because I don't believe you have spent much time either.

So I'll say.....I don't like bigoted idiots, because they are not bright enough, or courageous enough, to speak of anything other than what they have learned from other bigoted idiots.

If you show any signs of having courage ( and I have the feeling to discuss ) Then maybe we could dissect your ridiculous post.

Want to Billy?

F U

[scameter]

To be honest, i have absolutely no problem with homosexuals and, actually, the ones that i have met have been more intelligent, more sensitive, and more kind to me than the straight people, man and woman. and, i do not see them as a deviation from normality, i see them as the same as straights. straights have sex because it feels good, and, even if they are aiming for a child, if sex didn't please them they wouldn't do it. and, homosexuals also have sex because it makes them feel good, physically and emotionally, thus neither are a deviation from normality. i actually think it great that mankind has come to a stage, one not yet accepted or respected rightly yet unfortunately, to where that we can do things such as sex for exploratory and pleasure-seeking means. now, i do not agree with the more hardline drugs like haroine or coccaine, but to be honest to me hash and marijuana are natural leaves with no additives except possibly more natural leaves, and they do not provoke violence in the person using them, so i have no problem with them. nor do i have a problem with homosexuality, condom-using straight sex, or accepted, legalized, filtered prostitution if that prostitution is done out of choice by a clean, mature, over 21 aged woman(or possibly man) and if the porstitutes are kept clean routinely. now, all of these views of mine may seem extremely open or whatever, but they are absolutely true and believe me i have not come to them by means of no-question. i believe them genuine and realistic. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

:think: this is true i like this site always lets me see things diffrently and makes me more wise :)

[scameter]

:lol: :huh: :D

[Ronagon]

People gay-bash for the following reasons:

1) Straight-striving males (I say striving because that's all they're really doing) hate gay males because they ENVY them. After all, the gay males aren't living as slaves to female vanity... they've given up being their parasitic hosts.

2) Straight females hate gay males because they RESENT them for not being available as their slaves. Females must have male slaves and captives at all times. If they can't have that, they'll turn to children to dominate and torment.

This is why the big push against gay marriage is going on. Straight males don't want ANY male enjoying a freedom that HE doesn't think he can enjoy, and straight females don't want males to have any other options but being their slaves.

That's it in a nutshell.

[...]

..thanks for the laugh Ronagon :lol:

[scameter]

i agree absolutely ronagon, that is extremely true. when my dad divorced my mom, she began to torment me. and that is why i have some of the abormalities i do now, mainly mentally. and, it is also odd that soon after she left my dad she got another man that she had been dating during the marriage, and right after he left she got another one! lol! that is essential proof of what you just said ronagon. :)

if you don't mind my asking ronagon, are you gay? just out of curiosity.

[Ronagon]

I'm what is called "bi-curious"... I leave my options open.

Of course, there is always at least the slim possibility that I could meet a female that doesn't make my skin crawl with contempt, but in all likelihood, that's not likely.

[scameter]

lol i am also "bi-curious", but i am also 14. my homosexuality is decreasing as the days pass, and my heterosexuality is increasing. but i will not be a slave, i am too free a spirit, and whoever i get with will know that first thing.

[Ronagon]

Well, just remember to never get married. You can impregnate a female and live with her and raise the child, but never, ever get married.

Under the law of the land, a married man is automatically a slave to his wife as soon as he marries her.

Any female who says that she's tired of waiting to get married and who delivers an ultimatum for you to marry her or she's gone, is really wanting to get married so she can finally drop her "loving" act and settle down to the business of owning and torturing you. She knows that once she's got you married to her, she's got you by the balls and she can show her true self. So that's why she's in a hurry to get married, so she can drop the act.

If a female truly loves you, she will understand the injustice of marriage and won't even ask for marriage. A female should want to be with you anyways, provided you're not a pig.

[scameter]

:lol: you sound alot like my dad :lol: but i do agree, i do not really agree with marriage either. pluss marriage is really more of a Christian thing and i am not Christian, so now i have two reason not to do it. and i also agree that a woman should realize the injustice in it and not want to do it, but rather to be equal and in love with me as i will be with her. but, my friend, i do think that there are some exceptions to your idea of marriage. yours is absolutely the common marriage, but not all marriages are like that, or have to be rather, if both partners are intelligent and aware. but, what do you think about gay marriage?

oh, and by the way, i'm not a pig i don't think, yet anyways :D

[Ronagon]

I think that, because it's so easy (and, in fact, almost mandatory in our culture) for a female to conform to the ways of female sadistic supremacy, that any male is going to statistically have a very, very hard time finding one who doesn't at least secretly adhere to it. This corruption is just too heavily promoted and too easy to give into, to not be ever-present as an addictive way of life.

So yes, I would say that there is a possibility that such females do exist, in the sense that four-leaf clovers exist, but they are the rare exception to the overwhelming rule.

Another major problem is how many males are "into" enforcing this rule, because they think it earns them "brownie points" for doing so... brownie points which they hope will get them sex with females. And they don't want sex with females for any other reason than that they've been raised out of fear to believe they have to constantly show how "straight" they are, or risk being savagely beaten, killed, or cut off from society.

