dude, your outnumbered, you cant sway us, leave before you have 15 people questioning you, unless you like the pressure of pleasing us

if you do than, well, youv got some strangeness
DOn't kick him out. I want to hear his opionion and imput. Maybe if it is good ebough I might change my mind, which I doubt but I like seeinf how people think and why and how well they can support it.

When women reach a certain age they become incapable of fertilization. And the sperm of some men somehow are not capable of fertilizing an egg in the mother.

I understand that. But, as Septermagick points out, that wasn't my main question.

Why are such people allowed an exception? Why can they marry, if you say that the point of marriage is - ultimately - reproduction? And why can no exception be made for homosexuals? What determines who gets an exception and who not?

Just so you know, people can have sex and reproduce (considering there organs let them do so) with OUT getting married. Marriage is about love. In the case of arranged marriage it id for money or power, etc. You don't need to get married to have sex so why should marriage be about sex.

AH-HA! Marrige isnt about a definition or sex or what the bible says it is. Sometimes it isnt about love either, its about sex or insurance, but still.. And if everyone says marriage is for love, then gays wouldnt have the big road block we have. But the thing is, not everyone thinks the same, so there is a big problem.

dude, your outnumbered, you cant sway us, leave before you have 15 people questioning you, unless you like the pressure of pleasing us

if you do than, well, youv got some strangeness
What does the number of people contradicting you have to do with your opinion or belief? Ideology is not about how many agree but how the people who do agree present their ideas.

In order to fully understand this you must possess a firm definition of the word "love". Yes, love and marriage are intertwined but not in the way most people assume. Because love is perceived and not actually tangible, it has no strict definition. Define love and then view marriage.

I think that love is a state of being; and that being "in love" is a point in your life when you realize that there is someone worth living for, someone worth dying for, someone who you will give every breath and every ounce of strength you have to ensure that the person you love is happy, and remains happy, even at your own expense; and this state of being never goes away. I think you cal only "fall in love" once. I belive in soulmates, and that love exists from the moment you were born, and when you contact this person for the first time a fire ignites inside you and you realize just what love really is. In my opinion, loving someone does not mean (not necessarily anyway) that you want to marry him/her, be his/her boyfriend/girlfriend, or untimately even be a part of their life. to me that os (perhaps a mild form) of obsession. i believe you can only fall in love once, with your soulmate, and every other time you think you've fallen in love up until you've found your soulmate, you were mistakes. Passion and desire are often tangled and thus confused with love. Love is the most powerful form of human compassion, it cannot and does not simply go away. If your soulmate is of the opinion that he/she is better off with out you (either as a boyfriend, girlfriend, friend, spouse, or just being part of their life altogether) it is your duty and responsibility, to ensure that person's happiness and well-being, to comply. And should they return to you and admit they were wrong, welcome him/her back with open arms, not anger or vengeance.
Idealistic perhaps, but why not?

Now because of that "love' is not the primary reason for marriage, but rather happiness is. With that being extablished, you could then directly say "if two men or two women make each other happy they should have the right to marry", but now we must define marriage. I believe that happiness is not a bodily state but a spiritual one as well. i look to the Bible and recall the verse "And from the beginning of time, there was man and woman, and God united them unto one flesh. . . ." The word "flesh" is not to be taken literally, but spiritually, like when the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, it isn't literally His flesh, but spiritually it is. The word "unite" is also often mis-defined as "become one". Example: The two long lost friends were finally re-united after years of separation. They did not become one, rather they just came together. Because this involves the soul, it involves a sacred bond. This sacred bons cannot be forged by humans, or a legal paper, but only by God. For this reason I do not believe a divorce can truly happen either. Genesis reveals that God created woman for adam's happiness and company. Therefore, he created women from man, to be married to man.

There would be an exception if a man/woman does not find this person until after they were incapable of producing a child. after all, there are over 6 billion people on Earth, what are the odds that your soulmate will live right next door?

That's my logic. Feel free to criticize/debate.

AH-HA! Marrige isnt about a definition or sex or...

...its about sex
just a little confused.... :huh:

sorry darksage, my little brother decided to interfere while i was getting some food. again sorry

kids are annoying, back to the topic

true, love is very hard to define, and i agree with your definition of love, and out of that i get my reason why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, to make eachother happy, if they think marrage makes tem happy, then why not give them that right, it doesnt affect heterosexuals in the least

read and think about, if that cant sway you, then i guess ive done my best

What does the number of people contradicting you have to do with your opinion or belief? Ideology is not about how many agree but how the people who do agree present their ideas.

In order to fully understand this you must possess a firm definition of the word "love". Yes, love and marriage are intertwined but not in the way most people assume. Because love is perceived and not actually tangible, it has no strict definition. Define love and then view marriage.

I think that love is a state of being; and that being "in love" is a point in your life when you realize that there is someone worth living for, someone worth dying for, someone who you will give every breath and every ounce of strength you have to ensure that the person you love is happy, and remains happy, even at your own expense; and this state of being never goes away. I think you cal only "fall in love" once. I belive in soulmates, and that love exists from the moment you were born, and when you contact this person for the first time a fire ignites inside you and you realize just what love really is. In my opinion, loving someone does not mean (not necessarily anyway) that you want to marry him/her, be his/her boyfriend/girlfriend, or untimately even be a part of their life. to me that os (perhaps a mild form) of obsession. i believe you can only fall in love once, with your soulmate, and every other time you think you've fallen in love up until you've found your soulmate, you were mistakes. Passion and desire are often tangled and thus confused with love. Love is the most powerful form of human compassion, it cannot and does not simply go away. If your soulmate is of the opinion that he/she is better off with out you (either as a boyfriend, girlfriend, friend, spouse, or just being part of their life altogether) it is your duty and responsibility, to ensure that person's happiness and well-being, to comply. And should they return to you and admit they were wrong, welcome him/her back with open arms, not anger or vengeance.
Idealistic perhaps, but why not?

Now because of that "love' is not the primary reason for marriage, but rather happiness is. With that being extablished, you could then directly say "if two men or two women make each other happy they should have the right to marry", but now we must define marriage. I believe that happiness is not a bodily state but a spiritual one as well. i look to the Bible and recall the verse "And from the beginning of time, there was man and woman, and God united them unto one flesh. . . ." The word "flesh" is not to be taken literally, but spiritually, like when the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, it isn't literally His flesh, but spiritually it is. The word "unite" is also often mis-defined as "become one". Example: The two long lost friends were finally re-united after years of separation. They did not become one, rather they just came together. Because this involves the soul, it involves a sacred bond. This sacred bons cannot be forged by humans, or a legal paper, but only by God. For this reason I do not believe a divorce can truly happen either. Genesis reveals that God created woman for adam's happiness and company. Therefore, he created women from man, to be married to man.

There would be an exception if a man/woman does not find this person until after they were incapable of producing a child. after all, there are over 6 billion people on Earth, what are the odds that your soulmate will live right next door?

That's my logic. Feel free to criticize/debate.

But the bible is two thousand (or so) years old. Many of the old religous ideas dont make any sense, are crazy and some are even biased. Was the story of Adam and Eve a metaphore or literal? One Christian can say Metaphore, another can say literal. Now if two Christians cant even decide from one or another, then how can one say if anything is the bible is a metaphore or literal? We must all remember the text from the middle east back then was very poetic, using many metaphores and similies. So can any of you say that the bible is true to word, or more poetic? Maybe the auothers should have made a "about the book and author" section.

If the bible was poetic, then all you say of homosexuality and its links to marriage is on false faith. On the other hand it could be literal and you are right. The problem: No one knows. So how can you act so sure? Did an angel come and send you a letter? Did concive even in virginity?

Have you even thought to question your faith?

sorry to say this, but every last person basing their arguments on the bible just got burned, and you have an excelent point radical dreamer, *nods in agreement* i am backing you up on this :)

grongratulations, Death supports, you, now i can just kill all disagreers

im just kidding, i would never do that :heh:

There would be an exception if a man/woman does not find this person until after they were incapable of producing a child. after all, there are over 6 billion people on Earth, what are the odds that your soulmate will live right next door?

I still don't quite understand (though I understand a bit better, I think).

First, you state in this post that "happiness" (as opposed to love) is the primary reason for marriage. How does that link up with your earlier dictum that marriage is all about re-production?

Second, it appears to me, you seem to suggest that anyone can have an exception if they find their counterparts too late (or if they're unlucky enough to be infertile; which you don't say explicitly, but which I take the liberty to inferring from your previous post; correct me if that's wrong); on the condition that they're men and woman; basically because Eve's been made from Adam for Adam.

Now, I can't seem to make sense of that:

Either this means that everyone but homosexuals can have an exception. This then makes the dictum that "marriage is for re-production" either useless in practice and thus not worth considering; or it makes said dictum into a rhetorical trick desinged to deny homosexuals "marriage".

What I'm driving at is this: Your previous assertion that "marriage" in the biblical sense is strictly between man and woman (by definition) amounts to the same thing, and appears to be both simpler and more honest. The idea that marriage is all about re-production adds nothing to the discussion at all (as I can detect so far) but confusion and rhetorical tricks.

Btw, I did not say that marriage, in the biblical sense, is not about "reproduction". I've heard that from other Christians, too. It's just not relevant for the "homosexual marriage" question, because homosexuals have been ruled out as marriage candidates long before the "capability to re-produce" ever becomes relevant.

(But I do think that the dictum "marriage is about re-production" is a bit silly, if everybody can get an exception.)

Please correct any errors I made in my reasoning. :)

But the bible is two thousand (or so) years old. Many of the old religous ideas dont make any sense, are crazy and some are even biased. Was the story of Adam and Eve a metaphore or literal? One Christian can say Metaphore, another can say literal. Now if two Christians cant even decide from one or another, then how can one say if anything is the bible is a metaphore or literal? We must all remember the text from the middle east back then was very poetic, using many metaphores and similies. So can any of you say that the bible is true to word, or more poetic? Maybe the auothers should have made a "about the book and author" section.

If the bible was poetic, then all you say of homosexuality and its links to marriage is on false faith. On the other hand it could be literal and you are right. The problem: No one knows. So how can you act so sure? Did an angel come and send you a letter? Did concive even in virginity?

Have you even thought to question your faith?


The Old Testament is 2000 + years old, everything else was written from 50 years after the death of christ, to the dark ages. That's what they don't tell you. The problem is people change the text. if you read the christian bible and the cathoilc bible you would find different texts, because of different views and oppinions. The old testament never spoke ill of homosexuality, it was only in the new testament, which I may add was poorly written.

Dude, you're outnumbered, you can't sway us, leave before you have 15 people questioning you, unless you like the pressure of pleasing us.

If you do than, well, you've got some strangeness.Look, SilverDeath, even though my only interactions with Darksage on these forums are "passionate civilised discussions", I have to say that asking someone to leave an argument is simply against the spirit [of having an argument].

See "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." by Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire.

Be right back.

But the bible is two thousand (or so) years old. Many of the old religous ideas dont make any sense, are crazy and some are even biased. Was the story of Adam and Eve a metaphore or literal? One Christian can say Metaphore, another can say literal. Now if two Christians cant even decide from one or another, then how can one say if anything is the bible is a metaphore or literal? We must all remember the text from the middle east back then was very poetic, using many metaphores and similies. So can any of you say that the bible is true to word, or more poetic? Maybe the auothers should have made a "about the book and author" section.

If the bible was poetic, then all you say of homosexuality and its links to marriage is on false faith. On the other hand it could be literal and you are right. The problem: No one knows. So how can you act so sure? Did an angel come and send you a letter? Did concive even in virginity?

Have you even thought to question your faith?
Why does two people sayong something make both right? Yes or no questions with specific parameters have only one answer, so obviously one of the Christians would be wrong.
The story of Adam and eve is literal not metaphoric. The Book of Genesis continues to speak about their children and their children's children, Cain, Abel, Noah, etc. If it was metaphoric that would never have occurred.

And a Bible verse is something like this: "Amen I say to you for seeing and believing, but blessed are those who do not see and still believe."
Have you ever seen a pile of one billion dollars in cash in front of your face? I doubt. Not seeing something doesn;t mean iut doesn't exist. Why should I wait to see if God will send an ammisary from Heaven to convince me to have faith? The fact that I am alive at this very moment is proof enough to me that God is up there.


@Dawnstorm: Honestly, I didn't just want to use a biblical reason and have people respond with "omigosh all dat god crap jus get outa here we dun care!" or some other dickhead response so I [i]attempted to give a scientific reason. One of the life processes is reproduction is it not? how does homosexuality accomplish that?

And my Adam and eve reference clarified: God saw Adam was lonely and unhappy, so he put him in a deep dleep, took out one of his ribs and made Eve from it: to keep him company and make him happy and marry him. This supports my idea that marriage is about happiness, and that women were created for men. God could have easily created Steve instead of Eve and let them be together, but he didn't. Religious "codes" (for lack of a better word) are accepted as moral ones. Thus homosexuality is immoral and against human nature. Lust, compassion, false sense of directon, confusion, emotion, and thought are the reasons homosexuality exists.

The Old Testament is 2000 + years old, everything else was written from 50 years after the death of christ, to the dark ages. That's what they don't tell you. The problem is people change the text. if you read the christian bible and the cathoilc bible you would find different texts, because of different views and oppinions. The old testament never spoke ill of homosexuality, it was only in the new testament, which I may add was poorly written.

Ehh... I say this (for the 100th time on this forum) WTF. So Catholics arnt Christiants anymore? And I think there are more bibles then just the "Christian" one, like one for the Mormons and Born Agians.. I think..

Anyways, I just wonder, what makes people think that Catholics arnt Christians? Many people I talk to just seem to beleave it, but from what I have learned its the same, just a sect.


The fact that I am alive at this very moment is proof enough to me that God is up there.

No it doesnt. It just proves that your mother had sex with your father and out you poped 9 months later. How does it prove that god exsist? I can easly say that it just proves that unicorns exsist, even though it has nothing to do with the birth and death of things. Why stand on just wanting to beleave or just on faith? Do you have sold facts and somthing you can shove in my face other then a book? Not really, unless you count that snow globe my friend gave me on her visit to heaven.

No it doesnt. It just proves that your mother had sex with your father and out you poped 9 months later.

Precisely. XD Seriously though...

Darksage is terribly narrow-minded. Basing everything on some crackpot ideas that a bunch of demented old people wrote up is stupid (Oh, it's called the Bible, by the way ;) ). Think for yourself! :bleh:

EDIT: BTW, you can replace the second sentence with something like: "Basing everything on some book is stupid," if you think it's terribly offensive. :heh:

im gonna try to clearly state my point w/o any side arguments, for once

what does religion have to do with someones right to marry? lets take religious arguments to the correct thread. not everyone is christian, so why should everyone abide by their rules? that would be forcing religion, which is against a founding right of america.

so in short im saying that religion has no place in deciding the law in america

Marriage is for sex. sex is for reproduction. So if you can't reproduce you shouldn't be able to get married (unless you're too old or you have some sorta condition)

This is bullshit. There are thousands of people who get married, in their twenties, thirties; you name it, who can't have sex. If you are only going to look for a woman to marry for sex, let me tell you right now: you are going to have one hell of a time finding someone to marry. Woman aren't fucking toys; you don't marry them just so you can use them to carry on your bloodline. You marry them because you love them for who they are, and what they do.

Sex is a benefit of a relationship. It comes from a relationship. Good relationships do NOT come from a sex, nor are they a benefit of sex. Most Christians, even the ones who read the bible, would disagree with you on this.

Also, can any of you Christians actually show that homosexuality is wrong WITHOUT the bible? Without a single reference to the bible, or anything religious? I bet you can't.

@Dawnstorm: Honestly, I didn't just want to use a biblical reason and have people respond with "omigosh all dat god crap jus get outa here we dun care!" or some other dickhead response so I [i]attempted to give a scientific reason. One of the life processes is reproduction is it not? how does homosexuality accomplish that?

You're not the first Christian to use the "reproduction" argument against homosexuality. And - within the Christian doctrine - it's kind of consistent, too (entirely consistent with the "Don't use contraceptives" line; also consistent with "no sex before marriage"; the argument does make sense). However, what intrigued me is that you brought up the "exceptions" (sterility, age...) by yourself. Normally, Christians don't see them, or ignore them, or dismiss them with reference to some "principles" (which I, as a non-believer, don't share). Since you brought those exceptions up by yourself, I thought you might help me understand why one set of people get exceptions, while another doesn't. I didn't mean to be a pest. ;)

Homosexuals shomosexuals. They're all the same. All humans.

I've had a couple of homosexual encounters. Even though they want a relationship I could never give, they all became my friends.

This getting way off topic. The bottomline is, gays are happy people and should not be messed with because they'll bitchslap you twice. They hit harder than most women i've encountered.

You're not the first Christian to use the "reproduction" argument against homosexuality. And - within the Christian doctrine - it's kind of consistent, too (entirely consistent with the "Don't use contraceptives" line; also consistent with "no sex before marriage"; the argument does make sense). However, what intrigued me is that you brought up the "exceptions" (sterility, age...) by yourself. Normally, Christians don't see them, or ignore them, or dismiss them with reference to some "principles" (which I, as a non-believer, don't share). Since you brought those exceptions up by yourself, I thought you might help me understand why one set of people get exceptions, while another doesn't. I didn't mean to be a pest. ;)
I understand what you mean. They can get married because there's the possibility of having kids. It's like, you arent asked on yoir wedding day if you're gonna have kids, because the possibility is always there (unless you biologically cant, but the fundamental for marriage is man/woman and they still have the reproductive organs necessary to do so)

but alot of married couples dont have kids, so, are they allowed to be married? if not then what the hell, to call upon americas founding principles once again, "have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

if marrisge makes them hapopy, dont they have a right to get married?

That's what I said o_o

And I even said by law they shoould be allowed to.

well, i belaeive that everyone who is of age should be allowed to marry anyone else who is of age. and that everyone should except that and not judge them based on a religion that not everyone beleives in, persecution based on ancient ideals is just predjudiced and wrong really, because in all actuality, the roles could have been rversed, and the homosexual community could be persucating christians for their beleifs, so think of that

Because the concept of marriage is from religion. The legal type of marriage is just a copy off of the religious, and no distinction was ever made, so there are the same guidelines.

i agree that there should be some, but only pertaining to age, not gender or religion, religion may have founded the principle of marrage, but it shouldnt control it, or be predjudiced twards people who members of religious groups beleive shouldnt be married

Well like I said when the goveernment 'copied it over' they never re-defined it, so they accepted the same terms of it until they say otherwise.

true enough, it was addopted from religion, i beleive the government should set the general rules for it, because its the most religiously unpredjudiced form right now, sure it hasnt been made legal yet, but thats because of the rleigious influence in the republican party, and the money flowing in, and the fact that the partisan sysytem is corrupt, but religons can be more corrupt, in fact people are corrupt, but that doesnt give the right to be predjudiced

Dude that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the courts can define it as whatever they want as long as the government hasnt done so. thats why it's allowed in some places and not in others.

i know that its irrelevant, i was ranting, i dont like that peoples predjudiced behavior is allowed to keep people from being happy, if marriage makes gays happy, then they have a right to do so, yet people are denying them this right, which just sickens me

That makes absolutely no sense. You're telling me that the legal paper that the homosexuals dont get is keeping them from being happy?

no im saying that people who dont allow them to make them unhappy, i have gay friends, they told me that they feel discriminated because in my state gay marriage is illegal, because our govener is predjudiced, and sorry if im not making sense, im trying to

How is the governor prejudiced? He never said "Homosexuals suck" did he? He isn't judging them, he's telling them what they want is illegal and they can't have it.

They can be happy without getting "married"

thats not it, they want to have the right of marriage, that would make them happy, but im done with this thread for now, i feel like im repeating myself

How is the governor prejudiced? He never said "Homosexuals suck" did he? He isn't judging them, he's telling them what they want is illegal and they can't have it.

They can be happy without getting "married"

The fact that they cannot get married is stripping them of their rights. And they aren't explicitly saying "You suck", just "You aren't normal therefore you don't get normal rights".

And seriously, who doesn't want Lesbians getting married? :heh:

And seriously, who doesn't want Lesbians getting married? :heh:
ummm, oookkkaaaaaaayy

The fact that they cannot get married is stripping them of their rights. And they aren't explicitly saying "You suck", just "You aren't normal therefore you don't get normal rights".

And seriously, who doesn't want Lesbians getting married? :heh:
That post is further proof why they cant get married.

What? Was it something I said? XD

You said they "aren't normal so they dont get normal rights". Exactly.

your way of logic is too simple IMO.

Since when is a marriage between a man and a women considered normal and a same sex marriage to be un-normal? There was nothing normal to begin with. We call things "Normal" because we are accustomed to it. Therefore, the rights should be given to everyone who gets married because saying that it is only given to normal people your trying to say that rights are given to people who you consider "Normal" class, and not to people who are "ANother" class. There are no extra or booby rights for same-sex marriages so dont say that there is another set of rights that parallels the one for your "Normal" kind of people.

You said they "aren't normal so they dont get normal rights". Exactly.

What is normal? Black people are a minority in America and Europe, for that they are not normal so they can't get married? People who have 6 toes on each foot aren't normal, so they can't get married? You're a Christian, I think that's weird so you shouldn't be able to get married? My friend doesn't like beer, he's weird! Can't get married?

Seriously, it's not for you, or anyone to define what's "normal". Everybody is different so everybody is weird. Following your logic, no one should be allowed to get married.

I like to think of marriage as a social convention, used mainly to offset man's imperfections, or perhaps rather to make up for the lack of idealistic love; because think about it - if a man truly loves another man or woman (or perhaps both, and perhaps more than one person at a time), there would be no need for a legally binding contract to keep them together and faithful. But few imagine few people can achieve that level of relationship, and thus marriage is imposed so as to keep the human race in propagation. It tries to keep the insecure, jealous types secure, and the playboys (or playgirls) in check. But in the end, it does neither to much of a degree of satisfaction. For (in my opinion), natural human instinct always have a slight edge against artificial social conventions.

What is normal? Black people are a minority in America and Europe, for that they are not normal so they can't get married? People who have 6 toes on each foot aren't normal, so they can't get married? You're a Christian, I think that's weird so you shouldn't be able to get married? My friend doesn't like beer, he's weird! Can't get married?

Seriously, it's not for you, or anyone to define what's "normal". Everybody is different so everybody is weird. Following your logic, no one should be allowed to get married.
I never actually said that, Sepharite did, and I was waiting for him to counter-explain what he meant.

You said they "aren't normal so they dont get normal rights". Exactly.

My point was that they "are" normal... they are human beings... they deserve equal rights.

I was simply changing the meaning of "you suck".


I never actually said that

But the fact that you agreed to it...

I was waiting for you to complete what you meant. I cant agree wo an unfinished statement.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Homosexuals
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Homosexuality

OMG XD I dont care what your stance on this is, just read those and laugh

There are more people who hate God than there are Gods who hate gays =P

There are more people who hate God than there are Gods who hate gays =P*laughs*

So what? I just find it amusing that a so-called religious man would make a website saying God hates a group of people based on a very very horrible translation of the Bible.

So what? I just find it amusing that a so-called religious man would make a website saying God hates a group of people based on a very very horrible translation of the Bible.And we find it amusing that there are more people who hate God than there are Gods who hate gays. =P

But God has more power than all those people combined =P

If those people don't believe in God he has no power over them.

Right. It wouldn't make sense if we don't believe in God and still abide by his rules. If thats the case then many people have already done things god prohibit them to do, and sending them all to hell is not gonna work because they were not known before-hand therefore it contradicts free will and religion.

And why are we going offtopic and talking about god? We dont want to know how big or powerfull God is, or "who is the man". If we want to know we can do so ourselves.

But God has more power than all those people combined =PThe Invisible Pink Unicorn has more power than all the Gods combined. =P

If those people don't believe in God he has no power over them.

