Country afraid of Gays,,, Bush Wins

[Fellowship]

Conservative cultural Christians have secured Bush another 4 years.

This has more to do with the whole "gay" wedge issue Bush injected into this election than anyone will let on.

I would hope that the democratic party realize that they can not win without the Christian votes.

It seems clear as day that when the Republican party panders to the conservative Christians they win elections.

Fellowship

[Neø]

Bush didn't really inject it...it was already there...

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Neø
Bush didn't really inject it...it was already there...

Forget the war: Thousands dead in a wrong war

Forget international integrity: Rename French Fries "Freedom Fries" Ignore international law and leave people hostage in Cuba. Thousands dead in a wrong war.

Forget domestic integrity: Make the public afraid of Terror, bankrupt the country with all this money spent on killing to secure oil.

Forget it all.

Get a cultural conservative Christian to vote against Gays and you win.

Welcome to America...

I am not proud to be an American during this time.

Fellowship

[Anna Mated]

I suspect you'll need to invade the EU next, because we seem to be tolerant of Gays.

Infact we even threw a bigotted Pastor in Jail for a month for teaching that homosexuality was a cancer, and we just threw an Italian out of the EU parliament for saying that Gays were a sin.

Welcome to Tolerant Europe.

Anyone wishing to leave the United States of Bigotted Fundamentalism will find us quite welcoming.

[Yevgeny]

Ummm, hello? The Mass supreme court interjected homosexuality into the debate. Oregon and those lovable folk in San Fran decided to play along. Kerry has nobody to thank but the people in his own party (San Fran, Oregon and Mass are all democratic). His own party members brought up this issue. If you want to blame the victory on something, at least do some work to make sure that it is blameworthy.

Of course, if you want to think that is why Bush won, go ahead, it is a free country. Unlike Iraq two years ago.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Ummm, hello? The Mass supreme court interjected homosexuality into the debate. Oregon and those lovable folk in San Fran decided to play along. Kerry has nobody to thank but the people in his own party (San Fran, Oregon and Mass are all democratic). His own party members brought up this issue. If you want to blame the victory on something, at least do some work to make sure that it is blameworthy.

Of course, if you want to think that is why Bush won, go ahead, it is a free country. Unlike Iraq two years ago.

The fact that it was a debate at all is the goddamn problem.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
I suspect you'll need to invade the EU next, because we seem to be tolerant of Gays.

Infact we even threw a bigotted Pastor in Jail for a month for teaching that homosexuality was a cancer, and we just threw an Italian out of the EU parliament for saying that Gays were a sin.

Welcome to Tolerant Europe.

Anyone wishing to leave the United States of Bigotted Fundamentalism will find us quite welcoming.

Pick your poison:
Bigotted Fundamentalism or Bigotted tolerance.

Nice to see you believe in freedom of religion over there ;)

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
I suspect you'll need to invade the EU next, because we seem to be tolerant of Gays.

Infact we even threw a bigotted Pastor in Jail for a month for teaching that homosexuality was a cancer, and we just threw an Italian out of the EU parliament for saying that Gays were a sin.

Welcome to Tolerant Europe.

Anyone wishing to leave the United States of Bigotted Fundamentalism will find us quite welcoming.

My wife and I are seriously considering moving overseas. We were considering this before today's election. But this only motivates us to look into it further.

How hard is it for an American to gain residency and find gainful work?

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Pick your poison:
Bigotted Fundamentalism or Bigotted tolerance.

Nice to see you believe in freedom of religion over there ;)

I dont believe in freedom of religion, personally I believe in Freedom FROM religion.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Northgate
The fact that it was a debate at all is the goddamn problem.

Contrary to the word on the street, some people view the priorities of the world differently than you. Who are you to say that they are wrong? Are we being judgemental and intolerant?

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Are we being judgemental and intolerant?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
I dont believe in freedom of religion, personally I believe in Freedom FROM religion.

Outside of the EU, you are in the minority.

[Anna Mated]

I think it boils down to this paradox.

Should I tolerate intolerant people?

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Northgate
Abso-fucking-lutely.

Well, in the end, the Democrats really only have themselves to blame. People in Mass, SF, and Ore brought up homosexuality in an election year. If you want to be judgemental, turn some it to those who stirred up the controversy in the first place.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Forget the war: Thousands dead in a wrong war

Forget international integrity: Rename French Fries "Freedom Fries" Ignore international law and leave people hostage in Cuba. Thousands dead in a wrong war.

Forget domestic integrity: Make the public afraid of Terror, bankrupt the country with all this money spent on killing to secure oil.

Forget it all.

Get a cultural conservative Christian to vote against Gays and you win.

Welcome to America...

I am not proud to be an American during this time.

Fellowship

Here here, Fellows.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
I think it boils down to this paradox.

Should I tolerate intolerant people?

That's a fundamental issue that you will have to deal with in your own ethical decisions. Either be consistent and tolerate what you consider to be your antithesis or be inconsistent and become what you hate. I honestly don't have a solution for you because I don't live in the same presuppositional framework as you (i'm firmly planted in Christian theism). Tolerance has always seemed to me to be a pragmatic working out of the belief that there is no real truth (i.e. that all truth is relative to the culture/individual/time).

[applenut]

Originally posted by Fellowship


Welcome to America...

I am not proud to be an American during this time.

Fellowship

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. While you're at it, you can take Bruce, the Dixie Chicks, Deathcab, Mellancamp, all your celebrities and try to figure out why the majority of the country doesn't agree with you and you lost.

[BuonRotto]

he didn't say he was giving up on you guys, smartass little tyke. :p

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by applenut
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. While you're at it, you can take Bruce, the Dixie Chicks, Deathcab, Mellancamp, all your celebrities and try to figure out why the majority of the country doesn't agree with you and you lost.


Its not the majority of the country. Its the number of people that voted for Bush that doesn't agree with him/her.

I heard, so far, 50+ million people voted for Bush. Since when is the US a country of 50+ million people only?

The country has 293 million people. When the majority of 293 million people vote for Bush, then you can talk about the "majority of the country". Until then, you can safely use the terms "the number of Bush voters".

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by applenut
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. While you're at it, you can take Bruce, the Dixie Chicks, Deathcab, Mellancamp, all your celebrities and try to figure out why the majority of the country doesn't agree with you and you lost.

Don't forget Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, and Sean Penn. One of these three will be missed for their acting abilities. The other two won't be missed.

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Tolerance has always seemed to me to be a pragmatic working out of the belief that there is no real truth (i.e. that all truth is relative to the culture/individual/time).

Thats what the facts of the evidence suggest.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Its not the majority of the country. Its the number of people that voted for Bush that doesn't agree with him/her.

I heard, so far, 50+ million people voted for Bush. Since when is the US a country of 50+ million people only?

The country has 293 million people. When the majority of 293 million people vote for Bush, then you can talk about the "majority of the country". Until then, you can safely use the terms "the number of Bush voters".

By such reasoning, the US of A would not have had a legitimate government for well over the last hundred years. Moral of the story:

If you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. If you did vote, then your vote counts for more.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with one of my friends in mainland China. He can't vote. The Government hates him because he is a Christian. It is a blessing to vote and if people want to ignore that blessing and responsibility, then they shouldn't complain.

[applenut]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Its not the majority of the country. Its the number of people that voted for Bush that doesn't agree with him/her.

I heard, so far, 50+ million people voted for Bush. Since when is the US a country of 50+ million people only?

The country has 293 million people. When the majority of 293 million people vote for Bush, then you can talk about the "majority of the country". Until then, you can safely use the terms "the number of Bush voters".

hmmm.. pretty sure you'd be singing a different tune if the numbers were reversed.


wah wah wah. sore loser.

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by applenut
hmmm.. pretty sure you'd be singing a different tune if the numbers were reversed.


wah wah wah. sore loser.

I see pride, gloating and arrogance. You understand the message of Jesus very well.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
Thats what the facts of the evidence suggest.

No, the purely empirical facts of the evidence suggest that there is no such thing as morality either way. Tolerance is just as right and wrong as facism because right and wrong are semantic labels with no real meaning. Choosing one over the other is valid without regard to which one you choose because morality is a metaphysical value judgement not rooted in the empirical world. As Hume said, you can show that whipping babies causes them pain, but you cannot show that wipping babies is wrong because "wrongness" is not an empirical quality.

The more horrorific fact of the matter is that tolerance is just as correct as intolerance. Neither is provably right because there is no way to prove what is right. We just like to choose tolerance over intolerance because we are scared of where we think intolerance will take us. Alfred Ayer was right but a post modern society is scared of embracing what he wrote and so we strangely hold onto the cultural moral baggage of modernism while pretending to be post modern.

My 2 cents.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by applenut
wah wah wah. sore loser.

Don't be a sore winner. Ever since the Democratic primaries and Mr Dean, political dialog has been rather caustic but it is time for that to end. There is work to be done and the second Bush Administration has some serious tasks ahead of it.

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Tolerance is just as right and wrong as facism...