[sonrisa]

Ron, with your, um, attitude towards the female gender, do you ever get any? :D

yet you appear to idolize Ayn Rand. Wny is that?

[Ronagon]

Ron, with your, um, attitude towards the female gender, do you ever get any?

yet you appear to idolize Ayn Rand. Wny is that?

These are perfectly legitimate questions. I'm glad you asked.

My response is as follows... *ahem*

Eat shit, and die.

Any other questions?

[scameter]

:lol: :lol: :lol: just because he isn't ignorant enough to let himself be undone by a female enough to let his guard down just so she can take control of him doesn't mean he never gets any. :D

lol i'm starting to sound like ronagon! :D

[sonrisa]

ah Scameter, Ron's just pissed cuz some b*tch named Katrina blew thru & trashed up his trailer. Don't feel so bad Ron- look what she did to New Orleans.

I still wanna know how Ayn Rand is so different from the rest of us ladies.

Originally posted by scameter
i'm starting to sound like ronagon! :D

be scared kid

[Ronagon]

scameter,

Well of course we sound similar. Great minds think alike.


And as far as sonrisa goes, well, something tells me that she's the one who grew up in the trailer, hence her quickness to think in the lowest terms possible...

...single-wide; right, sonrisa?

You know what they say, you can take the girl out of the trailer, but... :)

[sonrisa]

Ron--...single-wide; right, sonrisa?

--nope. Wrong, Ron


Ron--You know what they say, you can take the girl out of the trailer, but.. :)

--but what Ron? I'm not trailer park trash so you're gonna have to explain that one to me :)

[scameter]

ok, please, let's ot fight. this is nice discussion not idiotic bashing. lol i sound like a liberal.

thanks ron! that made me feel really happy my friend! you are a great, aware mind and i am pleased to have had the honour of hearing what you have to say. :) :) :)

[Ronagon]

scameter,

Well, thanks for the compliment. My best advice is never give into evil, ever. When you see it, fight it... not to make a "good show" of fighting it, but to DEFEAT it.

If you're faced with a fight that you don't think you can absolutely WIN, retreat somewhere safe and gather strength and allies until you can come back and win. Don't buy into all that theatrical nonsense about "putting up a good fight".

The most important part of all this, is learning how to read people relentlessly to determine the extent to which they're good or evil. Evil people prefer to conceal themselves through their charm. The presence of charm in a person should be a huge warning sign, because people typically make a great effort to show you the opposite of what they really are.

Everybody is soft somewhere and hard somewhere. People with hard exteriors typically are soft inside, and people who seem all soft and cuddly on the outside, are usually cold and callous monsters on the inside.

In all cases, it's what you're not seeing in a person, that they're going to pains to hide... because everybody has a full range of states. You can believe it.

[scameter]

i agree, and some hard exteriors on people are their real self, just possibly worse inside, and also with the soft exterior people, whom can possibly be even softer inside. but, what you say is true in most cases. and, believe me, how my mom mistreated me for the length of my childhood has made my strong. not hard, but strong, relentless, in all respects. which is one reason why i am so good at debating :D

[Ronagon]

scameter,

Have you ever read the book The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand? I'd be curious to see what your judgments on it would be.

[venom mama]

the only reason a man hates a woman is because he's shallow. so maybe ron had a bad experience with a female, don't judge all of us the same. sure some women are losers but so are some men.

[scameter]

ok ron, i'll ckeck into that. :)

and venom, as i said in the philosophy topic that i most recently replied to, you are unique for women, and i think that ron and i have obviously had similar observations of women. but, i am glad you are not so, for if you were, i could not enjoy your company. :) and, you are wrong; all men are losers. :lol: no, most men are losers, only some, as with women, are not. :D

[Ronagon]

Point well taken, venom.

Waitaminute. Hold on. Now that I re-read your post, your point is not well taken.

It took way more than just one female to make me this way. If I were surrounded by admirable females and had just been victimized by one monster, I wouldn't have the attitude I have now.

The fact is that MOST females today are the way I've described. If you're above what I've described, venom, then you are the exception, and NOT the rule.

[scameter]

i agree ron, which what you said is essentially what i said :D

[MidnightSun]

well i can only say i hate discrimination...Some of woman and men are shallow and we cant judge them all for things did by few of them...also if ur gay or lesbian, man or woman is not so important, the importance is in person itself if its good or bad ,what he do and how...i really dont understand why straight hates gays but we also must know not all think like that. Dont forget - "Live and let live".

[scameter]

what do you feel about homosexuality, mid? just out of curiosity.

[MidnightSun]

ur very curious :lol: and if seriously i dont think theres something wrong here. Its just the way they are, same ppl as us ,i told already but gender, colour and those thingys is not important ,the importance is in the person.

P.s. sry for bad english im from lithuania (east europe) and only 14 so..forgive me :lol:

[scameter]

:lol: yes, i am very, very curious. it's one of my key characteristics. but, why is there something wrong? do you mean about homosexuality?

:lol: it's cool. :D

[MidnightSun]

wheres nothing wrong at all, espiacvally about homosexualty. But where is something wrong about ppl who cant understand that.

