Somebody Calls this Christian?

[Woody]

SW said: You still haven't been able to properly refute the Hamer citation and information that I gave you on a previous page. The sum of your rebuttal is that Hamer is gay and that his sample population was of a prison and that the study was old.

Woody: I notice your studies are ancient, why don't you try post-year 2000 studies that are more up to date?

--------------------------------------------------------------

S/W: What harm do homosexuals pose to you? What risk do you have from their lifestyle? So what if they eventually obtain the freedom to marry? How does it affect you and your family?

Woody: What do you think about marriage between man and beast? Your argument works for them too. What is your basis for choosing acceptable sexuality?

--------------------------------------------------------------

S/W said: It is utterly ironic that religious fundamentalists single out the "evil" of the homosexual and yet ignore the evils that their own populations are prone to: adultery, gambling, theft, murder, pedophilia, etc. When I see a christian cult rise up and stamp out adultery, then perhaps I might listen to what they have to say regarding homosexuality.

Woody says: So, we christians are supposed to "rise up and stamp out" people's bad choices? You approve of that do you?

--------------------------------------------------------------

SW said: Right... the title banner of the page reads "exposing the myth of evolution." There's an unbiased source that's based in objective logic. A pseudoscience site arguing that someone else's research is "junk-science" doesn't exactly create an air of authority.

Woody: Yeah I anticipated your "kneejerk" reaction and removed that thread. Why don't you try the replacement?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

SW: All said and done, I've shown where there is evidence, albeit far from conclusive, that shows there is some correlation with homosexuality and genetics. There probably is no gene that causes homosexuality. But there probably are some that influence the liklihood that homosexuality can emerge. You've shown absolutely nothing with regard demonstrating that homosexuality is not genetically influenced.

Woody: Au contraire. I suggest you read my thread that covers the bases. It (homosexuality) is largely behavioral and socialogical.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

SW: Your arguments are propaganda. There are very few people who can be demonstrated to be "ex-gay" due to the salvation of religious nutters. You can find a plethora of "homosexual recovery" ministries, but none seem to have independent confirmation of their effectiveness. So they stop playing the skin-flute. A PBS documentary, One Nation Under God, examines Gary Busse and Michael Cooper, a gay couple who tried to "repent" and start a ministry for "recovering" homosexuals. They ended up with the realization that they were in love and abandoned it. There are many such examples of failed ministries.

Woody: OK, so 50% pass and 50% fail. If it doesn't work at all, then why the counselling service? By the way, PBS is LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL to the MAX MAX MAX.

All arguments are propaganda. Propaganda is ok, false propaganda is not ok.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

S/W: "50% effective" is an unverifiable and fallacious remark. No proper study has been done. The religious nutters only pull a number out of their asses and say it's true, much as they do information from their bibles.

Woody: No actually it is from the counselling service that is there to HELP people that are trapped with unwanted feelings that people like you have forced them to accept.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

S/W: You are certainly not embracing the teachings of christ. Citing "god hates fags?" I think it's clear that you hate "fags." Hatred based on irrational fear and propaganda from their cult is pathetic.

Woody: I did not say I agreed with their point of view. Did you read the testimonials from homosexuals that sent them letters? That is what I wanted you to read. You just looked at the tag line and presumed your own selfrighteous prejudiced vision, You're blind, and I do not want to discuss this anymore. Go get help.

 

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord missed the boat altogether, since he is a counsellor and knows nothing about this wonderful opportunity to help people that are trapped with an addiction.

Damn, all that extra income I've lost. I know I'll sound very non-christian saying this but I'm not one to stick my nose into everyone elses business. If someone has something they want help with, they will come to me and ask for that help - in their own way and in their own time. I do not parade the local high street waving round my big "homo's need help" book, or preaching made up "facts" and statistics from dodgy websites to try and look like I'm right.

If a person came to me unsure of his sexuality, he would eventually work out the answer for himself. I would serve as the sounding board - to give him the chance to find his own answer. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.. It is not my place to tell him he is or isn't.

Anyway, as you were showing graphs from the CDC, I thought it worth showing a few more from that very same site.

These graphs show that there are more AIDS cases through heterosexual contact.. No?

I guess that means heterosexuals are all "fags" and sinners doomed to hell. Or why not take a look at the ethnicity graphs. Clearly black people are bigger sinners than whites. Right?

By the way what do you think about "rimming for the prize", as described in gay sex literature? Does that sound like a good, wholesome, healthy practice for a man? I don't want to get graphic here, but the "prize" is fecal material.

Isn't "rimming for the prize" when they come on this forum and listen to you talk shit?

 

[SkinWalker]

Woody: I notice your studies are ancient, why don't you try post-year 2000 studies that are more up to date?

Why, when these studies from the 1990's are still valid? Information doesn't decay with age.

What do you think about marriage between man and beast? Your argument works for them too. What is your basis for choosing acceptable sexuality?

If you believe any of my "arguments" work for marriage between "man and beast," then you are truly ignorant. I've stated nothing of the kind. Marriage is the business of two consenting adults. Period. Obviously one's pet snake is unable to profer an opinion on engaging in a contract of marriage. To suggest that bestiality is comparable to the consenting relationship between consenting adults is a fallacy beyond silly. It's completely stupid.

So, we christians are supposed to "rise up and stamp out" people's bad choices? You approve of that do you?

Hardly. But isn't it you that is asserting that homosexuality is a choice? If so, then isn't christianity doing just that? And aren't "bad choices" like adultery far more prevalent and damaging to mainstream society than the small percentage of homosexuals?

I suggest you read my thread that covers the bases. It (homosexuality) is largely behavioral and socialogical.

Agreed. Homosexuality is probably, for the most part, behavioral and socialogical. But I assert that these behaviors and socialogical influences also probably combine with some genetic trait to produce an orientation that is homosexual before birth, just after birth, or prior to adolescence in most cases. I say this because I see no logical reason for so many people to "choose" homosexuality as an adult in the face of so much oppression, bigotry and hatred.

PBS is LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL to the MAX MAX MAX.

I would argue that 'liberal' is normalcy for any society that expects to progress. The very definition of the word includes "broad-mindedness" and being open to logical change and progress. The opposing term, 'conservative' means quite the opposite: opposed to change, desire for the status quo or return to earlier times, resistant to progress.

I did not say I agreed with their point of view. Did you read the testimonials from homosexuals that sent them letters?

I did read much of it. I was unimpressed and saw nothing to indicate that it was genuine. Unlike many, I believe scant little of "web-published" materials that don't have legitimate sources and citations. The best source I've ever seen you cite was the unpublished pdf "article" in your previous post. At least it cited sources even though I noted some out of context almost immediately.

But we're forgetting the topic of the thread: Somebody Calls this Christian? A title that implies that we're discussing christian nature of various persons, entities, institutions or religions.

My position was that the way many "christians" respond to homosexuality is not part of a Christian way. Jesus said little about homosexuality and much about other sins -adultery for instance. One passage that sticks out in my mind is in Luke, chapter 17, verse somewhere in the 30s, where he is discussing the second coming. Jesus said, "there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

Wait!! One of these homosexuals will be among the chosen?


But homosexuality is but one example of "Christian" hypocricy. There are many examples of modern "christians" failing to even try to live up to the teachings of Christ. If they don't, should they be considered Christian. If an internet poster, who claims to be christian (not you, Woody) responds to a rude remark with heavy "flames," is this Christian? Should he/she not "turn the other cheek?" Should "Christians" drive tricked out Escalades with spinners? Should they wear thick gold chains and rings of gold and diamonds? Should they spend copious amounts of money on themselves and none on the poor?

Obviously I could go on and on.

I might be an atheist, but I can have a profound appreciation for the teachings of christ. As I can for Buddha. As I can for Mohammed. As I can for Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda (not to be confused with Yorda).

 

[Woody]

SW: Marriage is the business of two consenting adults.

Woody: According to who? You?

Why don't we just cut to the chase SW?

I tell the answer you don't want to hear.

I have lived a long time and it has been my experience that homosexuals are not genetically produced. They have a strong say in their ultimate outcome.

I personally know a lesbian/bisexual couple that decided to go straight and get married to guys.

My stepsister's nephew was married, and he decided to get a divorce and turn gay.

My dad used to call this phenomena "sewing wild oats". Nowdays it's called "taking a walk on the wild side." Most gays I know or know about have had a phase where they were genuinely interested in the opposite sex for a while.

So forget about your studies Skinwalker. I know real, live people that this has happened to. I don't need to read about it in a book like yourself.

You will never un-remember what I have seen for myself.