*trying to take a page from your book and use it in a new perspective*

People dont have to beleave that they can get murdered or that they can die, but it can still happen. Just because they dont beleave in it doesnt mean it isnt the final word. Its just like how Christians say there is a god and thats that. Well, it isnt the final word.

You dont have to beleave that Hitler wasnt real and the things he did to Jews never were, but just because you say so, does it mean that it never happened?

So just because you say there is no god, doesnt mean there is none. You dont have the final say on everything and your not allways right, are you?

*is still anti-god*

If those people don't believe in God he has no power over them.
So then using that I'll do illegal stuff because I have no faith in the government.

So then using that I'll do illegal stuff because I have no faith in the government.You won't be the only one, but we have seen with our very own eyes that the numberless ones before you have been punished by the government.

*trying to take a page from your book and use it in a new perspective*

People dont have to beleave that they can get murdered or that they can die, but it can still happen. Just because they dont beleave in it doesnt mean it isnt the final word. Its just like how Christians say there is a god and thats that. Well, it isnt the final word.

You dont have to beleave that Hitler wasnt real and the things he did to Jews never were, but just because you say so, does it mean that it never happened?

So just because you say there is no god, doesnt mean there is none. You dont have the final say on everything and your not allways right, are you?

*is still anti-god*

You're comparing totally different things. There is actual proof that Hitler killed Jews. There is no proof - at all - that there is a God or whatever. You can't compare these two.

@Darksage: Like I said, I don't believe in God, it's never ever been proved that he exists. I know that the government exists. That's the difference. Something that has never been proven to exists doesn't have power over me. Have you read 1984? In that book the people have a leader called "Big Brother". No one's ever seen him though. In fact, he doesn't even exists because the "Party" controls everything. No different than Christianity. God doesn't exists, the church controls everything. Even though he claims to be in contact with God, the pope is in fact the ruler of the Christian Church.

And btw, just because you as a Christian claim that God is the big leader doesn't mean I accept him as a leader. In fact, most people in this world don't do that anymore these days.

You won't be the only one, but we have seen with our very own eyes that the numberless ones before you have been punished by the government.
Just as you will be by God

I never said the government doesn't exist, of course it does. I said I have no faith in it. The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholics not all Christians btw. You can think that God doesn't exist, and I can think that God does exist, but lets not make it sound like we actually know ok?

Look. If people don't believe in the goverment then they aren't going to obey it if they don't want to.If people go and kill then the goverment had no power over them 'cause they went ahead and did it anyway. The goverment can try and prevent it by punishment but it is still up to the people to choose to do it or not.

And from a diffrent point of view (I contradict myself a lot). If you are caught and convicted they screw up a part or the rest of a person's life. Sometimes they mske it better. Look at the long run.

My sister knows a man that went to jail for selling illegal drugs. He made a lot of money for that and was sent to jail. Those years that he was in jail his money just sat there. When he got out, he was rich! All because he broke the law and went to jail.

O.o That made more sense in my head and it seems so far off topic.

Just as you will be by GodThis is your opinion, as opposed to a fact, I presume?


I never said the government doesn't exist, of course it does. I said I have no faith in it.What I am saying, is that the government's existence is something that you can verify in your own two eyes. You don't need faith to see that.


The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholics not all Christians btw.Come on, Darksage, we've been sparring for quite awhile on these forums - you don't seriously believe that I don't know that, do you?


You can think that God doesn't exist, and I can think that God does exist, but lets not make it sound like we actually know ok?You can think that God exists, and can/will punish people, but I know that the government exists, and can/will punish people. That is the difference.

I have nothing against homosexuality. I don't understand people who do.

i have nothing against it. in fact, one of my favourite series Gravitation is about 2 guys in love ha ha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Darksage"
You can think that God doesn't exist, and I can think that God does exist, but lets not make it sound like we actually know ok?

Originally Posted by "Dark Bring"
You can think that God exists, and can/will punish people, but I know that the government exists, and can/will punish people. That is the difference.







That's correct, it's the same argument with evolution but I'm not gonna get into it.

So lets get back on subject please no more of this Religious bullshit!

All us Gays Lesbians, and Transgenders are here to stay and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

This is your opinion, as opposed to a fact, I presume?

What I am saying, is that the government's existence is something that you can verify in your own two eyes. You don't need faith to see that.

Come on, Darksage, we've been sparring for quite awhile on these forums - you don't seriously believe that I don't know that, do you?

You can think that God exists, and can/will punish people, but I know that the government exists, and can/will punish people. That is the difference.
Belief, or faith, I suppose that's an opinion

True, but God can be 'verified' in the same way

That was to Angelic

But "think" and "know" are not polar opposites. We will be punished by both.

But "think" and "know" are not polar opposites. We will be punished by both.Think and Know are not opposites at all, but Thinking that something can punish you is quite different from Knowing that something can punish you.

Example:
You think that you can do the job.
I know that I can do the job.

And I know that God exists ^^

And I now know that I do not know what to think about homosexuality...

Leviticus 18. boo yah.

And I know that God exists ^^

And I now know that I do not know what to think about homosexuality...

I know he doesn't. Now who is wrong? We both have no way of actually proving we're right.

Anyway, this is turning too much in a religion thread.

I know he doesn't. Now who is wrong? We both have no way of actually proving we're right.

Anyway, this is turning too much in a religion thread.

My post was in response to Dark Bring and Darksage's attempts to distinguish between knowing and thinking. I know what I think, and I think what I know. You can't distinguish between the two.


Leviticus 18. boo yah.

You did not just say that...please tell me you did not just say that...*runs to avoid fallout from Dark Bring posting this link: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html * (from the religion thread)

Anyhow, that link pretty clearly demonstrates that not all commands in the Bible (and especially not in Leviticus) are immutable. Many commands are instituted because of a lack of (scientific) understanding at that time, or because of a need for unity (Israel was at war quite a bit, after all). As our understanding of the world increases, we can move out of the "high chair" that was necessary to keep us from getting hurt. But, of course, there ARE immutable commands in the Bible. No amount of scientific knowledge will be able to replace "Do not steal" or "Do not murder".

Now, where does homosexuality fall? Is it a "high chair"? More importantly, are we really "big" enough (scientifically, societally, and philosophically speaking) to move out of that high chair yet? (I don't know the answer to this question, which is why I'm posing it to you guys.)

EDIT: OOPS...I double posted...sorry :( 4 hours of sleep + monster essay = me not thinking coherently

as of now, anyone mentioning religion in their argument below here is an absolute goon.
V

My post was in response to Dark Bring and Darksage's attempts to distinguish between knowing and thinking. I know what I think, and I think what I know. You can't distinguish between the two.You can't distinguish between the two? Let me show you:

A)I think she doesn't like me.

B)I know she doesn't like me.

1)I think she likes strawberries.

2)I know she likes strawberries.

Tell me that the statements A and B, 1 and 2, are indistinguishable.

What I dont get is, you see that we have our own set of laws and rules that should not be broken (Rights and laws), however many people follow another set of laws and rules (Christianity and such.) Since many laws contradict the human laws, why dont people just follow the laws we made. We know we made them, we had proof that the laws were established. However, how would we know that god really established such laws and not someone who is establishing all these laws for his/her/it own benefit? I know it cannot be explained, but faith can only go so far and people take faith to the next level proving that it is infact something that controls our lives when we have already known that we control our lives through our own common sense?

Religion is optional, but some people take it to be their own lives. (I consider priority of yourself over religion.) We know we can control our lives, why not just live it to the fullest and not pledge ourselves to certain religions? This is like fascism but except for nationalism you replace it with faith in religion.

(I'm getting offtopic, so I'm stopping from this point and returning to the homosexual discussion)

You can't distinguish between the two? Let me show you:

A)I think she doesn't like me.

B)I know she doesn't like me.

1)I think she likes strawberries.

2)I know she likes strawberries.

Tell me that the statements A and B, 1 and 2, are indistinguishable.

Yes, they are indistinguishable. The only "difference" is what other people think of it when you say it. I'll just work with A and B first.

If "I know she doesn't like me", then it follows that "I think she doesn't like me." Conversely, suppose that "I think she doesn't like me." Suppose that "I don't know that she doesn't like me." If I don't know, how can I pass judgment on it? Then I can't think it. If so, then I can't not know that she doesn't like me, and so "I know she doesn't like me."

Yes, there are serious language issues. When people say "I think ___", what they mean is "I don't know what I think, so I'm gonna commit myself to ___", or they mean "I will conjecture that ___", not that they actually "think it" think it.

OK, now to address 1 and 2:

I'm guessing the distinction you will make is that until she informs me beyond a doubt that she likes strawberries, 1 is true but 2 is not. However, "beyond a doubt" is impossible. Say she told me she likes strawberries. What if she lied? Say she ate strawberries with gusto in my presence. What if there were some other circumstances surrounding that, like, say, a bet that I didn't know about? Say she told the truth, and then 2 seconds afterwards, a strawberry is chucked at her and hits her in the eye, and now she no longer likes strawberries. How can you know "beyond a doubt" that she likes strawberries? Is the distinction arbitrary? If so, then there's no real distinction between thinking it and knowing it.

Speaking of which, the arguments are interchangeable between the two examples. I don't think it was necessary to include both examples.

So the difference would be, between "know" and "think" is that when you have "know", as in "I know she doesn't like me", you are stating that as a fact. "I think she doesn't like me" is you are not sure, so you are giving a guess. If you make it opposite, "I don't know that she doesn't like me", makes the context seem you know, as of now, that she does like you, but you haven't heard of any evidence from anyone else that she doesn't. Same with, "I don't think that she doesn't like me", you are once again, not sure if she actually doesn't like you. So "know" and "think" are indistinguishable.

You did not just say that...please tell me you did not just say that...*runs to avoid fallout from Dark Bring posting this link: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html * (from the religion thread)

LOL that is my joke of the year. Great stuff you have there.

If I don't know, how can I pass judgment on it? Then I can't think it. You don't know have to know to pass judgement on it. We usually call such an act an assumption, or a speculation.


If "I know she doesn't like me", then it follows that "I think she doesn't like me."The simple flaw in your proof is: without B) as a precursor, A) does not support B).


. . . . . . . What if she lied? . . . . . . How can you know "beyond a doubt" that she likes strawberries? Is the distinction arbitrary? If so, then there's no real distinction between thinking it and knowing it.The distinction is not arbitrary. The truth, whether she likes strawberry or not, can be easily verified. It's the same as asking you how you can know "beyond a doubt" if God exists or not. Is your opinion arbitrary? When a decision is your opinion, subjected to your own judgement or preference, is it arbitrary?

I think that Mr. Bush was actually a woman.

I know that Mr. Bush was actually a woman.

Then is there no difference between speculation and exclamation of facts? To tie in from my first reply, if you must know before you can think, then where comes all the assumptions and speculations in us humans?


Speaking of which, the arguments are interchangeable between the two examples. I don't think it was necessary to include both examples.That's your arbitrary opinion. Or is it? Besides, how do I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were not lying? How does the judge know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the witnesses were not lying, that the jury were not lying? How does the parties in the contract know that everyone binding by the agreement will abide by the contract?

The central theme of your argument is but an appeal to probability: The logical idea behind this fallacy is that, since the probability is very high, it is best to act as if it is true. So, tell me, how do you believe in anything in this world? Are all the things that you know merely your arbitrary opinion?

The truth, whether she likes strawberry or not, can be easily verified.

No, it can't. You say that after the entire point of my paragraph is that it can't be easily verified (in fact, it can't be verified at all), and then you don't back up your claim.


Is your opinion arbitrary? When a decision is your opinion, subjected to your own judgement or preference, is it arbitrary?

It's not arbitrary to you, but it is arbitrary to everyone else who is viewing your decision.


The central theme of your argument is but an appeal to probability: The logical idea behind this fallacy is that, since the probability is very high, it is best to act as if it is true. So, tell me, how do you believe in anything in this world?
Like I said before, I think what I know, and I know what I think. So long as this holds, I CAN believe in things in this world (or outside it, for that matter). However, the moment I try to draw a distinction between knowing and thinking, all of this falls apart.

I remember a debate teacher saying that you should never say a sentence that starts with "I think", since everything you say is something you already think, even if you state it as if you knew it.

Now, since you're so eager to distinguish between "thinking" and "knowing", why don't you give us a clear definition of what you mean by each?

Now, since you're so eager to distinguish between "thinking" and "knowing", why don't you give us a clear definition of what you mean by each?But I already have demonstrated my point. Again:

A)I think that Mr. Bush was actually a woman.

B)I know that Mr. Bush was actually a woman.

From my heartburn, I think that I have indigestion, but my GP knows that I have angina.

It's that simple. Do you not speculate yourself? If you do, than you can tell that A) is a speculation. B), in contrast, is a firm claim of certainty.

You can think of the results you'd get for your exam, but would you know of your exam results until you get them?

What I dont get is, you see that we have our own set of laws and rules that should not be broken (Rights and laws), however many people follow another set of laws and rules (Christianity and such.) Since many laws contradict the human laws, why dont people just follow the laws we made. We know we made them, we had proof that the laws were established. However, how would we know that god really established such laws and not someone who is establishing all these laws for his/her/it own benefit? I know it cannot be explained, but faith can only go so far and people take faith to the next level proving that it is infact something that controls our lives when we have already known that we control our lives through our own common sense?

Religion is optional, but some people take it to be their own lives. (I consider priority of yourself over religion.) We know we can control our lives, why not just live it to the fullest and not pledge ourselves to certain religions? This is like fascism but except for nationalism you replace it with faith in religion.

(I'm getting offtopic, so I'm stopping from this point and returning to the homosexual discussion)
Because religion is an intended lifestyle. What's the point if it isn't? it's not something you just do on the weekend. Jesus didn't only do good things every once in a while.

__________

And as for the "think"/"know" argument, all I was saying is that they are not opposites, so if I think something but you know something it doesn't necessarily prove me wrong.


You did not just say that...please tell me you did not just say that...*runs to avoid fallout from Dark Bring posting this link: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/...ian_10-02.html * (from the religion thread)
Who cares about that link? Maybe you should read the entire Biblical passage and not just the line they conveniently cut out for you. You must also understand the time it was written, and that simply because we find slavery wrong today does not mean that it actually is. (dont interpret that last sentence too much you'll get ideas about me =P)

Heck, then the whole bible means nothing. We must understand the time it was written in and just because people beleaved it was right before doesnt make it so now.

*kicks you into Africa and tells the locals your pro-slavery*

What kind of bastard would even think that salvery is fine on any level and situation?

in the newspaper today there was a story about a vicars son raping a woman whilst forcing her to read out passages from the old testament about women being submissive to men.

just goes to show how people can do wicked things and use the bible as a scapegoat, just like suicide bombers using the koran.
in conclusion, i'm trying to say that maybe the bibles views are a little old fashioned to say the least, and shouldn't probably be used in supporting views in this day and age.

People who use the Bible as a defence are hypocrites.

“And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 24:16

“Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” Exodus 31:15

Let's die together. ^_^

“Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” Exodus 31:15

That doesnt give any wiggle room what so every... So I guess were all going to die, because everyone works at somthing, one way or another, on at least one Sunday of their life..

Just because the views of today are different from the views of the past doesnt make those of today right. The Bible is "old-fashioned" as you say because times were not supposed to change. Every second that time progresses it becomes harder and harder to follow the Bible.

Just because the views of today are different from the views of the past doesnt make those of today right. The Bible is "old-fashioned" as you say because times were not supposed to change. Every second that time progresses it becomes harder and harder to follow the Bible.

Do you really follow the entire Bible to the best of your ability?

Just because the views of today are different from the views of the past doesnt make those of today right. The Bible is "old-fashioned" as you say because times were not supposed to change. Every second that time progresses it becomes harder and harder to follow the Bible.

And just because the veiws of today are diffrent from the veiws of the past doesnt make the veiws of the past right.

Maybe it is time we stop following the Bible. If people beleaved everything thats old only because they just think that old means it more true, then we would all be eating raw meat just because fire is evil and its easier to not cook it.

Veiws have to change, because if they didnt, even the opinions and veiws of the Bible wouldnt exisit. Its evolution in a diffrent way.

Do you really follow the entire Bible to the best of your ability?
I try extremely hard to.

@R_D:I never said it did.

But maybe the tiimes were never supposed to change. Tell me how we have really progressed in the last two thousand years.

We found out that salvery, as a majority, was wrong. We found out that the Earth isnt flat. We found out that having contact with a female when she is in her menstrual period isnt going to kill you. We found out that there is life after love. We found out that man is prone to war.

We found out that life must go on. If you dont like it, theres plenty of caves on this planet of many opinions.

~

Now, seriously, how have we progressed in the last two thousand years. Well, the first duh is technology. From rowing boats that are built poorly to going into space and comming back home in one peice. From not knowing how big the earth is to having 3D pictures of it at your finger tips 24/7. From bearly knowing things that happend 50 miles away in an hour, to knowing what happened 5000 miles away in 3 minutes.

Now, how has the world progressed from 4000 bc to 2000 bc?

A lot, apprently and obviously.

We found out that there is life after love. We found out that man is prone to war.

We found out that life must go on.
So mankind hadn't known this 2000 years ago? Methinks it's just you trying to be intelligent and witty.

EDIT: Not that...I've ever contributed much to this topic. :(

We found out that salvery, as a majority, was wrong. We found out that the Earth isnt flat. We found out that having contact with a female when she is in her menstrual period isnt going to kill you. We found out that there is life after love. We found out that man is prone to war.

We found out that life must go on. If you dont like it, theres plenty of caves on this planet of many opinions.

~

Now, seriously, how have we progressed in the last two thousand years. Well, the first duh is technology. From rowing boats that are built poorly to going into space and comming back home in one peice. From not knowing how big the earth is to having 3D pictures of it at your finger tips 24/7. From bearly knowing things that happend 50 miles away in an hour, to knowing what happened 5000 miles away in 3 minutes.

Now, how has the world progressed from 4000 bc to 2000 bc?

A lot, apprently and obviously.
How is any of that progress? What's so great about going into space and looking at a 3-D simulation of the world?

alot
it means we realise that the earth isnt the center of the universee. it means that we know there isnt magic and we dont need to burn people who dissagree with us.

it shows we no longer need the simplified version of things given to us in the bible

alot
it means we realise that the earth isnt the center of the universee. it means that we know there isnt magic and we dont need to burn people who dissagree with us.

it shows we no longer need the simplified version of things given to us in the bible
absolutely.

You could have gotten a lot from my first paragraph.


We found out that salvery, as a majority, was wrong. We found out that the Earth isnt flat. We found out that having contact with a female when she is in her menstrual period isnt going to kill you. We found out that there is life after love. We found out that man is prone to war.

As silly as it gets, it still shows that humans as a whole learned to have more human ethics for one another. Shunning people for stupid reasons like because of their monthly body actions is somthing of the 2000 year past. burrying your doughter live at birth only because you dont want a her is finaly labled as wrong. Common sense is at its new high.

Yes, the world will never be perfect, but its a whole lot better then before. Sickness is down, life spans are up and inteligence *for most* is up too.

You could have gotten a lot from my first paragraph.



As silly as it gets, it still shows that humans as a whole learned to have more human ethics for one another. Shunning people for stupid reasons like because of their monthly body actions is somthing of the 2000 year past. burrying your doughter live at birth only because you dont want a her is finaly labled as wrong. Common sense is at its new high.

Yes, the world will never be perfect, but its a whole lot better then before. Sickness is down, life spans are up and inteligence *for most* is up too.
Sickness being down and life spans being up are not examples of progress. They are examples of scientists delaying death. I think it's pathetic. I never take medicine, I never go to a doctor. I'm not being cynical but why is delaying death such a good thing?
Inventions like the tv and internet are not progress either. Now people have more ways to steal your identity from halfway around the world. The average American citizen now knows the 5 main characters of The Simpsons but doesn't know the 5 rights we are guaranteed by the First Amendment. It was estimated that before children become teenagers they will witness over 200,000 violent acts (verbal of physical) on the television or radio. Nice progress

Ummm, I just did a big priject on homosexuality and I found out so much. For one thing it is something people are born with, but that doesn't mean that enviormant doesn't have its own role in it. I believe that homosexuality is a trait, like blue eyes, it is recessive. I mean why couldn't it be hereditary? Just like eye color, heterosexuality could be a dominate the recessive trait of homosexuality. The mojority of the people I interviewed said that they DID have a relitive who was a homosexual, so it COULD have been passed down and for some reason shown up in that person. But all of this is going a little far. Then all sexual preferences would have to be hereditary.

makes sense, nature creating a dissposition and nuture activating it...now all we need to do is find concordance rates with MZ and DZ twins

Ummm, I just did a big priject on homosexuality and I found out so much. For one thing it is something people are born with, but that doesn't mean that enviormant doesn't have its own role in it. I believe that homosexuality is a trait, like blue eyes, it is recessive. I mean why couldn't it be hereditary? Just like eye color, heterosexuality could be a dominate the recessive trait of homosexuality. The mojority of the people I interviewed said that they DID have a relitive who was a homosexual, so it COULD have been passed down and for some reason shown up in that person. But all of this is going a little far. Then all sexual preferences would have to be hereditary.

your name brings back scary memories...


Sickness being down and life spans being up are not examples of progress. They are examples of scientists delaying death. I think it's pathetic. I never take medicine, I never go to a doctor. I'm not being cynical but why is delaying death such a good thing?
Inventions like the tv and internet are not progress either. Now people have more ways to steal your identity from halfway around the world. The average American citizen now knows the 5 main characters of The Simpsons but doesn't know the 5 rights we are guaranteed by the First Amendment. It was estimated that before children become teenagers they will witness over 200,000 violent acts (verbal of physical) on the television or radio. Nice progress

Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not progression. And if that isnt concidered progression, what the hell is? And about the the bold statement, I find that a bit weird. But hey, your loss.

@Darksage
no doctor eh? wow, so i take it you havent had a melengitus c shot, or any imunisations. You seem to therefore befieve that its alright for you to impose your values on ohters by risking there lives.

whether or not we like it, humans have progressed forward as well as taking jumps backwards, sure there's more equality among the sexs but with all the violence stuff, we've jumped backwards. just accept homosexuality is something some people have to deal with and we just have to accept it. it's like white people accepting coloured people, we managed that, y not gay people as well?
my friend's gay, but he's just an ordinary person and he's a really great friend.

Sickness being down and life spans being up are not examples of progress. They are examples of scientists delaying death. I think it's pathetic. I never take medicine, I never go to a doctor. I'm not being cynical but why is delaying death such a good thing?
Inventions like the tv and internet are not progress either. Now people have more ways to steal your identity from halfway around the world. The average American citizen now knows the 5 main characters of The Simpsons but doesn't know the 5 rights we are guaranteed by the First Amendment. It was estimated that before children become teenagers they will witness over 200,000 violent acts (verbal of physical) on the television or radio. Nice progress

You're just being stubborn.

It's not pathetic; I'm pretty sure you can't achieve half the things scientists have - and that's what progress is: achievement. So while some things go down (which I'm not going to deny), lots of things go up.

EDIT: @PFT-Shadow: I agree with you. ;)

Your response is rather foggy, Marlon; it's hard to tell whether you're an advocate for or against homosexuality. >>; One day you say that it's an abomination, then you practically support it (though indirectly) the next day. XD

Your response is rather foggy, Marlon; it's hard to tell whether you're an advocate for or against homosexuality. >>; One day you say that it's an abomination, then you practically support it (though indirectly) the next day. XD

*cough* XD

Seriously, I just simply realized I'm pro'ly gonna have to live in a world with plenty of them, so I'd have to learn to accept it. Not that I see it as a virtue; I'm pretty sure most homos lead somewhat difficult lives.

Why make it harder for them? ;)

and u wonder y they lead difficult lives, most people don't accept them for wat they are, it's stupid. i think do watever u want and if u r something, be proud of it, it's like ur nationality, skin color and hair color. we accept everyone about their nationality, looks, etc. y not sexual preferences?

Seriously, I just simply realized I'm pro'ly gonna have to live in a world with plenty of them, so I'd have to learn to accept it. Not that I see it as a virtue; I'm pretty sure most homos lead somewhat difficult lives.

Why make it harder for them? ;)
Thank you, thank you, thank you! That has to be one of the more mature answers I've seen around here.

Accepting gays and such is normal for me. look at my pic in my profile and see if you can tell what gender I actually am.

I remember that a long time ago (year +) somewhere in this thread (or maybe it was gay marriage thread, feh) that I said I dislike homosexuality and consider it unnatural.

Then Angelic took a shot at me for being an ass, and yeah I figured maybe I could open up a bit. No one around me's homo anyway.

Also said yesterday in trans thread that "Anything goes as it doesn't involve me in it personally"

.....

now here's the thing:

I got approached by a guy in a bar today. I refuse to go into much detail of the event itself, but it was enough for us both to end up in the pavement outside after a brawl, (... more like one sided beating, but fuck. Took three bouncers to stop me) and after about 10 minutes of one sided shouting, we agreed not to sue each other on accounts of sexual harrassment / assault.

Guess how stereotypical I might be now if I get told you're gay.

Here's a word of advice to homo's who want to improve their social acceptance rating;
Stop thinking as if the other person's homo too. Hitting on other people of the same gender (who are complete strangers by the way) is not "expressing yourself". Its harassment. Be open about it if you want to, but For Fuck's Sake leave alone those who have said explicitly that they don't share your viewpoint.



Wrote "homo" instead of "gay" just to be PC.. but then now it sounds offensive. Maybe maybe not. I'm too angry about it to care anyway.

wait, how badly did this guy hit on you? i mean, god, i been hit on before by a guy, was certainly wierd, but i canme straight out and said i wasnt that wa inclinded. we laughed and e backed off, simple.

I'm not one to get into fights with people.
just walk away and let someone else deal with it.

I hate fighting but if I have to I will, and I'll put the person in the hospital. but I have been fortunate enough never to have been in that situation.

I don't know what all hapend but it probably could have been avoided.

I don't know what all hapend but it probably could have been avoided.

Avoided at the expense my self humiliation, yes.
Now that I've calmed down enough so I won't say fuck every other word when I'm talking about it, Maybe I'll disclose a little more than just "This guy hit on me"

*Content WILL offend. Don't read if you're under 18, and ESPECIALLY don't read if you're sensitive about this kind of shit. It might get you paranoid.*


After trying a long convo(and he nagged a fuckin' lot too, like as if he thought I was gay but pretended I wasn't or w/e) with me mostly saying "No" and "Fuck off", he pissed off. So yeah, problem solved, until I later went to the men's room. He happend to be there too, on the floor, drunk/stoned/zoned out/whatever. Anyway I do my business, and then was about to leave when he said something from behind, I turned in reflex, and twisted my body around to dodge something that shot out at my face. Still got some on my left arm. I don't have to tell you what happend afterwards.

I consider my actions of breaking a few bones justified. Hell I used to break soaked wood boards as routine training.



Now MAYBE if it was just some drunk retard that did it as a prank I MIGHT'VE forgiven him just with a kick in the guts, but cuz it was the same guy that tried to hit on me.. well your brain starts simulating weird situations.

Maybe I overreacted, maybe I didn't. But sure as hell its making me cringe when I see a homo now.

everyone acts completely different when they're drunk. sure i understand ur reactions to homo's now, but i think it's an over reaction. just learn to not generalise from that one experience. if that happened to me, yeah i guess i would be apprehensive about them too, but it was just one guy. not every homo is like that. the one's i know (i'm not a homosexual) are great people and they're also really smart.
i'm not saying that u r someone that generalises and is stereotypical, what u went through excuses ur after reactions. i just think that u should try and get over the cringing part.

There's this homo at school. He's the most annoying fuck. He waltzes around letting everyone know he's gay.

Though it's unjustifyable to think he's annoying, coz the girls will discredit you as homophobic.

:(

all you had to do was wash up and walk out, he was obviously not in the right of mind. it is manlier to walk away then it is to Prove you can beat up a druged out loser. besides I wouldn't use a mens room so I don't have that problem.
Also, technichally by law since you threw the first punch if he had decided to sue you he would have won, it t's the same as punching me if I called you a name, except I would have you on the ground ready to snap your arm and I would still be able to sue you especially if there were witnesses to say you punched first. Humiliation is a small price to pay when compared to a criminal record, and you're damn lucky you weren't sued cause you would have lost. so it's not worth it

Easy for you to say when you are not the one subjected to said humiliation, nor as you say, likely to be.

There's this homo at school. He's the most annoying fuck. He waltzes around letting everyone know he's gay.

Though it's unjustifyable to think he's annoying, coz the girls will discredit you as homophobic.

:(

People like that should get their genitials (sp) chopped off =_=

mind u, straight guys waltz around letting everyone know they're straight as well, should they have their gennitals cut off as well?

i've been humiliated heaps, at least when u were, u were alone with that one person who was humiliating u. they'd come in their groups and pay me out about how i looked, height, etc. in front of everyone. just ignoring it and walking away works. shows that you won't put up with their crap. fighting, yelling at them just makes it so much worse.

i agree that guy was acting like an arsehole, but he was DRUNK!!!!!!!!!

BEGBIE - Look, I ain't no fookin' booftie and that's the end of it orrighte?
RENTON - Hey, let's face it, it could've been wonderful
BEGBIE - *snarls* Aye now you listen 'ere yew piece of junkie shit. A joke's a fookin' joke but you mention that agen and I'll CUT YEW UP.

:lol:

:unsure:

all you had to do was wash up and walk out, he was obviously not in the right of mind. it is manlier to walk away then it is to Prove you can beat up a druged out loser.

That is the most offensive statement I've seen all week. The rest of your post was just as annoying (although since it is true, I can't say much about the lawsuit part)

A. Someone just wanked at you. aimed for your face. You DO NOT THINK CLEARLY(If you can still think at all) in such circumstances.
B. This was a homo guy that tried to get on me for a good 20 minutes. He had already pissed me off.
C. Add situations A and B. Now before you have the time to say "WTF" after A, situation B reminds you that this guy is also a homo. Not only you're pissed off at this guy, but you're also afraid he might try something else. All of this stuff goes on in the subconscious level, and its all too late when you get back rationality.

Pissed off, you relieve a bit of stress chucking it out of your system for some feedback. Sure most of them make sense, "yeah that's bit too far" "naw you didn't do enough" etc.



Then someone says "You should've walked away"



Let's see you think clearly after seeing a homicidal maniac sharpen a knife in your kitchen. (not quite the same, but close enough in metaphorical sense)



Apparently these days you've gotta be a homophile or you're homophobic. Awesome.

That is the most offensive statement I've seen all week. The rest of your post was just as annoying (although since it is true, I can't say much about the lawsuit part)

A. Someone just wanked at you. aimed for your face. You DO NOT THINK CLEARLY(If you can still think at all) in such circumstances.
B. This was a homo guy that tried to get on me for a good 20 minutes. He had already pissed me off.
C. Add situations A and B. Now before you have the time to say "WTF" after A, situation B reminds you that this guy is also a homo. Not only you're pissed off at this guy, but you're also afraid he might try something else. All of this stuff goes on in the subconscious level, and its all too late when you get back rationality.

Pissed off, you relieve a bit of stress chucking it out of your system for some feedback. Sure most of them make sense, "yeah that's bit too far" "naw you didn't do enough" etc.



Then someone says "You should've walked away"



Let's see you think clearly after seeing a homicidal maniac sharpen a knife in your kitchen. (not quite the same, but close enough in metaphorical sense)



Apparently these days you've gotta be a homophile or you're homophobic. Awesome.

HOLY SHIT.

I thought it was spit, honestly. :(

But no, you were right to do what you did. Kudos :D

feh, maybe I should've said so from the start. but nobody wants to say they got wanked on x_x

Indeed.


Let's see you think clearly after seeing a homicidal maniac sharpen a knife in your kitchen. (not quite the same, but close enough in metaphorical sense)


OUCH

:lol:

I would've broken him in half.

http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=832

if a person bothers you in a bar for 20 minutes isn't it simple logic to "Leave the damn bar"? If someone tries to humiliate me infront of others I usually ignore it and walk away and let everyone else think that the person is just an mean ass hole. sure I could beat the peron to hell, but it's not worth it to me I have nothing to prove to anyone.

Walking away always look good on paper.

it looks intelegent and mature

What, I thought you had nothing to prove to anyone.

I don't, but when I see a person walk away it makes me think they have some brains on them

I don't think I have the need to prove that I have brains to other people, and I daresay that Kou has little need to prove that as well.

I honestly don't care, what's done is done. I think he acted somewhat like a punk, but hey whatever. it is however a good way to present yourself if you want to keep gays away, and decent women will avoid you too. but hey it's his life to do with as he pleases.

to be honest I would of done the same thing as kou although I dont know when I would of stopped. depends when my mind realises what is going on. heck I had this gay guy hit on me once. even AFTER i told him i was on a date to meet my girlfriend. he went to shake my hand as to depart and i took it as a friendly gesture. me being me I'm as softa and friendly as anything so I went to shake his hand then he started rubbing the inside of my hand rubbing his thumb in circular directions. my days it made me cringe and when i went to pull away he held on tighter and i had to yank my hand away from him. Now in a situation like that I was able to walk away feeling sick. A guy who was there said why didnt you smack him. heck im not like that but if a guy went and spunked on me damn straight im gonna knock the fucker out. Try telling a girl to go wash up after a perv has just spunked in her hair face or mid part of her trousers. hell no, you know that girl is gonna slap him and get all her guy mates to knock the perv out. kou was simply in the position to do it himself

It would've been much more mature to have just walked away instead of starting a fight. So what if you're embarrassed? Live with it. People live with being humiliated everday.

Sure, beating up someone means your strong physically, but someone who is truly strong will walk away.

Yes, you'd live with being humiliated everyday, wouldn't you? And there's nothing you can do about it, right? So why is someone as strong and mature as you being humiliated everyday? Or do you have to be humiliated everyday to be strong and mature? Heh.

beating someone up for humiliating u doesn't work. they're friends gonna here their version and come after u. walking away is the best way but the hardest

Well said Stormchild.
While yes people do humiliate me alot, I don't let it show. I will usually end up crying about it at home. So it does affect me, but I get over it and get on with my life, and I do it without fighting.

I honestly don't care, what's done is done. I think he acted somewhat like a punk, but hey whatever. it is however a good way to present yourself if you want to keep gays away, and decent women will avoid you too. but hey it's his life to do with as he pleases.

So next time you see a gay guy try to wank on your face, you can stand still, catch it all with your face and smile and wash up and leave and be "manly", okay. Oh wait. You're a girl. That won't happen to you. Isn't that awesome?

As I say again,(more clearly this time) you can't talk like that if it actually happens to you.


I will usually end up crying about it at home.

So you prefer to sniff at home and suffer than straight things out?...

Somebody humiliates you, then you gotta sort it out. Keep let them trample over you and the next thing you know, you're at the bottom. Violence isn't the only way and I know most of the time it just aggrevates things, but it works.

I've hurt enough people in my life. I am not intrested in getting in any more fights. yes I know how to fight, but I chose not to. I can be dangerous, and that part of me will most likely never truley leave, but I atleast can control it. I wanted to put a person in the hospital for insulting me a few weeks ago, but anyone who takes joy in belittling others to feel big obviously isn't worth the time to beat the shit out of.
Unlike some people I can back my words when I say most people don't stand a chance, but over the years I have come to terms with the fact that fighting is pointless. it doesn't make you look cool, and it doesn't make you look tough. I am tougher than I look, and it would be foolish to underestimate me. Fighting is a last resort only for me, and I am glad I have not had to seriously fight someone. I can deal with a bit of humiliation, infact I am used to it. I'm done talking about this. you made your choice, and what's done is done.

there is a big difference between fighting because you got insulted and fighting becaude someone spunked on you. you wouldnt understand cause im sure you'd like that sort of thing but for any male with self respect you cant just walk away. and the people who do say "walk away is being more manly" over a situation like that, they're normally people who cant do anything themselves and are in no position to do so. so they've spent all their lives having to walk away from anything that comes they're way so they just end up being trampled on by anyone and everyone and their only comfort is to think of themselves as the bigger man to just walk away

What if it went up Kou's nose and gave him AIDS?