Thats all the evidence I need. Im off to work now. Later.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by applenut
hmmm.. pretty sure you'd be singing a different tune if the numbers were reversed.


wah wah wah. sore loser.


why thank you sir. you have the language of a true christian. i'm glad the party has taught you to behave exactly in line with the official party attitude. it's a good thing. now back to the discussion.

there can never be a majority of the entire country because simply, the entire country cannot vote. I have a brother, he's 12, he can't vote, do you think Bush represents him too? He didn't have a voice in this democracy. He didn't choose Bush or Kerry. So before calling people names, try and think a minute about what I said, and then, and only then, take the courage and speak out.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Conservative cultural Christians have secured Bush another 4 years.

This has more to do with the whole "gay" wedge issue Bush injected into this election than anyone will let on.

I would hope that the democratic party realize that they can not win without the Christian votes.

It seems clear as day that when the Republican party panders to the conservative Christians they win elections.

Fellowship

Fellowship,

The new knee-jerk thinking you display is very sad to see.

Bush doubled his support among African-Americans.

I suppose it is the bigoted-blacks who gave Bush the win.

Bush increased his support among women voters.

I suppose it is those hateful, evil women who will give Bush the win.

Bush will have gotten more than 50% of the popular vote. Something even Clinton could not do. You remember Clinton don't you? Don't ask, don't tell Clinton. He's there standing right next to "I have the same position as Bush on homosexual relations" Kerry.

Point your hateful, judgemental finger at yourself in the mirror. Maybe then you will be able to figure out that it is very doubtful homosexual marriage was the issue this election turned on. If anyone tried to make it a wedge issue it was the Democrats who attempted to cultivate hatred of homosexuals in an attempt to pry votes away from Bush/Cheney.

But keep lashing out, and keep watching your guys lose.

Nick

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
Thats all the evidence I need. Im off to work now. Later.

And just like that you retreat to the presuppositions of modernism. How do you know that tolerance is correct? What does it mean to be correct? What constitutes rightness? Some things to think about.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
By such reasoning, the US of A would not have had a legitimate government for well over the last hundred years. Moral of the story:

If you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. If you did vote, then your vote counts for more.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with one of my friends in mainland China. He can't vote. The Government hates him because he is a Christian. It is a blessing to vote and if people want to ignore that blessing and responsibility, then they shouldn't complain.

A legitimate government is one thing, a government that has the majority of the entire country is different. No government can have the majority of the entire country. They may have the majority of the electorate, but there are 150 million people that are NOT part of that electorate, and only about 120-40 million that are the electorate.

Is that clear, or do you want me to create a graph for ya'?

[tonton]

Originally posted by Northgate
My wife and I are seriously considering moving overseas. We were considering this before today's election. But this only motivates us to look into it further.

How hard is it for an American to gain residency and find gainful work?

What do you do?

[segovius]

Originally posted by tonton
What do you do?

And where do you want to go ?

I'd recommend Spain, lived in Barcelona for years - am most likely heading back there in a few months myself. Or Seville.

If you're considering that you can PM me if you like.

[tonton]

You see, that is the difference. Those of us who oppose Bush are truly and honestly frightened about the country's and the world's prospects under another four years of Bushco. Opposers of Kerry simply don't like him.

[bborofka]

If the first 4 years of Bush's term was "compassionate conservatism," I'm scared of what his last term will be like, with a Republican dominated Congress. Goodbye ANWR, women's choice, gay rights and hello to billionare tax cuts, a never-ending war on terror, and "democratizing" oil-rich nations.

The Democratic party needs to reinvent itself. Badly. I thought this back in 2000, and it looks like nothing has really changed. This election has proven that Republicans can mobilize the Christian right much better than Democrats can mobilize luke-warm Kerry supports that dislike Bush.

Vote or Die? Say what? Where was my age group this year?

[Jeremiah Rich]

Yeah Bush! Okay, guess I should also say something after making such a comment. I have remained pretty silent on the issue, as this whole pointless arguing seemed to me, well, pointless so I have rarely shared my viewpoint. So yes I am happy at this point, and was genuinely scared by the possibility of having Kerry lead the country, as I feel a leader who acts on what is simply popular is a scary prospect. So please all of you realize there is more than one view on this issue, and I happen to side with Bush. Is it because I do not care about this country? Not at all! It is because I feel he has done a terrific job with Iraq (and what's scary is I almost spelled it iRaq) by following through. Unfortunate there were no WMD's, but I think he did the right thing by following the intelligence he had to the best of his abilities and standing by his decision. At the same time as all of this, I do not like Cheney nearly as much as I like Bush, but I guess that is what comes along with the deal. Guess this is the best way to describe my feelings/thoughts at 3:28 AM.

[BRussell]

I do think, based on the exit polls, that values issues were a big part of the vote. I also believe, and this is just intuition, that it's difficult to elect a president who has basically expressed opposition to the war that we're currently fighting. In the end though, with the fact that only about half of eligible Americans vote, it's all about "get out the vote." I'd bet that more people in the country generally probably wanted Kerry to be president, but there are just more slackers among Democrats than Republicans. Those white married upper middle class folks just have their act together better than everyone else. :)

[Merovingian]

Originally posted by BRussell
I do think, based on the exit polls, that values issues were a big part of the vote. I also believe, and this is just intuition, that it's difficult to elect a president who has basically expressed opposition to the war that we're currently fighting. In the end though, with the fact that only about half of eligible Americans vote, it's all about "get out the vote." I'd bet that more people in the country generally probably wanted Kerry to be president, but there are just more slackers among Democrats than Republicans. Those white married upper middle class folks just have their act together better than everyone else. :)

I can't understand why voting in the US isn't compulsory. I believe everyone should have a say. Here in Australia, it is compulsory for everyone 18 or over to vote. m.

[jonnyb]

Originally posted by Merovingian
I can't understand why voting in the US isn't compulsory. I believe everyone should have a say. Here in Australia, it is compulsory for everyone 18 or over to vote. m.

Because democracy means not having to participate in your own democracy if you don't really want to, apparently. Not that the UK, where I'm from, is any better of course.

[THT]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'd bet that more people in the country generally probably wanted Kerry to be president, but there are just more slackers among Democrats than Republicans.

I wouldn't bet that. Maybe it is because I live in Texas, but I think the slackers and the 18 to 24 years are trending Republican.

Remember, rightness and wrongness at the level of Republican and Democratic "values" are not inherent human traits. The slackers and the young are trained it. The Republican game is much better than the Democratic one in doing that. It's talk radio. It's money. It's religious upbringing.

So, I wouldn't count on GOTV anymore. The Democratic party has to be reformed and reconstituted from the bottom up.

[Jubelum]

The PEOPLE have spoken. Marriage is one man and one woman.

It was not even close. Two to one, folks. Across the nation.

It's not "HATE" - Christians have a thing about the word "marriage"
Civil Unions are good policy. Just stay away from that "m" word and things will be fine. I promise. ;)

[dmz]

Fellowship, you need to handle the election loss with more grace.

The problem with gay marriage isn't a sudden event. It's simply that a large plurality of Americans don't want 1-3% of the population dictating what constitutes marriage. More importantly, it has become clear that the left wishes to dominate the "intolerance" of Christians by setting up "higher" standards by which religious principles are allowed and disallowed in public life.

Thinking Christians beg to differ.

When the evil that is the homosexual movement lost its last bits of political control -- to the point ot breaking the law in the name of advocacy (the illegal marraiges in SF and elsewhere) -- they showed thinking Christians that there is no middle, or safe zone, in public life, that the homosexual lobby would never stop pushing until Christian's could be defined as intolerant in terms of the laws of the land.


Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor {the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Merovingian
Here in Australia, it is compulsory for everyone 18 or over to vote. m. How does that work? Is there a penalty for not voting?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Jubelum
It's not "HATE" - Christians have a thing about the word "marriage"
Civil Unions are good policy. Just stay away from that "m" word and things will be fine. I promise. ;) Except that in many of the states that banned gay marriage, they also banned civil unions.

[BuonRotto]

Americans are a conservative bunch now. We, as a nation, see ourselves as being at the apex of our culture and any challenges to that are challenges to our perceived superiority in the world. Americans don't want to lose that position, so they will try their damndest to freeze this moment.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by THT
I wouldn't bet that. Maybe it is because I live in Texas, but I think the slackers and the 18 to 24 years are trending Republican.

Remember, rightness and wrongness at the level of Republican and Democratic "values" are not inherent human traits. The slackers and the young are trained it. The Republican game is much better than the Democratic one in doing that. It's talk radio. It's money. It's religious upbringing.

So, I wouldn't count on GOTV anymore. The Democratic party has to be reformed and reconstituted from the bottom up. Here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) are the exit polls. Kerry has 18-24 year olds, and loses every single other age demographic (though the others are close).

I'd like to see a poll of Americans, rather than registered voters. I don't think I've ever seen one like that. It just seems to me that the Democratic voters are more likely to be poor, single, minority, younger, less educated (except for those with graduate education, who vote Democratic), non-religious, etc. The Republicans are whiter, wealthier, and just have their act together better, and are thus more likely to vote.

[OBJRA10]

Forget the war: Thousands dead in a wrong war

Forget international integrity: Rename French Fries "Freedom Fries" Ignore international law and leave people hostage in Cuba. Thousands dead in a wrong war.