 

[SkinWalker]

Since we're talking about personal anecdotes, I know several gay couples as well. Each has always been gay and has never wanted for heterosexual relationships. They have heterosexual friends but profess to be deeply in love with each other. One couple has been together for nearly 20 years. The other two for over 10.

But who cares? Let's say for the moment that these people that you know did, indeed, make "choices." Who cares? What affect do these people have on a good christian and why should a good christian worry more about them than the other sinners and problems of society.

Remember, we agreed that homosexuality was a very small percentage of the population. Adultery, however, has a much larger hold. Prisons are full of sinners (law breakers), most of them claiming to be christian. Should not christianity be concerned most significantly with the most significant problems?

And yet these so-called christians isolate a small percentage of society to inspire hatred and a "war on homosexuality," as I noted on one christian website. As I asserted, this "war" creates an "other" that is separate and different from the christian. You can't say that about the adulterer, the drug addict, the gambler, the thief, etc. But with the homosexual, the christians can all come together in their hatred, point their fingers, and shout "sinner!" All the while tithing the preistly class, who are maintaining their wealth, power, and status.

So I reiterate: "and somebody calls this Christian?"


That, my friend, is the "chase" we should have been cutting to.

 

[Mystech]

The bible teaches anyone that claims to be God is from the spirit of antichrist.

You'd be hard pressed to find a version of the bible which mentions anything about an "Antichrist". That's a relatively recent fad.

 

[SkinWalker]

Actually, in the books of John, "antichrist" is referred to, but in a very generic sense. Not with the intent that there was/is one, single Antichrist. In 1 John and 2 John, the author speaks of those that oppose Jesus as the christ, those that say he isn't/wasn't the Messiah.

 

[Woody]

SW says: And yet these so-called christians isolate a small percentage of society to inspire hatred and a "war on homosexuality," as I noted on one christian website. As I asserted, this "war" creates an "other" that is separate and different from the christian. You can't say that about the adulterer, the drug addict, the gambler, the thief, etc. But with the homosexual, the christians can all come together in their hatred, point their fingers, and shout "sinner!" All the while tithing the preistly class, who are maintaining their wealth, power, and status.

Woody says: There is no difference between a homosexual and any of the rest of the addictions whether it is drug addiction, alchohol addiction, gambling addiction, stealing addiction, or any other addiction. Biblically they are all the same:

may I quote I Corinthians 6:9:

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.

The bible says it's all the same, so should we as a society bring honor and blessing to these other lifestyles as well? Should these others also be given minority status and special civil rights because of their lifestyles?

Yet somehow everyone considers the homosexual to be different from the rest. Somehow the homosexual deserves marriage status instead of cohabitation status.

Nobody said they couldn't live together. Many of us that are married consider it an honorable thing to do and we do not want our institution redefined and corrupted. If the gays want to join in a civil union then fine -- just don't call it marriage -- we heterosexuals were here first and many of us resent this encroachment on our sacred custom. Our sacred custom has been around for thousands of years -- much longer than the United States or any other nation.

This homosexual marriage issue ends up with the total abolition of marriage altogether. I've heard this has already happened in some of europe. We do not want this to happen to our sacred custom that you and others have no respect for.

Call it whatever you want to call it; just don't call it marriage!

The gays have an agenda alright, may I quote:

GAY LEADERS AREN'T RUSHING TO MARRY: From the Washington Blade

..."I'm obviously paid to be a professional homosexual, but this is a very personal decision," said Foreman, now the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. "I'm not old-fashioned when it comes to many things; I am when it comes to marriage. I believe our relationship will never be seen as equal to others unless we are married."

It's clear they want their own rights at the expense of mine and I resent it. They want to make themselves equal by ruining marriage for everyone and I resent it.

Why don't they build their own institution instead of counterfeiting my institution?

 

[spidergoat]

nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

But our society rewards the greedy, the slanderers and swindlers, so it would be hypocritical to single out homos for special restrictions.

 

[Woody]

S/G said: But our society rewards the greedy, the slanderers and swindlers, so it would be hypocritical to single out homos for special restrictions.

Woody: None of them are asking for minority status except homosexuals. They want privileges above everyone else.

 

[john smith]

Actually, in the books of John, "antichrist" is referred to, but in a very generic sense. Not with the intent that there was/is one, single Antichrist. In 1 John and 2 John, the author speaks of those that oppose Jesus as the christ, those that say he isn't/wasn't the Messiah.

