homosexuality - hard-wired, not chosen

[Dancing Mustard]

Congratulations to Player. She has received her praise from men. However eternity will be a different story for her.

Oh do put a sock in it.

Seriously Coffee, all you're doing now is throwing your toys out of your pram and chucking insults around; you haven't had anything logical to add to the debate for several posts now, just veiled insults and unpleasant remarks. Either come up with something polite and rational to say, or get lost and find somewhere to cast your sanctimonious little flames. This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread, not a padded-creche for people who can't string two logical sentences together to throw tantrums in.

In other words; take your ludicrous fairy-tale threats to a forum that cares, don't come back until you've calmed yourself down, adults are trying to talk here.

[CoffeeCream]

Congratulations to Player. She has received her praise from men. However eternity will be a different story for her.

Oh do put a sock in it.

Seriously Coffee, all you're doing now is throwing your toys out of your pram and chucking insults around; you haven't had anything logical to add to the debate for several posts now, just veiled insults and unpleasant remarks. Either come up with something polite and rational to say, or get lost and find somewhere to cast your sanctimonious little flames. This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread, not a padded-creche for people who can't string two logical sentences together to throw tantrums in.

In other words; take your ludicrous fairy-tale threats to a forum that cares, don't come back until you've calmed yourself down, adults are trying to talk here.

Well you can try to paint me however you want, Mustard but you're not going to shut me up. That freedom of speech thing kind of gets in the way of you being able to silence people with differing opinions than yourself. So no, you can throw the insults but I'm not being quiet.

Just because you've set yourself into a worldview which denies the Word of God doesn't mean that those of us who do accept it are any less intelligent than you. The Bible is very specific on its stance concerning homosexuality. When it came time to choose sides, Player decided to align herself with those who are openly hostile towards the Lord. How she can call herself a Christian and ally herself with God-haters is just incredible from my view. That's just what it is, my opinion. I have decided to submit myself to the one true living God. You haven't, but that doesn't mean your ideas or beliefs are any better than mine.

You have obviously worked yourself into a fit of rage that I would even mention the Bible in this conversation, showing that you are being deliberately obtuse. If anything, I could make the case that you are the one acting childish.

[protectedbygold]

Firstly, there is no such thing as an "unnatural" act.

I doubt you would be touting this as a logical way to live your life if you actually thought it through.

[Juan_Bottom]

You have obviously worked yourself into a fit of rage that I would even mention the Bible in this conversation, showing that you are being deliberately obtuse. If anything, I could make the case that you are the one acting childish.

If your real name isn't A.J. Jacobs then you are talking straight out of your ass. If you don't live by the Bible why would you force others to? Your a hypocrit of the worst kind.

[PLAYER57832]

I applaud the views of one who is truly Christian in both name and deed, you are a wonderful example of the vast majority of your faith who are too often drowned out by the
vociferous minority of extremists.

Congratulations to Player. She has received her praise from men. However eternity will be a different story for her.

Its a good thing you are not judging me, then.

[tzor]

Well you can try to paint me however you want, Mustard but you're not going to shut me up. That freedom of speech thing kind of gets in the way of you being able to silence people with differing opinions than yourself. So no, you can throw the insults but I'm not being quiet.

Coffee, try the decafinated. First of all it's the mods who can shut you up (if they deem you unworthy) and freedom of speech doesn't mean a hill of beans outside of the government and this is a private not a public forum. Sorry about that. (Well actually I'm not.)

Its a good thing you are not judging me, then.

It's a good thing he's not judging anyone.

(He's like the old Soviet Era joke about the Olympic Judge from Romania who always gave the non USSR members low scores.)

[PLAYER57832]

Just because you've set yourself into a worldview which denies the Word of God doesn't mean that those of us who do accept it are any less intelligent than you. The Bible is very specific on its stance concerning homosexuality.

There are a lot of responses, but the most overwhelming are the words of Christ "LOVE thy God and LOVE thy neighbor as thyself."

In all of Christ's speeches and teachings, he condemned many, but do you know who he condemned the most? It was not the prositute, it was not homosexuals (who are not even specifically mentioned in the New Testament at all), it was not even the tax collectors , the Samarians or the Lepers ... all the folks who were then considered "evil", "unworthy" and "impure"

Nay, CHRIST condemned the Rabbis. He blasted the Money changers in the Temples selling their sacraficial animals for a profit, he condemned the legalists who held every item of the law up to a needle fine definition He condemned them all as "blasphemers". MOST OF ALL, he condemned those who condemned others "you hypocrites" he called them. You see the splinter in someone else's eye, but not the log in your own.

