[Rictor]

Its just a joke guys, jeez.
No one really hates the South, they gave us Yosemite Sam.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Tiara

Quite the opposite. While Kazan can be quite... hard-headed, when you put clear cut facts in front of his nose, he'll concede his point. lib on the other hand just put his fingers in his ears and scream *LALALALALALALA*.

I dissagree. I think its just that most of the things Lib tends to argue over deal with belief, not facts (religion etc). When dealing with issues of faith and opinion, facts don't enter into it, cause there's no right and wrong opinon.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
What problem do you guys have with the South? You guys say how bad the South is, But how do you know? You don't live here. So please atleast try to show some respect to the ones living in Dixie.

i know a lot of people who DO live there and say this

[Moonsword]

*sighs, raises hand for a moment*

Yes, there are some real problems down here...

[Ford Prefect]

The notion that homosexuality is a choice defies reasoning. People who are homosexual struggle with depression and suicide because they can't even accept who they are themselves! And then they go through hell from bigoted people all over the place who tell them they're immoral freaks. Why would anyone CHOOSE to go through that?!

On a more basic level: I'm quite heterosexual, and I don't know about the other heterosexual guys here, but I find the sight of attractive, naked women extremely inticing, and the sight of naked men equally uninviting. Now if anyone here can explain to me how someone with this viewpoint can have sex with a man and enjoy it, I might reconsider my whole outlook on the phenomenon.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

The slippery-slope argument is bull. Pedophilia and worse things will never, EVER, EVER[/u][/i] become legitimized by our society. There's a little thing called "age of consent", and I don't see that ever being struck down, by even the most rabid judge. Besides which, what politician or judge would ever want to be known for doing so? (Bestiality is even worse -- but animals cannot legally give consent, so there.)

with all due respect sir, i just wanted to point out that if you could climb in a time machine and go back 150 years, and tell Americans that 150 years from now, homosexual marriage would be legal, i'll bet 99% of them would laugh in your face, and the other 1% would punch you for mentioning 'homosexuals' in public.


Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans. Period.
ah but see "they" argue that that's a man-made definition  once again... go back 150 years and ask anyone to define marriage, and i'll bet you wouldn't get anyone saying "between two people whether of the same or different sex"... they'd all say man + woman = marriage.

Secondly, I'll ask again: What in particular about homosexuality do you (and others) find so immoral?
i'm going to take a stab in the dark here, and say that the reason most homosexual-haters hate homosexuals so much is because they're Christian and thus they believe what the Bible dictates is right and wrong, and not man.

And conveniently, the Bible doesn't say whether it's a choice, either.
true, but the Bible does say that homosexuality is wrong, and that nations were destroyed for practicing homosexuality, so Christians read that, and take the hint

[Liberator]

Thank you Stealth.  I've been trying to say that but I get distracted easily.

[Kazan]

stealth none of that makes them correct - and there have been many cultures in the past with homosexual marraige -- hell the catholic church sanctified atleast one homosexual marriage in the 3rd century

[Tiara]

So, Christian actually take the bible literally? Then it's worse then I imagined it. The bible has been rewritten a gazillion times by a gazillion different men, women and children it isn't even funny anymore.

If they take the bible literally they also shouldn't judge those who are different. that would be God's job, not something mankind itself should be concerned with.

And if the bible is taken literally, you'll find dozens if not hundreds of horrors you must obey. This isn't a 'pick and choose' thing.

[Kazan]

some of them take it literally -- like liberator and mongoose


just like those oh-so-pesky muslim fundamentalists that they decry do

(hint: the term "fundamentalist" for someone who takes their holy documents literally was COINED BY A CHRISTIAN TO REFER TO CHRISTIANS)

[redmenace]

Some of the bible is taken literally. Some of it is not. It depends on the context of the passage. The Corinthians Church *I think* were told women need to keep their heads covered. This is not for religous reasons, but to keep people from thinking that they were harlets[the corinthian women]. As a christian I lift an overall idea from the passage. As for the old testament law, some laws might not make sense when you first read them, but on close inspecion they make sense. Such as in Leviticus 11:9-12 -

9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

Catfish and other unscaled fish are notoriously unhealthy. But as I am trying to point out, you need to read the passage in light of the context.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Stealth
with all due respect sir, i just wanted to point out that if you could climb in a time machine and go back 150 years, and tell Americans that 150 years from now, homosexual marriage would be legal, i'll bet 99% of them would laugh in your face, and the other 1% would punch you for mentioning 'homosexuals' in public.
Go back 150 years and tell that slavery will be banned in the south states, same argument... (if you want to reinforce this, you can go further back in time)

ah but see "they" argue that that's a man-made definition once again... go back 150 years and ask anyone to define marriage, and i'll bet you wouldn't get anyone saying "between two people whether of the same or different sex"... they'd all say man + woman = marriage.
Go 150 years into the past and ask if black people are citizens.

You get the point... I hope...

[aldo_14]

What about mussels?  I like mussels.

Hell, the Spanish have been eating paella for yonks, does that mean they're screwed religious-like?

[Tiara]

So... the whole 'don't judge because that is god's work' is suddenly not to be taken literally?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


You get the point... I hope...

In that context, then humankinds morals have been consistently improving over 150 years; becoming a fairer and more tolerant society of those who are different.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Tiara
So... the whole 'don't judge because that is god's work' is suddenly not to be taken literally?

"I'm not saying anything. I did not say anything then, and I'm not saying anything now.
                                             -Delenn

In all seriousness though, I am saying it depends on the context of the passage.

[Tiara]

Matthew 7:

1
    "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2
    For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3
    "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
4
    How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

It basically says 'Do not judge unless you are sinless.' And somehow I find it hard to believe that anyone in this world is sinless and has the right to judge others because they are different form you.

To support this;

1 John 1

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Nobody is without sin and therefor nobody may judge another Human being.

And thos who cannot forgive 'sins' (at least in the eyes of Christians) will not be forgiven by God.

Matthew 6
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

So, if being gay is a sin, you may not judge unless you forgive him/her because in fact, by *NOT* forgiving him/her you are commiting a sin[/u]. And i don't see many Christians do that.

There, I think that states my point about the hypocracy with which people try to voice their opinions.

[Liberator]

As I've also said repeatedly, I hate the sin not the person.  

I think Ellen Degeneres is quite funny.  It's fine because she's not running around rocking the boat.  She just lives.  I just don't like these militants that run around screaming that they just want to be accepted and proceed to litigate the acceptance which cause them to be hated.  I'd let live if they would.

[Unknown Target]

Oh, so now gays who want equal treatment as straights are to be considered militants and "rocking the boat"?

All they want is CIVIL EQUALITY!

Goddamnit Liberator, I've tried to be "Oh, well, it's ok, he's entitled to his beliefs." But you calling people who want equal treatment "militants", and then trying to impose your moral values on others is not only wrong, it's sickening. Look past your own goddamn bigoted nose and see the world around you, and see what would happen if you truly got your way.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Kazan
ngtm1r: i can _prove_ myself to be correct whenever i enter into an argument

liberator's english is better? now that is hilarious --- and I have conceded a point before - but you just weren't reading the thread.

Liberator knows how to use a shift key.

And frankly, you can't prove jack here. This entire thread is opinion, not facts.

More to the point, your definition did not include being able to retract.

Assume you are 100% right. (Particularly on a subjective issue such as this, where right is in the eye of the beholder.) Check. You attempt to get everyone to believe as you do. Check. You fit your own description.

Be careful what you post, it can bite you if not properly considered.