Originally posted by jennygadling
yep. so why is it ok for a straight couple to hold hands, kiss, etc. in public and make out on tv, but gay couples have to do it "in the privacy of their own homes"?
To put it simply: play the cards your dealt. Why should examples of their affection be aired on mainstream TV...to give their abnormality grounds for justification??? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. 95% of the world doesn't partake in same sex relationships, so why force them to endure the pain of seeing that isolated reality on TV? I'll read up on the plight of homosexuals if god ever bestows the misfortune of supplying me one for a child. Short of that, I could give a flying fuck about them.

Originally posted by flyerES
You can't say "if you don't like it, don't watch it" for broadcast television. You can say that for cable though. Broadcast television is just like what you see walking down the street. Its public. That's why we have the FCC. I'm actually advocating the laws of this country.
Right, and gay people are allowed to be gay out on the street. If I saw two guys kissing on the street, I wouldn't care. What's your point?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
You gave me 5 examples of the presence of gay people on TV. Not the same as "pushing" something in someone's face. Again, gay people exist, get over it.

Anything on broadcast TV is pushed in one's face b/c it is the same as walking down the street. That's why there was an arguement about the superbowl wardrobe malfunction. I suppose you want to tell people to stop watching the superbowl. Good idea.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. 95% of the world doesn't partake in same sex relationships, so why force them to endure the pain of seeing that isolated reality on TV?
Oh yes, seeing affection and love is so painful to me. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Right, and gay people are allowed to be gay out on the street. If I saw two guys kissing on the street, I wouldn't care. What's your point?

And I don't wanna see it, so I'm gonna fight people like you so I dont' have to see it.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Oh yes, seeing affection and love is so painful to me. :rolleyes:

As long as its gay its pretty painful for me too. Get it off the air!!

Originally posted by flyerES
Anything on broadcast TV is pushed in one's face b/c it is the same as walking down the street.
Is this a legal precedent, or did you just pull that out of your ass?
That's why there was an arguement about the superbowl wardrobe malfunction. I suppose you want to tell people to stop watching the superbowl.
If you're offended at a goddamned breast, then yes.

Originally posted by flyerES
And I don't wanna see it, so I'm gonna fight people like you so I dont' have to see it.
WAAAAAAAAAA!!! I don't wanna see those icky gay people!

If you don't want to see it, tough. It's written in the Constitution that we have the right to freedom of speech. You're anti-American if you support taking that away. It's the Constitution, dumbass.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Oh yes, seeing affection and love is so painful to me. :rolleyes:
Okay, I see your point, Borg, but that's not really my argument.

Could this discussion get any dumber.

If you don't like what is on TV I suggest you use the OFF button.

If you don't like shows with gays or blacks or animals or all women or sports or violence or mixed couples or alcoholics or fat people or short women or tall men or whatever your particular problem is, then turn the damn tv off and go do something productive like read a book or excersize or better yet, read the United States Consititutuion. You might learn something.

Geeze, I don't like it so it must be banned. get a grip, this is America not Iran.


FYI - five shows out of the seventeen hundred or so that are broadcast weekly does not add up to an "IN YOUR FACE" agenda.

Originally posted by Echo2
Could this discussion get any dumber.

If you don't like what is on TV I suggest you use the OFF button.

If you don't like shows with gays or blacks or animals or all women or sports or violence or mixed couples or alcoholics or fat people or short women or tall men or whatever your particular problem is, then turn the damn tv off and go do something productive like read a book or excersize or better yet, read the United States Consititutuion. You might learn something.

Geeze, I don't like it so it must be banned. get a grip, this is America not Iran.


FYI - five shows out of the seventeen hundred or so that are broadcast weekly does not add up to an "IN YOUR FACE" agenda.

good post echo. ;) you rock my socks off

Originally posted by BorgHunter
WAAAAAAAAAA!!! I don't wanna see those icky gay people!

If you don't want to see it, tough. It's written in the Constitution that we have the right to freedom of speech. You're anti-American if you support taking that away. It's the Constitution, dumbass.

Have your freakin freedom of speech. It's the actions like gay marriage that I hate. I wish we could just get rid of the issue. Nobody wants to take away freedom of speech. It's in the constetution that you're gay.

Originally posted by flyerES
Have your freakin freedom of speech. It's the actions like gay marriage that I hate. I wish we could just get rid of the issue. Nobody wants to take away freedom of speech. It's in the constetution that you're gay.
You want to take away my freedom of speech by trying to say what I can and cannot say on TV.

Anyway, what is wrong with gay marriage? How does it affect you at all, unless you're gay?

Why do you hate love? That's kind of sad...it's better to be full of love then hate. Just a friendly tip. ;)

So let me get this straight...

If they aired a white power sitcom, the response would be, "well, if you don't like it, simply push the OFF button"? Riiiight.