[scameter]

oh, i misunderstood. i'm glad you think so, as do i. :)

[MidnightSun]

:thumbsup:

[scameter]

:)

[venom mama]

i don't care if people are gay or not. to each their own as long as no one gets hurt.


i love men though. i can't imagine just getting naked with another woman. men's bodies are excellent. i love men's bodies.


:smoke:

[scameter]

where've you been all my life? :D

[venom mama]

i read your profile scameter and saw that you are in georgia.





i'm in georgia too.

[MidnightSun]

:P venom loves scam, scam loves venom :P

[venom mama]

:hug:

[MidnightSun]

I love u too venom, its love triangular :lol:

[scameter]

you are??!! that's cool, what part of it?

lol threesome. :D

@venom: :loveyou:

[venom mama]

about 20 minutes away from georgia southern university

[scameter]

i'm in Dawsonville, about 5 minutes from North Georgia University. unfortunately. redneckville :D

[sonrisa]

Dawsonville.... is that one of those places that closes up at 8? You poor thing. :knockout:

How far are you from Atlanta?

[scameter]

lol yes, i am a poor thing. i live around idiots. lol

umm i would say we're about an hour from Atlanta, north of it. you know, just north of Cumming, forsyth county.

[sonrisa]

Forsyth Co, ok. So how far from 75 are you?

[scameter]

:lol: sorry, not too good with roads. i do know that if you go 400 north from Cumming and turn left on 53 and keep going you do even tually get to my apartments. i am good at geography, i just don't care enough to know about roads yet. :D

[venom mama]

hey now, i'm a redneck. i love being in the woods, shooting my shotgun, mud bogging and drinking beer off the tailgate. nothing wrong with being country.

[scameter]

lol except when you don't want to be. and, you're country, not redneck. are you an idiot? do you stand around and stare at burning fires all day? do you think everything is the devil? :D then no, you're not a redneck. you're country, which there's nothing wrong with that. :)

[sonrisa]

do you go to family reunions to pick up guys? If your family tree does not fork....

click here to take the redneck test (http://www.frontiernet.net/~tzuleger/webjokes/red/rednecks.shtml) :)

[venom mama]

yee-haw ya'll

[MidnightSun]

Omg that redneck thing was pretty long.

[scameter]

:D that's how bored we all are, mid. :D

[MidnightSun]

:lol:

[scameter]

:D

[sonrisa]

when I came home from work this AM there was this possum lying dead in my street. So I go in the house & call animal removal, & I'm saying to them, "there's a dead possum in the street", but I'm thinking, shouldn't I be in KY when I'm talking about stuff like this......

:P

[scameter]

<_< :D

[VossistArts]

As far as I can tell, heterosexuals and homosexuals are pretty much in the same boat. Both heteros and homos are attracted to only one sex. The idea that that sexual orientation is genetically coded.. is not conclusive by far. It appears overall that orientation is learned or conditioned. I think if you were able to map all the events and thoughts of anyones life youd be able to define a definate pathology leading to sexual orientation. Basically though, in a healthy family where a mother and father have a child, say a male child, the father shows no less physical affection for the son as the mother does. Same for a female child. Its only after the child ages that social and learned thinking patterns affect these relationships. I tend to think bisexually oriented people are the only people not somehow socially or psychologically affected towards orientation. Im heterosexual, but Im aware of the reason for it. I grew up around men and boys who were repulsed by the notion of homosexuality. It was an unthinkable fate to be tagged as gay where I grew up. Im not going to go into detail here but most of the pathologies are clear.

As for the issue of gay marriage or any other issue where a certain group of people begin to want to see a change in their rights for what they consider the better: the laws made around this sort of thing should consider the wants of whatever group but I dont see that the groups of people who dont want the wanters to get their want for whatever reason, shouldnt affect the outcome of the decisions made around them. especially where it comes down to little more than philosophy. There is far too much of philosophy negatively affecting peoples reality in this world.

[...]

..for a balanced opinion, which does not provide definite answers, read: http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

[MidnightSun]

There is a theory that sexuality is gained at mother's tummy :) it says that ur sexuality depends on what how was ur mother acting in those 9 months, i accuatly dunno what she should do that that kid would become hetero homo or bi...

[scameter]

i agree venom, and where i grew up and still live also tag homosexuality as being horrible. but, my father to whom i solely live now, is open-minded and free, and he feels that whatever sexuallity i have is my own to decide. and the odd thing is is that i am very interested in both homosexuality and heterosexuality. which to me is curious because i wonder if had every other male been raised so, or even female, in such a free environment if they would have had an interest in both sexualities.

[MidnightSun]

Looks like u have great father scam ;)

[...]

..the focus on sexuality is understandable but unfair. Everything [generalised] is decided upon in the womb. We no longer care about being lefthanded, it will be just a matter of time when we no longer care about our sexual preferences...

[scameter]

extremely true ... lol which is why i hate how people condemn homosexuals. they did not choose to be as they are, it was just natural in them as heterosexuality is natural in others.

and yes mid, he is wonderful. i would die without him.