Forget domestic integrity: Make the public afraid of Terror, bankrupt the country with all this money spent on killing to secure oil.

Forget it all.

Get a cultural conservative Christian to vote against Gays and you win.

Welcome to America...

I am not proud to be an American during this time.

Fellowship

Fellowship,

I generally respect you, but I am really having a hard time seeing how you can make the connection?

Gay Marriage Ammendment proposals were on ballots in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah.

These states represent 99 electoral votes. Interestingly, not a single one went any differently than it did in 2000, so the gay marriage amendments had absolutely no significant impact on the outcome of these elections. Not a single Gore state went to Bush... how can you then argue that these amendments effected the election? I don't buy it.

For what's it worth, the democrats did net 2 less electoral votes as a result of Michigan and Oregon both losing 1 vote each, but the republican states balanced out.

It also should be mentioned that it passed overwhelmingly in every state it was on the ballot, including in the two that overall went to Kerry

Care to elaborate on your theory?

[Jubelum]

Fellowship, I have always appreciated your even-handedness in these forums, even when I completely disagree with you.

I think there needs to be a little discussion about three ideas:

1. Phobia- fear- of gays
2. Hatred of gays
3. Political Disagreement with the gay agenda.

There is a difference among these three. I'm not sure equating number three with number one is wise...

[BuonRotto]

What do people consider the so-called gay agenda anyway? Equality? Something more nefarious?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Fellowship, I have always appreciated your even-handedness in these forums, even when I completely disagree with you.

I think there needs to be a little discussion about three ideas:

1. Phobia- fear- of gays
2. Hatred of gays
3. Political Disagreement with the gay agenda.

There is a difference among these three. I'm not sure equating number three with number one is wise...

The difference is that they follow each other sequentially. One leads to the next and 1 is the root cause.

[groverat]

What is the "gay agenda"?

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by groverat
What is the "gay agenda"?

1. Same-sex marriage
2. Pro-homosexual pandering to children in public schools.
3. "Hate crime legislation" - making certain acts worse because of thought crime... creating unequal protected classes.
4. Gays in the military
5. Gay adoption

[groverat]

Originally posted by Jubelum
1. Same-sex marriage

So?

2. Pro-homosexual pandering to children in public schools.

Explain.

3. "Hate crime legislation" - making certain acts worse because of thought crime... creating unequal protected classes.

Motivation has been a factor in punishment deliberation since the beginning of law.

4. Gays in the military

So?

5. Gay adoption

So?

[Jubelum]

Ya asked, I told ya. So?

[groverat]

I would like to know why it is so nefarious. Can you answer the questions? Can you explain what you meant by #2 in more detail?

[ColanderOfDeath]

ABC News poll had "moral values" as the number one issue for voters nationwide, higher than Iraq or the economy. Of course 79% of those voters went for Bush. You have a full sweep for the Gay Marriage Prohibitions even in liberal/libertarian states like Oregon where it was not expected to win.

While this may not have directly helped Bush in terms of winning states that Gore won, I htink it counter-balanced some of Kerry's gains in moderates in moderate states due to restlessness about the economy and Iraq. Then in safe traditional conservative states you also see Bush getting even better numbers than in 2000 as he turned out his people to get a better percentage of hte popular. I think it is pretty clear that the Republicans did a much better job of getting out their base of Christians while the Democrats were not able to turn either Iraq or the economy or the horrendous federal budget into any sort of widespead energizing issue.

[Gene Clean]

How are gays a threat to the country? Do you they have two d*cks or something?

[Jubelum]

I'm not making a case that the agenda is wrong or "nefarious"... the majority of this list is directly from PlanetOut.com. These are the goals. Good, bad, or indifferent.

Don't look to me to make a case against this agenda. I'm not the one.

My point is the difference between hatred and political disagreement... A distinction lost in our current political climate.

[Fellowship]

Some of you have asked me some questions which need answers.

Why have I come to this theory etc. some of you have asked.

I will admit I could very well be wrong to "suspect" that the "gay" issue turned this election to Bush. To be honest it could have been any issue which "turned people out to the polls". It is a fact that the conservative base was more energized this election hence the victory for Bush. I had to ask myself alongside considering the exit poll data which aspect of the "plate of issues" energized the conservative base. According to the exit polling data which was being poured over by all the networks it seemed that the married female demographic and their overwhelming indication that "moral" issues directed their vote over the war, and over the economy.

"moral" issues. Now to be fair as I like to be this could include the abortion topic as well as others. I framed this thread as the "gay" issue determining this election I could very well be wrong on this and I ask for your understanding that I goofed up.

I admit my mistake.

One of the reasons I jumped to this conclusion is a personal reason which I allowed to skew my judgement irrationally. The reason is:

My younger sister and I had a conversation the morning of Nov. 2 on the phone. She informed me that she was going to indeed vote for Bush. Why? She explained she felt Kerry was softer towards the gay community and that she does not want "her kids" to be subjected to gay lifestyle as being normal. She felt that Bush by raising the ammendment issue was taking a stand in a way she supported.


There you have it... I and my family do hold different views it seems..

I hope I have explained myself better for my thread. I hope you will have understanding as to why I said what I said.

I goofed up by making a generalization and I take responsibility for that.

With respect,

Fellows

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by Jubelum
I'm not making a case that the agenda is wrong or "nefarious"...

In other words, just because!

The one really big question mark over this whole gay issue thing is why social equality of gays is so bad for our culture. I hear all about how the gay "lifestyle" threatens our "way of life," but I cannot conceive of how it makes any such impact. I don't even know what that means. I just can't formulate a real logic behind that statement, how exactly homosexuality will bring down the pillars of the nuclear family and heterosexual relationships. Do people think that there's this huge homosexual population where allowing homosexual unions would open up this pandora's box of man-on-man action in the streets? Do people see homosexuals as pedophilic sickos that want to -- what? -- whips out their wangs on little kids and make boys kiss each other? What's the logic of this?

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
this pandora's box of man-on-man action in the streets?

LOL! Watch out for that man-hole!

Love ya, Buon...

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Fellowship
Some of you have asked me some questions which need answers.

Why have I come to this theory etc. some of you have asked.

I will admit I could very well be wrong to "suspect" that the "gay" issue turned this election to Bush. To be honest it could have been any issue which "turned people out to the polls". It is a fact that the conservative base was more energized this election hence the victory for Bush. I had to ask myself alongside considering the exit poll data which aspect of the "plate of issues" energized the conservative base. According to the exit polling data which was being poured over by all the networks it seemed that the married female demographic and their overwhelming indication that "moral" issues directed their vote over the war, and over the economy.

"moral" issues. Now to be fair as I like to be this could include the abortion topic as well as others. I framed this thread as the "gay" issue determining this election I could very well be wrong on this and I ask for your understanding that I goofed up.

I admit my mistake.

One of the reasons I jumped to this conclusion is a personal reason which I allowed to skew my judgement irrationally. The reason is:

My younger sister and I had a conversation the morning of Nov. 2 on the phone. She informed me that she was going to indeed vote for Bush. Why? She explained she felt Kerry was softer towards the gay community and that she does not want "her kids" to be subjected to gay lifestyle as being normal. She felt that Bush by raising the ammendment issue was taking a stand in a way she supported.


There you have it... I and my family do hold different views it seems..

I hope I have explained myself better for my thread. I hope you will have understanding as to why I said what I said.

I goofed up by making a generalization and I take responsibility for that.

With respect,

Fellows

I just heard in a perfect french an interview on France Info radio of Cohen (wrong spelling) editorialist of the New York Time (and one other important newspaper) he said that Bush win for two main reason :

- People do not want to change of chief in the middle of a war, especially if no attack occured in US soil since 2001 (people feel secured with Bush)

- the morale as you emphasized.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Fellowship
My younger sister......


http://pda.dk/pda-classic/pdalt/pdart/darth-vader.gif

Sooooooo, you have a siiisssssssster......If you will not be turned to the dark side Perhaps SHE WILL!!!

[ColanderOfDeath]

My point is the difference between hatred and political disagreement... A distinction lost in our current political climate.

You can maybe make a case for #2, whatever that means since it seems extraordinarily vague anyway and for #3 as an unequal attribution of extra rights or favoritism. #1, #4, and #5 are rights already enjoyed by others across a broad spectrum. What motivation is there for any political disagreement that strives to limit someone else's rights? AFAICT its rooted in either Hate or its fraternal twin Fear. What Fellowship mentions is right on. People don't want gays to have equal rights because they are afraid that gays will make their children gay somehow or look at them funny in a lockerroom or molest children or change their nice homogenous community into something different than them.

[kneelbeforezod]

I think Fellowship's assessment is spot on...somehow 'moral issues' became a key concern for a huge number of voters, allowing them to downplay or outright ignore the extent to which the Bush administration has fucked up over the last four years. The thousands of lives, millions of jobs and billions of dollars lost and wasted apparently pale in comparison to the threat of same-sex marriage.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
People don't want gays to have equal rights because they are afraid that gays will make their children gay somehow or look at them funny in a lockerroom or molest children or change their nice homogenous community into something different than them.

Um, no... but style points for the nice projection.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
Don't forget Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, and Sean Penn. One of these three will be missed for their acting abilities. The other two won't be missed. George Soros

[Jubelum]

I'm not sure what so many on the left are worried about. In typical liberal fashion, some leftist Federal judge will soon disregard the overwhelming will of the people. It's the usual MO. These same sex bans will be overturned, and to hell with what the people want- "we're liberal, we're smarter, and we're right."

FSCK judicial activism.

[FormerLurker]

Election 2004: Fear and Ignorance Rule

[Jubelum]

Election 2004: The People have spoken. Deal with it. 8)

[ColanderOfDeath]

Um, no... but style points for the nice projection.
:lol:

Yeah, I pretty much figured you wouldn't be able to able to come up with any sort of reasoned response. Not really your strong suit.

[NaplesX]

Making gay marriage legal then makes it an option and a normal one at that.

I have no fear or hate for gay people, as long as they don't encroach on my sensibilities. I treat anyone I meet with the same respect so I am only expect what i dish out.

In my world, my upbringing, my own conclusions, being gay is morally wrong and going against natural law. Being gay adds nothing to humankind other that variety in sexual preference. These are my educated and informed opinions on the subject.

But I realize that my beliefs may be different than that of others, so I respect those beliefs while not adopting them. This is the approach that should be taken, IMO.

Gay marriage would effect many things in our society. That is what I think is at issue here. Look at the educational system - sex ed is already taught in schools, even gay sex ed in some districts - even in the lower grades. Do we really want to be introducing kids to anal sex and male on male blowjobs on top of that? I would pull my kids out of school in a flash.

Maybe it's just me, but I hope that never happens.

[Anna Mated]

I'd agree with you Naples, the difference I have no problems with gays on a personal or moral level. I believe that consential personal relationships are between 2 people (or more) and what they chose to do is entirely up to them and I need not pass judgement on it. I do not view it as a threat, an evil or a sin. I also think that if they are prepared to accept the consequences of a legally binding agreement, then it should be their choice.

And I do not believe that homosexuality needs to be taught to 12 year olds, or that gays should be free to advocate or promote their personal choice to minors.

But legislating a personal faith that discriminates against the choices of consenting adults as a constitutional amendment is by far a bigger crime IMO.

[lolo]

Originally posted by NaplesX
in my world, my upbringing, being gay is morally wrong
Growing up, I thought the same thing. I thought it was wrong and frankly disgusting. Then I actually got to know gay people and I realized that it wasn't their choice at all. It's not like people adopt the gay lifestyle just for fun. It's simply part of who they are, just like the color of your hair, your eyes, or your skin. They're people, you know, not freaks.

[bborofka]

Originally posted by Anna Mated

And I do not believe that homosexuality needs to be taught to 12 year olds, or that gays should be free to advocate or promote their personal choice to minors.


Sigh.

Is the color of your skin a choice?

Are we really afraid that young kids are going to suddenly "become gay"?

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by bborofka
Sigh.

Is the color of your skin a choice?

Are we really afraid that young kids are going to suddenly "become gay"?

Sigh too.

Im not afraid of that, the color of my skin is not a choice, and homosexuality is not a choice in most circumstances,

For the record, I do not think homosexuality needs to be taught to 12 year olds, not because I think they could become 'Gay', but because you should be enjoying your childhood as a child. Kids grow up too fast and have too much to worry about these days. Anal sex, blow jobs, fisting, rectums, lubrication is not something you need to spend your time worrying about when you're a kid.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Anna Mated


For the record, I do not think homosexuality needs to be taught to 12 year olds, not because I think they could become 'Gay', but because you should be enjoying your childhood as a child. Kids grow up too fast and have too much to worry about these days. Anal sex, blow jobs, fisting, rectums, lubrication is not something you need to spend your time worrying about when you're a kid.

Right, my elder daughter who is 9 would be horrified by anything about sex. These things should wait that she become a teen. No need to worry her with this now.

[BRussell]

What are you folks talking about? Is there really a danger of schools teaching "fisting" to 2nd graders? :???:

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by BRussell
What are you folks talking about? Is there really a danger of schools teaching "fisting" to 2nd graders? :???:

I think that it's not very wise to teach fist to beginners ... :p :lol:

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by BRussell
What are you folks talking about? Is there really a danger of schools teaching "fisting" to 2nd graders? :???:

Were talking about young kids being taught about gay sex. Schools, adults, older kids, gays, etc. Kids are inquisitive, they ask questions of others.

That you choose 1 word out of a very logical rational statement to highlight is telling.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
And I do not believe that homosexuality needs to be taught to 12 year olds, or that gays should be free to advocate or promote their personal choice to minors.

But, sadly that is exactly what will happen.

Originally posted by Anna Mated
But legislating a personal faith that discriminates against the choices of consenting adults as a constitutional amendment is by far a bigger crime IMO.

1% of the population is 'gay', so that means that 99% of the population will be forced (no choice) to adopt it as being 'normal'. It will be forced by gay activists into school books and curriculum. Look at the overcompensation with regard to the black community. It is already happening on TV. Name me a sitcom that doesn't have a gay character in it. Admittedly I don't watch much TV other than news, but it seems that when I flip through the channels, they are everywhere. It is not even close to proportionate.

If that is what people want to watch, i guess it will continue. It just seems out of whack to me.

Making gay marriage legal only makes that trend worse, or better, depending on your view.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
Were talking about young kids being taught about gay sex. Schools, adults, older kids, gays, etc. Kids are inquisitive, they ask questions of others.

That you choose 1 word out of a very logical rational statement to highlight is telling. As far as I know, no one is talking about teaching school kids about your wonderful list of blowjobs, rectums, fisting, anal sex, etc. Heterosexuals already have all the same kinds of sex that gays have, and there's no reason to believe that an anti-gay marriage amendment has anything to do with the teaching of any of those things in schools. :\

[Jubelum]

Would someone please remind me WTF is wrong with Civil Unions?

:err:

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by BRussell
As far as I know, no one is talking about teaching school kids about your wonderful list of blowjobs, rectums, fisting, anal sex, etc. Heterosexuals already have all the same kinds of sex that gays have, and there's no reason to believe that an anti-gay marriage amendment has anything to do with the teaching of any of those things in schools. :\

Exactly, and 12 year old kids already know more about it than most of their parents, despite the fact that it may not be officially taught. Why is that?

Why do we need to teach kids about Gay sex too?

[Jubelum]

These are stated goals re:kids and homosexuality:

1993 GLBT March on Washington Platform:
"Culturally inclusive Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Studies program; and information on abortion, AIDS/HIV, childcare and sexuality at all levels of education."

ALL LEVELS? My Fist, er, FIRST grader? WTF?


1973 Gay Rights Platform, Chicago Rally:

"Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by Gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality."

A gay man telling my first grader how great it is to be gay? In public schools?
WHAT THE FSCK?

:devil:

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by NaplesX
But, sadly that is exactly what will happen.



1% of the population is 'gay', so that means that 99% of the population will be forced (no choice) to adopt it as being 'normal'. It will be forced by gay activists into school books and curriculum. Look at the overcompensation with regard to the black community. It is already happening on TV. Name me a sitcom that doesn't have a gay character in it. Admittedly I don't watch much TV other than news, but it seems that when I flip through the channels, they are everywhere. It is not even close to proportionate.

If that is what people want to watch, i guess it will continue. It just seems out of whack to me.

Making gay marriage legal only makes that trend worse, or better, depending on your view.

You're on very shaky ground with this post as far as Im concerned, and I don't need to tell you that this is exactly the kind of bigotted, intolerant, fundamentalist viewpoint based on nothing more than a personal interpretation of a dodgy book, which I find very disgusting. Lets find something else to talk about.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
Why do we need to teach kids about Gay sex too? 1. I don't see any danger of that happening.
2. I don't see what it has to do with these anti-gay marriage amendments.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
You're on very shaky ground with this post as far as Im concerned, and I don't need to tell you that this is exactly the kind of bigotted, intolerant, fundamentalist viewpoint based on nothing more than a personal interpretation of a dodgy book, which I find very disgusting. Lets find something else to talk about. Fine. But you realise that noone forced you to comment on a thread that concerned - GASP - being gay and related matters.

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by BRussell
1. I don't see any danger of that happening.
2. I don't see what it has to do with these anti-gay marriage amendments.

1. I think it does, as I remember from school. My personal opinion is that it doesn't need to happen for the reasons I've already stated. Not because im homophobic or fundamentalist.

2. I wasn't responding to the anti-gay marriage arrangements.

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Fine. But you realise that noone forced you to comment on a thread that concerned - GASP - being gay and related matters.

Who forced you? god? you wanted to share your opinion, well, so did I.

Am I not to have an opinion because your book tells you I am automatically wrong to be tolerant?

[Jubelum]

Anna, hows about you, me, NaplesX, and BRussel do a four-way around the world. Then we can call know of that which we speak.

I love these boards. :lol:

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by Jubelum
Anna, hows about you, me, NaplesX, and BRussel do a four-way around the world. Then we can call know of that which we speak.

I love these boards. :lol:

NaplesX has already tried it with his guitar. I think he tried it with the wrong end though!

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
Who forced you? god? you wanted to share your opinion, well, so did I. Hey, wait! You are the one that is asking for a conversation change, not me.

[Anna Mated]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Hey, wait! You are the one that is asking for a conversation change, not me.

Do you still plug in your fuzz-box?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Anna Mated
Do you still plug in your fuzz-box? I don't usually use much in distortion, but I just recently bought a pedal -$159.00! It sounds good but man.

What does that have to do with being a gay sinner?

:lol:

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't usually use much in distortion, but I just recently bought a pedal -$159.00! It sounds good but man.

What does that have to do with being a gay sinner?

:lol:

You see this kind of pathetic lack of knowledge is why we need more gay lessons in schools....

:devil:

[Merovingian]

Originally posted by BRussell
How does that work? Is there a penalty for not voting?

Yes. m.

[rok]

Originally posted by BRussell
Here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) are the exit polls. Kerry has 18-24 year olds, and loses every single other age demographic (though the others are close).

yep, and unfortunately, it turns out in retrospect that the 18-24 year old demographic was a worthless one to court, with only, what, 10-13% turnign out? after the nearly endless "rock the vote" campaigns to get them to register? i'm not saying THEY are worthless, but 18-24 years olds have so much else going on in their lives at the height of personal transition, voting for a future that seems so far off just never happens.

[bunge]

Originally posted by rok
yep, and unfortunately, it turns out in retrospect that the 18-24 year old demographic was a worthless one to court, with only, what, 10-13% turnign out? after the nearly endless "rock the vote" campaigns to get them to register? i'm not saying THEY are worthless, but 18-24 years olds have so much else going on in their lives at the height of personal transition, voting for a future that seems so far off just never happens.

Well, they'll most likely vote next time as well. IF they never start, they'll never vote. I think it's probably a good long term strategy.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Election 2004: Fear and Ignorance Rule
FaIR?

[Gilsch]

quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Don't forget Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, and Sean Penn. One of these three will be missed for their acting abilities. The other two won't be missed.
Originally posted by NaplesX
George Soros You subsidize those guys' taxcuts. Why would you want people like Soros and Jane Fonda and the Hollywood crowd to spend that money abroad?
Let them at least pay sales taxes on the new toys they buy with those nice and juicy war time tax cuts. :D

[tonton]

I think it boils down to this:

Do you care if your kids are gay? If they are born gay would you want them to be forced into a heterosexual lifestyle?

If my daughter turns out to be a lesbian, personally, I don't care. I will be proud of her for being what she is. If gayness is discussed in the classroom as being okay (as well it should) it will make no difference. Safe sex should be taught in the context of gay sex and straight sex alike.

You cannot "turn" someone gay. You cannot "turn" someone straight. You can just accept them for being what they are.

As an activist for Amnesty International and a member of the AIHK LGBT Group, and as a marcher in costume at Hong Kong's FIRST EVER GAY PRIDE MARCH, I see acceptance as the future, and education about acceptance as a civic duty, for straights and gays alike, and I am proud of being part of the progressive force for tolerance.

Most people who are so afraid of equality and social acceptance for gays are really afraid of the possibility of themselves, their family or their offspring being gay. In the first case, there are a lot of people who feel threatened by the prospect of gayness coming close to them in any way, as if it were some kind of highly contagious disease. I don't understand it. We heterosexuals who know we're heterosexuals don't feel threatened in any way by gays. In my case, one of the drag queens at the march asked me back to his flat, and I politely told him I have a girlfriend. I didn't say "I'm not gay". It doesn't matter. If I'm not interested I'm not interested, regardless of the reason. Why can't we just leave it at that. I hope he did find someone to go home with that night. I don't wish loneliness on anyone.

One of my closest friends is gay. He talks about guys with my girlfriend. It doesn't bother me at all. Should it?

[Aries 1B]

Originally posted by Northgate
My wife and I are seriously considering moving overseas. We were considering this before today's election. But this only motivates us to look into it further.

How hard is it for an American to gain residency and find gainful work?

I understand that if you speak Norwegian, you can become a Norwegian citizen. Ten years ago, I think that you got one year to become proficient at Norwegian and then you were able to take their citizenship test. The UN loves Norway, too.

Australia has a budding movie industry.

Denmark's not safe for movie makers, evidently; might not want to go there.

Have a nice trip and goodbye.

Aries 1B

[bunge]

1% is a low figure. I used to hear 10%, but that's been quoted as too much.

The real issue is the fact that people actually care if someone is gay. If you care, you have a problem.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
Have a nice trip and goodbye.

Go swallow a pretzel.

EDIT: Please TRY and swallow a pretzel. And go masturbate. You obviously need a release.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Aries 1B
I understand that if you speak Norwegian, you can become a Norwegian citizen.

REALLY!!!? That's freaking cool. I'd love to live in Norway. Time to start studying.

Hmm... after a brief search, I can't find anything online that corroborates your statement.

$ 6 The King, or anyone he so empowers, may upon application grant nationality to a foreign national provided the applicant:

(1) is not less then 18 years of age,
(2) has resided in this realm during the last seven years,
(3) has shown good conduct, and
(4) does nog have substantial debt in connection with maintenance payments.


But that's for citizenship. I guess we should be more concerned about residency. It seems that the main criterion for obtaining residency is getting a job, and...

English-speaking people with a fair knowledge of Norwegian have a good chance of getting a job. To find a job, read the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, available nation-wide, or Teknisk Ukeblad (the magazine for the Association of Norwegian Chartered Engineers), or look for vacant positions at: http://www.jobbguiden.no/ or www.finn.no

So in a way, while "citizen" was not the right word, if you replace it with "resident" it seems like you're generally correct in your statement. So I might start my crash course in Nowegian after all. Especially since I know a little Cantonese. Such a trilingual combination has GOT to be valuable in the job market.

[dmz]

Originally posted by bunge
Please TRY and swallow a pretzel. And go masturbate.


-That is hands down, no bullshit, the oddest thing I have seen on AppleInciter.

[bunge]

Originally posted by dmz
-That is hands down, no bullshit, the oddest thing I have seen on AppleInciter.

You make me proud.

P.S. AppleInciter is a great pun.

[Gon]

I'll chime in as one of the resident libertarians.

I am very much against a constitution, or indeed any law, seeking to define marriage.
I understand and emphatize with the desire of gays to get legal equality with heteros.
I also understand the desire of gays to achieve quick and easy "equality" by simply replacing the gender-specific spouse legal terms with gender neutral spouse terms. However, I think this is a lose-lose cause. No matter if the pursuit is successful, it serves to further establish and legitimize the existing law that lets the government dictate the terms of what is supposed to be an union of love. If you settle for something like that, you have achieved no recognition of your *real* rights. Everything that has been changed can just as well be changed back, since by participating in the marriage lawmaking process you have accepted that it is the business of government to tell you what constitutes marriage.

The right way? It's not easy, but it is simple. One by one, amend every law that mentions "marriage", "civil union", "spouse" or some such, till the law no longer takes into account who you live with or associate with.

I think parents have a right to teach their kid what they deem appropriate. If they were free to arrange the kids' learning like they want, including choice of school, there would be no problem. However, as long as school is public and compulsory, I can't bring myself to condemn sex education. These things can be some of the most important for a kid to learn. I think the material should explain the scientific facts of the process of human reproduction, from relationships to sex to pregnancy and birth. Also the facts about STD's, their preventance and birth control. Contrary to some knee-jerk postings on this thread, there is no reason to go into specifics of sex, other than intercourse's function in reproduction. That stuff is hardwired to the kids' brains, so it's not like teaching is even necessary. Right/wrong/do/don't should absolutely be left for parents to teach. It is despicable for a public school to push an agenda. In a loaded issue such as this, the only way to go is to take care to just show the facts, and let the students think by themselves.

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
1% of the population is 'gay'

Care to share? Every viable research into this topic quotes a percentage closer to 10%

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Yevgeny
No, the purely empirical facts of the evidence suggest that there is no such thing as morality either way. Tolerance is just as right and wrong as facism because right and wrong are semantic labels with no real meaning. Choosing one over the other is valid without regard to which one you choose because morality is a metaphysical value judgement not rooted in the empirical world. As Hume said, you can show that whipping babies causes them pain, but you cannot show that wipping babies is wrong because "wrongness" is not an empirical quality.

The more horrorific fact of the matter is that tolerance is just as correct as intolerance. Neither is provably right because there is no way to prove what is right. We just like to choose tolerance over intolerance because we are scared of where we think intolerance will take us. Alfred Ayer was right but a post modern society is scared of embracing what he wrote and so we strangely hold onto the cultural moral baggage of modernism while pretending to be post modern.

My 2 cents. No, Ayer was not right.

[InactionMan]

There was discussion of homosexuality in my sex-ed classes when I was a kid (either grade five or six) The teacher also discussed cross-dressing, transexuals and just about everything else possible. And miracle of miracles, the entire class didn't magically turn gay. The only immediate reaction we had was laughing our asses off after class because we heard the teacher say, 'anal sex' and 'transexual'. Which to 11 year old kids is a funny as having your teacher fart in the middle of class. The long term effect was that we all turned out to be very tolerant and the 10% of the class that is gay probably wasn't riddled with as much guilt for loving cock.

I posted this in another thread, Canada's definition of marriage, currently before the Supreme Court is, "Marriage, for civil purposes, is the union between two persons to the exclusion of all others." Churches can do what ever the hell they want. It's not the governments business. But the church cannot get all up in the governments business.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
The fact that it was a debate at all is the goddamn problem.

Why am I not suprised

[BuonRotto]

1% is a low figure. I used to hear 10%, but that's been quoted as too much.

Roughly 10% is the average in the animal kingdom. A survey done years ago now showed about 4% of men (I don't think the survey included women) openly claim to be gay. It's probably closer to 10% in reality, but obviously a lot of gay men choose to lead heterosexual lives or just don't come out of the closet even for a survey. 1% is highly unlikely.

As for teaching that being gay is "normal," I don't think anyone really means normal in terms of average or commonplace as much as they mean "acceptable," or maybe the tired word "tolerance" is more appropriate. Being a redhead isn't normal, nor is being jewish, nor is satanism. But noone is proposing locking these folks out of marriage or other rights. That's admittedly extrapolating a bit, but considering that we can't trample the rights of even nazis in this country, I don't see how we can walk all over gays either. People seem to think this is a power thing, but it's merely about respecting a minority group. While I'm sure there are people who are just as militantly pro-gay-fanatical as there are those who are militantly anti-gay-fanatical, most of us who are for gay rights are simply talking about tolerance and respect. Hey, I'm not into the gay thing myself, but I I'm not going to judge someone else who is.

1993 GLBT March on Washington Platform:
"Culturally inclusive Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Studies program; and information on abortion, AIDS/HIV, childcare and sexuality at all levels of education."

ALL LEVELS? My ...FIRST grader? WTF? [snip]

:devil:

Yeah, that is a silly idea if that's what they really meant. But I think you know what they really meant, judging by Mr. :devil: you put in there. :) That, and the tasteless joke tossed in. :p

Anyway, all of this gay education stuff seems to be somewhat beside the point.

[SpcMs]

wrong thread - deleted

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
As for teaching that being gay is "normal," I don't think anyone really means normal in terms of average or commonplace as much as they mean "acceptable," or maybe the tired word "tolerance" is more appropriate. Being a redhead isn't normal, nor is being jewish, nor is satanism. But noone is proposing locking these folks out of marriage or other rights. That's admittedly extrapolating a bit, but considering that we can't trample the rights of even nazis in this country, I don't see how we can walk all over gays either. People seem to think this is a power thing, but it's merely about respecting a minority group. While I'm sure there are people who are just as militantly pro-gay-fanatical as there are those who are militantly anti-gay-fanatical, most of us who are for gay rights are simply talking about tolerance and respect. Hey, I'm not into the gay thing myself, but I I'm not going to judge someone else who is.


Nicely said!!

[dmz]

Originally posted by tonton
Care to share? Every viable research into this topic quotes a percentage closer to 10%


I think the number the homoskis use is 3%.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by dmz
I think the number the homoskis use is 3%.

<dripping sarcasm>

Oh come on. My brilliant, enlightened, erudite professor told me once that we are all a little gay. Kinsey said so. Accept your inner queer, dmz.

;)

[NaplesX]

I don't care what percentage it is - 3% or 10%. The point is that 90+ percent of your neighbors are strait and against gay marriage. It would cheapen the institution. You may not be willing to buy into that, but the majority of US citizens do, including me.

It is the slippery slope thing, and it has already started. If marriage is defined other than a man and a woman, what stops a mother/son or cousin/cousin or man/woman/man or woman/woman/woman or whatever combination you can think of? Be honest - not much.

It seems that many are equating love exclusively with marriage. I have loved many people in my life, but yet I am only married to one of them. In reality, the spark may not be as bright as it was before, but now we have three children to raise and turn into productive citizens of our community.

And really, that is the mechanics of the marriage union, to reproduce and and replenish a society. Gay marriage would do nothing but give two, non-reproducing members of society a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Hey, don't get me wrong. We all need to feel warm and fuzzy at times. But marriage is a sacred institution to a vast majority of the world. Why not start your own institution. Call it..."The Joining" or something. Be creative and innovative.

Christmas was too "white" our brothers of of more color, so now they have Kwanzaa. Why hijack someone else's tradition?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't care what percentage it is - 3% or 10%. The point is that 90+ percent of your neighbors are strait and against gay marriage. News Flash - not all straight people (who knows about those strait people though, they sound like country music fans) are against gay marriage.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]And really, that is the mechanics of the marriage union, to reproduce and and replenish a society. Gay marriage would do nothing but give two, non-reproducing members of society a warm and fuzzy feeling.
So then, what about people well past childbearing ages, like all the widows and widowers in SW FL who have met and are on their second marriages?

What about couples where one person is physically unable to procreate, even with all the help of fertility specialists?

What about people who choose to marry but have no interest in raising children?

Should they be denied the right to marry? Should all such married couples have their marriages anulled? They are all non-reproducing members of society, so why should they get to have the warm and fuzzy feeling?

[segovius]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Hey, don't get me wrong. We all need to feel warm and fuzzy at times. But marriage is a sacred institution to a vast majority of the world. Why not start your own institution. Call it..."The Joining" or something. Be creative and innovative.

Christmas was too "white" our brothers of of more color, so now they have Kwanzaa. Why hijack someone else's tradition?

It's not about the marriage - it's about the rights that derive from marriage: visiting partners in hospital, inheritance etc.

It is a question of parity with heterosexual couples in terms of legal status.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by segovius
It's not about the marriage - it's about the rights that derive from marriage: visiting partners in hospital, inheritance etc.

It is a question of parity with heterosexual couples in terms of legal status. That's crap. I have visited plenty of friends in the hospital and have never been turned away because i wasn't a spouse.

Civil unions solve the legal issue.

Stop with the drama.

[Jubelum]

Originally posted by NaplesX

Civil unions solve the legal issue.


Bingo. :)

[dmz]

Ugh, what a bunch of crap. Civil Unions, visitation rights, bla bla bla bla bla. Let me cut to the chase, reveal the subtext, and where it's going.


Homosexuality is sexual perversion. You can go the Catholic "Natural Law" route or the grits-and-hominy "Thus sayeth the Lord" approach but you get to the same place. It's perversion, and it wrong. Period. You think you were born that way -- so do cleptomaniacs (www.shopliftersanonymous.com).

The point with gay marriage is that the majority of the people in America don't want to humor this perversion any longer -- and this is the beginning of a movement to firewall this perverted definition from legal acceptance.

What is coming is in another 10-15 years this generation of evengelical babies will get to the polls, while the left sits back, stoned, childless, and greying. The culture of death that homosexuality in part represents will eventually get its whish.

(But I'm more than happy to listen to you lefites squall as your wish comes true.)

[Jubelum]

Woo Haaaa...

http://www.schnittshow.com/timages/page/dancing-bush.gif

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Homosexuality is sexual perversion.

Mindless bigotry is intellectual perversion.

[BuonRotto]

A sexual perversion that has a significant population (about 10% in all other animal populations, and likely though not measured as high in ours) in all animal species. Oh, but we're not animals, we were created in God's image 4000 years ago, right? And our government must think the same thing.

I suppose Michelangelo, Alexander the Great, Socrates and so many others were just worthless perverts, right?

I know, I know. God hates fags. He also condones slavery, the subjugation of women, torture and a host of other long-condemned goodies to the rest of the world.

And what does "the culture of death that homosexuality in part repesents" mean anyway? What culture of death? A population preoccupied with Abortion rights? Maybe they're pro-capital punishment too? Or do these people contract AIDS as God's way of punishing them? Perhaps they're into starting wars?

"Civil unions" is a semantic game. Isn't the marriage we're talking about - the one where you have to buy a license and pay different taxes and have a joint bank account -- the same thing as a civil union? Is anyone trying to force hommosexual marriages down churches throats here? I'm not, anyway. Aren't we just talking about legal standing, not religion? I know I am.

[dmz]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
"Civil unions" is a semantic game.


That's the only part of part of your post I agree with.

It's been possible for power of attorney, etc. to exists between two people, one person and and an inanimate object and so on, forever. What is at stake here is whether the Christian component of the culture will be forced to smile and nod as a small portion of the population chisles its way to acceptance.

As a Christian it's not my job to look at sexual perversion and say "oh isn't that nice". Homosexuals are doing themselves a disserivce by engaging in that practice, and we owe it to God and man alike to let that be known, in a respectful manner and NOT undermine a sacred institution like marraige by equating it with a warm feeling.

Got hates "Fags"? Nice incedniary language, and rolling it into with slavery too wasn't bad either, for rehtoric, but it just isn't constructive. Actually God hates sin, which is something only about one in a hundred on these fourms wants to hear, but it doesn't make it any less true. You could get out from under that guilt with some confession and a little faith.

I just got back from a wedding in California, had a chance to sit around and have few beers with five friends from college, all in their late 30s -- only one had, or planned to have, any children. This culture of death, or terminal narcisism is not going anywhere. This mentality of feeling good at any cost and getting your po-po stroked any which way you please doesn't leave progeny to take care of you when you're old --- there's going to be a lot of lonly seniors in about 30-40 years.

[badtz]

Originally posted by dmz

When the evil that is the homosexual movement lost its last bits of political control --


how can you even say that? you don't see that you sound like an ignorant POS?

[badtz]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That's crap. I have visited plenty of friends in the hospital and have never been turned away because i wasn't a spouse.

Civil unions solve the legal issue.

Stop with the drama.


How about if that's your significant other who's about to DIE? you think you won't be turned away?

:no:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
Ugh, what a bunch of crap. Civil Unions, visitation rights, bla bla bla bla bla. Let me cut to the chase, reveal the subtext, and where it's going.

You're really hung up on the sex bit, no?

No, really. Some of the things that homosexual men do might be considered 'a perversion', it that's a word in your vocabulary you like to entertain. Yes, like blow jobs, and French kissing, and cunnilingus, anal sex (since we're 'cutting to the chase') serves no biological purpose. People do it because they like to do it. Now, you may call a blow job 'perverse', but if you do you are insane. Please don't even try and explain how what gay men do is suddenly a moral question when a blow job isn't, because I'll only laugh.

If you're calling romantic love between two men or two women 'perverse' then that's the very acme, height and sine qua non of bigotry. Or ignorance, or something. It's never been my thing (cue Harald getting sarky) but I'm proud that I can imagine it because I've seen enough, and read enough, and I'm human enough, to realise that it's something that human beings do.

If you're hung up on the sex bit then OK, you can get your biology text book out and complain, if you must. But homosexual relationships aren't defined by a single sex act, any more than marriage is defined as 'two people that sleep with each other'. And there's never anything wrong with love.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Please don't even try and explain how what gay men do is suddenly a moral question when a blow job isn't, because I'll only laugh.


Sin originates in the heart.


If you're calling romantic love between two men or two women 'perverse' then that's the very acme, height and sine qua non of bigotry. Or ignorance, or something.

You are more than welcome to that opinion, but from the materialist prespective, yours is only an opinion -- you don't have access to truth, since it 'doesn't exist.' This is just another case where you eschew any absolutes, but then immediatly attempt to make an absolute statement.

Nevertheless, we all have to work to promote our principles.

[rok]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That's crap. I have visited plenty of friends in the hospital and have never been turned away because i wasn't a spouse.

Civil unions solve the legal issue.

Stop with the drama.

i am reminded of a recent stephen colbert joke, when he was posing as the partisan dick of his own talkshow, the fictional "colbert report", and he's on the speaker phone... we cut in mid-conversation...

"all i'm saying is i don't know anyone who's been killed by a land mine. how bad could it be? next caller..."

[tonton]

DMZ, Naples and Neo (the resident homophobes):

When gay men have sex, they put their penises inside eachothers' anuses. Does that bother you? Fine.

Putting their penises inside eachothers' anuses (and mouths) makes them happy, and gives them a "warm, fuzzy feeling". Does that bother you? Fine.

The idea of having sex with a woman makes many gays cringe. They have no interest whatsoever in it. Looking at a woman's vagina is as interesting to many of them as looking at erect penises would be to straight men. Does that bother you? Fine.

Sex is a necessary part of most people's happiness. without it there is a much higher incidence of depression and lower productivity. What you suggest would deny up to 10% of the population the right to be happy.

Now go to sleep and imagine a penis penetrating a man's anus so you can get a better picture. Hope that doesn't bother you.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton

Now go to sleep and imagine a penis penetrating a man's anus so you can get a better picture. Hope that doesn't bother you.

I need some help imagining.

Here's what I'll need from you to help ton.

A picture of you, naked and bent over, anus spread.

Make sure to be looking back at me/the camera. Lick your lips so they look wet. With one hand I need you to do that come here motion with your index finger.

Oh... and shave your back....

Make sure it is a good photo. Otherwise I'll have trouble imagining the penis penetrating the anus. I'll have to ask you to reshoot with a large dildo inserted in your anus.

:devil:
Nick

[Ra]

You've got to love the maturity level in here.

[tonton]

Originally posted by trumptman
I need some help imagining.

Here's what I'll need from you to help ton.

A picture of you, naked and bent over, anus spread.

Make sure to be looking back at me/the camera. Lick your lips so they look wet. With one hand I need you to do that come here motion with your index finger.

Oh... and shave your back....

Make sure it is a good photo. Otherwise I'll have trouble imagining the penis penetrating the anus. I'll have to ask you to reshoot with a large dildo inserted in your anus.

:devil:
Nick

I'd be more than happy to oblige, and my back and anus are all ready and shaved for it (imagine that) except that I'm not gay, so it would be pointless. Even if I were gay (which I wouldn't have a probelm with, actually) I wouldn't trust you, of all people, to respect my privacy.

Maybe you can Google for some gay porn?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
I need some help imagining.

Here's what I'll need from you to help ton.

A picture of you, naked and bent over, anus spread.

Make sure to be looking back at me/the camera. Lick your lips so they look wet. With one hand I need you to do that come here motion with your index finger.

Oh... and shave your back....

Make sure it is a good photo. Otherwise I'll have trouble imagining the penis penetrating the anus. I'll have to ask you to reshoot with a large dildo inserted in your anus.

Sounds like you've done this before.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Sounds like you've done this before.

"One time, at band camp, I took my trumpet..." :lol:

[FormerLurker]

Unwilling or unable to imagine two males having anal sex in general concept, someone wants to specifically imagine himself having anal sex with Tonton - very telling.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That....

:lol:

Oh yeah, and Naples... there's only one person that gets to sign surgical consent forms, organ donation forms, etc. for someone unconscious in the hospital, and that's their legal spouse.

[dmz]

Originally posted by tonton
.....resident homophobes


Main Entry: ho·mo·phobe __ Pronunciation_Guide
Pronunciation: |hm|fb, -m-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: hom- (herein) + -phobe
: one who hates or fears homosexuals

Citation format for this entry:

"homophobe." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (4 Nov. 2004).


This is an ethical issue. I'm not quite certain where fear or hate comes into this -- except maybe to move the rehtorical ball down the field. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the only hate I'm seeing here is being leveled at the 'right' for being opposed to homosexuality. But agian, you're making an absolute statement based on a rejection of absolute truth.

??

[m01ety]

Originally posted by dmz
[B]Ugh, what a bunch of crap. Civil Unions, visitation rights, bla bla bla bla bla. Let me cut to the chase, reveal the subtext, and where it's going.


Homosexuality is sexual perversion. You can go the Catholic "Natural Law" route or the grits-and-hominy "Thus sayeth the Lord" approach but you get to the same place. It's perversion, and it wrong. Period. You think you were born that way -- so do cleptomaniacs (www.shopliftersanonymous.com).

The point with gay marriage is that the majority of the people in America don't want to humor this perversion any longer -- and this is the beginning of a movement to firewall this perverted definition from legal acceptance.

What is coming is in another 10-15 years this generation of evengelical babies will get to the polls, while the left sits back, stoned, childless, and greying. The culture of death that homosexuality in part represents will eventually get its whish.

(But I'm more than happy to listen to you lefites squall as your wish comes true.) [/]
_____________

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
-Oscar Wilde

When the Christian faith is not only felt, but thought, it has practical results which may be inconvenient.
-T. S. Eliot, "The Idea of a Christian Society"

An irrational bigoted homophobe like you, quoting Oscar Wilde, of all people? Gay poet Oscar Wilde?

Your "god" has a humor, sir -- and it paints you poorly.

[dmz]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Oh yeah, and Naples... there's only one person that gets to sign surgical consent forms, organ donation forms, etc. for someone unconscious in the hospital, and that's their legal spouse.



...and if their spouse is deceased???

[dmz]

Originally posted by m01ety
An irrational bigoted homophobe like you, quoting Oscar Wilde


Name calling, how very rational of you!


Wilde, shmilde --- It doesn't stop me from watching Carey Grant movies either.:wow:

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by dmz
...and if their spouse is deceased??? Then I believe it would be the next closest living relative, preferably immediate family such as parent, brother, or sister. Not exactly sure though, as I do not play a doctor on TV. But I am watching ER right now, so if I get an answer in the next hour, I'll let you know.

But seriously - bad writing on my part - I didn't meant so say spouse was "only", just that neither "long-time companion" nor same-sex domestic partner would qualify.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by dmz
Wilde, shmilde --- It doesn't stop me from watching Carey Grant movies either.:wow: So how do you feel about Rock Hudson movies?

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by dmz
Got hates "Fags"? Nice incedniary language, and rolling it into with slavery too wasn't bad either, for rehtoric, but it just isn't constructive. Actually God hates sin, which is something only about one in a hundred on these fourms wants to hear, but it doesn't make it any less true. You could get out from under that guilt with some confession and a little faith.

