I detect a philosophy student madpuffinkeeper. Maybe at heart and not directly but a student of philosophy you are. Well I am glad to see that there are others here who are educated in the area of logic and don't just make random arguments based on I told you sos. And as for you Dauben I continue my count of ignorant and pointless posts. Can you even prove the existence of a god, much less the almighty Christian God (Yahweh, El, El Shahim (sp?)). No one has been able to and no one can. Because the basis of "god" or religion is faith. I like to call it blind faith but hey I can't have it all. Faith is crap. basing arguments, your life, indeed the lives of others, and the laws of total societies on a hunch (because that's what religion is). Screw the fact that it was written down. It could have been children's bedtime stories for all we know. OMFG sexual perversion if unchecked will result in violence?!? That's like saying drinking alcohol is going to make everyone in the world illiterate. It is not a factor in the literacy of a person especially when the literacy is already determined.

quote:

---

The legalization of "gay marriage" further opens the door of promiscuity, aids, and the recruitment of our children.

---

What the hell is that?!? Gay people still have sex. Being married doesn't propigate sexual intercourse indeed it tends to stifle it (or so I have heard from most married couples and indeed doctors whose expertise is in the sexual field). And whether they are married or not does not affect the number of AIDS patients in the world. Besides the same number of AIDS patients if not more are heterosexual. And the recruitment of our children?!? What the hell? We aren't running some kind of army we're not going to take over the world.

quote:

---

It is past time for God's people to act.

---

I don't like it when God's people act. It usually doesn't turn out good. Spanish inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, KKK. It never turns out very pretty. Well good luck with that little sheep. Mazeltov and shalom. Good luck with armageddon. And have a nice day.

Ciao

Dauben:
Sorry to rain on your flamboyantly anti-gay parade, but the entire editorial is based on a logical fallacy. Ironically enough, the author of the editorial names it outright-- it's the "slippery slope" fallacy.

On top of that, the author uses the story of Lot, his angelic guests, and the punishment that befalls the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah to justify bigotry against gays. Dauben, there's no reason to believe that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the homosexual tendencies of their inhabitants. They were more likely destroyed because their inhabitants were raping the living hell out of each other. Rape is bad. There is, however, no real evidence that homosexuality is inherantly bad.

Thirdly, do not try to use Leviticus ("It is disgusting for a man to lie with another man.") as your justification. Unless of course you also abstain from wearing blended fabrics and eating shellfish and the million other things that are outlawed in Leviticus.

Do I need to go on, Dauben? Or are you going to concede what we've known all along-- that there is absolutely no point to come of your mindless posts about the "dangerous" homosexuals?

here here! no kidding..

if that's all you can do to prove your point, joeydauben, dont expect us to actually listen to you...maybe you should spend more time on your ideas not plagerizing others.

Yeah really, we don't care what the bible states, that's not what it's about.

quote:

---

Okay, a biblical argument was made in the article.

---

I've already put it nicely to many times on this site, thus I will now set my feelings free:

WE DO NOT GIVE A SINGLE ****ING DAMN WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!

*sighs* ahhh... nice to get if off my chest.

Why does everyone who disagrees with homosexuality always use the Bible as an argument? As if it's a reliable and credible source since it was written thousands of years ago and times have changed since it was written. Do you honestly think every single person in the world actually follows a certain God? If not than the Bible and God do not apply to everything, including this subject, or everybody.

Okay, a biblical argument was made in the article.

(1.) If you heard the word "Sodomite" would you know what it meant? Different versions do not mean lies when the message is not changed: saying "go to Mt. Carmel in the morning" instead of saying "Go thou in the morn to Mt.Carmel" for example.

(2.) Not all stories (few, I think) in the Bible are fictitious. The flood ("Deluge") for example, or the thing about 40 days in the desert.

(3.) Fear was all they had before the love could be shown. God was king before he was Father. I won't get into that here.

(4.) A counter argument should hit the issue rather than the person speaking. This is a good practice if you want to look credible to an audience. (College Speech Class Strikes Again!)