[VossistArts]

Its natural enough anyways. ANytime someone wants to argue against homosexuality for some reason or another, ask them to put away their bibles and books and opinions. Show them a hypothetical example where youre looking at a homosexual couple male or female sitting on a park bench embracing one another. Ask the person what they can point out about what theyre seeing, that is apparent, that has nothing to do with their beliefs or opinions, that is negative about what theyre seeing. There is nothing anyone can point out about two people caring for and loving one another that is apparently negative. Really you can use this sort of device to clear lots of things up. Put away your philosophy and look at it.. whatever it is. Is the so call sin apparent? Like in a murder, obviously we see a person in distress, screaming maybe, bleeding maybe, negative obviously. Other things like people of any sex or orientation loving each other.. no negativity. Sort out your sin or mistakes or negative practices by what can be determined by the bare senses. When beliefs, dogmas, politics or philosophy have to point out the wrong in the thing, its generally a bunch of shite.,

[VossistArts]

Yeah, I always have a really hard time seeing the connection in animal behaviours aimed at discovery with human behaviours. Humans are intensely complex. I still think it has more to do with pathology after birth than anything else. Its impossible to map all the psychological factors that come into play with developing humans, especially when it comes the imprinting phase of development from infancny thru ages 4-7. Perhaps genetics and pathologies are both responcible for sexual orientation but if so , then the same holds true with homo, hetero, and bi sexual people. I dont see how one can be said to be any better or worse than the other.

[Ronagon]

I think homosexuality is an essential part of all human development.

The only way to know what it feels like to be the other sex, is to first experience the role of being the "other" sex, with a member of your own. A male has to be treated like a "female" at some point, to know what being female feels like, and what is pleasurable. A female has to be treated like a "male" at some point, to know what being male feels like, and what is pleasurable. It's not specifically an issue of sexuality, but of active and passive roles that typically generalize to gender.

Without homosexual experimentation before entering the hetero world, you have no way of knowing what the person of the other sex would actually enjoy.

Yeah; that's right. I said it.

[scameter]

true venom. and i agree that some people are complex, put other than from a physical viewpoint, some people really aren't that complex. they are just born, are raised and conditioned to be ignorant and barely sentient and to just live life as everyone says to, and goes to school, possibly college(which doesn't denote intelligence or awaremenss necessarily), gets a job, works, gets a family, a dog, a house, friends. the normal, average life. to me, that is no more complex than that of another animal.

i agree completely ron. and i think that everyone who wouldn't is lying to themselves and others. i'm not saying everyone is homosexual, but everyone does have some homosexual tendencies or at least curiosity at some point of their life. i know i do, i can feel it and it does interest me i will not deny that. i don't really know what to do about it, i wish i did, but that type of advice seems nowhere to be found.

[Ronagon]

scam,

Well, I frankly think that sexual feelings largely arise out of a sense of having built trustworthy experiences with members of a given sex...

I think that sexual attraction arises out of finding people that you can trust... people that you respect, who respect you, and who you therefore feel at ease around.

I don't think it's necessarily an issue of gender preference... although I believe that if you can find a way to build profound trust with someone of any gender, you can be drawn to them. Since I regard this as a possibility, I believe that if you focus your efforts, you can build it with anybody, male or female.

This all depends on finding someone of like mind. It takes two to tango, and most people are not of any mind, much less like mind.

[scameter]

:D very true. but, i do still question whether i am homosexual or not, and i wish that there was some test or experiment of some kind that i could do to determine the identity of my sexuality.

[sahyo]

smeter...

half way down

http://www.barnett.sk/software/sos/osho/os...lks/sexual2.htm (http://www.barnett.sk/software/sos/osho/osho-talks/sexual2.htm)

under 'SEX HAS FOUR STAGES'

maybe 'THE SECOND PHASE is homosexual' will interest

:)

[VossistArts]

Thats an interesting perspective ron, one Ive not really considered directly, but it makes sense to me looking back at relationships Ive had with different people in my life.

Scame, as far as knowing goes, Id say just give it time. When I was 17 0r 18 I made a really good friend who told me right away that he was gay, but at the same time he really didnt know exactly how he felt sexually. He had sexual relationships with males in his past but since he wasnt sure how he felt about it he chose to have platonic relationships, and did so , with males and females. He said he preferred it that way, made him feel more free and at ease. He was able to be affectionate with anyone, he just chose not to be sexually intimate. We hung around together a lot. He was a dj at the college radio and a jazz piano prof. at the college though he had no degree in teaching ( so technically he wasnt a prof.) but he was so good (at piano and teaching) the college had him teach classes there unofficially in exchange for other classes he audited there. He taught me a lot of things. He used to tell me he loved me, because he knew because of my upbringing that I had a hard time with it, and .,. because it was true of course. For the longest time time Id always say, " yeah , I know Walter, you know I feel the same thing about you.. " I just couldnt tell a man like that , that I loved him. At some point though, I got past it, and was able to express my feelings . Ive been able to express my feelings that way to anybody male or female, ever since. He did a beautiful thing for me... Something Ill always appreciate deeply.

[MidnightSun]

cute :)

And i have to disagree that every person has a bit attraction to the same gender, some of them has none.