When it came time to choose sides, Player decided to align herself with those who are openly hostile towards the Lord.

Not by the Bible, not by God ... and not by the definition that any true Christian should follow. God does not set out the laws you purport to put forward. God teaches love, kindness and acceptance.

Where does homosexuality stand in that? Honestly, I don't know. I DO know that it is for God and not I to judge. I DO know that there is no harm that has ever come to me from the many homosexuals of my acquaintance. I absolutely cannot say the same is true in reverse. The unspeakable acts that have been done in the name of CHRIST to homosexual individuals is beyond blasphemy and hypocrysy to down right evil.

If you consider that your God -- go for it, but it is NOT in any way shape or form the true Christian God. If you think so, then I suggest you read again the NEW Testament. The one that was written to clarify and add to the old one.

How she can call herself a Christian and ally herself with God-haters is just incredible from my view

The only haters here are those spouting out virulance of anger and judgement, not justice and love.

You want to think anyone who does not agree with you is a "God Hater"? Just do not do so in the name of Christ. The BIBLE speaks pretty clearly on the harm of judging others when we ourselves are not perfect.

Protection, yes. I am not Mennonite. If a man comes into my house to attack me or my children, I will do what I can and must to protect them. But simply having homosexual tendencies or simply acting upon them, with consent, in private ...does not harm me any more than having a Buddhist or Hindu or Pagan or Athiest next door would harm me. And my faith is certainly strong enough for that!

That's just what it is, my opinion. I have decided to submit myself to the one true living God.

Looks like you have allied yourself with a group of narrow minded and hateful individuals. Are you a Christian? That is for God to decide. According to my Bible, most specifically John 3:16, it won't depend on homosexuallity. But if you will take his name to your words, you had best be quite sure you are correct.

I am.

[joecoolfrog]

Congratulations to Player. She has received her praise from men. However eternity will be a different story for her.

Oh do put a sock in it.

Seriously Coffee, all you're doing now is throwing your toys out of your pram and chucking insults around; you haven't had anything logical to add to the debate for several posts now, just veiled insults and unpleasant remarks. Either come up with something polite and rational to say, or get lost and find somewhere to cast your sanctimonious little flames. This is supposed to be a serious discussion thread, not a padded-creche for people who can't string two logical sentences together to throw tantrums in.

In other words; take your ludicrous fairy-tale threats to a forum that cares, don't come back until you've calmed yourself down, adults are trying to talk here.

Well you can try to paint me however you want, Mustard but you're not going to shut me up. That freedom of speech thing kind of gets in the way of you being able to silence people with differing opinions than yourself. So no, you can throw the insults but I'm not being quiet.

Just because you've set yourself into a worldview which denies the Word of God doesn't mean that those of us who do accept it are any less intelligent than you. The Bible is very specific on its stance concerning homosexuality. When it came time to choose sides, Player decided to align herself with those who are openly hostile towards the Lord. How she can call herself a Christian and ally herself with God-haters is just incredible from my view. That's just what it is, my opinion. I have decided to submit myself to the one true living God. You haven't, but that doesn't mean your ideas or beliefs are any better than mine.

You have obviously worked yourself into a fit of rage that I would even mention the Bible in this conversation, showing that you are being deliberately obtuse. If anything, I could make the case that you are the one acting childish.

What you fail to realise , or acknowledge, is that Player does represent the vast majority of Christians who have succesfully reconciled their faith with issues such as evolution and minority rights. Christianity has been modernising itself since the middle ages and it is only the evangelical/born again movement ( a very modern phenomenon ) that seeks to set the clock back 500 years and is happy to deny anything that contradicts its rigid views, it seeks to impede science and is utterly unreceptive to progressive thought or advancement. You and your ilk may believe what you wish but dont kid yourself that you are the only 'true' Christians because its only so in your minds,you are in fact the minority and should be grateful that you are not treated as you would treat other minorities.

[heavycola]

Coffeecream this reminds me of the open letter to Dr Laura Schlessinger:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[Dancing Mustard]

Well you can try to paint me however you want, Mustard but you're not going to shut me up.