I think that contemporary astrology with all it's fuss and flavours, inhibits, supresses, and discriminates individuality. I said that you don't need anything else except yourself if you want to notice yourself. :m:

 

[SkinWalker]

There is no difference between a homosexual and any of the rest of the addictions whether it is drug addiction, alchohol addiction, gambling addiction, stealing addiction, or any other addiction. Biblically they are all the same:

Biblically, one can buy a woman from a friend for a couple hundred foreskins of your dead enemies. The bible is not the place to look for guidance in modern morality.

may I quote I Corinthians 6:9:

Who cares? It doesn't mean shit in today's society. Why quote texts over 2000 years ago as inerrant truth and law when you are going to pick and choose which passages to follow or uphold? What kind of bullshit is that? The answer is, of course, bigotted and hateful bullshit of the worst hypocrisy.

Nobody said they couldn't live together. Many of us that are married consider it an honorable thing to do and we do not want our institution redefined and corrupted.

Bullshit, hypicritical christians seem to think that they have the monopoly on marriage and that marriage is some sacred, religious idea. It isn't bud. It's a civil institution. Otherwise it wouldn't exist in some form across all world cultures regardless of religion and even where religion isn't. I, for one, could care less what you call it, but homosexuals who are in love with each other and wish to dedicate and committ to monogamous relationships deserve the same rights and benifits that heterosexual couple obtain through contracts of marriage.

There is no logical reason not to give it to them.

This homosexual marriage issue ends up with the total abolition of marriage altogether. I've heard this has already happened in some of europe. We do not want this to happen to our sacred custom that you and others have no respect for.

That's total bullshit. Marriage among heterosexuals in the United States, where christians have domination as a cult, is a joke. The rate of divorce and failed marriage is extremely high. If you want to talk about assigning blame for fucking up a "sacred custom," then perhaps you should look a little closer to home. "Our sacred custom," indeed! What fear-mongering bullshit!

It's clear they want their own rights at the expense of mine and I resent it. They want to make themselves equal by ruining marriage for everyone and I resent it.

Tell us how a same-sex marriage infringes on your own rights? That's total poppycock. If anything, it'll be good for the economy since it'll allow for increased, two-income families who'll spend more money with their combined incomes for homes, cars, and other consumer goods.

Why don't they build their own institution instead of counterfeiting my institution?

Because it isn't your institution. The concept of marriage exists independent of christian cults. It existed in some form as far back as 40,000 years, depending on how the archaeological record is interpreted. That far exceeds the young religion of christianity.

 

[spidergoat]

They want privileges above everyone else.

Seems to me they just want the same privileges. How is it your place to judge?

many of us resent this encroachment on our sacred custom...

Marriage in the United States is a civil contract between you and your government. Some people choose to do it in a church, but even the priest has to say "by the power invested in me", which means he alone doesn't have the power to marry, it's still the government.

 

[Woody]

S/W says: Tell us how a same-sex marriage infringes on your own rights? That's total poppycock.

Woody says:

S/W you just don't get it. I thought you were an anthropologist. I thought you understood culture and customs.

Why do you even care about marriage? You aren't even married. What's wrong with two gays just living together? Marriage is not your custom. I feel like it's really none of your business either. Furthermore, you have no respect for marriage. If you had respect for marriage you would treat it with respect. It doesn't bother you to trash it.

Do you go to India and tell Hindus to eat at McDonald's? Do you tell Muslim's to wipe their ass with a Quran? Do you tell jews to eat pork?

You have no sensibility whatsoever Skinwalker.

You just don't get it.

All you care about is YOUR gay agenda at anyone elses expense. In my experience, homosexuals are some of the most selfish, self-centered people I've ever known, and they have such a pissy attitude to go with it.

What is wrong with a civil union between gays? Why isn't that enough for you? Why do you want to undermine customs. Don't you understand what that causes? It causes division and resentment. Is that what you want, because the majority of americans are opposed to same sex marriage. They believe it is a proven institution that is worth protecting.

You just aren't getting it, and don't tell me how I'm supposed to feel. Any reasonable, sensible person would not tell another person how they are supposed to feel. :bugeye:

 

[Woody]

S/G says: Seems to me they just want the same privileges. How is it your place to judge?

Woody says: I already explained that to you S/G. Do you think homosexuals should have minority status the same as african americans?

Some african americans resent the gay community for this encroachment on their status. It produces a mixed feeling. If you get your way then they will be grouped with sex perverts. They don't like it because it brings them dishonor and it lowers their social standing. There are some that feel that way. They don't like being lumped in with gays.

I don't have minority status, why should they be given that privilege above me just because of their social and political agenda?

African americans have a legitimate reason: because their parents, parent's parents, etc were all the same way. Gays are hardly parents to anyone, and they don't get pregnant by practicing gay sex.

 

[spidergoat]

What is wrong with a civil union between gays?

The people that oppose gay marriage also oppose giving gays the same rights and calling it a civil union, just so you know. A marriage is a civil union, not a religious union, although some people chose to get married in a church with all the traditions that go along with that. Churches do not have to perform marriage ceremonies for everyone, but the government cannot discriminate.

If they are the same rights, then the only difference is the word.

I don't know what you are going on about with the term "minority status", they are a minority, just like blacks, and the mentally ill, for example. Blacks don't resent being "lumped in" with the mentally ill, because they know they are different.

I think you mean that they shouldn't have the legal right not to be discriminated against, the way the handicapped, or hispanics have. That's just wrong. Gay people are no more sex perverts than straight people.

Gays are hardly parents to anyone...

Incorrect, lesbians can get impregnated through a sperm bank, and do, and males often have children from previous failed relationships.

 

[Woody]

S/G:

Let's make this real simple.

Gays want their relationship to be respectable and they think "marriage" is the magic wand.

Again from the gay political agenda:

..."I'm obviously paid to be a professional homosexual, but this is a very personal decision," said Foreman, now the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. "I'm not old-fashioned when it comes to many things; I am when it comes to marriage. I believe our relationship will never be seen as equal to others unless we are married."

Do you understand what he just said, Spidergoat? Homosexuals want their relationship to be "seen as equal to others." They want marriage, not because they love each other, but because of the respectability. If you can't see it, then there is no discussion.

They are not going to legislate social respectability.

S/G: Gay people are no more sex perverts than straight people.

Woody: I really hate to get vulgar here but you leave me little choice: What do you think about someone sticking their entire fist up someones's asshole? What do you think about a lesbian sticking her entire fist up another lesbian? This is called "fisting" in the gay vernacular, What do you think about someone sticking their tongue up someone's asshole and eating their shit? This is called "rimming for the prize." What do you think about one man sticking his penus up another man's asshole? What do you think about one man taking another man's semen in his mouth, swishing it around, and then swallowing it.

You don't think this is perverted? Geez, get your head examined.

Does this behavior sound honorable and respectable to you? Do you really think this kind of behavior should be sanctioned with marriage?

 

[SkinWalker]

Why do you even care about marriage? You aren't even married.

I've been married a long time now, Woody. I'm even a 38 year old parent of a wonderful daughter and husband to a great wife. So marriage is something that I care dearly about. And the thought of two homosexuals marrying each other doesn't threaten me in the least. It has no bearing on the relationship I have between my wife, my daughter, and our extended families. None at all. Why would it?

What's wrong with two gays just living together? Marriage is not your custom. I feel like it's really none of your business either. Furthermore, you have no respect for marriage. If you had respect for marriage you would treat it with respect. It doesn't bother you to trash it.

This is where you demonstrate yourself to be both ignorant and assuming. I assert that it is you who have no respect for marriage. You treat marriage as if it were the sole property of christianity. It isn't. Marriage is a civil contract that many if not all religions and cultures of the world participate in.

Do you go to India and tell Hindus to eat at McDonald's? Do you tell Muslim's to wipe their ass with a Quran? Do you tell jews to eat pork?

What has any of this to do with marriage? Marriage doesn't belong to the christian cults. It's a civil contract.

All you care about is YOUR gay agenda at anyone elses expense.

I don't have a "gay" agenda. I have a "human rights" agenda. Bigots and hate-mongers like you need to be put in their places. You and your ilk are so blinded by the fear and hatred that you fail to see the injustice your attitudes have on society. Our nation is the laughing stock of the Western world: we let superstition and cult beliefs influence our social policies in ways that are medevial and backward.

In my experience, homosexuals are some of the most selfish, self-centered people I've ever known, and they have such a pissy attitude to go with it.

In my experience, self-righteous christian fundamentalists present this attitude.

 

[craterchains (Norval]

Hey SkinWalker, would you kill to protect your loved ones? I would.
Would you sacrifice yourself to protect them from unjust harm? I would.

 

[SkinWalker]

Of course.