Everywhere I go, people are arguing about religion. I guess that's another reason why I'm not religious. Anyway, I just wan't to straighten (that's kinda funny, keep reading) something up. There is no way to be led into becoming a homosexual and it is not a choice. The only reason people believe this is because everybody finds someone or some people of the same sex attractive and they wonder what having relations with them would be like. This gives them the idea that they can 'choose' to be gay, but they cannot, since love is subconscious. You don't wake up one morning and say, "OK, from now on, I am gay." No. You can't just look at someone and say "I love them," that's not true love, that's being shallow. Think about the person you love most (girlfriend, wife, etc.), did you look and them and think "I'm going to love them forever?" No. You felt something inside, you didn't just decide one day that you're goint to love them. This is what true love is. If you can make yourself fall in love with whoever you want, then you're not trully falling in love, which means you cannot become gay or straight. No one knows how homosexuality develops, but one thing is true: it is not a choice, and it cannot be changed.
Responses to this might be interesting and possibly (most likely) not true, but don't pay attention to them because they will be from people who are not gay and have no clue what they are talking about.
-
The religious debate from male genetalia area con
-
I cannot even begin to convey the arrogance in what you just said, imbob. "Responses to this might be interesting and possibly (most likely) not true, but don't pay attention to them because they will be from people who are not gay and have no clue what they are talking about."First of all, a LOT of gay people, even on this site, and that I know in person would say that you can choose what you do. I'm tired of people saying Christians are intolerant and close-minded when there's people like you out there saying religion is wrong, listen only to me no matter what I tell you or what they say. Obviously you don't care about what most people say, not about facts or examples. All you care about is what you think, and even come right out and say everybody should agree with you because you said so. People, if you really want to know about something, research it for yourself. There's no way to truly have your own opinion or beliefs on something that you know nothing about. Don't ever let others tell you what to do or think based solely on their own biased opinion.I have never, nor will I ever TELL somebody what to do in ANY given situation. God gave every person free will and it's not my place to make decisions for others. It's ok to tell what you do know and to make recommendations and give helpful advice, but if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, it's best just to keep your mouth closed. The best thing to do, the best way to learn, is to hear multiple views, as many as possible, and compare and contrast them with each other based on facts and experience of your own and from others. I tell you, it isn't even safe to walk into Christianity blindly, nor is it with any belief (in which I would include atheism). You say people are arguing about religion, so you choose not to believe anything. Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Wiccans, Buddhists. All and look for reasons to believe what they do. It's impossible to not be any of these and still be alive (By 'these' I don't just mean those in this list, I mean all beliefs). If you don't want to believe in God, that's fine. I admire the amount of faith it takes to be an atheist, I'm not sure how some people can stand it. But if you're going to believe something, know why. Especially before you start spreading it around.
-
In reply to:
I'm tired of people saying Christians are intolerant and close-minded
F22, you have personally said homosexuality is wrong, compared being gay to physical abuse that your father gave you, plopped being gay into the same category as murder, etc, and said that it's something that people need to work through to rid homosexual altogether because it's wrong. if you ask me, that is a VERy intolerant attitude toward homosexuals.
-
In reply to:I don't think it would be smart to assume that God's timeI thought the definition of "day" was well understood. Anyway, it's in my dictionary. If the bible plays fast and lose with the meaning of basic words, than anything it says can mean anything you want it to mean.If God could create tbe universe, then surely he and create the Earth in six days. Or anyway, Zeus could.
-
In reply to:
I'm tired of people saying Christians are intolerant and close-minded
Everyone who doesn't believe as you do is damned to eternal damnation and torment. Is that your idea of tolerance?
-
In reply to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I'm tired of people saying Christians are intolerant and close-minded --------------------------------------------------------------------------------F22, you have personally said homosexuality is wrong, compared being gay to physical abuse that your father gave you, plopped being gay into the same category as murder, etc, and said that it's something that people need to work through to rid homosexual altogether because it's wrong. if you ask me, that is a VERy intolerant attitude toward homosexuals. I understand your argument Last, but I have to disagree with you. Disagreeing as to whether something is acceptable behavior or not is not intolerance. That word gets so overused anymore. In fact, intolerance assumes disagreement. If I agree with you, there's nothing to tolerate. My brother is a compulsive liar, but I don't dislike him for it. I tolerate it because I love him. Why can't you folks understand how it can be the same way with F22? He can believe that homosexuality is wrong but tolerate gay folks because he's a good man who doesn't hate. I personally think it is very intolerant to accuse anyone whose views on this matter are different of being intolerant and close-minded. And I really do believe that F22's views are the only veiws that aren't included in this whole "tolerance and open-minded" bit we speak so much of.
-
In reply to: Everyone who doesn't believe as you do is damned to eternal damnation and torment. Is that your idea of tolerance? Okay, buddy, we hear you. You can stop the histrionics now. You know he has never said anything like that. THat is very very condemning and close-minded on your part to say that. And it betrays a huge prejudice against a certain population. Hypocrisy?
-
In reply to: if God is so great [...] why did he let the nazis kill the jews ?
-
Sir, you are a very angry person.The poster from whom the quote was taken is a fundamentalist Christian who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God. The New Testament says that belief in Christ as one's savior is the road to "eternal life" (John 3:16, a sign for which has been displayed many times at Shea Stadium). And where does everyone else go?I'll bet you a beer, Mr. Oracle, that this is what the poster believes.An interesting thread to explore would be, why are political conservatives so often angry bullies? I doubt it was a candy-ass liberal who beat up your little brother (or you or your classmate) in school.As for your meta-argument: is intolerance of intolerance intolerant? I think you're reaching here. No one is missing promotions or getting beaten up by thugs because they're intolerant. The beauty of the civil rights legislation of the 60's is that, even if you still hate blacks, you can't actively discriminate against them in certain contexts. So if you want to dislike what homosexuals do, and the other poster in question wants to dislike the beliefs of Catholics, that's OK. Feel free to avoid whomever makes you uncomfortable.So is this thread exploring the question, "Is it OK not to feel comfortable around gays?" Or does it rather ask, "Why do I feel uncomfortable around gays?"The first is a philosophical question; the second can be explored through psychology, biology, sociology, etc.In a radio interview I heard, Alan Keyes, one of your guys, was complaining that, when he was running for president, he didn't get as much attention as he deserved because he's black. Without missing a beat, he then went on to say how abominable the concept of gayness is.It is pretty ironic that Alan Keyes' daughter recently came out of the closet, and she says she plans to be as activist as possible. Keyes certainly does not seem to comfortable with the idea. I wonder if he still talks to her.
-
Well crap. Here we go again. Sir, you are a very angry person. Guess what? (and here's a shocker) You're wrong. I am one of the most laid back, open, pleasant people you could ever hope to meet. You, however, managed to piss me off. Congratulations! That doesn't make me angry, and I would appreciate if you cease and desist with name-calling and character judgments, unless of course you actually want to attempt to get to know me. The poster from whom the quote was taken is a fundamentalist Christian who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God. It's probably safe to assume that he is a Christian with a high view of scripture. I don't have a problem with that. The New Testament says that belief in Christ as one's savior is the road to "eternal life" (John 3:16, a sign for which has been displayed many times at Shea Stadium). Okay. right again. I'll bet you a beer, Mr. Oracle, that this is what the poster believes. Well, my doctor just told me today that alcohol exacerbates my condition. Nonetheless, what does that have to do with this discussion. We weren't talking about soteriology. If you're trying to make a connection between his views on salvation and his views on homosexuality, you are attacking a straw man. I don't believe he ever said homosexuals couldn't be saved. Once again you are twisting others' words to say what you need them to say to make your point. An interesting thread to explore would be, why are political conservatives so often angry bullies? Another interesting thread would be on why you insist on painting everyone with a broad brush. Why you constantly feel the need to call people names. And seriously, after this last campaign season can you honestly say it was the conservatives who were angry? If you think that, you must have slept through the past two years. But that all is really beside the point. I doubt it was a candy-ass liberal who beat up your little brother (or you or your classmate) in school. I have done quite a lot of research on the area of bullying and peer victimization. I think I'm in a position to say that your assumption would be dead wrong. Bullys and kids who fight are no more likely to be conservative or liberal. As for your meta-argument: is intolerance of intolerance intolerant? I think you're reaching here. No, buddy, you're reaching here. I can see through this trick as if it were clear glass. No one was talking about tolerating intolerance. Where did you get that? I was saying that you were being intolerant of F22's views and others that were counter to yours. You are the one tagging them intolerant - because you don't agree with them. I was showing you how he was actually more tolerant than you or the others. ONce again, it's that same old tired trick of painting people and their views in innacurate colors for the sake of furthering your argument. If you took them at face value or dealt with them honestly, you'd have nothing to argue against. Sorry it didn't work out for you this time. The beauty of the civil rights legislation of the 60's is that, even if you still hate blacks, you can't actively discriminate against them in certain contexts. And nobody here wants to. In the same way, posters you are taking issue with aren't talking about discriminating against homosexuals. The young fellow that caused you to get your undies in a wad was talking about his discomfort, not his reaction. So if you want to dislike what homosexuals do, and the other poster in question wants to dislike the beliefs of Catholics, that's OK. Feel free to avoid whomever makes you uncomfortable. That's all the kid was talking about. I'm sure he'll sleep better tongight knowing he has your blessing So is this thread exploring the question, "Is it OK not to feel comfortable around gays?" Or does it rather ask, "Why do I feel uncomfortable around gays?" This thread wasn't doing either of those things. This thread was a very tired religious debate. The topics you mentioned were on a totally different thread. Nevertheless, the original question on the 'afraid of gays' thread was more of a 'why is this the case' question. The first is a philosophical question; the second can be explored through psychology, biology, sociology, etc. None of which are political, or require others to call into question his right to ask the question honestly, discuss the topic honestly, or get honest and helpful input. You, my friend, have yet to do any of this. In a radio interview I heard, Alan Keyes, one of your guys, He is not "one of my guys". Dammit! I would appreciate if you would stop doing that. You don't know me. You have know idea what my political, theological, or any other views are. Do you honestly think that if a person has one conservative thought that he ascribes to every thought or idea or agenda you believe to be conservative, or that he agrees with and is a fan of everyone you deem conservative. Seems like that's what you are doing, which is the epitome of narrow-minded prejudice. It is pretty ironic that Alan Keyes' daughter recently came out of the closet, and she says she plans to be as activist as possible. How is that ironic? Conservatives can't have gay children? Why not? Are they not allowed? Wrong genetics? The world isn't that black and white, you know. Keyes certainly does not seem to comfortable with the idea. I wonder if he still talks to her. Of course he does. Don't be absurd. Here's the difference: Conservatives are able to disagree with people, maybe even feel uncomfortable with them (which I doubt is the case with Keyes and his daughter), and still appreciate and value them. Liberals, on the other hand, (or at least political liberals) seem to have a problem with this. If they disagree with your position, they proceed to call names, castigate, cast character dispersions, and use other tools of hatred and divisiveness.You know, I'm a smart guy. Apparently you're a smart guy too. So what is the point of all of this? What is so wrong with letting people believe/feel/struggle with whatever they are believing/feeling/strugging with? Why not let them be who they are. If you continued posting on this board without calling names or calling into question the characters of those you disagree with...well...shoot...I might even end up liking you...maybe...
-
D1> Well crap. Here we go again.S2> Aren't Internet message boards a lovely discussion medium?S1> Sir, you are a very angry person.D1> Guess what? (and here's a shocker) You're wrong.S2> Most folks would understand that statement to be sarcastic.D1> I am one of the most laid back, open, pleasant people you could ever hope to meet. You, however, managed to piss me off. Congratulations! That doesn't make me angry, and I would appreciate if you cease and desist with name-calling and character judgments, unless of course you actually want to attempt to get to know me.S2> You may be an exemplary human being, but your writing, at least on this forum, comes across as angry. Do you read what you post?"feeds into your agenda" (on the "Afraid of gays" thread)"Please, can you offer up something other than the same old tired propagandistic sound bites. I've heard crap like this for years.""just can't for the life of me see how otherwise intelligent people can say this kind of crap."(both from the "Bill O'Reilly is as good a journalist" subthread on the thread that was actually about a teenager's tying to deal with his homosexual urges)"Mindless, liberal pablum if you ask me." (Is this not an ad hominem attack?)S1> The poster from whom the quote was taken is a fundamentalist Christian who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God.D1> It's probably safe to assume that he is a Christian with a high view of scripture. I don't have a problem with that.S2> Are you trying to be ironic here? The person is question is a fundamentalist Christian who considers the Old and New Testaments to be the inerrant word of God. The OT says some not very nice things about homosexuality. So, even if he has issues with homosexuality beyond that, that the main driving force in his life. Ask him if you don't believe me.S1> The New Testament says that belief in Christ as one's savior is the road to "eternal life" (John 3:16, a sign for which has been displayed many times at Shea Stadium).D1> Okay. right again.S2> See? Can't we just get along?S1> I'll bet you a beer, Mr. Oracle, that this is what the poster believes.S2> (Sarcasm on my part...I didn't intend to leave in the "Mr. Oracle" part....editing error.)D1>Well, my doctor just told me today that alcohol exacerbates my condition. Nonetheless, what does that have to do with this discussion. We weren't talking about soteriology. If you're trying to make a connection between his views on salvation and his views on homosexuality, you are attacking a straw man. I don't believe he ever said homosexuals couldn't be saved. Once again you are twisting others' words to say what you need them to say to make your point.S2> Soteriology--cool vocabulary word. I'm not sure how he feels about the "saving" of homosexuals, but he does consider their behavior an abomination (see the OT), and something that is amenable to cure through counseling (read his bio).S1> An interesting thread to explore would be, why are political conservatives so often angry bullies?S2> (Now I'm lashing out.)D1> Another interesting thread would be on why you insist on painting everyone with a broad brush. Why you constantly feel the need to call people names. And seriously, after this last campaign season can you honestly say it was the conservatives who were angry? If you think that, you must have slept through the past two years. But that all is really beside the point.S2> If you peruse your postings, you will find that you can insult people, in ways that don't enhance discourse, without literally calling them names.What part of this do you disagree with?o The bible says homosexuality is an abomination.o Christian and Jewish fundamentalists accept that the bible contains inerrant truth.o Christian and Jewish fundamentalists therefore consider homosexuality an abomination.Pretty straightforward predicate logic.S1> I doubt it was a candy-ass liberal who beat up your little brother (or you or your classmate) in school.D1> I have done quite a lot of research on the area of bullying and peer victimization. I think I'm in a position to say that your assumption would be dead wrong. Bullys and kids who fight are no more likely to be conservative or liberal.S2> I doubt that children generally have a very well-developed political viewpoint, in any case. But the people who were lynching blacks in (and out of) the South were probably not classical liberals. Nor were the folks who hung gay man in Minnesota on a fence and left him to die. Nor are neo-Nazis. And don't think that the folks who were running the Soviet Union or who are running China are liberals.Not all bullies are children. Is Bill O'Relly a bully? Is Al Franken?S1> As for your meta-argument: is intolerance of intolerance intolerant? I think you're reaching here.D1> No, buddy, you're reaching here. I can see through this trick as if it were clear glass. No one was talking about tolerating intolerance. Where did you get that? I was saying that you were being intolerant of F22's views and others that were counter to yours. You are the one tagging them intolerant - because you don't agree with them. I was showing you how he was actually more tolerant than you or the others. ONce again, it's that same old tired trick of painting people and their views in innacurate colors for the sake of furthering your argument. If you took them at face value or dealt with them honestly, you'd have nothing to argue against. Sorry it didn't work out for you this time.S2> Do you see calling me "buddy' in this context as hostile?"Sorry it didn't work out for you this time." Sounds pretty high-falutin'. You must be very proud of your power of persuasion.I don't think it's unreasonable to consider someone who is uncomfortable around gays (or Goths or punk rockers or Latinos) as intolerant. You may have other ideas, but the logic of your paragraph, above, eludes me.S1> The beauty of the civil rights legislation of the 60's is that, even if you still hate blacks, you can't actively discriminate against them in certain contexts.D1> And nobody here wants to. In the same way, posters you are taking issue with aren't talking about discriminating against homosexuals. The young fellow that caused you to get your undies in a wad was talking about his discomfort, not his reaction.S1> The issue is that if there's a person in position subservient to yours (e.g., an employee), and you feel uncomfortable around him, that person will probably suffer because of his superior's emotional state (discomfort). Is it really that unreasonable to believe that the original poster, or someone who shares his discomfort, might someday become a manager, and have a gay employee?A while back I worked in a place where one of the employees brought his boyfriend to a Christmas party. No one seemed to care....but we weren't in a "red" state.S1> So if you want to dislike what homosexuals do, and the other poster in question wants to dislike the beliefs of Catholics, that's OK. Feel free to avoid whomever makes you uncomfortable.D1> That's all the kid was talking about. I'm sure he'll sleep better tonight knowing he has your blessingS2> Hey, that was sarcastic too!S1> So is this thread exploring the question, "Is it OK not to feel comfortable around gays?" Or does it rather ask, "Why do I feel uncomfortable around gays?"D1> This thread wasn't doing either of those things. This thread was a very tired religious debate. The topics you mentioned were on a totally different thread. Nevertheless, the original question on the 'afraid of gays' thread was more of a 'why is this the case' question.S1> When I said, "Is this thread...", I was referring to the intention of the original poster. But you seem to agree that my second question is pertinent.S1> The first is a philosophical question; the second can be explored through psychology, biology, sociology, etc.D1> None of which are political, or require others to call into question his right to ask the question honestly, discuss the topic honestly, or get honest and helpful input. You, my friend, have yet to do any of this.S2> You are all good. I am all bad. But politics, culture, religion, and past experiences play a big part in how people feel about things like homosexuality. Seems relevant to me.S1> In a radio interview I heard, Alan Keyes, one of your guys,S2> ("One of your guys"? I sound like Rush Limbaugh here.)D1> He is not "one of my guys". Dammit! I would appreciate if you would stop doing that. You don't know me. You have know idea what my political, theological, or any other views are. Do you honestly think that if a person has one conservative thought that he ascribes to every thought or idea or agenda you believe to be conservative, or that he agrees with and is a fan of everyone you deem conservative. Seems like that's what you are doing, which is the epitome of narrow-minded prejudice.S2> Having read a number of your posts, I think some conclusions can be drawn. Feel free to draw conclusions from my postings. Wait a minute--you have.S1> It is pretty ironic that Alan Keyes' daughter recently came out of the closet, and she says she plans to be as activist as possible.D1> How is that ironic? Conservatives can't have gay children? Why not? Are they not allowed? Wrong genetics? The world isn't that black and white, you know.S2> A guy who spends years trashing homosexuals turns out to have a homosexual daughter, and you don't see the irony?S1> Keyes certainly does not seem to comfortable with the idea. I wonder if he still talks to her.D1> Of course he does. Don't be absurd. Here's the difference: Conservatives are able to disagree with people, maybe even feel uncomfortable with them (which I doubt is the case with Keyes and his daughter), and still appreciate and value them. Liberals, on the other hand, (or at least political liberals) seem to have a problem with this. If they disagree with your position, they proceed to call names, castigate, cast character dispersions, and use other tools of hatred and divisiveness.S2> Maybe you're a close personal friend of Alan Keyes. Otherwise I don't see how you'd know how he feels. There are people who've disowned their kids upon finding out the kids were gay. Not having your superior knowledge, I have no idea how Keyes feels about his daughter.Before you opine further on how Alan Keyes is because he's a conservative, I suggest you listen to or read his stump speeches and interviews. Maybe we should start a thread elsewhere on Alan Keyes.From my postings here you can discern that I'm not big on religious belief, and I tend toward libertarian. But I'm not sure how you can nail down my political viewpoint this quickly.And then you go on to generalize about conservatives and liberals. Now that seems rather hypocritical ("...why you insist on painting everyone with a broad brush."). I've listened to enough conservative radio and watched enough Fox News to know that your analysis is ridiculous. At least in the media, the technique seems to be to shout down one's opponent. But doctrinaire people on both sides can be insufferable; there are people on both sides who can listen attentively to an argument and respond in a reasonable way. Can't we just get along?D1> You know, I'm a smart guy. Apparently you're a smart guy too. So what is the point of all of this? What is so wrong with letting people believe/feel/struggle with whatever they are believing/feeling/strugging with? Why not let them be who they are.S2> Be who they are? Then let's let the original poster continue to feel uncomfortable around gays? Then what's the purpose of this forum? People who will post their ideas on why the original poster feels the way he does. You seem to have a big issue with the ideas you don't agree with (apparently an exploration of bigotry in this context is verboten). I don't see why my opinion is less valid than others' opinions.S2> If you continued posting on this board without calling names or calling into question the characters of those you disagree with...well...shoot...I might even end up liking you...maybe...S1> Uggghhhh...go back and read your own postings. To the extent that a lefty libertarian person who's kind of obsessed with civil rights can be friends with what a person with whatever views you have, that is fine.There, now I've posted a lot of stuff irrelevant to the thread, and a bit that's relevant. You have corrupted me.(Before you respond: I'm joking!)
-
It's taken me a while to get back to this, which is probably good. First off...okay, I'm really not an angry person, but once you go through all the trouble of cuttin and pasting from my posts, I guess I have to take a look at how I'm coming across. You were right to call me on that. However, you must admit that you've not been coming off smelling like roses either. I think the thing for me is that, because of the anonymity, I respond here in ways I never would in real life. I think it's also easy to see other folks as being angry but ourselves as sarcastic and biting. I'm sure I'm guilty of that.The point I was trying to make about the Bible is that, even though it says things about homosexuality, it doesn't teach that one is condemned to hell for being gay. There are OT passages that might say differently, but taken in context with the NT, the message is one of love and grace, not condemnation. Sorry if that sounds preachy. Just answering a point. As for the political stuff, I consider myself to be a conservative, but I'm not willing to bite off on every conservative agenda that comes down the pike. My profession makes that difficult! Can we just both admit that we probably tried to peg each other a little more than necessary?So the point I was trying to make concerning the kid who feels uncomfortable around gay men is basically that there might be reasons for it other than homophobia or any kind of negative thoughts or intentions toward gay folks. I just feel like the best thing to do is to understand where he is without making him feel all crappy about it. Only then can he be encouraged to grow beyond it. I guess that's the therapist in me coming out. As for Alan Keyes...he kind of annoys me. Smart guy, I might agree with him a lot, but I find him a bit narrow in his focus...and a little strange.
-
In reply to:
My profession makes that difficult!
Then you must be involved in interior decoration or Broadway shows. (Just kidding!)
In reply to:
it doesn't teach that one is condemned to hell for being gay
As far as I know, the only thing that condemns one to hell, according to the NT, is lack of acceptance of Christ. I'm gonna fry.
But the OT has some really harsh things to say about male homesexuality, which Christians sometimes quote. I know of two (heterosexual) people who have been driven away from their Baptist churches because of the church's intolerant (according to them) stance on homosexuality.
One joined a Unitarian-Universalist church, so the real Christians lost big-time there.
In any case, I don't believe that SpongeBob is gay. But even if he were, I think Patrick Star and Sandy would accept him.