[scameter]

wonderful vossi. i'm glad you felt that, and i hope your relationships turn out well. but, to be hoenst for myself, i have come to the conclusion that i want someone, but i will have to suffer to get them and will suffer with them as i always have in my life.

i disagree with your disagreement mid. i think everyone, even if their pride permits them to not agree, feels at least some attraction of only mere curiosity to the other gender. i know i do, even more than just curiosity. but, every aspect of me seems on fire, impassionated.

[Ronagon]

scam,

I'm glad you defended mid's statement.

My point has been that attraction is all encountering someone of any sex who fills an important niche in your life, and that doesn't depend on gender. I really think that homosexuality is a conditional phenomenon of dynamics, and what I mean by that is the following:

A strong, active male who is partial to shy, delicate females will also experience feelings of attraction for shy, delicate males, whether he admits it or not. And the shy, delicate male who is partial to strong, active females, will also experience feelings of attraction for strong, active males... again, whether he admits it or not.

It's the shy delicacy itself that strong, active people are attracted to, and it's the strong activeness that shy and delicate people are attracted to.

In other words, it's the energy dynamic, not necessarily the sexual anatomy, that determines attractiveness. If this dynamic occurs between two people who happen to be of different sexes, then the two people experience heterosexuality.

Of course, beyond merely this energy dynamic, there has to be a perception (or misperception) of some kind, that the other person is of your latent value system, for the attraction to really percolate.

Also, the same thing holds true for females. A strong, active female who is partial to shy, delicate males will also experience feelings of attraction for shy, delicate females, whether she admits it or not. And the shy, delicate female who is partial to strong, active males, will also experience feelings of attraction for strong, active females... again, whether she admits it or not.

I really think I'm right about this dynamic model.

[scameter]

:o i think you're absolutely right, because i'm attracted to both soft, delicate males and females and i tend to be stronger, or at least try to appear strong. you're very right on that one, ron. :thumbsup:

[Ronagon]

I'm glad to hear it. :D

And maybe the reason you're attracted to them, is because something in you longs to live the same way. Maybe if you gave into their way of living, rather than trying to uphold a display of strength which is unfulfilling to you, things would go better.

I find that much of my own aggressiveness is borne of fear and mistrust. If I just put my nervousness aside and stop trying so hard, I find that I can live with a quiet stillness and be much more attractive to people of the same nature, who I already prefer.

[scameter]

dearbh. but my nervousness is hard to just "put aside". for it is not the only mental disfuntionality i have, as you know. but, to be honest and rather erotic, i think that if i could be with someone of either gender that is soft and delicate as you describe, i would feel alot better.

[...]

..i spent one year indulging myself with all kinds of sexual exploits, allowing for experiences to go nice or not so nice. Mostly they were nice, and taught me alot about myself and what i enjoy sexually. I'm not saying you should throw yourself into any situation, but try to make a controled effort just to see where, and what, it brings you. I've been celibate for over 2 years now, knowing that sex for sex' sake just does not have that extra dimension love brings into it. Don't let fear stand in the way, you might be missing something...

[fu*]

..i spent one year indulging myself with all kinds of sexual exploits, allowing for experiences to go nice or not so nice.

Allowing nice or not so nice?

Hmm.........Seems another Dutchman may have been thinking the same thing. They are still looking for the victims body in Aruba.

If I was small-minded I might state that...... Dutchman are rapist killers. Kind of like stating that... Americans are ignorant.

Get it?

[...]

..wow fu*, you came out of the woodwork just to mirror me this? It reminds me of my brother, who can walk around carrying resentment for years, waiting for the right moment to get back at the one who done him wrong. He's not a happy person, as you can imagine. Have you found self yet?

[scameter]

very true ... lol i bet that sexual time you had was nice though :P

well, except Americans are ignorant :D

self can indeed be hard to find. which is a rather paradoxical situation of humanity.

[...]

..that year culminated in me meeting my first true love, and it was better than i imagined it would be...

self can indeed be hard to find. which is a rather paradoxical situation of humanity.

..if you need to search for self, you're looking in all the wrong places :lol:

[scameter]

:D indeed. may i ask, was your sexual experience and your love homosexual or heterosexual?

[...]

was your sexual experience and your love homosexual or heterosexual?

..my sexual experiences were both, but i soon realised that romanticly loving someone would be heterosexual. I can't imagine falling in love with a man, but i do have close, loving relationships with men i call friends :)

[scameter]

oh. but, does that mean that you think two men cannot be inlove? or just you personally couldn't love a man? which is fine, i just mean from your view. :)

[...]

:think: ..odd that you didn't get that; i couldn't personally fall in love with a man, but see no reason why 2 men couldn't fall in love with eachother...

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by scameter

well, except that Americans are ignorant :D

sometimes it's ignorance, other times it's just plain apathy

soooo....

sometimes we just don't know, & other times we just don't care, but most times we're just too damn tired to do either one....

[fu*]

Hey Dotty


I was afraid that even an independent thinker like yourself had been mediated by popular European opinion, and had succumbed to attaching negative labels to an entire group of people just because the 'empire' just happens to currently reside here.