:unsure:

No matter how I see it Kou was the victim here, he is more than humilated, it can be even considered sexual harrassment. Just because the person is drunk, it does mean he is blameless. Can you see Kou going to the police station to report this? If Kou walks away, he will look like he condones the act. If he hits the guy, it will give a warning to that person not to do that sort of thing to others. Yeah, and that bit of physical injury will be little if Kou gets AIDS the way tourist mention though I don't think it is possible.

u can't AIDS from that. it's fluid to fluid contact and blood to blood contact (i'm pretty sure)

i believe kou did something what mostly others will too if facing same situation as him. things just get out of control under that situation. i definitely will beat that guys too the third time i saw him like kou's case.

Though walking away is really a brave and mature act to do. it can only be done by someone whom i believe, have really undergone the humuliating situation many times until they just get used to it and know how to handle the situation. tats wat i think.

So next time you see a gay guy try to wank on your face, you can stand still, catch it all with your face and smile and wash up and leave and be "manly", okay. Oh wait. You're a girl. That won't happen to you. Isn't that awesome?

As I say again,(more clearly this time) you can't talk like that if it actually happens to you.



So you prefer to sniff at home and suffer than straight things out?...

Somebody humiliates you, then you gotta sort it out. Keep let them trample over you and the next thing you know, you're at the bottom. Violence isn't the only way and I know most of the time it just aggrevates things, but it works.


First of all..

Next time someone of the same gender tries to hit on me.. I walk away..

And picking a fight isn't 'sorting it out'. It's making things worst. I don't believe you shoulda just stood there, but it would have been A LOT smarter [and a lot more mature] to walk away. You're not gonna get to the bottom if you walk away.

And Sephiroth, I don't know about the other people who say that it's more many to walk away, but I know I'm fully capable of defending myself and hurting anyone who tries to get in my way but I don't because I'm mature.

man whatever. kou did try to walk away but the guy spunked on him SPUNKED ON HIM FFS. it wasnt even spitting i think being spat on 10 times is least embarrassing than being spunked on anyone with any kind of self respect would have done the same as kou. IF the guy was just drunk and masturbating for no reason or he was horny and it hit me then id think WTF. thts disgusting. then I suppose I could walk away. but to deliberately AIM at someone its just wrong

That's why he shoulda left when the guy started harassing him in the first place.. :\

hmmm well I don't know how old you are (no offence I just dont know if your legal to go into a bar) but when your out with your friends and some guy starts hassling you if you reacted then people could say you sohuld of just ignored him. people would be going from place to place if they left everytime they got bugged by someone. It would seem childish as well.

You get some well stuck up girls that look depressed and down and then there's me with a bubbly attitude all happy. If i turned round to her and go " you ok?" the stuck up ones give you a filthy stare up and down then walk off. man it annoys the hell out of me. but what if they left the bar. do you know how many bars theyd have to leave. loads. and on this occassion it was switched around because it was someone nice turning round to the bitch. but in kou's case it was the bitch turning round to him. It would only be considered an option to leave the bar if the guy was considered a threat or dangerous. As far as kou knew, he was just a homo trying to chat him up. annoying yes, but no reason to walk out the bar.

hmmm well I don't know how old you are (no offence I just dont know if your legal to go into a bar) but when your out with your friends and some guy starts hassling you if you reacted then people could say you sohuld of just ignored him. people would be going from place to place if they left everytime they got bugged by someone. It would seem childish as well.

You get some well stuck up girls that look depressed and down and then there's me with a bubbly attitude all happy. If i turned round to her and go " you ok?" the stuck up ones give you a filthy stare up and down then walk off. man it annoys the hell out of me. but what if they left the bar. do you know how many bars theyd have to leave. loads. and on this occassion it was switched around because it was someone nice turning round to the bitch. but in kou's case it was the bitch turning round to him. It would only be considered an option to leave the bar if the guy was considered a threat or dangerous. As far as kou knew, he was just a homo trying to chat him up. annoying yes, but no reason to walk out the bar.

If you're just being bothered, no you shouldn't just leave right away. If you're being HARASSED then yes you should leave. There's no reason to start a fight either way.

Big difference between being bothered and being harassed.

and at the time kou was being bothered. not harrassed

@Zikiru
This is also more of a guy thing, being hit on is one thing, but walking into a bog and having that done to you crosses a line that will make most people flip, not to mention the effect of drink.
If someone pisses me off at a club or bar i just go to a differnt part of the bar. I aint gunna leave that easy.

If someone spunked on me, I would definately punch him to oblivion (hyperbole). No one would like being spunked on, and in addition its nasty. IMO, I think that what Kou did was not over the line. Getting drunk is not a good enough excuse to spunk at someone else. Its your responsibility to drink responsibly, and if your taking drugs I dont even need to explain myself.

Sephiroth, he was being sexually harassed, it seems.

PFT, guys should also be able to be mature.

PFT, guys should also be able to be mature.And not spunk on people.

And not spunk on people.


Yes, the guy that was harassing someone was also immature, but that doesn't mean there's a need to be immature in return.

its called instinct. Or basically human nature (or habit?). You wouldnt like it if someone spunked on you when you didnt know do you? You wouldnt just stand there and talk to them about it or ask them to apologize. Even then it wont get the message across to the zoned out guy since Kou already has told him to go away, and persistently he doesnt. The only way to get through to him is what Kou did, and that is to hurt him physically.

The point is, the guy continued to bother Kou even though Kou told him to go away many times, and in return the guy spunked on him and the guy got what he deserved. There is such thing as crossing the line to the point where two wrongs actually make a right.

its called instinct. Or basically human nature (or habit?). You wouldnt like it if someone spunked on you when you didnt know do you? You wouldnt just stand there and talk to them about it or ask them to apologize. Even then it wont get the message across to the zoned out guy since Kou already has told him to go away, and persistently he doesnt. The only way to get through to him is what Kou did, and that is to hurt him physically.

The point is, the guy continued to bother Kou even though Kou told him to go away many times, and in return the guy spunked on him and the guy got what he deserved. There is such thing as crossing the line to the point where two wrongs actually make a right.


If you're mature, you should be able to control your instinct. Of course I wouldn't like it if someone spunked on me, and no I wouldn't stand there and talk to them about it or ask them to apologize.. I would leave.

It's called maturity.

If you leave, I dont think that really shows that your mature. Someone has committed a fault. Do you leave it alone? You treat it like it is a random person who spunked you. Well this isnt a random person. Its a guy who repeadedly bothers someone and then did it to their face. Just leaving will not change anything, yet instead tells the guy that he can do it again.

There are times when leaving things alone doesnt solve anything, which means your maturity isnt even going anywhere.

Some people tend to use "Maturity" as excuses to not to stand up for themselves. pathetic. Walking away from a situation and being mature are two completely different issues.

How many times do I have to say "you gotta go through it to know"?..


Anyway, I ask that everything about my bar incident stops now, we've gone 3 pages off topic-ish, and there was enough discussed. Obviously we're all different and I'm not going to be persuaded to becoming some pacifist who smiles upon every shitbag that gets on top of him.

If you leave, I dont think that really shows that your mature. Someone has committed a fault. Do you leave it alone? You treat it like it is a random person who spunked you. Well this isnt a random person. Its a guy who repeadedly bothers someone and then did it to their face. Just leaving will not change anything, yet instead tells the guy that he can do it again.

There are times when leaving things alone doesnt solve anything, which means your maturity isnt even going anywhere.


That's why you report them for harassment..

-.-

leave it now

Does anybody remember this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Not to be ignorant, but being a Christian, I think it's not right to be a homosexual. I fully support the idea through my religion, but that doesn't stop me from being friends and talking with them. I myself have couple of gay friends and one co-worker that's gay as well. They're all good and funny people to hang around with. People who hate homosexuals are a lost cause sorry to say.

One thing thought, I am against gay marriages. I mean, it's fine if they live together but to the point where they want to be married is just kind of offensive to my religion. Sorry if I offended anyone but that's my logic.

Not to be ignorant, but being a Christian, I know it's not right to be a homosexual.

correction: you think it's wrong. Saying you know it is wrong is exactly what does make you sound ignorant.

Well, sorry so I changed the wording. Man English is harsh language.

Xspeed, you mean it's your Belief, because it is not logical to deny marrage to two people who truely love eachother weather they be gay or straight

lol well we've all heard the sayings.

"adam and eve not adam and steve" and " i now pronounce you husband and wife not butch and bitch"

I mean, it's fine if they live together but to the point where they want to be married is just kind of offensive to my religion. Sorry if I offended anyone but that's my logic.

How could it be offensive to your religion? If we start talking like that, you being christian is offensive to my religion. I'm an atheïst (or whatever it's called) so I don't believe in God. OMG you believe in a God, I'm so offended just because you believe in something different!

xpeed remeber the proverb "pearls upon swine". At times no matter how you may feel about saving them or getting them to change, most people will not listen yet they only turn to mock you. *thanks angelic for perfect example*
At times my friend keep quiet and let them fill their boots as it won't affect us which is why I have the same opinion as kou. I don't mind them so long as they leave me alone

Does anybody remember this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

Oh yes. I've watched his movie. They made a movie out of this story if I remember. I've watched it last 3 years ago. It was indeed a sad sad story. The last scene showed the people of the whole community waving their showers shunning gays within their area saying gays were the cause of this atrocity not to mention that a gay individual was killed and victimized by straight guys wanting to rob him. And I could say the two girlfriends of the robbers were pretty stupid.

xpeed remeber the proverb "pearls upon swine". At times no matter how you may feel about saving them or getting them to change, most people will not listen yet they only turn to mock you. *thanks angelic for perfect example*
At times my friend keep quiet and let them fill their boots as it won't affect us which is why I have the same opinion as kou. I don't mind them so long as they leave me alone

But Angelic has a more than valid point.

and something that bothers me: How come some guys/girls can bash gay guys all day but then go home and watch a lesbian porno and be all ga-ga over it?... It's still gay! hello?! *knock knock knock* ... just pisses me off :heh:

But Angelic has a more than valid point.

and something that bothers me: How come some guys/girls can bash gay guys all day but then go home and watch a lesbian porno and be all ga-ga over it?... It's still gay! hello?! *knock knock knock* ... just pisses me off :heh:
LOL


I honestly dont care anymore. It may be against Christianity but thats the Old Testament, God's new covenant doesnt say anything about it. Love is love I suppose. I just dont think homosexual marriage is right. Constitutionally, anyway

Darksage, I keep having trouble with understanding this, so my apologies if I am persistant with this. Let me ask some questions:

A.) What is the point of the old testiment?

Obviously, the biblical god in the old testiment kills thousands of people through plague, nature, etc. He orders people to kill other people, demands sacrifices in exchange for lives, requires bizarre rituals, and basically can be seen as pretty ruthless. Yet in the New Testiment, God seems to lighten up quite a bit.

So if the laws of the old testiment are to be disregarded, what point does the history in the Old Testiment have? Lessons? Surely you can find all those lessons more clearly made in the new Testiment.

B.) Where does it say to disregard the Old Testiment laws?

I believe that there may be a few places where the laws were mentioned to end, but....to that, I have to ask:

C.) If you do find a verse that says to disregard the Old Testiment laws, what do you have to say to these verses:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" John 7:19?

From what I see here, you are still suppoed to keep the laws of the Old Testiment-which includes the desire to kill homosexuals.

Oh. I didnt know about all that stuff XD

Well hey I'm learning from this so :P Guess I was wrong

Darksage, I keep having trouble with understanding this, so my apologies if I am persistant with this. Let me ask some questions:

A.) What is the point of the old testiment?

Obviously, the biblical god in the old testiment kills thousands of people through plague, nature, etc. He orders people to kill other people, demands sacrifices in exchange for lives, requires bizarre rituals, and basically can be seen as pretty ruthless. Yet in the New Testiment, God seems to lighten up quite a bit.