Paint you? I'm afraid not... I'm just telling you precisely how childish and trolly your "You'll be sorry when you're dead player!!! God is going to get you then!!! I'm a better Christian that you!!!" ranting is.

You've painted yourself mate. I'm just asking you to stop embarrassing yourself further.

That freedom of speech thing kind of gets in the way of you being able to silence people with differing opinions than yourself.

Which explains exactly why Player will keep talking, no matter how many insults you throw.

Just because you've set yourself into a worldview which denies the Word of God doesn't mean that those of us who do accept it are any less intelligent than you.

I didn't actually say they were... sounds to me like you're 'painting' me to fit your worldview of atheists.

Shame that, somebody was only saying moments ago that the Bible takes a fairly hardline view on hypocrites...

The Bible is very specific on its stance concerning homosexuality.

See Heavycola's post above mine. The Bible is about as clear as mud on homosexuality.

Player decided to align herself with those who are openly hostile towards the Lord. How she can call herself a Christian and ally herself with God-haters is just incredible from my view.

Haters? Who is hating on you? The only possible 'hate' in this thread came from the guy who was yelling threats about the suffering in the afterlife that would befall those who disagreed with him.

Anyway, you seem to be confused about what Atheists think about God; you look to be labouring under the illusion that 'Atheists hate God'. Let me break it down for you so that you understand our real views, instead of just parroting what your preacher told you:
1. God doesn't actually exist
2. Therefore he's irrelevant
3. We don't 'hate' God, because he isn't real

Put it this way: You don't believe in Leprechauns, right? Would it be fair to call you a 'Leprechaun Hater'?

Of course it wouldn't, that'd be ridiculous. How can you hate what doesn't exist?
Do you hate people who believed in Leprechauns? No, of course you don't. But you might get a tiny bit offended if they started yelling at you and telling you that you'd suffer for all eternity because you weren't dressed in green.

What I'm trying to say Coffee, is that I don't hate God (neither does anybody else here). But we do take offence at your bullying ways, and your baseless threats against people who don't agree with your (purely subjective and unsupported) worldview.

That's just what it is, my opinion.

And that's all it is. Your own personal opinion.

Flaming, insulting, bullying and threatening based solely on your personal opinion is pretty rude don't you think?

You have obviously worked yourself into a fit of rage that I would even mention the Bible in this conversation, showing that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Yeah... now you're just making stuff up.

Where's the rage from me Coffee? Where do you see me objecting to Bible references?
Answer: Nowhere.

If you think people are getting angry here, then you're most likely just projecting your feelings onto others, and hoping we're getting as upset as you are.
Take Tzors advice, switch to decaf, calm down. Then come back when you're ready to apologise for your pompous and insulting spree here, and when you're ready to entertain rational and evidenced debate.

[jonesthecurl]

I applaud the views of one who is truly Christian in both name and deed, you are a wonderful example of the vast majority of your faith who are too often drowned out by the
vociferous minority of extremists.

Congratulations to Player. She has received her praise from men. However eternity will be a different story for her.

So she's damned too now?
Well if heaven is full of sanctimonious gits, I for one would rather a pitchfork up my arse for all eternity than listen to wahwah like that.

[PLAYER57832]

Coffeecream this reminds me of the open letter to Dr Laura Schlessinger:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Of course, in the interest of honesty, I do have to say that several of those were directly countered. Some even in the old Testament.

And even the most Orthodox Jews have since done away with most of the penalties. BUT, it is a classic and well made point!

[bradleybadly]

Let's all play "identify which section of the pyramid various posters are resorting to".

Here's a clue, Bradley's favourite section is coloured pink.

Click image to enlarge.

HEY! They let you out of the psych ward finally. Must have been due to the authentic doctor's signature that Snorri submitted to your treatment team. Stay away from the sharp objects!

[bradleybadly]

Firstly, there is no such thing as an "unnatural" act.

Laying on the arrogant bullshit quite early, are we? Let's see, by Neutrino's logic every single act that one wants to commit is natural.

alternatively, almost everything you do is.

Actually the reverse of "there is no such thing is unnatural" would be all things are. Nice attempt at trying to make that leap but no cigar. Ah, Australian logic - almost as ridiculous as Dutch medicine or Finnish math.