Glad to hear that corpse is dead :) :D

sometimes we just don't know, & other times we just don't care, but most times we're just too damn tired to do either one....


That about sums it up for most people. Here... There...and Everywhere.

If you lived here you would see that the 'empires' propaganda machine is in full swing, in controll of all the media/information, and they are very very very good at what they do. It's a trip to watch.

On another note

Have you found self yet?

I think I have found most of "self". Now I am searching for other than "self" I can't imagine anything other than "self" so it seems a little tricky...... Well, thats not quite true. I can "imagine" it, but I need more than that. (just to be clear, I am not asking you, just answering your question honestly)

fu

[...]

..hi FU*,

I was afraid that even an independent thinker like yourself had been mediated by popular European opinion, and had succumbed to attaching negative labels to an entire group of people just because the 'empire' just happens to currently reside here.

Glad to hear that corpse is dead

..well, i trust people to be people, and as you might know, the great unwashed aren't willing to change readily :lol: Yes, i'm also glad that corpse is dead and left behind to rot away. Different things have presented themselves, on their own accord...

I think I have found most of "self". Now I am searching for other than "self" I can't imagine anything other than "self" so it seems a little tricky...... Well, thats not quite true. I can "imagine" it, but I need more than that. (just to be clear, I am not asking you, just answering your question honestly)

..and it's appreciated, altough i can't quite get what you mean. Would this be a good opportunity to ask what you mean?

[scameter]

true sonrisa :D

lol ron

lol ...


man, that was an easy post. :D

[fu*]

Dotty...Ed Well... I'll try.
Searching for self is all imagining, Seems the search for self might be a good starting place, but after, there is nothing (no-thing) there that is real/true, except true in the sense that it is seeming real. Free-dom....from fear, from happiness, from hate, from love, from words, from silence. I am here now, and I have been many other places, but I have always been there/here, thinking I was was somewhere else. This self is very convincing, so much so that there seems meaning, when meaning only occures to self, and so means nothing.

What a bunch of gibberish.
fu

[...]

..thanks for replying FU, and yes, it's gibberish, but at least i understand what you mean :) If there is no solid meaning, and you're okay with that, and there is meaning happening, and you're okay with that, then nothing's wrong, is there?

[fu*]

Your very welcome dotty :)

If there is no solid meaning, and you're okay with that, and there is meaning happening, and you're okay with that, then nothing's wrong, is there?


Umm...YES, There is something very very very wrong... "I" am ok with this?, "I" am ok with that?.... So "I" have convinced my "self"?........ Way to go "I", you have convinced "self". Or is it.... way to go "self", you have convinced "I"?. Now that that is settled, lets "I" and "self" just have a happy life... Worked for awhile............. Now "I" (or is it self?) (or ????) wants to obliterate those two bastards. What a couple of nuts! Talking to, and convincing each other?
Oh.... its ok 'you', 'you' can adapt to this, or that, or anything....Yes you say's... 'I' can!.... WHAT?....... Who said that?
Maybe philosophy will help, (help who/what?). Maybe psychology will help, (help who/what?)

I think you will agree that this is just more gibberish. But it is honest gibberish.

fu

[...]

..i'm glad we're friends again FU ;)

I think you will agree that this is just more gibberish. But it is honest gibberish.

..yes, it's a fine mess you've gotten yourself into :thumbsup: but in spite of that; what makes you think 'I'/self is different from truth? What, in your mind, is truth anyway? If you don't mind me asking, that is...

:)

[scameter]

and truth, fu

[fu*]

Hey Dotty :)

..i'm glad we're friends again FU

Again?... Since I first communicated with you at Spiritweb, you have always been my friend, because there is honesty there. I just don't use a squelch knob on the net, and don't ever intend to. So may seem sometimes as not...."friend".

What, in your mind, is truth anyway?

Nothing in my "mind" is "truth". There is something......a no-thing, that I am searching for (please don't put any meaning into the words)....... It seems constant. Not like a hobby that can be discarded. or put on the back burner. It is always here/there, Like an itch that "I" can not scratch.

Oh well. Just my thing. I will be gone for awhile now. Maybe we will take this up another time.

Best wishes Ed.

Peace

[scameter]

Where're you off to, fu? If you don't mind my asking. :)

[...]

:) Again?... Since I first communicated with you at Spiritweb, you have always been my friend, because there is honesty there. I just don't use a squelch knob on the net, and don't ever intend to. So may seem sometimes as not...."friend".

..what? I feel rather stupid right now :duh: never realised this was the case. Which handle did you use then? The last five years has been quite a ride, hasn't it?

Nothing in my "mind" is "truth". There is something......a no-thing, that I am searching for (please don't put any meaning into the words)....... It seems constant. Not like a hobby that can be discarded. or put on the back burner. It is always here/there, Like an itch that "I" can not scratch.

..yes, if you search for that itch, you're looking in all the wrong places :P

Oh well. Just my thing. I will be gone for awhile now. Maybe we will take this up another time.

Best wishes Ed.

Peace

..see you around FU, have a good one. We'll talk later, peace too...