What about transgender people? (an honest question)

why do Bible fanatics always theorize that they're right, even when the Bible proves nothing? It's highly disrespectful for anyone to put bible quotes on a site that is not of that religion. you don't see me telling you all the story of Ceridwen (which I will do one day, to annoy some folks) and how we need to open our chakras and cleanse our energy fields, right? I won't do it because I consider the fact that no every single human is a New Ager, and I also figured that Joey and some others will turn into me when they write about the Bible. It's like a tennis game.

And you've figured it out Joey, I'm pagan.

(NIV) ?!

What's this? A VERSION of the Bible?! Why are there different versions of the Bible?!

Isn't that blasphemy within itself? Granted, most if not all versions have the account of Sodom...

But using the a = b b = c and a=c theorom, one can infer that perhaps not the whole Bible is to be taken literally

The Bible I believe (well, know) is written in all types of literary forms: metaphors, [fictional] stories teaching a moral/conveying a message, poems, songs, prayers, and yes, literal accounts (ie. The life and passion of Christ)


How can you not see the hypocrism though? If we claim the truth is ONE and absolute, how the hell can one have different versions of the Bible?!?!

What? You mean actual councils (like the Catholic Vatican) get together and decide which books to put or not to include, and even how to word things?! Taking off from the Word? The very last passages of Revelation warn against this adding to or taking from phenomenom.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God



Well that looks edited. The term homosexual wasn't coined until the 1800s.


Sometimes I think the Bible's author's is what stands between our relationship with God.

They put too much of the fear factor (punishment this, lightning that) to drown out the love factor.

Middlemen suck. And you are the one stuck in their lie Joey.


May God forgive me for my sins, but using the conscience I have formed, people with your fanatic mentality scare me.


Leave homosexuals alone. Some of us (yes I said us) want to be left alone. I don't go out marching for rights nor do I picket courts. I just live my life normally, I don't even act on my attractions. What you say is hurtful and ignorant, not realizing that not all homosexuals are promiscuous clubbing picketing freaks. Your show of mercy is pathetic and absent, all you do is stand up on your Righetous and Saved (trademark) steeple, pointing at those miserable beings like us. Abortion, fine go campaign against it...it's understandable what's at stake, a life. Rational and logical. But leave us homosexuals alone. I've encountered way too much hate, even from the person who's supposed to love me the most, my mother. I never said "hey mom guess whos coming to dinner." I just said "look Im struggling with this, I need help." and she rejected me. She almost intensely feared me. I can't make you give up your hate speech Joey even it f ****** hurts...

everyone knows the homosexual Biblical passages, it's nothing new, some even have them memorized. if they havent changed their views and convictions then at this point, theyre not, and neither are you. whether or not they get saved falls upon their shoulders, you did all you can...and doing the same thing over is not helping.


it hurts to know i'm creation's garbage

[This message was edited by blinkatheworld on June 21, 2004 at 09:50 PM.]

CelticPaganNewAger, get a clue will ya? I posted an editorial.

Read before your eyes start to burn or whatever.

You of all people should repent from your ways and accept Jesus.

the day Joey Dauben can prove soemthing without using God or the Bible in any way it wil rain up to teh sky

I just think homosexuals are the gayest. LOL. not an issue i terribly care about.



*This post has proudly been deemed racism free by the Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, and Redrepublican and their endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.*

ok... So you have a thing against homosexuals! I personally think that if they are, let them! I've grown up around them, seeing how I have 2 or 3 "couples" in my neighborhood. They don't bother me, and they are definatly not as bad as the massive amount of porn popups one can recieve. If God frowns apon homosexuals... then He does, but that's their personal issues the Man himself. They will be judged eventually, but it's not MY place to do so. It is none of my business what people do in the privacy of their own home. This is their choice, and seeing how they live in America, I think they should have the right to keep that choice, even if I don't aprove, I'm not going to stop them.

Look up the statistics anywhere, (male at least) homosexuals are simply more promiscuious. But relax, its easily, (and more importantly, correctly) excused.