Anyways, when considered in essence, without any consderation of the consequences or repercussions of those actions, there is precisely nothing wrong with any of the acts you seem to take great delight in mentioning. Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".
Of course, pedophilia and the like are rarely negative-consequence-less. This is what moves pedophilia into the "bad" category, and leaves homosexuality in the "who the hell cares?" category.

I had no idea you were a spokesperson for NAMBLA!!

Hey genius, the fact of the matter is that there are consequences and repercussions for those actions. When you get through playing your fucking cat and mouse game with language perhaps you'll realize that you actually made no point. You know what, in essence, without any consideration or repercussions, jumping off a cliff can be likened to simply stepping off the bus onto the curb. LMFAO! You're just trying to pontificate and make yourself look like you've discovered some great philosophical truth. Come back to the world of reality where there are actual consequences for violating the laws of nature.

CONSIDERATION..........C - O - N - S - I - D - E - R - A - T - I - O - N

Bradley, however, seems to have adopted the second definition of "unnatural", and I really don't think he's thought it all the way through.

I guess people who compile dictionaries haven't done so either, but you probably think you're smarter than them anyway.

Since you haven't issued any mitigating terms, or seen fit to justify your relationship, "unnatural = bad" in any way, I'm going to assume that "natural", as you seem to define it, is a positive for every conceivable action or object.

Oh, I see how the game is played. You get to redefine what I mean by unnatural instead of reading and thinking about the definition that I actually wrote. This is almost Snorri-like in the way that you perform this...........almost.

Tell you what, why don't you stick to playing your rhetorical games with your own posts. If you want to play the "let's redefine language the way we want to" game, you can ask Snorri for a tutorial. I'll stick to what I actually wrote and not how you've tried to change it.

This means, as an example, that you are practically drowning in hypocrisy, since you are using your "unnatural" computer to post on the internets.

If you get to set the definitions to your liking I guess anyone could be made to look like a hypocrite. However, that's not what I wrote. You liberals really need to just come out with your own dictionary. I'm sure there will be about 15 million definitions for the word "is".

This is merely a logical extention of your words. If you want to contend this, I would appreciate the same from you as Napoleon.

No, it's an illogical extension of your projection of my beliefs with the aid of your blinders.

EXTENSION......E - X - T - E - N - S - I - O - N

Let me know if you need help preparing for your kindergarten spelling bee

Now, Bradley, can you linky me to these "laws of nature", and explain their relivance to this discussion? 'Cause the only things I've heard described as "laws of nature" are physical laws, which have little to nothing to do with the matter at hand.

No, I can't. Gravity doesn't keep objects from flying out into space, people don't get older, and homosexuals can have children. You win.

RELEVANCE............R - E - L - E - V - A - N - C - E

I'm going to take a wild guess here, not even availing myself of my time machine, and say you can't.

So now we're going to take an adventure with Neutrino into la-la land in his time machine. *Sigh* What's the matter? Tired of giving us silly analogies about possibly living inside The Matrix. If it's not that then the environment is being destroyed by toxic biscuit packaging. Never underestimate the power of a liberal to distance himself from reality.

Why? Because they don't exist. There are no firmly defined "laws of nature", as you envisage them, and if there were I can almost guarantee you that a large portion of the population would be violating them any any particular time.

Let's see now, they don't exist (stated as an absolute despite science), but just in case they do (backtracking now) you can almost guarantee (nice to see that you're so positive about your original statement) a large portion of the population would be violating them "any any" time (any any? )

Homosexuals can have all the rump-ranger sex they want. The consequences of attempting to violate those natural laws kick into place once they do.

What's wrong with homosexuality?

It's unnatural

It's against your morals? Fine.

Ho-boy! No matter how many times I say it you guys just don't get it. It's unnatural.

What does this have to do with nature?

Already been addressed numerous times but you've got your earplugs in. You jump from nature to morality then back to nature and then make some kind of determination that those are my words when it's you that is making the leap of illogic.

Nature cares not for your morals.

Nor for liberal bullshit or justifications for unnatural acts.

And what does your definition have to do with a "traditional" family?

Because it's the natural way to have children and propagate our species. Men and women have evolved complimentary sexual anatomy. Nothing you can say will change that fact. Homosexuals attempt to deviate from that and create an caricature of what is real.

In the case that heterosexuals cannot have children they can still adopt and provide a mother/father family. Homosexuals cannot provide both a mother and father to the child. It is cruel to purposefully deny a child either a mother or a father.

How is it not an entirely arbitrary Western construction?

Because it's been practiced by cultures outside of that.

How is your "traditional" nuclear family superior to a "non-traditional" (while, in fact, a tribal familial and social structure far more traditional, assuming traditionality is proportional to the amount of time it has been common practice) family. If your "traditions are benificial" (tell that to the prizoners of the Aztecs) claim is correct, the universe is wrong, for allowing humanity to be so successful with such an obviously flawed familial structure.

I give up. You're an imbecile. Go ahead and tell us that tribal societies flourished through spreading homosexuality and equating it with heterosexuality. It might not be true, but we'll all be entertained on the level that we might all possibly be living inside The Matrix.

I particularly enjoyed this tidbit even though it was directed at Nap -

Pedophilia, for example, stripped of repercussions, can be likened to an adult having sex with a child-sized doll; it doesn't impact anyone negatively in any conceivable way, so you can't condemn it without massive use of the extremely subjective "morals".

"Extremely" subjective morals? "EXTREMELY" subjective? Wow, and here we thought we were just being subjective but now you've pointed out that we're being EXTREMELY subjective. As if you're own beliefs are not extremely subjective as well. This reminds me of being called an "Ultra" conservative. You liberals and your language parceling.

"YOU ARE BEING EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE AND I DON'T LIKE IT!"

[dustn64]

I am not really buying this. I would like to be the results of the following test though.

Savic's team has yet to confirm whether the differences in brain shape are responsible for sexual orientation, or are a consequence of it. To find out, they have begun another study to investigate brain symmetry in newborn babies, to see if it can be used to predict their future sexual orientation.

I am not sure why the debate is happening right now in this thread. nothing is concrete in the research.

[jonesthecurl]

Well because some people think that being gay is not a choice, others think it is a choice but none of your business, and others think that it's a sin so bad that even thinking it's none of your business is enough to condemn you to hell - while others think that it is against nature, or God, depending on whether you take your fundamentalism straight or with a dash of science.


There are two questions (ok maybe three)
(1) Is it OK to be gay? Or is it against god's will/ the laws of nature?
(2) Do you have a choice anyway?
(3) Is it a private matter or not?

Your take on any one of these questions will influence your view on the other two.

[CoffeeCream]

I applaud the views of one who is truly Christian in both name and deed, you are a wonderful example of the vast majority of your faith who are too often drowned out by the
vociferous minority of extremists.

Congratulations to Player. She has received her praise from men. However eternity will be a different story for her.

Its a good thing you are not judging me, then.

Either you believe the Word of God and what it says or you don't. You say you're a Christian, so is the Bible true or is it just relative to what you say it is?

[CoffeeCream]

Coffee, try the decafinated. First of all it's the mods who can shut you up (if they deem you unworthy) and freedom of speech doesn't mean a hill of beans outside of the government and this is a private not a public forum. Sorry about that. (Well actually I'm not.)

Explain to me how this is a private forum? This is a public forum to all who play on conquer club. We can all give our opinions and I'm giving mine. Mine is based on a belief that the Bible is the Word of God which has clearly spoken on this matter.

[CoffeeCream]

Looks like you have allied yourself with a group of narrow minded and hateful individuals. Are you a Christian? That is for God to decide. According to my Bible, most specifically John 3:16, it won't depend on homosexuallity. But if you will take his name to your words, you had best be quite sure you are correct.

I am.

So you quote John 3:16 but ignore the verses that say,

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Do you believe this is in the Bible or not? Does it make you feel good that you are basically taking the same position as people who hate God, Player? You do realize that the people who are praising you right now say that the Bible is a fantasy book and have said some pretty horrendous things about God? Is it loving to not tell someone the truth about what the Bible says? A true friend or someone with compassion would speak the truth despite the consequences of what you might be labeled. You either believe the Bible or don't, but don't try to take one verse and spin it into an entire doctrine.

[jonesthecurl]

What's your stance on this verse then?
"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"

[2dimes]

Coffee, try the decafinated. First of all it's the mods who can shut you up (if they deem you unworthy) and freedom of speech doesn't mean a hill of beans outside of the government and this is a private not a public forum. Sorry about that. (Well actually I'm not.)

Explain to me how this is a private forum? This is a public forum to all who play on conquer club. We can all give our opinions and I'm giving mine. Mine is based on a belief that the Bible is the Word of God which has clearly spoken on this matter.

Something to do with the host company owning the hard ware it's on coupled with someone owning the license to the software.

[CoffeeCream]

Coffee, try the decafinated. First of all it's the mods who can shut you up (if they deem you unworthy) and freedom of speech doesn't mean a hill of beans outside of the government and this is a private not a public forum. Sorry about that. (Well actually I'm not.)

Explain to me how this is a private forum? This is a public forum to all who play on conquer club. We can all give our opinions and I'm giving mine. Mine is based on a belief that the Bible is the Word of God which has clearly spoken on this matter.

Something to do with the host company owning the hard ware it's on coupled with someone owning the license to the software.

OK, I see

My point is that there are numerous people on conquer club posting their opinions on a variety of subjects. You only need a password, a username, and an email address. Unless you break the rules of conduct pretty much anyone can post here.

[bradleybadly]

Let me help you out here Coffee Cream. You know that big fairy tale place you Christians call heaven? You know how you're looking forward to going up there and whooping it up with all your "Glory Hallelujahs"? Well, when you try talking to these liberals you'll find that they are just as religiously nuts about bringing heaven to this earth.

You see, they don't really believe that people are bad. It's really society's fault for providing a bad environment which caused them to act bad (if they can bring themselves to actually saying the word "bad" or "evil"). So they go around trying to discover ways of pursuing utopia here on earth and eliminating any negative aspect of society in order to provide the perfect utopia where man can live in perfect harmony and his fullest potential. The vehicle they choose to try to force this utopia on us is a centralized government which controls the decision making process. Only the enlightened ones (sort of like your priests)can be trusted to make the decisions in our best interests.

I know it sounds like a pipe dream but they believe it. They are actually more committed to their lunacy than you are to yours. So my advice to you is, since they have insulated themselves from listening to anyone's opinions other than their own, just have fun with them. Once the flurry of insults have come your way, stand your ground and throw it right back at them. It's fun to watch them cry like a bunch of babies and say they're being flamed.

"We are marching on to Utopia!"

[joecoolfrog]

Religious fundamentalists are retarted its as simple as that, why on earth would any God wanna share his hascienda with fools. I dunno about decaf, perhaps a large brandy in the morning coffee and a good slap around the head might do the trick better. Look if your life is so empty that you need to bury your mind in a quagmire of medievil mumbo jumbo then bully for you, but you would doing everybody a far greater service by donating your vital organs to those in need , they just might put them to better use.

[Neutrino]

Laying on the arrogant bullshit quite early, are we? Let's see, by Neutrino's logic every single act that one wants to commit is natural.

"Natural" as in all objects are composed of natural objects, whether manufactured or not. Wrought stone is still fundamentally the same as untouched stone, and is therefore still "natural" under this definition.

Actually the reverse of "there is no such thing is unnatural" would be all things are. Nice attempt at trying to make that leap but no cigar. Ah, Australian logic - almost as ridiculous as Dutch medicine or Finnish math.

Huh? Isn't that almost exactly what I said?

I had no idea you were a spokesperson for NAMBLA!!

Hey genius, the fact of the matter is that there are consequences and repercussions for those actions. When you get through playing your fucking cat and mouse game with language perhaps you'll realize that you actually made no point. You know what, in essence, without any consideration or repercussions, jumping off a cliff can be likened to simply stepping off the bus onto the curb. LMFAO! You're just trying to pontificate and make yourself look like you've discovered some great philosophical truth. Come back to the world of reality where there are actual consequences for violating the laws of nature.

That was actually intended as a response to Napoleon's post on page 2, asking for an explanation as to why homosexuality was inherently different too pedophilia and the like. I agreed with him and explained tht all acts are neither good, nor bad, when considered sans repercussions.


P.S. Laws o' Nature

P.P.S I agree with you on the pontificating bit. Even I think it sounds pretentious.

Bradley, however, seems to have adopted the second definition of "unnatural", and I really don't think he's thought it all the way through.

I guess people who compile dictionaries haven't done so either, but you probably think you're smarter than them anyway.

Since you haven't issued any mitigating terms, or seen fit to justify your relationship, "unnatural = bad" in any way, I'm going to assume that "natural", as you seem to define it, is a positive for every conceivable action or object.