Okay, homosexuals aren't about hate, unless of course, its mixing stripes and plaid, or wearing white after labor day, so if they were to air a sitcom about the life and times of a porn star who never has sex on camera, but makes out with as many hot chicks as he can find, you'd just use the OFF button? Bullshit...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
If they aired a white power sitcom, the response would be, "well, if you don't like it, simply push the OFF button"? Riiiight.
Sure. I suspect it would not last very long, as there would be serious trouble securing advertisers on such a show, and nobody but Nazis would watch it, but I wouldn't try to stop them. I would, however, call the network a bunch of Nazis.
Okay, homosexuals aren't about hate, unless of course, its mixing stripes and plaid, or wearing white after labor day, so if they were to air a sitcom about the life and times of a porn star who never has sex on camera, but makes out with as many hot chicks as he can find, you'd just use the OFF button? Bullshit...
Again, yes. That's what it's there for.

Yeah, media sucks...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Anyway, what is wrong with gay marriage? How does it affect you at all, unless you're gay?
Don't bastardize the meaning of the word. Pardon my French, but get your own fucking term -

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Don't bastardize the meaning of the word. Pardon my French, but get your own fucking term -
Language is not static; meanings of words change. Why are you so against this particular one changing?

It affects the way we all live. Nobody wants their children to see gays everywhere. And not many people that aren't gay are very thrilled to see it either.

You must not hate the media too much. You came up with five shows that had gay people on them. I couldn't have done that and I watch a lot of TV.

I remember people screaming about "all the blackshows" on TV. And about all the shows that depicted divorced people. This time it's gays people.

Television is an option. You CHOOSE to have one in your house. You CHOOSE to turn on a specific channel and you CHOOSE to watch a specific show. If you don't like what is being shown on TV make a different CHOICE.

I'll be back later. Sorry that I have to leave you with these liberals Praetorian.

Originally posted by Assassin
Nobody wants their children to see gays everywhere.
Speak for yourself; I wouldn't care one way or another how many gay people my kids saw.

Seeing gay people on TV is not going to make anyone gay. Just as seeing people ride horses doesn't turn them into cowboys.

I could care less if my kids and grandkids see gay people on TV or in person. They exist, they are a part of life. Hiding them from your children wont make them go away. Your children are going to find out about gay people whether you like it or not. And if they manage to overcome their obvious parental bias they will find that gay people are just like everyone else. They have hopes and fears and they love and argue and eat and go to work and live just like everyone else.

The really sick part of this whole gay argument is all the men that scream about gays. Show them a porn movie with two women getting it on and they are drooling all over themselves.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Language is not static; meanings of words change. Why are you so against this particular one changing?
I would like to see the word marriage completely removed from all forms of government, period. I think it should be referred to as a union regardless of whether it's describing a heterosexual or homosexual coupling. My church will "marry" me, and preserving the word's traditional meaning is very important, in my opinion. Marriage, in the eyes of god, is a sacred union between a man and woman, bound in holy matrimony, attesting to the vows they've pledged in his domain. Homosexuals and churches don't mix, and I’d appreciate it greatly if they wouldn’t screw with a sacred term in a backhanded way to achieve some sort of faux equality while cheapening something that still means a fair amount to the majority of us Christians out there.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I would like to see the word marriage completely removed from all forms of government, period. I think it should be referred to as a union regardless of whether it's describing a heterosexual or homosexual coupling. My church will "marry" me
I completely agree with you here.

Originally posted by Assassin
It affects the way we all live. Nobody wants their children to see gays everywhere.
Okay, how would gay marriage increase the amount of gays you saw? It wouldn’t, all it would do would be putting a ring on their fingers, symbolizing love and commitment. The amount of gays won't increase because of gay marriage...what are you talking about?

As for marriage being revoked from our Government, it won’t happen anytime soon. So, until then, gays deserve equal rights. They deserve to see their dying spouse in the hospital and they deserve all the equal benefits that come along with marriage.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I would like to see the word marriage completely removed from all forms of government, period. I think it should be referred to as a union regardless of whether it's describing a heterosexual or homosexual coupling.

I too, am in complete agreement with that.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Homosexuals and churches don't mix, and I’d appreciate it greatly if they wouldn’t screw with a sacred term in a backhanded way to achieve some sort of faux equality while cheapening something that still means a fair amount to the majority of us Christians out there.

No argument from me on that count either.

I say let the Christian Churches in America maintain their "sacred" traditions and hold them sacrosanct.

Let them preach inside the Church that homosexuals are not to mix with the Church, and that homosexuals deserve to be stoned to death.

Let them teach children inside the Church that donkeys can speak as a human being, and that the circumference of a circle is equal to 3 times its diameter instead of 3.1416 times its diameter.

Let them practice inside the Church drinking the blood of their God and erecting granite monuments with the Ten commandmants inscribed, if that's what they want to do.

Just leave such practices entirely OUT of all forms of government.

And you can't eat shrimp either....;)

Originally posted by Travh20
why do people argue that since being gay is natural, as in your born with it, that means its OK and we should celebrate it? as far as I know there are other conditions people are born with, such as schizophrenia, bipolar and other disorders that make then "not normal". Why are these conditions not celebrated and protected like homosexuality, but rather looked on as something that needs to be cured and gotten rid of?
I know I will catch hell for this, I was just curious as to why this is.
Maybe you should put a little-more-effort into figuring-out why you fear gay people.

Originally posted by Freethinker
If it is natural, then it is no more of a "birth defect" than blue eyes, heterosexuality, or liking the taste of licorice.
......And, don't forget about those LEFT-HANDED people!!!

Sarcasm, not withstanding, thanks FT.
Originally posted by Freethinker
Let them preach inside the Church that homosexuals are not to mix with the Church, and that homosexuals deserve to be stoned to death.
The Bible is pretty old, dude, and if you’re referring to the Old Testament, then it's upwards of 3500 years old. The Romans persecuted the Jews too, you know. Pretty big news, ay???
Originally posted by Freethinker
Let them teach children inside the Church that donkeys can speak as a human being, and that the circumference of a circle is equal to 3 times its diameter instead of 3.1416 times its diameter.

This is pretty laughable, FT. Were the apostles under a moral obligation to cite measurements in terms of feet, inches, and fractions thereof? It is common in literature to employ “rounded” numbers, i.e., a definite figure to represent a general number, in providing descriptions. This procedure is utilized frequently in the Bible without hesitation or apology, as it is in MOST literature.

How many hours are there in a day, FT? God forbid you say anything other than twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and 4.09054 seconds, because then we'd have to cite you for your factual inaccuracies, wouldn't we???
Originally posted by Freethinker
Let them practice inside the Church drinking the blood of their God and erecting granite monuments with the Ten commandmants inscribed, if that's what they want to do.
You're an absolute stitch...

King of Queens? A gay show? WTF?

Apparently gay people need to stay off of television, because appearing on Letterman to push your movie is SHOVING YOUR AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS! :rolleyes:

This is officially the dumbest thread ever.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
King of Queens? A gay show? WTF?

This is officially the dumbest thread ever.
Jesus, Lionel, I was joking when I said that.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
To put it simply: play the cards your dealt. Why should examples of their affection be aired on mainstream TV...to give their abnormality grounds for justification??? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. 95% of the world doesn't partake in same sex relationships, so why force them to endure the pain of seeing that isolated reality on TV? I'll read up on the plight of homosexuals if god ever bestows the misfortune of supplying me one for a child. Short of that, I could give a flying fuck about them.

aren't they forced to watch people having sex (or some sort of sexual matter) on nearly every thing that's aired?

And why is that our problem? It's called normal - they should adapt to it willingly. Expecting 95% of population to accept their lifestyle as normal is akin to thinking that the tail should wag the dog. It makes no sense...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And why is that our problem? It's called normal - they should adapt to it willingly. Expecting 95% of population to accept their lifestyle as normal is akin to thinking that the tail should wag the dog. It makes no sense...
And I'm guessing about 5% of television has something to do with homosexuality...wouldn't you say? So it's about fair and even. 95% has nothing to do with it, and 5% does. Okay, so now that it’s fair and established. Why does gay marriage offend you so much?

Originally posted by Assassin
It affects the way we all live. Nobody wants their children to see gays everywhere. And not many people that aren't gay are very thrilled to see it either.

quite frankly, i don't want my kids seeing people (gay or straight) making out in public or on tv. but witnessing simple acts of affection (holding hands, hugs, etc) are healthy; they're able to see something good (love) for a change, instead of all the violence and hatred in the world (that's witnessed every day)

And why is that our problem? It's called normal - they should adapt to it willingly.
Woah! Wait! WHAT?!

Originally posted by The Praetorian
And why is that our problem? It's called normal - they should adapt to it willingly. Expecting 95% of population to accept their lifestyle as normal is akin to thinking that the tail should wag the dog. It makes no sense...

once again, i ask you; what exactly IS normal? who decides what constitutes normalcy?
what you mean is that's the way people have always believed, right? and ignorance is passed down from generation to generation.

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
......And, don't forget about those LEFT-HANDED people!!!

HEY!! i'm left-handed:D

Originally posted by Overdose
Why does gay marriage offend you so much?
It doesn't offend me, I just don't think it's right to call it marriage. As I stated earlier:
I would like to see the word marriage completely removed from all forms of government, period. I think it should be referred to as a union regardless of whether it's describing a heterosexual or homosexual coupling. My church will "marry" me, and preserving the word's traditional meaning is very important, in my opinion. Marriage, in the eyes of god, is a sacred union between a man and woman, bound in holy matrimony, attesting to the vows they've pledged in his domain. Homosexuals and churches don't mix, and I’d appreciate it greatly if they wouldn’t screw with a sacred term in a backhanded way to achieve some sort of faux equality while cheapening something that still means a fair amount to the majority of us Christians out there.
I really have a problem with the word being bastardized, and I view that misnomer as a bastardization. I think they should be entitled to every RIGHT heterosexual couples enjoy with being unionized, but under absolutely NO conditions should we be anesthetized as a society enough to call it "marriage", period.

Originally posted by Overdose
Okay, how would gay marriage increase the amount of gays you saw? It wouldn’t, all it would do would be putting a ring on their fingers, symbolizing love and commitment. The amount of gays won't increase because of gay marriage...what are you talking about?

What if your parents were gay? And if you've ever seen a guy and a girl on a date or something it would be the same as two gays and I don't want to see that everywhere.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
It doesn't offend me, I just don't think it's right to call it marriage. As I stated earlier:

I really have a problem with the word being bastardized, and I view that misnomer as a bastardization. I think they should be entitled to every RIGHT heterosexual couples enjoy with being unionized, but under absolutely NO conditions should we be anesthetized as a society enough to call it "marriage", period.
You know what, Prae, before today I never understood how anyone could not support gay marriage. Now, even though I do not agree with your position, I think I understand it somewhat. And even though I don't agree with you, I think I can respect you not just for having your views, but for standing up for them. Although you can sometimes get a bit...perhaps pushy is the right word, you're really a cool guy. :)

Originally posted by Assassin
What if your parents were gay? And if you've ever seen a guy and a girl on a date or something it would be the same as two gays and I don't want to see that everywhere.
My mom was indeed gay. Your point?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I really have a problem with the word being bastardized, and I view that misnomer as a bastardization. I think they should be entitled to every RIGHT heterosexual couples enjoy with being unionized, but under absolutely NO conditions should we be anesthetized as a society enough to call it "marriage", period.
Then I suggest you get marriage taken out of the Government, because until you do, gays deserve the same rights as you. They deserve the right to marriage, and that’s just final. If you want to make Civil Unions for all American citizens…and then make marriage just for the Church, fine. But until you can switch our entire system, meaning make everyone who has a marriage license now go and get a civil union (unless they were married in a Church), and changing many other things, you need to allow these gay couples the right to marriage. They are suffering without the same rights, as in hospital visitation, and other extreme issues that need to be taken care of.

And as Borg said, I really do like you. You’re by far the most intelligent Republican on this forum. I think I’d have a fucking ball hanging out with you…hahahahahahaha **imagines the fucking crazy things I’d say and do**

Originally posted by BorgHunter
You know what, Prae, before today I never understood how anyone could not support gay marriage. Now, even though I do not agree with your position, I think I understand it somewhat. And even though I don't agree with you, I think I can respect you not just for having your views, but for standing up for them. Although you can sometimes get a bit...perhaps pushy is the right word, you're really a cool guy. :)
This is the nicest compliment anyone has ever given me here, Borg. Sincerely, thank you. Not only do I find you bright, I'm fucking floored you're only 16. At 16 I was too busy blowing up shit to even know who our president was, or much less, to even care. In the few months I've posted here, you kids have changed the way I'll view a high schooler's input from now on.

Cheers -

Justin

i agree, prae. borg (and blibb) are extremely bright. i hope they keep their passion (they're more aware of issues than most adults these days).

Thanks Jenny ;) lol

Originally posted by Overdose
Thanks Jenny ;) lol

i'm sooooo sorry, OD. you know i think highly of you.;)

yay! *Cheers*!! Do you use AIM?

Originally posted by Overdose
yay! *Cheers*!! Do you use AIM?

aim and yahoo messenger

What are your names?

Originally posted by Overdose
What is your names?

kjengadling (get it? kjen/cajun...i'm from new orleans) for both of them.

What is your names?
(Oh! Borg moment!)

Originally posted by Overdose
What are your names?

I edited it before you posted it, Blib. ;) Sorry, I got it before you! Burn! :)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
The Bible is pretty old, dude, and if you’re referring to the Old Testament, then it's upwards of 3500 years old.

Ahhhhh....ok.

I fail to see your point.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
This is pretty laughable, FT. Were the apostles under a moral obligation to cite measurements in terms of feet, inches, and fractions thereof?

Not unless they were trying to pass off the book we're talking about as being the PERFECT word of some omnipotent, omniscient being that "created" the entire universe. .

Originally posted by The Praetorian
This procedure is utilized frequently in the Bible without hesitation or apology, as it is in MOST literature.

The problem with THAT excuse is that "MOST" literature is not trying to pass itself off as the PERFECT word of some omnipotent, omniscient being

Originally posted by The Praetorian
God forbid you say anything other than twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and 4.09054 seconds, because then we'd have to cite you for your factual inaccuracies, wouldn't we???

No, you would not.

Humans are fallible.

So-called "PERFECT" beings who supposedly 'created' the entire universe are to be held to a much higher standard.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You're an absolute stitch...

While you're absolutely clueless on the issue of WHY it matters that a "perfect" book gives the value of pi as 3 instead of 3.1416.

Freethinker touches on a good subject....

he thinks that because the bible is the word of God....that there CANNOT be inaccuracies in it. (and he presents his point of view in a very negative and rhetorical sense).

Christianity definitely believes that the bible is the word of God...the main themes and morals are what makes up the entire religion. But the books WERE written by men....who are sinful. So don't go trying to find little nooks and crannies Ft.....when the message is what is at heart here.


Your question leads one to believe....why is there ANY sin when God is in complete control???

The answer is simple. God is all powerful and all knowing, but gives the chance to us to decide what we will do. He loves every one of us unconditionally...even OD who burns bibles, he loves. Its up to us to find him, and have that relationship with God. God COULD rid all sin from the world....but then how would he know who are worthy of passing through the gates of heaven?

lol. He loves me? Really? He does? That's a shock! Because if he loved me, he wouldn't send me to hell...but I guess that's okay...he really does love me! *rolls eyes*

Originally posted by Decka
Freethinker touches on a good subject....he thinks that because the bible is the word of God....that there CANNOT be inaccuracies in it.

No....the religious faction in this country thinks that because the Bible is the "word of God" that there cannot be any inaccuracies in it.

They santimoniously --and constantly-- attempt to beat the rest of us non-believers into submission with it, claiming it is the **Perfect Word of the Perfect Being, the Creator**.

If it were the inspired word of the omniscient Master of the Universe, there would be no reason or justification for it containing a single inaccuracy.

The fact that it is filled with such a huge number of inaccuracies, lies, half-truths and complete contradictions stands as testament to the fact that no "perfect" supernatural entity had a hand in it.

Originally posted by jennygadling
HEY!! i'm left-handed:D
Fear not!!!!!

Much like gay-people, you can be CURED!!!!!!!!:D

PRAISE JAYSUS!!!!!! (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/homorights.html)

Originally posted by Freethinker
No....the religious faction in this country thinks that because the Bible is the "word of God" that there cannot be any inaccuracies in it.

They santimoniously --and constantly-- attempt to beat the rest of us non-believers into submission with it, claiming it is the **Perfect Word of the Perfect Being, the Creator**.

If it were the inspired word of the omniscient Master of the Universe, there would be no reason or justification for it containing a single inaccuracy.

The fact that it is filled with such a huge number of inaccuracies, lies, half-truths and complete contradictions........

Ya' heard about that (http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/bible.htm#8), huh? :@@:

Originally posted by Overdose
lol. He loves me? Really? He does? That's a shock! Because if he loved me, he wouldn't send me to hell...but I guess that's okay...he really does love me! *rolls eyes*

I doubt he enjoys sending you to hell....it probably makes him sad that you aren't up there with him. But you have to love God and elevate him above all other things in your life....its never too late. Just wanted to clear the air a bit, i know you don't care OD but other people might.

P.S. next time please spare me the negative, eye-rolling sarcasm that you just overly poured on your response. thanks!

Originally posted by Decka
[B]I doubt he enjoys sending you to hell....it probably makes him sad that you aren't up there with him. But you have to love God and elevate him above all other things in your life....its never too late. [B]

I love my children. No matter what horible thing they might do I could never send one of them to hell for eternity.

I would say that this all powerfull entity, who has the ability to change a person with a single thought, who has the ability to create universe's with the wave of a hand; has a bit of a self esteam problem.

Love me or you will suffer an eternity in hell.

Overdose mate, it was obvious from like page 4 that these gay bashing 19th century my wife shalt not speak out of turn and sex is nothing more than a tool for creation muppets are actually trolls trying to piss you off.

Coming onto a forum with a brick wall in front of them preventing any chance of their ideals changing is pointless,

In life its your right to be happy, and if being with another guy does that then all power to you for choosing that route. Sex as i see it is something two or more people take part in for fun and enjoyment, not for the entire sole purpose of creating life.

But all this said the ones who are against it are more often than not christians, and thus they are told what to think.

OD they are trying to provoke you, the best bet is to just ignore their ignorant rambilings and discuss a different topic, there little brick wall blinds them from a blatant truth.

Originally posted by Decka
P.S. next time please spare me the negative, eye-rolling sarcasm that you just overly poured on your response. thanks!
Ummm...how about no...if you preach to me about God...I'll roll my eyes. Preach to me, you'll get a mean reaction from me. You don't see me preaching to you about what I believe in terms of religion. This is the POLITICS forum, not the religious forum.

hey...you dont have to read my posts, im not preaching, im representing christianity on the f'n board lol(and i dont always do a good job of it thats for sure). Its real typical that you can rip into christianity, and then when i give you my side of the story you say i "preach".....uhhhh no. Preaching is going in depth into bible messages, im giving general statements. You can roll your eyes all you want....but just know that you are offending alot of people by the gesture....wait a minute, isnt that AGAINST liberal theology? Hey, OD offended me!! Im gonna sue him...we need to change everything!!! he cant offend ME!

Originally posted by Echo2

I would say that this all powerfull entity, who has the ability to change a person with a single thought, who has the ability to create universe's with the wave of a hand; has a bit of a self esteem problem.

Exactly.

The best way i've heard that particular line of thought expressed was this ---

"The creationists have this creator who is evil, who is small-minded, who is
malevolent, and who is not very bright and can't even get his science right.
Creationists have made their creator in their own image, in my view."
---- Prof. Ian Plimer

Originally posted by Decka
hey...you dont have to read my posts, im not preaching, im representing christianity on the f'n board lol
You are representing Christianity in the political forum The reason was have separate forums, is so we can keep a certain style of order. You brought me up as a “Bible Burner” You started talking about religion, I didn’t. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Decka
Its real typical that you can rip into christianity, and then when i give you my side of the story you say i "preach".....uhhhh no.
Ummmm, where did I rip into Christianity in this thread? The only thing I ask, is that you don’t use religious arguments to prove your point, because we have a separation of church and state.

Originally posted by Decka
You can roll your eyes all you want....but just know that you are offending alot of people by the gesture....wait a minute, isnt that AGAINST liberal theology?
If rolling my eyes, offends you, then conservatives need to tuffin’ up and stop calling us the “girly men”

I think you missed the point he was trying to make, OD. He wasn't "preaching" - he was sharing his interpretation of Christianity as a base line establishment for a value system, not delivering a sermon. I understand that you don't want to hear about anything remotely tied to religion when it's concerning politics, but the fact of the matter remains - Christianity and politics are inextricably tied to one another due to the founding principles of defining what’s right and wrong through an already established moral code. It’s essentially what’s written our history, and you and your cronies are asking that we that we completely disregard it. Part of the reason that separation of religion and government was included in our constitution was because the Catholic Church had grown too big for its britches in Europe, and unreasonably placed certain expectations on businesses and the general public. In an effort to quash that, the caveat of separation between church and state was added, not so that people could use it as an excuse to completely disregard everything it stands for.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Christianity and politics are inextricably tied to one another due to the founding principles of defining what’s right and wrong through an already established moral code. It’s essentially what’s written our history, and you and your cronies are asking that we that we completely disregard it.

For the hundredth time;

NO ONE is asking, suggesting or even hinting that you should **completely disregard it**.

Install a hundred foot tall Ten Commandments monument in your front yard!!!

Tattoo ""I love Jesus"" on your forehead in big red letters!!!

Stand on the streetcorner and scream about how wonderful your invisible deity of choice is for 16 hours a day!!!

....WE DON'T CARE what you do on your own property or your own time or to your own body......just leave government out of the promotion of religion is all anyone's sayiing.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I think you missed the point he was trying to make, OD. He wasn't "preaching" - he was sharing his interpretation of Christianity as a base line establishment for a value system, not delivering a sermon. I understand that you don't want to hear about anything remotely tied to religion when it's concerning politics, but the fact of the matter remains - Christianity and politics are inextricably tied to one another due to the founding principles of defining what’s right and wrong through an already established moral code. It’s essentially what’s written our history, and you and your cronies are asking that we that we completely disregard it. Part of the reason that separation of religion and government was included in our constitution was because the Catholic Church had grown too big for its britches in Europe, and unreasonably placed certain expectations on businesses and the general public. In an effort to quash that, the caveat of separation between church and state was added, not so that people could use it as an excuse to completely disregard everything it stands for.

They don't understand what moral codes are. I tried to explain on page 5 of this thread.

Originally posted by Freethinker
For the hundredth time;

NO ONE is asking, suggesting or even hinting that you should **completely disregard it**.

Install a hundred foot tall Ten Commandments monument in your front yard!!!

Tattoo ""I love Jesus"" on your forehead in big red letters!!!

Stand on the streetcorner and scream about how wonderful your invisible deity of choice is for 16 hours a day!!!

....WE DON'T CARE what you do on your own property or your own time or to your own body......just leave government out of the promotion of religion is all anyone's sayiing.
Exactly!

Is there any religion out their that OKs being gay? Or promotes it if you think you are gay?

Originally posted by flyerES
Is there any religion out their that OKs being gay? Or promotes it if you think you are gay?
Some Christians, some Jews, some Muslims, Satanism, Buddhism, Native American religions, Druids, Wiccans, Theosophy, and probably more.

The Christian Unitarian church accepts homosexuals for what they are. Unlike most others who say they don't hate them, they only hate their actions and then back policies that descriminate against them and teach their children that they are sinners and bad people.

Originally posted by Freethinker
For the hundredth time;

NO ONE is asking, suggesting or even hinting that you should **completely disregard it**.

Install a hundred foot tall Ten Commandments monument in your front yard!!!

Tattoo ""I love Jesus"" on your forehead in big red letters!!!

Stand on the streetcorner and scream about how wonderful your invisible deity of choice is for 16 hours a day!!!

....WE DON'T CARE what you do on your own property or your own time or to your own body......just leave government out of the promotion of religion is all anyone's sayiing.
First of all, I'm not a zealot. Secondly, you've officially missed my point entirely. I'm not arguing that government and religion shouldn't be separated, I'm simply stating that the principles that make us a people aren't radically varied from that of ANY civilized society, and religion, in a base form, helped cultivate those characteristics. I’m just asking that you logically connect the dots, not give me an abridged understanding of quantum physics. It’s not that difficult a concept to grasp, for I’m simply painting the picture with very broad-brush strokes here, and nothing more.

Echo - love the picture, thanks for the laugh.

Sorry if I'm coming in late on this thread but I haven't posted in a while.

but people are supposed to be attacted to the opposite sex….It is obvious that men and women were meant to be attacted to each other.

Its not so obvious since there is a percentage who are not attracted to the opposite sex. I guess everyone is also supposed to be attractive, because being unattractive would make you less likely to have sex and interfere with nature's plan of procreation.

Natural does not = normal

And "abnormal" does not = wrong or bad.

so does that make a third arm coming out of your chest...or a third eyeball in your forehead...natural??

Well, yes, if it happens naturally. It would be natural, not normal...but they should not be treated as if they are abnormal.

If being gay was genetic, the gene would have died out a long time ago.

I'm sure this is not news, but gay women can give birth and gay men can impregnate a woman...and many have throughout history.

Hey, that means we {women} could kill all you guys off except one and just use that one for....um, never mind.

Can I volunteer to be the one. :)

There is no opportunity for creation when two men or two women have sex.

There is no opportunity for creation when I'm watching football either. So, I guess I should be screwing every waking hour of every day because anything less would be selfish...can you convince my wife to go along with this?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dnamertz
[B]

Wow, dnamertz.....you cut to the heart of it in just a few words....

"Natural does not = normal ...

...but "abnormal" does not = wrong or bad. "

dnamertz yay! ;)

Some of us "rednecks" don't mind gays, OD. But attitudes like yours make it a fact of life that I'll never support democrats or gays in politics.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Some of us "rednecks" don't mind gays, OD. But attitudes like yours make it a fact of life that I'll never support democrats or gays in politics.
Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Some of us "rednecks" don't mind gays, OD. But attitudes like yours make it a fact of life that I'll never support democrats or gays in politics.

And America is --sadly, tragically-- filled to the rim with people of exactly the same mindset.

Which is how we as a society end up with a two-digit IQ, AWOL-from-the-National Guard, miserable failure in everything he's ever tried previously, intellectually vacuous peerson in the White House.

why do people argue that since being gay is natural, as in your born with it, that means its OK and we should celebrate it? as far as I know there are other conditions people are born with, such as schizophrenia, bipolar and other disorders that make then "not normal". Why are these conditions not celebrated and protected like homosexuality, but rather looked on as something that needs to be cured and gotten rid of?

I want to respond to this initial question posted by Trav. Most people who are saying it is "OK" are not also saying "we should celebrate it"...there is a difference. The only reason a small portion do want to celebrate it is because there are people who want them to remain completely in the closet...or worse. I doubt either of these two extremes will stop this tug-of-war. The rest of us are somewhere in the middle. We think that those who are gay should be no more in your face NOR in the closet than heterosexuals.

As for the two conditions you mentioned, I don't know a lot about them, but if they just make you different than others than they aren't something that "needs to be gotten rid of". But, if they are harming the person or interfering with their ability to function then the person might need to be cured or helped. And you asked why "these conditions are not protected"...if they are diseases, they are protected.

Then there is this idea that "homosexuality is not natural because nature intended for people to reproduce, so anyone whose attraction would not lead to reproduction must not be natural and therefore must be making a choice". Well, who says nature makes us all the same...it doesn't. Nature intended to have the pancreas produce insulin, but mine stopped working when I was a kid. Getting diabetes happened "naturally" (no I do not have the type of diabetes that was caused by poor eating habits or being overweight), not by choice. Should I just accept nature's plan and live like people who are "normal" the way you are telling gay people to live? Or should I realize that my body is not working exactly like other people's and therefore I am not going to follow natures plan so I give myself insulin injections everyday?

Play the hand you are dealt, not the hand that other people are saying is "normal" for you to have!

Originally posted by dnamertz

Play the hand you are dealt, not the hand that other people are saying is "normal" for you to have!

The problem is that when put in those terms, the superstitionist faction will invariably fall back to their faulty --"But they are making a CHOICE to be homos!!"-- argument.

The logic of the situation does not support such a position, but it is seemingly impossible to convince the religionists among us otherwise, and as long as they hold to their dogma we will have a disagreement in this country over homosexuality.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I want to respond to this initial question posted by Trav. Most people who are saying it is "OK" are not also saying "we should celebrate it"...there is a difference. The only reason a small portion do want to celebrate it is because there are people who want them to remain completely in the closet...or worse. I doubt either of these two extremes will stop this tug-of-war. The rest of us are somewhere in the middle. We think that those who are gay should be no more in your face NOR in the closet than heterosexuals.

As for the two conditions you mentioned, I don't know a lot about them, but if they just make you different than others than they aren't something that "needs to be gotten rid of". But, if they are harming the person or interfering with their ability to function then the person might need to be cured or helped. And you asked why "these conditions are not protected"...if they are diseases, they are protected.

Then there is this idea that "homosexuality is not natural because nature intended for people to reproduce, so anyone whose attraction would not lead to reproduction must not be natural and therefore must be making a choice". Well, who says nature makes us all the same...it doesn't. Nature intended to have the pancreas produce insulin, but mine stopped working when I was a kid. Getting diabetes happened "naturally" (no I do not have the type of diabetes that was caused by poor eating habits or being overweight), not by choice. Should I just accept nature's plan and live like people who are "normal" the way you are telling gay people to live? Or should I realize that my body is not working exactly like other people's and therefore I am not going to follow natures plan so I give myself insulin injections everyday?

Play the hand you are dealt, not the hand that other people are saying is "normal" for you to have!
DNA, there is a reason I love to read your posts. Here is a prime example. Great post. :)

Originally posted by CX returns
And no, people don't have to be attracted to the opposite sex... they only need the other sex to reproduce.
.....And Family-Values (via the ACLU) will take-care of the rest!! (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17243&c=100)

"Throughout this case, the state has relied on ugly stereotypes to deny children in the Arkansas foster care system the chance of having the widest possible pool of foster families available to them," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "We’re very pleased that the court saw through these arguments and has recognized that gay and lesbian people can provide homes just as loving and stable as anyone else’s."

Being gay is not what you would consider being normal or something that should be celebrated. I don't believe it is a choice, why would people make such a choice that would sometimes almost ruin their lives, sometimes resulting in even death, if you get the wrong person around gays. I believe that man originally would have had no homosexual behaviors, but after original sin our bodies have been slowly falling apart. I don't think sexual choice makes a person, you have to give everyone a chance regardless of sexual preference...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
DNA, there is a reason I love to read your posts. Here is a prime example. Great post. :)

I wholeheartedly agree. Excellent post dna. :)

To those who don't think being gay should be "celebrated", I also agree to a point. I have no use for the gays who insist on parading their sex lives down Main Street for all to see. I do think that being gay is no more "abnormal" than being left-handed, and should be "celebrated" inasmuch as it is one of the differences among our species that makes it very interesting to be human. If I wasn't "gay", then you wouldn't be "straight". We wouldn't have a word for it. :)

Originally posted by minister
Being gay is not what you would consider being normal or something that should be celebrated.

It should be celebrated or not celebrated to the same extent that heterosexuality is celebrated or not celebrated.

It seems to me that heterosexuality is very much **in your face** in contemporary American society.

And I have absolutely ZERO problem with sexual imagery being so prevalent in this sociuety 24/7.

Sexual pleasure (and the pursuit of it) is one of the --perhaps THE-- primary motivators for homo sapiens.

....but since heterosexual sex is used to SELL SELL SELL and we all see it incessantly in the popular media, it seems terribly hypocritical and unfair to me to see the heteros whimpering --"Well, i don't want all this stuff about gay sexuality in my face all the time!!" .......

Homos make up such a small majority that you shouldnt see as much of them as you do.

Heterosexuality is "in your face" because its the heavy majority. For how much media homosexuality gets, you'd think it'd be 50-50 between homos and heteros..but its far from that.

My theory is that homesexuality is a physcological problem. It's something that had gone wrong sometime in a person's life. That maybe abuse, lack of parental attenction, or a chemical imbalance. Like I said, I believe that homosexuality happens after a child is born...I guess that's just what echo said.

I don't think it's natural...

Originally posted by Decka

Heterosexuality is "in your face" because its the heavy majority. For how much media homosexuality gets, you'd think it'd be 50-50 between homos and heteros..but its far from that.
Really? I hardly see any TV shows that have homosexuality. Let me think of all the shows I know…

The Real World
Real World vs. Road Rules
Road Rules
Will and Grace
MTV stuff

Okay, so there is about 4 main shows I can think of that are regularly on television that deal with homosexuality. 4, out of the millions and millions of TV shows.

It’s hardly 50-50 in terms of the homosexuality on TV. I hardly EVER see homosexuality on the television. I suggest you stop making false percents.

Originally posted by Assassin
My theory is that homesexuality is a physcological problem. It's something that had gone wrong sometime in a person's life. That maybe abuse, lack of parental attenction, or a chemical imbalance. Like I said, I believe that homosexuality happens after a child is born...I guess that's just what echo said.

I don't think it's natural...

I assume this is backed up by your years of research in this field? You're probably a Ph.D too, right?

OD, Decka didnt state that it was 50/50, he said that he was surprised it wasnt 50/50 because of how much hype being homosexual gets. His actual comment made clear that that amount of homosexuality displayed on tv is actually very small.

Im assuming this was just a mis read on your part.

hmmmmm, maybe I did. Oh well. but when he says for how much media homosexuality gets I think that's incorrect. Because I don't think homosexuality gets much media at all.

Heterosexuality is "in your face" because its the heavy majority. For how much media homosexuality gets, you'd think it'd be 50-50 between homos and heteros..but its far from that.

I agree with OD, but I would include one more show...Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. But other than those shows I can't think of any that have multiple gay people on them. Most shows will have A single gay character or none at all. Even if 50-50 was meant as an exageration it is way off at that.

OD, Decka didnt state that it was 50/50, he said that he was surprised it wasnt 50/50 because of how much hype being homosexual gets. His actual comment made clear that that amount of homosexuality displayed on tv is actually very small…. Im assuming this was just a mis read on your part

Actually, I think it was a mis-read on your part. Decka was saying that inspite of being a heavy minority (population-wise) homosexuality gets so much media that you'd think it {the gay-hetero population ratio} would be 50-50. You claim Decka was saying that the "amount of homosexuality displayed on tv is actually very small" but Decka said "For how much media homosexuality gets"...I think Decka was implying that they get a lot.

Originally posted by Assassin
My theory is that homesexuality is a physcological problem.

My theory is that a conservative fuckhead who cannot SPELL the word *homesexuality* or the word *physcological* might not have a very firm grasp of the motivations of homo sapiens when it comes to sexual preference.