" The authorization of the homosexual lifestyle is in no way correlated to the promiscuity found among those homosexual individuals."

Isn't reasonable to expect that the underground nature of some homosexual practices and lifestyles is related to the failure to recognize their relationships for decades, if not hundreds or thousands of years?

Conflictingzest, you are rather over-reactionary, and your post was very stupid. Saying the homosexuals randomly woke up in 1990 and said "Hey! Let's demand to get married" and trying to fit it into some sort of actual argument is like saying black rights during slavery weren't important because they weren't asking for the vote. They kinda had other things to think about.

And if you can't understand the words he uses...wow, you suck. You have a very limited vocabulary. I'm not sure whether to blame the shoddy education system or your most likely miserable parents. Gee...human stupity...government ineptitude...WHY DO I HAVE TO MAKE ALL THESE HARD CHOICES?!?!?!?!?

quote:

---

Yes, but the rate of promiscuioty is higher for homosexuals because their relationships have never been offically sanctioned.

---

That is completely and exclusively subjective. Promiscuity is not truly definitive in regards to an individual's sexual predilection. The authorization of the homosexual lifestyle is in no way correlated to the promiscuity found among those homosexual individuals. Also, many males who identify themselves as heterosexuals engage in various types of sexual intercourse that is prevalent in the homosexual lifestyle. I'd like to see any sources you can provide, if that's applicable.

"BS! basically you're using "complex" words to make a simple statement. You seem like a self-righteous moron when you do that. the truelly intellectual can place things in terms that even the highschoolers that use these forums can understand."

I'm not intentionally flaunting a "fancy" vocabulary, I just thought it was a complex issue that deserved a proper treatment, this is debate, not conversation, and I refuse to dumb down my writing for you. Some of us aspire to more than plain talk that isn't as capable of expressing abstract ideas. Last I recall, a larger than normal vocabulary was good, rather than bad, but hey, thats me.

Especially considering your ill-concieved idea of substituting "polygomous" for "promiscuious".

Plus, you only responded to one of my points, jackass.

Now down to business.

"Don't blame their polygomist lifestyle on us. It's not our fault they haven't wanted marriage till the last few decades."

Homosexuals have wanted marriage, its just that the homosexual lifestyle, up until the last few decades was always kept "on the down low" (some high school language for you) in order to avoid perseuction. Now that there is a bare minimum of acceptance, homosexuals have earned a political voice. With that political voice comes the typical yearning for fair treatment, which should be promptly forthcoming. Anyway, how could a promiscuious lifestyle be inherent in homosexuality? I already know what you're gonna say, and inherently promiscuous lifestyles are not the norm for infertile or elderly couples.

"As well you're saying that people don't have serious relationships with only one person because we don't let them, that is crap. The'll have the relationships they want no matter hwat anyone does, it doesn't matter. Many straight people are polygomist too so you're whole argument is void"

Yes, but the rate of promiscuioty is higher for homosexuals because their relationships have never been offically sanctioned.

Just because "some" heterosexuals engage in a promiscuious lifestlye does NOT invalidate my argument if the rates of promiscuioty significantly vary.

quote:

---

BS! basically you're using "complex" words to make a simple statement. You seem like a self-righteous moron when you do that. the truelly intellectual can place things in terms that even the highschoolers that use these forums can understand. Don't blame their polygomist lifestyle on us. It's not our fault they haven't wanted marriage till the last few decades. As well you're saying that people don't have serious relationships with only one person because we don't let them, that is crap. The'll have the relationships they want no matter hwat anyone does, it doesn't matter. Many straight people are polygomist too so you're whole argument is void.

i suggest you promptly sighn off and drink some bleach.

---

Zesty, cool it. Stop using such generalized statements. Polygamy is completely different than homosexuality.

Polygamy is defined as: The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.

Homosexuality, however, is: Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

How can you even use these in comparison? In other words, you can't. Somehow I think that the bleach you spoke of leached into your brain, but that may just be my theory.