Well, for one, God, as I've understood and read, doesn't really hate sin, He's quite forgiving of it. And, as Jesus said, "let he who is without sin blah blah blah." :D (I know, I know. It's cliché.) Cos, uh, far as I can tell, none of us has a clean bill o'health in that regard, and I ain't talking about original sin. I guess we need more amendments, bigger prisons, and a lot fewer weddings. ;)

[dmz]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
So how do you feel about Rock Hudson movies?
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/airplane4.jpg
hmm.. how about gladiator movies?

Looks like I picked a bad week to stop arguing about homosexuality on AppleInciter.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by m01ety
An irrational bigoted homophobe like you, quoting Oscar Wilde, of all people? Gay poet Oscar Wilde?
How ironic isn't it? :lol:

Did you really expect dmz to know that? lol The tool had zero clue.

[FormerLurker]

conan:
something for both the red and blue states
bringing the country together
ladies and gentlemen,
The Gay Bible!!

out to commercial:
the Jimmy Valvano Seven plays the Clash's Police On My Back

Commercial:
the U2 iPod ad


gotta love the cultural elite, keeping us going with a sense of humor.

[bunge]

Afraid of gays AND blacks (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/alabama.segregation/index.html).

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
Sin originates in the heart.


That's convenient but it isn't an argument. Do you mean 'when gay men fall in love, if they even think about having anal sex then that is a sin'? Do you mean 'When two men or two women fall in love that is a sin, even if they don't think about having sex'? Do you mean 'When two men or two women fall in love that is a sin, even if they don't think about having sex?' Do you mean 'When two men fall in love it's OK when they think about blowjobs but not OK if they think about anal sex'?

You can't possibly mean 'It's a sin when two men fall in love' because since there is no prohibition against romantic love in the Bible it must be the sex.


Originally posted by dmz
are more than welcome to that opinion, but from the materialist prespective, yours is only an opinion -- you don't have access to truth, since it 'doesn't exist.' This is just another case where you eschew any absolutes, but then immediatly attempt to make an absolute statement.

I don't understand your use of the word 'materialist'. I don't have a clue by what you mean by it and if we're going to carry on this debate (well, we're not, because I'm going to start winning and then you're suddenly going to be too busy, or you will write ***leaves thread to do some work*** or something, after dismissing my one posts with a cryptic one-liner) you'll have to define your terms since some of us don't go to your Bible study class.

Everyone else stop writing about anal sex - that act does not define homosexuality.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Sin originates in the heart.

No it doesn't.

Sin in the Christian tradition is the result of the promptings of Satan. All are subject to them and the only difference between the 'saved' and the 'unsaved' is the state of Grace engendered by the accepting of the Gospel message. Satan still tempts but he does it from outside in all cases.

The 'heart' on the other hand is the conscience and the vehicle through which God speaks. Were it not so then there would be no hope for redemption.

Disclaimer: the above does not necessarily represent the views of the poster but is the intellectual property of greater minds from history who are unfortunately no longer with us - in body, spirit or ethos.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by tonton
"One time, at band camp, I took my trumpet..." :lol:

Hey... I thought you said you respected my privacy..;)

Originally posted by Gilsch
Sounds like you've done this before.

Yes Gilsch, but don't worry. I told you I would keep that picture of you private, and I will.

Originally posted by tonton
I'd be more than happy to oblige, and my back and anus are all ready and shaved for it (imagine that) except that I'm not gay, so it would be pointless. Even if I were gay (which I wouldn't have a probelm with, actually) I wouldn't trust you, of all people, to respect my privacy.

Maybe you can Google for some gay porn?

So what you're saying is, I need to buy dinner first?:lol:

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Unwilling or unable to imagine two males having anal sex in general concept, someone wants to specifically imagine himself having anal sex with Tonton - very telling.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That....

Better be careful. You cannot just agree with Big Brother. You must love Big Brother. You might even need to love anal sex with Big Brother.

Nick

[MarcUK]

Fundamentalist America == Catholic Europe circa 1500

How fucking ironic.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Unwilling or unable to imagine two males having anal sex in general concept, someone wants to specifically imagine himself having anal sex with Tonton - very telling.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That....

:lol:

Oh yeah, and Naples... there's only one person that gets to sign surgical consent forms, organ donation forms, etc. for someone unconscious in the hospital, and that's their legal spouse. Or a person with power of attorney, as stated previously.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Fundamentalist America == Catholic Europe circa 1500

Did you know that the word 'fundamental' derives from the word 'fundament' which means 'anus' ?

These fundies really do have an anal fixation :lol:

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gilsch
How ironic isn't it? :lol:

Did you really expect dmz to know that? lol The tool had zero clue.


"zero clue"? -- It's one of the reasons that quote is there.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
"zero clue"? -- It's one of the reasons that quote is there.
Address my last post.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Unwilling or unable to imagine two males having anal sex in general concept, someone wants to specifically imagine himself having anal sex with Tonton - very telling.

Not That There's Anything Wrong With That....

:lol:

Oh yeah, and Naples... there's only one person that gets to sign surgical consent forms, organ donation forms, etc. for someone unconscious in the hospital, and that's their legal spouse. Or a person with power of attorney, as stated previously.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
That's convenient but it isn't an argument. Do you mean 'when gay men fall in love........OK when they think about blowjobs but not OK if they think about anal sex'?

You can't possibly mean 'It's a sin when two men fall in love' because since there is no prohibition against romantic love in the Bible it must be the sex.


Think of it this way, if you fall in love with your nieghbor's wife, is that a sin? Or, is it a sin when you want to shag her? Or is it a sin to actually do it?

The traditional answer is the desire to shag her. It goes downhill from there.

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah I don't understand your use of the word 'materialist'. I don't have a clue by what you mean by it and if we're going to carry on this debate (well, we're not, because I'm going to start winning and then you're suddenly going to be too busy, or you will write ***leaves thread to do some work*** or something, after dismissing my one posts with a cryptic one-liner) you'll have to define your terms since some of us don't go to your Bible study class.[/B]


You don't subsribe to the notion of "utimate truth". For you "truth" is subjective.

(and it's not a sin to be busy)

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius
Did you know that the word 'fundamental' derives from the word 'fundament' which means 'anus' ?

These fundies really do have an anal fixation :lol:

"The place where the Devil sucked my blood was a little above my fundament, and that place chosen by himself; and in that place chosen by himself by continual drawing, there is a thing in the form of a teat, at which the Devil would suck me."

Go Fundies.... The devil sucks your fundamentalism..

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
No it doesn't.

Sin in the Christian tradition is the result of the promptings of Satan. All are......


Maybe "proceeds from the heart" would have been a better choice of words.

[MarcUK]

DMZ - Are you sure you have the absolute truth? Where is that written?

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
DMZ - Are you sure you have the absolute truth? Where is that written?

....without an appeal to some sort of revelatory truth all you basically have is 'all is flux' -- men as whitecaps on a bottomless, shoreless ocean.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Think of it this way, if you fall in love with your nieghbor's wife, is that a sin? Or, is it a sin when you want to shag her? Or is it a sin to actually do it?

No, I prefer to think of it this way:

Does the Creator of the universe, who created everything that exists or ever could exist and who could destroy it all in a second on a whim and rebuild it again in the next just by clicking a finger (metaphorically - God doesn't have fingers) - does this entity who has always existed for eternity and always will really give a flying **** about what Harry does to Barry during one miniscule iota of their paltry 70 year (if they're lucky - or maybe unlucky) apology for a lifespan which is itself as nothing in the multi-million years existence of their tiny and insignificant planet which again does not represent one fraction of a nanosecond in the history of the solar system let alone the universe.

God probably doesn't even know you exist.

I really, really, really hope that when I shuffle off this mortal coil there's some fundies at the check-in upstairs at the same time.

That's one speech I just got to hear - God even gives us a sneak preview in Matthew 7:21:

Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

Who do you think he's talking about ? Muslims ? Lefties ? Gays ?

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
men as whitecaps on a bottomless, shoreless ocean.

See, he's talking about bottoms again.....

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius


Who do you think he's talking about ? Muslims ? Lefties ? Gays ?


In that case he was definitely speaking to the religious establishment. Passages like that really hit home for me in much the same way as "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin agianst us". I read those passages and then stop and think about my behavior day to day -- it's pretty sobering.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
....without an appeal to some sort of revelatory truth all you basically have is 'all is flux' -- men as whitecaps on a bottomless, shoreless ocean.

so you cannot answer the question then?

I asked where the absolute truth was written.

Was it written on the Narmer plate?

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
In that case he was definitely speaking to the religious establishment. Passages like that really hit home for me in much the same way as "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin agianst us". I read those passages and then stop and think about my behavior day to day -- it's pretty sobering.

So what form does this 'sobering' take if you're prepared to share that ?

I mean how did you behave before and after and in what regard ?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
Think of it this way, if you fall in love with your nieghbor's wife, is that a sin? Or, is it a sin when you want to shag her? Or is it a sin to actually do it?

The traditional answer is the desire to shag her. It goes downhill from there.
)

I presume that, like me, you've read epic poems like the Iliad and the Mahabharata, you've read Hemingway, you've read reportage from the last two World Wars and you know your ancient history. I