So if the laws of the old testiment are to be disregarded, what point does the history in the Old Testiment have? Lessons? Surely you can find all those lessons more clearly made in the new Testiment.

B.) Where does it say to disregard the Old Testiment laws?

I believe that there may be a few places where the laws were mentioned to end, but....to that, I have to ask:

C.) If you do find a verse that says to disregard the Old Testiment laws, what do you have to say to these verses:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" John 7:19?

From what I see here, you are still suppoed to keep the laws of the Old Testiment-which includes the desire to kill homosexuals.

I've been reading the Old Testament (I haven't read the New Testament yet though, mainly because the New Testaent is supposed to be beautiful and the Old Teastmant is said to be kind of bloody, I kind of wanted to go through those parts first and get it over with), and there have been several times in which the laws have been changed, mainly because the people changed.

For example...this is all from memory though, and i can't remember where in the bible this took place.

People started sinning to much, so God said that in order to be forgiven, they had to sacrifice an animal from their livestock everytime they sin (i think it had to be a pretty serious sin though). That was ok for a while, no one really wanted to sacrifice their livestock. But later people found it more convient to simply sin whenever they wanted, sacrifice their animals, and all would be forgiven. God became angry that people were now killing all of his animals as a way to convieniently get rid of their sins. So instead he ordered that there be no more sacrifices and insted people would have complete repentment for your sin, and only then will it be forgiven.

So the law in the Old Testament changed, because people changed...

However...


"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" John 7:19?
Is it possible that they were talking about the Ten Commandments? Those seemed to be the only laws that didn't change at all, and I don't see anything in there about killing homosexuals. Only a law that says that you shall not kill. Don't the Ten Commandments mean more than the other Old Laws?

But I'm in the same boat as Darksage, so I'm still learning. :heh:

___________________________

I don't understand why a government wouldn't allow Gay Marrige though. Government has nothing to do with religion, or at least it shouldn't anyways. Religion seems to be the only reason that a government wouldn't allow it though.

Darksage, I keep having trouble with understanding this, so my apologies if I am persistant with this. Let me ask some questions:

A.) What is the point of the old testiment?

Obviously, the biblical god in the old testiment kills thousands of people through plague, nature, etc. He orders people to kill other people, demands sacrifices in exchange for lives, requires bizarre rituals, and basically can be seen as pretty ruthless. Yet in the New Testiment, God seems to lighten up quite a bit.

So if the laws of the old testiment are to be disregarded, what point does the history in the Old Testiment have? Lessons? Surely you can find all those lessons more clearly made in the new Testiment.

B.) Where does it say to disregard the Old Testiment laws?

I believe that there may be a few places where the laws were mentioned to end, but....to that, I have to ask:

C.) If you do find a verse that says to disregard the Old Testiment laws, what do you have to say to these verses:

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" John 7:19?

From what I see here, you are still suppoed to keep the laws of the Old Testiment-which includes the desire to kill homosexuals.

there's A LOT of tangents i could go into, so im going to try to stay on topic as possible

a) the purpose of the old testament is it's a historical account. i.e. the creation story, geneologies, etc.

b & c) i dont think it explicity says anywhere to disregard any laws. however, if this helps:
i find that people are always talking about a 'new covenant' that happened in the new testament. what exactly is this? ive heard it applied to the tune of "there were some laws changed that dont apply anymore today". in this case, homosexuality. it was wrong in the old testament, but now it has become "okay" under this "new covanent.

so what is God's new covanent? well, in the OT (old testament) God made a covanent with his people (the jews) that they could be restored to fellowship with Him if they sacrificed an animal. most often a pure and spotless lamb. when jesus came and died on the cross, a new covanent was made for our sins. no longer do we have to sacrifice an animal, because jesus became our "sacrificial lamb" (boy would PETA have a heyday these days if we still did that!)

so back to the question, i dont think it says to disregard any laws. yes, there was a new covanent made when jesus died on the cross. and that new covanent is about how we can cleanse ourselves of sin. not change what is right and wrong. if i may elaborate more: there is a verse in (dont know where, leveticus, numbers or one of those) that says you mustnt prostitute your daughter. it is only mentioned in that one verse. in the new testament, it doesnt mention anything about prostituting your daughter anywhere. so, by that logic, if we are to disregard old testament laws because of the "new covanent" it must be okay nowdays to prostitute your daughter! somethings got to be wrong with this... so in my opinion, no laws have changed. last time i checked, the ten commandments are still valid, and the notion that homosexuality is wrong hasnt expired either. according to the bible.

shouldn't people be allowed to do what they want with all this freedom that God gives?

yeah it's like angelic said a couple of pages back, if life is a gift from God you should be free to do what you want with it, a gift is a gift afterall...

oops I guess I'm just emphasising that then :heh:

oh no i wasn't telling you its already been said to put you down, i was just backing up your ideas because i think i have the same ones:lol:

Quote 'The Da Vinci Code': The Bible did not come by fax from heaven.
God does not exist, simply because it would bend all logic and science for him/her/it to do so. It is inconceivable that one entity can influence, create, destroy anything.
And how did people know there is a God in the first place? Yes, lots of 'stories', but in the end they add up to nothing because there's no proof.
There's also the argument of God being all powerful, all knowing, and all good.
People are dying everywhere. Therefore he/she/it is not at least one of the above mentioned things.

No proof? How did Isreal survive in the middle east against all it's enemies for so long then? And how come one of the conquerers of Isreal suddenly declared it was with God's grace that he did it, and built him a temple? And how can the Bible be so true, written by the poor and uneducated, all ove the world over the span of 1500 years be so consistent in message and literary style? No proof? Please.

The bible is powerful enough to influence people into believeing that there is a God. Just like Hitler somehow influenced people into thinking that Jews and other people were contaminating their land, brainwash them into killing machines and so forth. I'm not saying that God isn't there, because i to am a christian,but i can't help but question my faith.
If God is all powerful and good, then how comes in the bible (i can't remember what part) says that homosexuals should be punished and sentenced to death? And other parts say that he gave us a choice to live our life as we choose, then how comes the bible is always trying to influence how we live our lives?
An another thing, (someones probably stated this) people like Atheists, who do not believe in God, don't give a sh!t what it says in the bible, because to them it's just another book.

The bible IS just another book, It just so happens to be the one book people turn to, it gives people the warm feeling that "Something" is up there and aslong as you behave ok he'll take care of you.

Am I atheist if I dont follow all of gods rules but behave ok just in case? I dont go to mass very often or pray.. infact when I pray I just talk to god, kinda like with a buddy (i watch my language a little more tho...)

No proof? How did Isreal survive in the middle east against all it's enemies for so long then? And how come one of the conquerers of Isreal suddenly declared it was with God's grace that he did it, and built him a temple? And how can the Bible be so true, written by the poor and uneducated, all ove the world over the span of 1500 years be so consistent in message and literary style? No proof? Please.

I do believe in some superior entity, but if I didn't... Erm, simplicityho would have a point. It can be simply the faith they place in this imaginary being that helps them get on through. Like my mom always says, "What keeps me going is believing that God is there for me, not God being there for me."

I don't have a problem with homos just as long as they don't flirt with me or try to get fresh with me. I think homosexuelity is a dis-order or it could be considerd a handicap in my view. I think it might be Gods way of controlling the worlds population.

I don't have a problem with homos just as long as they don't flirt with me or try to get fresh with me. I think homosexuelity is a dis-order or it could be considerd a handicap in my view. I think it might be Gods way of controlling the worlds population.

Could you elaborate on that?

People I've known all my life have turned out to be homosexual, and they are no different from everybody else.

I can see how you might get that idea of homosexuality being a CONDITION... I wouldn't say disorder or handicap.
A few people I know started to "go gay" because they didn't find the opposite sex arousing, but they found their own sex highly arousing, even against their own will.

Hm, that's actually pretty interesting to look into...

It could be psychological, but too many homosexuals are too different in ethnicity, culture, and background to really pinpoint one significant occurance that could have triggered homosexuality. It could also be chemical imbalance, or maybe just a subconscious matter of taste.

Could you elaborate on that?


A mental Illness if majority of people were homosexuels then man would go exinct thats why I believe this could as well be either a CHOICE or a mental illess one of the 2 you pic which one it is. As far as i know there is no gay gene.

basing myself on this knowledge then I could argue that Some of the worlds greates physicist were "handicaped" for developing theories that could en mankind...

Maybe I just feel like arguing (I hate school) so if that makes no sense then sorry in advance.

As far as i know there is no gay gene.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think the line has to be drawn somewhere. and if we let it go too far we'll have EVERYBODY using this as an example of other people being allowed to do things while others arent.

As far as i know there is no gay gene.
Like most things it is one gene or one combination or genes, it is possible that it can be caused by many differnt combinations of genes.
@darksage
what do you mean by being alowed to do things that others arent? it is a known fact that people with ADD and ADHD are more prone to commiting crimes and violent crimes, doesnt mean we alow them to or in anyway give them a free pass. you are treating homosexuality as a crime it seems. forgive me if i miss interpret

I think he means "since he can be gay I can do so and so " situations

i dont think i know of any such situations

I thought I just throw this out there after reading this thread... a good friend of mine (who is Catholic) once stated that the big ol' Roman Catholic Church actually has no problem with gay people AT ALL and specifically states in its book of doctrines (I'm pretty sure he called it a Catechism or Cathocism or something like that) that techniqually as long as the gay dude or lesbian chic doesn't have hardcore sex (not in those words) that he or she is not sinning (so techniqualy I guess kissing is alright). So if the Catholic church and scientists justify the state of homosexuality I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

As far as how one acts around a homosexual, I think it shouldn't be too uncormfortable. I mean a guy who has a girl for a friend or a girl who has a guy for a friend usually doesn't become scared of him or her because of the possibilty of him or her hitting on you.

For instance I have a friend named Paula. Paula and I have been friends since third grade. At no time in our friendship am I afraid she will sudden;y want to kiss me, rub me, etc.

Equally so, if your best friend Tom suddenly says he is actually gay, this should not make you drop him like a sack full of doggee dump. You should support him, help him find his identity. I'm serious, the odds of him suddenly hitting on you is very slim. Tom is still Tom.

@ coyote: in my experience, the catholic church is against MARRIED couples having sex, except for the perpose of procreation. so if a homosexual couple were to "engage", i cant see how that would be condoned. it not being for the purpose of creating a new person.

@ coyote: in my experience, the catholic church is against MARRIED couples having sex, except for the perpose of procreation. so if a homosexual couple were to "engage", i cant see how that would be condoned. it not being for the purpose of creating a new person.

homosexuality

I apologize, I should have been clearer. The Catholic Church believes that marriage is not only meant to be a sacred bond between man and woman but more importantly to produce young and be fertile. Of course this is impossible through homosexuality.

What I was trying to say is contrary to popular belief most Christians are not out on a witch hunt against homosexuals. They believe that each person has equal value, gay or not gay in the church and no one has the right to discriminate against the homosexual individual.

Im not catholic but correct me if im wrong. Did'nt the bible say gays werent allowed but they changed that part.

I have nothing against gays but i still think its wrong (dont kill me).

I heard one argument that if god wanted gays he wouldnt have created adam and eve. He would have created adam and steve.

Im not catholic but correct me if im wrong. Did'nt the bible say gays werent allowed but they changed that part.

I have nothing against gays but i still think its wrong (dont kill me).

I heard one argument that if god wanted gays he wouldnt have created adam and eve. He would have created adam and steve.
That made me Laugh :lol:

its ok to think its wrong, aslong as you dont dicriminate them for "being wrong"

Personally I just think its a big load of crap, people need to get over themselves and "god's message". If god thought there was something wrong with it he would have done something about it.

I heard one argument that if god wanted gays he wouldnt have created adam and eve. He would have created adam and steve.

Well, if god exists and he did create humans, and he didn't want gay people to be there, then why would he make some people gay?

I think homosexuality is alright.. And to deny them marriage is discrimination, in my opinion. I don't see why people care so much about what other people do with their lives, it's their lives, and if they wanna get married to someone of their own sex.. well, it's not gonna effect you.

I personaly dont care, its the whole having kids thing. I would love to say that its ok (and it should be) but it can bring a million problems, hopefully I can live to see the day that has changed.

I heard one argument that if god wanted gays he wouldnt have created adam and eve. He would have created adam and steve.

Ahh... but then wouldn't the all powerful god would have just made it so that homosexuality wouldn't have even began?

*cough*free will*cough*

*cough* God doesn't 'make' you homosexual*cough*

like i said before there isnt anything wrong with being homosexual.

my point. If 'he' wanted us to be a certain way, we wouldn't have free will.

*cough* God doesn't 'make' you homosexual*cough*


Well, homosexuals don't make themselves homosexuals. They can't help it, people don't just wake up one day and say "Hey! I feel like being homosexual!" and people don't just wake up one day and say "I feel like being straight today!". Your sexuality is something that you have throughout your life, that can't be changed. So, if 'god' created humans, then yes, he did make some people homosexual.

Your sexuality is something that you have throughout your life, that can't be changed. So, if 'god' created humans, then yes, he did make some people homosexual.

Free will argument again for that. And you dont have to be gay. If you have urges then fight them, that might be hard but its (i wouldnt go far as to say unnatural) but it isnt right.


That is my point of view. And if you are getting urges it doesnt saty with you for your entire life. I knew a guy who was gay for a year!

I have a friend that is gay, but he is still my friend. I don't see why people fell indifferent about it.

So with all this said, can we agree being gay is a okay and discrimination against the more homosexual individual is wrong?

Free will argument again for that. And you dont have to be gay. If you have urges then fight them, that might be hard but its (i wouldnt go far as to say unnatural) but it isnt right.




Yes, you can fight urges, but in my opinion, whether you fight the urges or not, your sexuality can not be changed.

Free will argument again for that. And you dont have to be gay. If you have urges then fight them, that might be hard but its (i wouldnt go far as to say unnatural) but it isnt right.


That is my point of view. And if you are getting urges it doesnt saty with you for your entire life. I knew a guy who was gay for a year!

It isn't right? but then, I'm homosexual, so I say that heterosexuality isn't right. Opinions, opinions... and you knew a guy that was gay for a year? That's called bisexuality. I am what I am, it just comes naturally to me, just like heterosexuals loving women(if your a guy), and loving men(if your a woman) do what comes naturally to them. I'm a guy, and I love what comes naturally to me, which just happens to be other guys. Is it really so strange or "not right" as you so put it? I mean, straight people(the means ones) have their names for us(namely fags, homos. etc) and yet we have our terms for straight people(namely breeders, and that ugly straight dude XD) but really... why can't some people just accept us as we are? I mean, it's not really fair, is it? :think:

it's not really fair, is it? :think:

Of course not! It's called life. ;)

Well, homosexuals don't make themselves homosexuals. They can't help it, people don't just wake up one day and say "Hey! I feel like being homosexual!" and people don't just wake up one day and say "I feel like being straight today!". Your sexuality is something that you have throughout your life, that can't be changed. So, if 'god' created humans, then yes, he did make some people homosexual.

Well, what if it's puberty? Sometimes during, puberty, you think that you're gay. Well that's what I heard.

Sometimes during, puberty, you think that you're gay.

I believe that's true. I read it in my brother's friend's girlfriend's psychology book. :think:

It differs per person. It's so shallow to say that all people who are gay are "just going through a phase" or that "all people who are gay were like that from their birth". It happens often that people who "suddenly turn gay" actually had been gay for their whole life, just they didn't want to let anyone know because they knew that narrow minded fools would think less of them. I can't blame them when reading a topic like this, too many people think that it's wrong or unnatural. It's not unnatural, dolphins can be gay for crying out loud. Is that unnatural? Humans are part of nature. If there is a God, then he created people as gays, it's as simple as that. I remember a story in the bible, Christians weren't allowed to eat pork cos it was "impure". Then God said, if it's a creature I created, how could it be impure?" I think it's time for Christians to realise that God created gay people and thus there is nothing wrong with being gay.

Well, if god exists and he did create humans, and he didn't want gay people to be there, then why would he make some people gay?

I think homosexuality is alright.. And to deny them marriage is discrimination, in my opinion. I don't see why people care so much about what other people do with their lives, it's their lives, and if they wanna get married to someone of their own sex.. well, it's not gonna effect you.
Man didn't want people to be gay. God gave people free will. Maybe he doesn't want them to be gay, but he gave them free will. The way that people use their free will is up to them. Maybe God doesn't prejudice against gay people. It is the heterosexual that are prejudice against homosexual people.

Actions have ramifications, if people want to be gay, that's totally acceptable.

Actions have ramifications, if people want to be gay, that's totally acceptable.

They don't choose to be gay.

Indeed, it just happens. It's like being left handed, you don't choose that either, that's what you are. You can force yourself to write with your right hand but you'll always be left handed.

It differs per person. It's so shallow to say that all people who are gay are "just going through a phase" or that "all people who are gay were like that from their birth". It happens often that people who "suddenly turn gay" actually had been gay for their whole life, just they didn't want to let anyone know because they knew that narrow minded fools would think less of them. I can't blame them when reading a topic like this, too many people think that it's wrong or unnatural. It's not unnatural, dolphins can be gay for crying out loud. Is that unnatural? Humans are part of nature. If there is a God, then he created people as gays, it's as simple as that. I remember a story in the bible, Christians weren't allowed to eat pork cos it was "impure". Then God said, if it's a creature I created, how could it be impure?" I think it's time for Christians to realise that God created gay people and thus there is nothing wrong with being gay.

Well, that kind of put us in our place. But you cant really change people opinions no matter how much you argue but all im saying is i think being gay is wrong. But it doesnt mean i discriminate because of it. If they want to be gay let them. Its their life. But we're all entitled to an opinion.

I hope i'm not offending anyone when i say that i think homosexuals are probably female/male sprits stuck in the body of an opposite sex, so they're still straight, but they are just living inside the wrong body =/ okay, so it was a wild superstition but i tried...XD

That would be almost believable, until you get to the question of: what about bisexuals?

^^ easy, its a bisexual spirit inside the person

I hope i'm not offending anyone when i say that i think homosexuals are probably female/male sprits stuck in the body of an opposite sex, so they're still straight, but they are just living inside the wrong body =/ okay, so it was a wild superstition but i tried...XD

I don't think so, some gay men may act kind of girly sometimes but a lot of them don't - in fact, they act just like any straight men with the only difference them preferring other men instead of women. It has nothing to do with having a girl mind in a guy's body or whatever, that's just another misunderstanding.

Well, what if it's puberty? Sometimes during, puberty, you think that you're gay. Well that's what I heard.


Yeah, some people THINK they're gay, but end up figuring out later on that they aren't. Thinking you're gay and actually being gay are two different things.

Well, homosexuals don't make themselves homosexuals. They can't help it, people don't just wake up one day and say "Hey! I feel like being homosexual!" and people don't just wake up one day and say "I feel like being straight today!". Your sexuality is something that you have throughout your life, that can't be changed. So, if 'god' created humans, then yes, he did make some people homosexual.
Proof for your argument?

Go up to any real homosexual and ask them if they just decided one day to be homosexual.

Go up to any real homosexual and ask them if they just decided one day to be homosexual.

And use lie-detecting techniques if you have to. XD

I noticed, from observing some other people, something.
Apparently, real homosexuals get a bad rep from the people who pretend to be homosexual. People who pretend to be homosexual get surrounded by chicks and people are all nice to them and things. People who are actually homosexual but aren't flamboyant about it are shunned.
So stupid.
I don't know if it's just my class or what, but it's still pretty stupid.

Proof for your argument?

Don't ask for proof from someone else if you can't provide proof for your own statements.

Don't ask for proof from someone else if you can't provide proof for your own statements.

Technically everyone agreeing (sort of ) is proof but i get what youre saying.

Its the same thing with black people in the past almost. Theyre different and apparently inferior so everyone treats them like dirt on their shoe.

people agreeing with each other is nothing but a common opinion, not proof in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Depends how you look at it really but its a point of view, everyones is different as this topic has proved.

Im not catholic but correct me if im wrong. Did'nt the bible say gays werent allowed but they changed that part.

I have nothing against gays but i still think its wrong (dont kill me).

I heard one argument that if god wanted gays he wouldnt have created adam and eve. He would have created adam and steve.
Why do you think it's wrong? (curious)

Im not catholic but correct me if im wrong. Did'nt the bible say gays werent allowed but they changed that part.

I have nothing against gays but i still think its wrong (dont kill me).

I heard one argument that if god wanted gays he wouldnt have created adam and eve. He would have created adam and steve.

I think the exact verse goes something like "thou shall not lay with another man in intercourse, God hates that." (could someone check that exact verse, I lost my Bible..."

Anyway, the verse hints that God only hates it when gay guys get it on. So technically, God in fact loves gay people, he just doesn't appreciate them having intercourse which cannot produce children...I think.

I think the exact verse goes something like "thou shall not lay with another man in intercourse, God hates that." (could someone check that exact verse, I lost my Bible..."

Anyway, the verse hints that God only hates it when gay guys get it on. So technically, God in fact loves gay people, he just doesn't appreciate them having intercourse which cannot produce children...I think.

interesting.

However, overpopulation is an issue going on today. So I dont really know how that can be debated.

Hiei, it is not that people are having too many kids, in fact they are having a lot less than 100 years ago. The problem is people live a lot longer, there is no problem of 'overpopulation' it is that too much of the population no longer supports itself. There is so much land that isn't being used at all, you can't say that the planet is getting too crowded.

However, overpopulation is an issue going on today. So I dont really know how that can be debated

(shrugs shoulders)

Not saying that it can...just puttn' that out there. Tried to clear up the common misconception that the Bible says God hates gay people. Come to think of it...I don't think God hates anyone for that matter. But thats going a little off topic.

Anyway, I just want to make a point that homosexuals should not be discriminated upon. That one quote from yousee (adam and eve, not adam and steve) got me thinking of this one protesting parade in the news that started yelling out that God hates gay people and that the government is destroying the sanctity of marriage, etc, etc.

I just don't think thats right...

Why do you think it's wrong? (curious)

Well, im not gay for one so i would think that anyway. But it just doesnt seem to be (well natural is a bit strong) but sort of normal. But i technically wouldnt be saying that if most people were gay and the rest were heterosexual.

It seems to be that normal is what most people do or think.

@c0y0te: VERY GOOD.
Someone has reading comprehension skills
*claps*

God doesnt like ANY form of sex that isnt for reproduction.

God doesn't like anything that gives him more mindless followers. It's a miracle he hasn't bombed all schools yet.

Miracle? So you do believe in divine intervention!

No, I think he does believe in scarcasim.

as do I.

And obviously, I was being sarcastic as well

no. it wasnt obvious enough that you were being sarcastic.

How long we gonna keep this up? This thread is genius.

Edit:- Apologies, I was tricked into thinking this was the religion thread. Way to make me look stupid(er) guys. :heh:

Edit:- Wait, I put this forth :topic:

Edit: - Whoa, this took ages to save.

no. it wasnt obvious enough that you were being sarcastic.
Oh please. We;ve been arguing about it forever. And the exclamation point totally gives it away.

Very True.

but gays arent accepted because the majority are heterosexuals which makes it the norm.

No. They aren't accepted because the majority of the majority (lol) are stupid and think they're better.

your right! i agree 110%

I don't think kids at my school think they are better than them, they just beat up the queers for the fun of it.

I don't think kids at my school think they are better than them, they just beat up the queers for the fun of it.

But wouldn't it only make sense to beat someone up because you think you're better? I mean, I wouldn't go and try to beat up someone who will obviously kick my ass.

oh, I thought he meant better as in like superior.

oh, I thought he meant better as in like superior.

True, he might've meant it that way... :think:

Though the queers dont go lookin for fights... 4 or 5 guys normally just corner one of em after school and beat the bajesus out of him, so it really isnt a matter of strength.

I find the term "queers" offensive to the maximum level.