Oh, I see how the game is played. You get to redefine what I mean by unnatural instead of reading and thinking about the definition that I actually wrote. This is almost Snorri-like in the way that you perform this...........almost.

Tell you what, why don't you stick to playing your rhetorical games with your own posts. If you want to play the "let's redefine language the way we want to" game, you can ask Snorri for a tutorial. I'll stick to what I actually wrote and not how you've tried to change it.

This means, as an example, that you are practically drowning in hypocrisy, since you are using your "unnatural" computer to post on the internets.

If you get to set the definitions to your liking I guess anyone could be made to look like a hypocrite. However, that's not what I wrote. You liberals really need to just come out with your own dictionary. I'm sure there will be about 15 million definitions for the word "is".

This is merely a logical extention of your words. If you want to contend this, I would appreciate the same from you as Napoleon.

No, it's an illogical extension of your projection of my beliefs with the aid of your blinders.

Ignore that paragraph, I have no idea what I was ranting about there.

So now we're going to take an adventure with Neutrino into la-la land in his time machine. *Sigh* What's the matter? Tired of giving us silly analogies about possibly living inside The Matrix. If it's not that then the environment is being destroyed by toxic biscuit packaging. Never underestimate the power of a liberal to distance himself from reality.

When you can empirically prove to me, using the strictest definition of the word, that the Matrix does not exist, call me.

Just a minor point, but why are you still going on about that? It was a purely theoretical point in a thread months ago. Anyone who actually behaves as if the Matrix or similar exist probably needs to avail themselves of the services of a mental institution.

Let's see now, they don't exist (stated as an absolute despite science) (Wait, so you agree with my Matrix point, then?), but just in case they do (backtracking now) you can almost guarantee (nice to see that you're so positive about your original statement) a large portion of the population would be violating them "any any" time (any any? )

Homosexuals can have all the rump-ranger sex they want. The consequences of attempting to violate those natural laws kick into place once they do.

Ok, now you've finally given me a definition to work with. (I assume you mean the fact they can't have children. Correct me if I'm wrong).

The problem with this definition is, well, the fact that it's more than a tad arbitrary. A sterile couple, for example, is equally unable to have children. According to your definition (It would really help if you actually told me your definition, not left me to puzzle it out from scraps) they, too, are unnatural. Or old people. Old people are unnatural.
As you can see, your definition doesn't work if you apply it to circumstances other than the one it was applied to initially. Therefore it fails as a reasonable definition.

Because it's the natural way to have children and propagate our species. Men and women have evolved complimentary sexual anatomy. Nothing you can say will change that fact. Homosexuals attempt to deviate from that and create an caricature of what is real.

In the case that heterosexuals cannot have children they can still adopt and provide a mother/father family. Homosexuals cannot provide both a mother and father to the child. It is cruel to purposefully deny a child either a mother or a father.

Whut? You'll have to run that my me again. How does being in possession of a penis make one completely and totally incapable of showing some human warmth and compassion? As far as I know these are the duties of the female member of a nuclear family, but being male in no way makes anyone incapable of showing some affection now and then.

Because it's been practiced by cultures outside of that.

And what were these cultures?
As far as I'm aware, a tribal organization - with children being cared for almost universally by a group of nannies until they entered their teens - has been in practice for almost all of human history. The mother-and-father nuclear family only arose in the recent past.

I give up. You're an imbecile. Go ahead and tell us that tribal societies flourished through spreading homosexuality and equating it with heterosexuality. It might not be true, but we'll all be entertained on the level that we might all possibly be living inside The Matrix.

Well, no. Firstly, I was talking about the actual family structure, not how the tribe as a whole would have reacted to homosexuality. Secondly, that likely would have been badly, since humanity, in general, doesn't view variation very favourably.
Isn't it kinda the point of our civilization to try to seperate humanity from it's more violent and intolerant practices?

I particularly enjoyed this tidbit even though it was directed at Nap -

"Extremely" subjective morals? "EXTREMELY" subjective? Wow, and here we thought we were just being subjective but now you've pointed out that we're being EXTREMELY subjective. As if you're own beliefs are not extremely subjective as well. This reminds me of being called an "Ultra" conservative. You liberals and your language parceling.

"YOU ARE BEING EXTREMELY SUBJECTIVE AND I DON'T LIKE IT!"

Don't you think that's a little... extreme a reaction for one word?