[scameter]

I'm not sure if i've talked about this or not, and if i have i'll repeat it and if not it'll be new. for anyone here who is a male homosexual, i am young yes, and i am a ttenager and so my hormones are flaring, but i am still an individual human and some of myself will not change but rather remain me. and i believe one of them to be my homosexual tendencies. i would like to know if there is some question or test or anything that could test the fact of the real identity and possible continuing existence and flare of my homosexuality, if it is real and powerful or just a teen "phase".

[Ronagon]

scam,

Everybody has homosexual something or other. They can deny it all they want, but I'm convinced they're lying. Most people just deny it and are ticking time bombs.

On the other hand, how much time have you really spent around homosexuals? I don't know about you, but I find them to be some of the most petty and superficial, vicious, callous and narcissistic *******s around.

In the end, the key to being happy is to admit that you and everyone else has homosexual tendencies in them -- they're perfectly natural and even normal (even if most people won't admit to them) -- but just don't be afraid of being heterosexual, either.

[VossistArts]

what kinds of tendencies do you mean everyone has? If they include for instance loving one another, I guess youre right. If youre suggesting that everyone has homosexual sexual attraction for one or more of their same sex Id have to say youre probably incorrect

[WilliamMckeehan]

Everybody has homosexual something or other. They can deny it all they want, but I'm convinced they're lying. Most people just deny it and are ticking time bombs.

:blink: im one of thoughs people that use to find being gay or whatever very discusting and wrong but i have done a lot of changing ever sence i made it to these forums i agree with that statment i have been made fun of people calling me gay some times because im nice ... thats all nice really nice people and actualy care about girls feelings and not there bodys or whatever but ...

Scam finding or wondering about something like that at your age must really be a struggle ... im 17 for only 6 more months and im still that that some times i randomly go crazy and feel upset and want to get angry and stuff but other times i want to be on the ball i want to get stuff done i want to dress nice and be in shape i hope that ends up being how i always am :) but your problem is a little worse but you can do it buddy...

good luck at it and hope u grow happyer :thumbsup:

[Ronagon]

Vossist,

I'm not saying that we all have it at all times and for all people of the same sex, but I'm pretty sure that we all have had experiences where we've felt ourselves attracted to at least one person of the same sex.

[scameter]

Will, i wish i could grow out of it but honestly unless i and my life changes extremely dramatically sometime soon i will at least be forever scarred by it. I am really glad that there is at least half of you that wants to live; exist in that liveliness forever, and allow your entire being to be that, not only half. Clear your mind when you are depressed, and remember your real self, that happy self. :)

About my homosexuality Ron, i am honestly beginning to think that i am definitely homosexual not just partially or curious; i'll send you a PM about it in more detail, but i honestly believe from things i have recently done that i am gay. I still have some attraction to women, some very strong, but my homosexul ones are just as strong. I can't wait to explore them further. :) And i agree with what you just said, Ron. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

all my attraction has gone into 1 person if you can believe that :lol:


:D well good luck anyway my friend

[scameter]

I can, and that's good. But i also know that you have been attracted to alot more than one person because you are a human lol But i see what you mean, and i hope that my love will fall with one someday too. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

well yes i have ... and probably will but that feeling as been put into this 1 person so much my attraction to others is so low it doesnt feel like anything but yes i know i am human and that is impossible but thats how it feels to me and ... i actualy love it :D


*Edit* oh and the attraction has never been this strong before either it use to be VERY overwhelming! and it scared me i was confused but i have got more calm and i am really starting to enjoy this feeling :thumbsup:

[scameter]

I think i see what you mean my friend. And i'm glad for you. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

well thank you that means a lot ... i realize that she might feel diffrent or change her mind later btu either way i will always Love her :)

[scameter]

Good. Keep that love feeling in you. But do not let her or anyone else turn it around on you and manipulate you. I don't want to see your heart blacken as my dad's has. :)

[VossistArts]

Yeah, I agree on the attraction as general, but sexual? I dont know. I dont recall having a sexual/physically intimate attraction for another male. But then, Im aware of the conditioning that likely lead me to feel the way I do about my sexual orientation. Its possible I have had a sexual attraction for another male, and have blocked the recognition of it so long ago it seems as if it never happened. hard to say.

[scameter]

Could you describe your particular conditioning for me Vos? :)

[Smurf]

Yeah be surrounded by love but don't let it control or blind you to who you are and live your life

[scameter]

Love should and would never do that smurf, unless one forces it to become corrupted with it's combination to one's own vanity and arrogance.

[Smurf]

i'm talking about the primal instinct touching and clouding the very core of our brains. that's not good if you don't want it, to let your feelings control you is not you.

[scameter]

Is it not? Are our feelings and our emotions and our instincts not truly us? Or does the materialist's view of upholding logic above all else hold true to you too my friend? I hope not. Because logic is not everything inside of us. :)

[Smurf]

oh yeah poo being another bloody intelectual yeah i reckon it's better than anything else the human race can offer, talking about gay stuff i am a bit of both yeah? i mean it is pretty hard not to if you go to an all boys school

[scameter]

Oh you went to an all-boy school? If so, may i ask, was there any homosexuality there? I can assume there was but i would just like to ask you. :)

[Smurf]

hah yes i am in grade twelve next year there but it is extremely hilarious. i started acting gay you know throw in a look here and a brush up there and you know what the outcome was? suddenly a lot of the groups were looking at me and like "ew he's gay" laughing sometimes but get this the individual opinion was "hey he's gay i think i will get to know him a bit more" :D :lol: :lol: it is so funny another victory for the group opinion that differs to the individual one.

this is mainly because Huthcins (my school) is very macho some farmer boy there aswell. but it is funny yes

[scameter]

:lol: I personally think it's hilarious, it shows the essential idiocism of man and their sublime vanity and arrogance lol. You know smurf, i like how you talk; you just say what you're thinking and what you mean, with no complex allegorical representation. I like it. :)

[Smurf]

yep it is pretty funny, they also have the whole macho we are the best school thing going, it is so pathetic huh? but when they head off to uni with their newfound power and arrogance they are not well recieved :lol: :lol: :D

but yeah just trying to keep it simple and real mate! :thumbsup:

[scameter]

Good, me too...mate :D Or as us Americans say it, homie. :lol:

[Smurf]

haha now you're talking Australian, actually it is funny because i had an american couple come up to me and say that they were suprised that we weren't talking this funny language "Australian" and instead we were talking english. it was very funny :lol: :D

[scameter]

:P :D

[Smurf]

Scameter: you just say what you're thinking and what you mean

well to quote the great Cat Stevens' lyrics:

Say what you mean
mean what you think
and think anything

i love that and have found so much meaning and love in all of Cat's songs they are so beautiful and it is sad when he talks about things such as peace and love but all people hear is the beautiful music and none of the meaning gets across. i know why he moved away fromt the western world, i would love to do that someday. get as far away from this place as is possible.

[scameter]

Sounds similar to John Lennon, people just listened to his music and made him popular because they were high and thought it was fun, whereas he actually had wonderful ideas for the world and was shot for it. Except he never left the Western world, until he died.

[Smurf]

yes it is quite sad but c'est la vie :P

[scameter]

What does that mean?

[Smurf]

it is french for that's life :D or que sera, sera which means what will be, will be :P

[scameter]

Ah. Then que sera, sera. :P

[Smurf]

I am so sick of Private schools, they are so Gay, literally, they are so traditionalst. there are so many people still living in the 1930s or something. a lot of the teacher's mentalities are still back then and they still haven't adapted to the modern world. it is as if it is all face and no product all glitz and glamour.

oh and some hot boys aswell :D :lol:

[scameter]

:D Hot boys are nice. :P

[Smurf]

haha lol :D yep, although sometimes i find myself liking girls aswell, i think it is just a mood thing. you know?

[WilliamMckeehan]

well thats interesting :o i have never in my life found a male attractive but i guess its just me? i didnt know you could have moods like that?
i find my self being attracted to people i have a crush on which hasnt happened it years which is a good thing having a girl friend and all :D but i get more and more attracted to her as time goes on ... its mostly the little things like how she walks, how she stands, the way she laughs and many other little things :think:

very weird thing attraction

[scameter]

Well there are many kinds of attraction of course, and many happen that we do not remember or are not aware of, or do not feel need to admit's existence. Not to say that all straight men are attracted to men at sometime, nor the vise versa for gay men. Which is why i like being bisexual. It opens the possibilities of my attraction admittance, and ultimately lessens my fear of essentially myself. :)

[Smurf]

yes me too, it opens up the world in front of my eyes. and deters from ego-tistical thinking. :D
well it is also interesting that i am Bi and my older brother is too. must be genetic :lol:
and Scam what's it like being Bi in America?

[scameter]

lol Well, imagine if you were a very, very small finch, and you came into a nest of harpy eagles. How displaced you would feel. And how prejudiced against. Actually, that was a ad metaphor. Animals aren't like that. Actually, I wouldn't know. No-one around me knows of my bisexuality. But it is difficult and unfair that I have to conceal it for fear of persecution. But hey, I've done this many times before with many different aspects. I'm getting good at it. :P

[MidnightSun]

Animals aren't like that.

Have u meant that there are no Bi or gay animals or that animals dont harm each other coz of diffrent kind of attraction? Because there are some gay animals, bi and les as well...Simply misunderstood your point.

And Smurf..are u male or female? :) simply curious....

[scameter]

Not what I meant at all midnight. I simply meant that animals aren't illogical and stupid(that's for you Ron :P) to actually do something like money or prejudice or arrogance. They merely do things for the benefit of their society, and not things retarded like segregation or individual supremacy. :)

[WilliamMckeehan]

being bi in america seems hard or atleast for teenagers
there were 2 gay guys at my school and they were open with it so of course they got made fun of a lot until one of them beat the hell out of this one kid :D and no one saids anything to his face anymore i found it very funny just because he is attracted to the same sex doesnt mean he wont beat u up lol

[Smurf]

yes Will( can i call you Will?) i would believe that happens a lot there, but here in Aussie we are very closed about those topics and sort of subtely push it away, by not talking about it, or not talking to Gay people. such intolerance of both kinds i detest.

And MidnightSun i will let you think on that a bit more. you will find the answer soon. :thumbsup: