Ovedya Posted December 29, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Dearest Ove, Why such a limited view of things? I don't understand what you mean? There was never any evidence that sexual promiscuity was the direct result of parental refusal or neglect. For the sake of not losing face are you abosultly SURE you want to stick to that statment? I'm not worried about losing face. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Show me where I am wrong, and I will admit it. It was not that sex was never taught inthe homes because parents were afraid or too prudish to teach their kids about it. It was not because parents even neglected to teach their kids about sex. So, it was not thought because........ ??? Which I believe is your main problem right there. Where in the world do you get this? Is the gay agenda to make everyone gay? In that case I think THEY WILL FAIL HORRIBLY. And so I laugh in their face. That is not an "agenda". That is delusional thinking. Ah, no. If you re-read my statements above I clearly pointed out that the "gay agenda" is to promote homosexuality as a norm rather than the aberation that it is. Come on, now, let's not play around here. 1. Has there EVER been a scientific cultrual or moral way of defineing normal? The bible comes very close,.... but even then we dont all wear same cloth interweaving TUNICS now do we? Yes! 2. The one thing that HAS been very accurate is that what is "normal" changes ALOT with time. Yes too. 3. Therefore I define what is "normal" to humanity in the terms of what has been with us the longest. In that case homosexuality is VERY normal. ( With God being the MOST NORMAL THING IN THE ENTIRE WORLD ) Now cds, cars, airplanes, polyster, non-preordained marriage, civil rights, and democracy are VERY not "normal. Wrong. Just because something eventually becomes the sociological or cultural norm (I make a distinction between the two terms because something can become a sociological norm and not become a cultural norm) doesn't mean that it is right or moral in God's eyes. Pre-marital sex is amoral behavior, but it is very much the sociological norm in today's society and, in fact, it is the primary cause of a whole host of problems, including high rates of divorce and various behavioral problems. Gays and transgendered persons are seeking... ......to not be treated like the lowest trash in the world. END OF STORY. Are you able to comprehend the INSANE amount of discrimination these people put up with EVERYDAY??? I am surpised they are not MORE militant. Are they stupid shortsighted and in the end only hurting themselfs,.... yes, sure. But yet again IT IS THEIR CHOICE to make. I do know how much they have to put up with. But then again, by your own statement they do not have to put up with it. This behavior is changable. All one need do is look at the pattern to see this fact... no offense in the sincirest and most compassinate sense possible, but for someone so willing to give their thoughts on gays,... you seem to know VERY little about human homosexuallity, and sexuality (and human social behavior) in general. You seem to take the view that somehow sex as regards human affairs is the new kid on the block. Notwithstanding, I hope that you can see that living under the threat, living in a constant state of anxity and paranoia as if you are in constant attack, is NOT a good and healthy thing to do. Do not forget God is on YOUR SIDE. Friend, I do not live in constant fear or paranioa about anything. I simply call the facts as I see them. If you can come up with the data that proves what I've said about sex-ed wrong, then I will gladly take a look at it and see if I can find data that supports my argument. It's been a long time since I've researched the subject on the web, but I trust I'll be able to pull it up again. Obviously you view the religious perspective of sexuality to be too narrow. But I suggest to you that however narrow it is, it has a longer and much more proven record of preventing disease and the moral decline of societies than the philosophy of "Whatever feels good, do it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarkFenix Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 (edited) I shall come up with the links a little later..... --- Wrong. Just because something eventually becomes the sociological or cultural norm (I make a distinction between the two terms because something can become a sociological norm and not become a cultural norm) doesn't mean that it is right or moral in God's eyes. Pre-marital sex is amoral behavior, but it is very much the sociological norm in today's society and, in fact, it is the primary cause of a whole host of problems, including high rates of divorce and various behavioral problems. Its good that we agree on that. Though "Pre-marital sex is amoral behavior, but it is very much the sociological norm in today's society" begs the question of when has it ever NOT been that way. I think the message though that gays want to be normal in the sense that, it is a kind of human behavior that people do and as long as it affects no one but themselfs, shouldnt be the basis for being harrased. What is SO hard for you to understand that people can live to a differnt moral standing then you. If they choose to be ignorant it is THEIR proagative to do so. It is not your place to change EVERYONES moral world view. That is the Lords work. It is for you to form your own opiones and lead a life as best as you can. I do know how much they have to put up with. But then again, by your own statement they do not have to put up with it. This behavior is changable. And you base this medical and physcological opionon on..........? No one on this earth can say weather or not it is a choice. Only the lord could know for sure. NOWHERE in the bible does it say speciaclly weather or not it is a choice. That you may interpet scritpture and make speculative hyphthesis regarding this point is up to you, but I wont assume to know everything. And let us assume it is a choice. So what? I mean you are christins,... its your choice, would it be fair if you were discriminated because of that,..... I mean you could just CHOSE to be secular now couldnt you and avoid all the problems? ...rather than the aberation that it is... It may very well be,.... but you should be VERY careful when drawing between aberation the act and the person. Why? Well if you delagate someone to the satutes of "aberation",... well you really cant forgive an aberation now can you? Nor could you seek a peaceful compromise, or dialouge, or communication, or work together in a sociaty, or (more importantly) be able to TOLERATE their existance with their distinct lifestyle in an open and democratic nation. This is very similar to the problem I stated with "emeny territory". You cant "preach" to an emeny by defenition. And lastly,.... do you not concive that our very christen lifestyle is viewed by some (and I would say alot) as an ABERATION? That YOU are an EMENY to many? Yet dispite this, or I should say inspite of this, we expect from these very same people tolerance, understanding, acceptance of our very "strange and ADNORMAL" way of looking at the world. We expect to be able to talk to us as human beings not as some "thing", to work together, and have acceptance for our differances and be able to look past them and arrive at what every good we have in common to be able to work towards a better tommarow. We at the very least should return the favor.(for lets us not forget that we once were ourselfs the hated and the oppressed). To do otherwise is to breed a xenophobic siege mentality. Obviously you view the religious perspective of sexuality to be too narrow. But I suggest to you that however narrow it is, it has a longer and much more proven record of preventing disease and the moral decline of societies than the philosophy of "Whatever feels good, do it." So the Spanish Inquisition, the Christnization process of the natives all over the world and the Medeivel Crusadas are shining examples of "high" moral standerds? For every example that you show of gay "corruption" I can show you 10TIMES as many examples of non-gay examples of sociatal corruption. Im sssuuurrreee things like gonoria, syphilsis, and hepatitis (non lethal ONLY in our era) were spread ONLY by gays....rriiiggghhhtttt. I think you forget again that gays representive a VAST MINORITY of all people. And put another way, if gays get a disease, BRAVO, then it would only affect GAYS. How can this be a threat to you WHO ARE NOT GAY is beyound me. Now I WILL AGREE WITH YOU. Gays are not very productive for a nation. In fact they kind go against the stateed purpose of natureal life; eg. TO REPRODUCE. And quite honestly I find most of them way to superfical ignorant and just plain annoying to be wroth my time. But again it is their choice and their right to go to bed with whatever other consenting human adult they feel. I am sure as day that their doing this WILL NOT "morally decline" me. All I do know is this,.... in ALL of history there have been homosexuals. But INDEPENDANT of weather or not any given sociaty approves of them or not, be they the VERY liberal Romans or the very restrictive Spaniards, all these nations have been "corrupted" and they have ALL come and gone. ONLY BELIEF IN THE LORD CAN STOP CORRUPTION. PERIOD. I dont see how gays are a "threat" to sociaty. I think it is just a threat to you, and your understanding of what it means to be human. Edited December 30, 2004 by DarkFenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DarkFenix Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I went through all the trouble of making a thoughtfull post for nought??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted December 30, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I went through all the trouble of making a thoughtfull post for nought??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. I just have not had the time to devote to a thoughtful response of my own. I will very soon, though, trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherub_Rocket Posted December 30, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 178 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/23/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 30, 2004 I've watched the video. Here are my observations. 1) At the beginning of the video, you'll see a row of homosexuals wearing pink shirts - they are blocking the streets, which violates State law. 2) In the middle of the video, you'll see the homosexuals walking along with the Christian protestors. The homosexuals are mocking the Christians and infringing upon their right to protest. This violates State law. 3) Also in the video, you'll see the homosexuals covering up the Christians' signs with pink styrofoam barriers. This is an infringement upon the Christians' rights, it is intimidation, and it is against the law. In contrast... - The Christians did not intimidate the homosexuals. - The Christians did not "conspire" against the homosexuals. - The Christians only failed to disperse because 1) protest is a protected right; and 2) The police officers gave no reason why they should leave. Now let me ask you, if ANYONE deserved to be arrested, WHO is it? I suggest that if anyone deserved arrest, it was the radical sodomite wackos who infringed upon the Christians' 14th Amendment rights, and violated State law by intimidating the Christians and blocking the public walkways. As the Christians were arrested, you can hear the pathetic, shrill screams of the homosexuals in the background, cheering that the rights of others are being violated. What the Philadelphia police did is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment 'equal protection' clause and the 'privileges and immunities' clause. Furthermore, what the homosexuals did is absolutely descipable. Any true liberal will agree with me. Mark my words, this is only the beginning of the gay agenda. More is coming. And by the time Americans wake up, it will be too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeandliberty Posted January 3, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 68 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/16/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 http://washingtontimes.com/culture/20041228-102341-4050r.htm Criminalized thoughts? By Amy Doolittle THE WASHINGTON TIMES Jokes about political correctness have been around for more than a decade, and many Americans now take for granted conflicts over manger scenes on public property and Christmas carols in public schools. Hostility toward religious expression is no joke, however, to advocates concerned that "hate crimes" laws could be used to rob Americans of religious freedom, which they say is already the case in some parts of Europe. Exhibit A: Ake Green, a Swedish pastor who was arrested for speaking against homosexuality from his church pulpit. While American hate-crime laws currently punish criminal acts motivated by bigotry, William Murray, chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition, says the principle behind such statutes could be "worse than a slippery slope" toward restricting fundamental freedoms. "In the '40s, '50s, '60s and even '70s, we were taught that the difference between the free world and the communist bloc was that in the free world if you committed a crime, you were going to go to jail for what you did, but in the Soviet Union and other countries, you would go to jail for what you thought," Mr. Murray said. "Hate-crimes laws are not really hate-crimes laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifeandliberty Posted January 7, 2005 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 68 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/16/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 7, 2005 U.S. attorneys complicit in arrest of Christians? January 06, 2005 Source says homosexual government lawyers advised Philadelphia police at 'OutFest' event -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: January 5, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Ron Strom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plissken Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 What did you expect? Of course they deserve to be arrested. They're committing a hate crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted January 7, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted January 7, 2005 What did you expect? Of course they deserve to be arrested. They're committing a hate crime. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plissken Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 What did you expect? Of course they deserve to be arrested. They're committing a hate crime. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? How so? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well if you understand english or read the article it says: "The ethnic intimidation charge stems from Pennsylvania's "hate crimes" law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts