Never a good way to introduce yourself [Archive] - NAXJA Forums -::- North American XJ Association

View Full Version : Never a good way to introduce yourself

dellstopjeep

February 23rd, 2009, 14:16

http://comancheclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15018

I dont know whats coming for this guy on there, but I think this a first time for this one.

bluejeepkid

February 23rd, 2009, 14:21

hahaha thats gonna be interesting

buzzbombxj

February 23rd, 2009, 14:22

there has never been a thread like that here.

:eyes:

FlexdXJ

February 23rd, 2009, 14:22

HAHAHAHA! What an ass!!!! :roflmao:

mossyoak

February 23rd, 2009, 14:34

well theres a first time for everything, well i mean maybe its been done over on the zuki and taco forums but a mj? wonder if he wants to trade it for a nice honda cr-v or something.

bluejeepkid

February 23rd, 2009, 14:34

hahaha thats gonna be interesting

what do you expect? guy owns and drives an mj......

OverlandXJ

February 23rd, 2009, 14:51

First reply is "Welcome to the Club", found that a bit amusing.

I could care less what someone sexuality is but did the guy think posting it was a good idea? I'm thinking Troll here looking for a "rise" outta those guys. :laugh2:

WB9YZU

February 23rd, 2009, 15:32

.40CalPatriot

February 23rd, 2009, 15:49

I am 19 and when I read that I thought wow that guy isnt afraid to admit it. But that is who he is and i am all for someone being true to themselves. I would not bash him in anyway for that. Although I think his approach was a little weird and I am wondering about the authenticity of it.

Bent

February 23rd, 2009, 15:54

http://comancheclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15018

I dont know whats coming for this guy on there, but I think this a first time for this one.
I wonder if I'm the only homophobe on there?

SeansBlueXJ

February 23rd, 2009, 15:56

I think I would slam him not so much for being gay but trying to pick someone up on his 1st post on the forum.

Coastie

February 23rd, 2009, 15:57

Good for the forum users for being so polite.

Bent

February 23rd, 2009, 15:57

I am 19 and when I read that I thought wow that guy isnt afraid to admit it. But that is who he is and i am all for someone being true to themselves.

Alcoholic?
Drug addict?
The list goes on; shall I continue?

TheAlmightySam

February 23rd, 2009, 15:59

What kind of reception would such a post generate here? Would you guys web-rape him, or would you welcome him with open arms as a fellow Jeep owner?

I'll say this: it's a little weird that he just blurts it out, but good on him for being comfortable with who he is.

It's too bad some people still aren't willing to come to terms with the fact that a significant portion of the population is gay, and that nothing they do is going to change that. I would sincerely hope that my fellow NAXJA members would be beyond bashing another individual solely based upon their sexuality.

.40CalPatriot

February 23rd, 2009, 16:38

Alcoholic?
Drug addict?
The list goes on; shall I continue?

How woul you like it if someone forced their beliefs on you?

wolfpackjeeper

February 23rd, 2009, 17:02

you are forcing your tolerant beliefs on him now.

.40CalPatriot

February 23rd, 2009, 17:04

you are forcing your tolerant beliefs on him now.

And do you see how he doesnt like it. And I didnt mean to force it on anyone. The question on what we thought of it and I said what I thought.

Bent

February 23rd, 2009, 17:12

How woul you like it if someone forced their beliefs on you?

Beliefs have nothing to do with it. It's a fact; homosexuality, drug addiction and alcoholism, to name but a few, are all symptoms of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Is there a cure? No. It is possible however, to recover from the symptoms. Can there be a genetic predisposition to the disease? Yes. None the less it is a choice to act upon it. A lifestyle choice is a choice and a choice is a choice is a choice and a fact is a fact is a fact.

.40CalPatriot

February 23rd, 2009, 17:15

Beliefs have nothing to do with it. It's a fact; homosexuality, drug addiction and alcoholism, to name but a few, are all symptoms of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Is there a cure? No. It is possible however, to recover from the symptoms. Can there be a genetic predisposition to the disease? Yes. None the less it is a choice to act upon it. A lifestyle choice is a choice and a choice is a choice is a choice and a fact is a fact is a fact.

And this is why I try to stay away from these types of threads. For one people are always so FU#$ING picky about only agreeing with themselves, and two somehow SOCAL always finds a way to piss people off!

kujito

February 23rd, 2009, 17:22

How would(fixified) you like it if someone forced their beliefs on you?

I think (correct me if I'm wrong Bent) you took this...
Alcoholic?
Drug addict?
The list goes on; shall I continue?

... the wrong way Justin. I think Bent was asking if your statement ...

But that is who he is and i am all for someone being true to themselves.
... still applied under those conditions.

kujito

February 23rd, 2009, 17:23

Damn, a little slow on the draw,

and I guess I was off the mark.

Edit: Fwiw, five responses and nobody flinched. Just the normal "welcome and where's the jeep pics?" posts.

Bent

February 23rd, 2009, 17:23

And this is why I try to stay away from these types of threads. For one people are always so FU#$ING picky about only agreeing with themselves, and two somehow SOCAL always finds a way to piss people off!

I'll bet you were a riot to watch in a physics class. Pssst, gravity is real too.

:roflmao:

Bent

February 23rd, 2009, 17:25

I think (correct me if I'm wrong Bent) you took this...

... the wrong way Justin. I think Bent was asking if your statement ...

... still applied under those conditions.

You sir are correct.

.40CalPatriot

February 23rd, 2009, 17:27

I think (correct me if I'm wrong Bent) you took this...

... the wrong way Justin. I think Bent was asking if your statement ...

... still applied under those conditions.

I did take it that way when I looked at it, and I stand by what I said. You cant change everyone in the world and stop them from doing what they do even if it is wrong. The world could not function if everyone did everything right.

.40CalPatriot

February 23rd, 2009, 17:28

I'll bet you were a riot to watch in a physics class. Pssst, gravity is real too.

:roflmao:

Not funny, but impossible! Never took physics.:shhh:

kujito

February 23rd, 2009, 17:38

TheAlmightySam

February 23rd, 2009, 17:38

Beliefs have nothing to do with it. It's a fact; homosexuality, drug addiction and alcoholism, to name but a few, are all symptoms of an obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Source? I'd love to see that study. I'll bet it's... enlightening.

.40CalPatriot

February 23rd, 2009, 17:42

How did he force his beliefs on anybody? Did I miss something?

So, your best bud from grade school shows up one day and he's all strung out. Do you accept his new junkie lifestyle as OK because he's just being 'true' to himself? Even if that 'truth' is chemically induced, it is his current 'truth'.

Just because I said that he is "true" to himself didnt mean that I would accept it. But by not accepting it doesnt mean I am going to beat him down about it. If he wants help to change thats one thing but if he cannot stop well then he needs to go back to his acts without me.

fscrig75

February 23rd, 2009, 17:45

So the guy is gay, who gives a damn.

The way he jumped into that forum and announcing it and trying to find a date, instead of just making friends seems to me that he was looking to start a fight.

From the responses I read it does seem that everyone blew off his comment, good for them.

goblazers_6

February 23rd, 2009, 17:46

i wonder if he recieved any "special" PM's like he was hoping for.

fscrig75

February 23rd, 2009, 17:46

Source? I'd love to see that study. I'll bet it's... enlightening.

I'll bet there is an old and new book too.

tupton

February 23rd, 2009, 17:48

I think Bent is late for an anti-abortion rally somewhere

Jester99

February 23rd, 2009, 17:52

I could care less about the fact that he's gay. I do think the guy is a total dumbass though for combining two things in an introduction that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It's the equivalent of standing in a gas station bathroom takin' a pee and looking at the wall..." For a good time be here at 2:15 a.m."

I am willing to bet though that the guy did by the MJ specifically for the bed:rof:

dellstopjeep

February 23rd, 2009, 17:57

i wonder if he recieved any "special" PM's like he was hoping for.

I heard you asked him out already on a wheeling date. Since he most likely has a underbuilt 86, you could "tow him from behind."
haha wow im funny

No but really the whole gay thing doesnt bother me as long as they stay away from me. Common median, unfortunaly I live near Portland and even the mayor is swinging the other way so looks like im surrounded by it so I better get used to it.

But he is definitly trying to pick up tail on a Comanche forum and that has gotta be hilarious, it would be just as bad if I announced all hot jeep ladies on naxja pm me. One it wouldnt happen and two I would get flamed like crazy.

TheAlmightySam

February 23rd, 2009, 18:17

I'll bet there is an old and new book too.

Indeed. If this is the case, Bent, please fill me in on which verses explain that homosexuality is an obsessive/compulsive spectrum disorder. I'm not real up on my religious literature - been a while since I took those classes. I was a history major with a minor in world religion at a Christian univeristy for a couple years, but it must have been the upper division courses that covered mental disorder diagnosis.

muduck18

February 23rd, 2009, 18:42

This post intentionally left blank.

GrimmJeeper

February 23rd, 2009, 20:04

This post intentionally left blank.
its called SAGE : http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sage

from the japanese term, meaning "to put down" or "to lower"

4. sage Within the context of text and image forums, "sage" or "saging" is the act of adding commentary that will not renew a thread's position within the forum.

This is done for one of two reasons:
-As a generosity to other posters - a long living but moot thread is not of aid to anyone, and this acts as a discrete manner to add complementary information.
-Exclusively as a harsh statement of reprisal - feeling that the content is inappropriate or that the manner of the poster is unsuitable.

:D

i agree with fscrig75, who cares? does it effect you in any way? probably not (unless you sent him a PM ;)) so nothing to discuss.

Darky

February 23rd, 2009, 20:21

I like how people will start flaming on someone's religion because it's different from them. Is his belief somehow less valid than yours if it's based on religion? Way to practice your "tolerance".

WB9YZU

February 23rd, 2009, 21:03

Yet again, the same exact parties are beating that poor dead horse.

One does not need to be tolerant or even accepting of Homosexuality. It's a personal choice on both sides of the fence. One just can't deny people their Rights under the Constitution because of their sexual proclivities.

Each of us is allowed his or her own opinion about Homosexuality, and what it's cause is. The activity is age old, and will be around as long as there will be people. None of us is going to change each others mind with pointed arguments, lables, or names. Some of us are liberal minded, and some of us are less so.

So, unless there is something further to discuss about the original post, perhaps it's time to let the thread die on the vine.

Gil BullyKatz

February 23rd, 2009, 21:38

TROLL...

It's been done here before.

TheAlmightySam

February 23rd, 2009, 22:42

I like how people will start flaming on someone's religion because it's different from them. Is his belief somehow less valid than yours if it's based on religion? Way to practice your "tolerance".

Like everyone else on Earth, I choose what I'm willing to tolerate. We all make that decision every day. Hatred and fear with a frosting of pseudo-science and hyperbole is intolerable to me, whether it's religiously-motivated or not.

IslanderOffRoad

February 23rd, 2009, 22:48

who cares?

BPB

February 23rd, 2009, 23:46

It is just him trying to start a commotion. People can be gay, it's gross, but they are. I am fat, it's gross; however you don't see me introducing my self "Hi, New here looking for other fat people, shoot me a PM if you are fat!!" No!!! I don't have to let everyone know that I am fat, I just sit here in front of my computer and be fat by my self.

gradon

February 24th, 2009, 00:21

No sympathy from wolfpack

tharlanjr

February 24th, 2009, 02:14

I'm not a homophobe because gays don't scare me, they just really gross me out...
:eyes:

Lame way to introduce yourself on a new forum.

I wonder if I'm the only homophobe on there?

90Blue_XJ

February 24th, 2009, 03:21

sage 122 up (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sage#), 83 down (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sage#)http://www.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsup.gif (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sage#)http://www.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsdown.gif (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sage#)An antiquated word meaning a man of deep mind or wisdom, carrying the capacity to give advisement within more typically the management of life or spiritual and self-realizing matters.

wolfpackjeeper

February 24th, 2009, 05:35

No sympathy from wolfpack

it is a jeep forum. Why should anyone care. it has nothing to do with jeeps. It either was posted cause he is a troll, or posted cause he is overly proud of his decision. Either way it does not matter to the forum, which will keep on chugging on with or without the information.

bigalpha

February 24th, 2009, 05:56

IslanderOffRoad

February 24th, 2009, 08:46

Hey! I was just replying to your personals ad for fat people. Shoot me a PM if you wanna chat about fat-people stuff! lolz.

like rascal scooters and pie?

bigalpha

February 24th, 2009, 08:47

like rascal scooters and pie?

I LOVE PIE!

NOM NOM NOM.

urban yan

February 24th, 2009, 10:48

Whatever flips his burger I guess.

Being "Gay" just doesn't have the stigma it used to. The kids nowdays are all taught that it's not only alright, but it makes you a protected being.

So, since it's been brought up...
There is an interesting mix of 15 to 50ish folks here.
What kind of reception would such a post generate here? Would you guys web-rape him, or would you welcome him with open arms as a fellow Jeep owner?

I won't deny that I used to be homophobe, but than I grew up. Quite frankly, I don't care anymore. Homosexual brains are wired differently... which means they can't stop being gay anymore than I can stop being straight. I wouldn't be much of a human being for persecuting people for who they are.

I don't even care whether or not homosexuals adopt children. I'll admit, it used to really bother me for while, but than I realized we live in a pretty shitty world that's running a serious deficit on compassion. I think a child's better off having two dads or moms that truly love them than spending their entire youth in state care.

logdog

February 24th, 2009, 11:02

hasta

BobDog

February 24th, 2009, 11:52

Beliefs have nothing to do with it. It's a fact; homosexuality, drug addiction and alcoholism, to name but a few, are all symptoms of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Is there a cure? No. It is possible however, to recover from the symptoms. Can there be a genetic predisposition to the disease? Yes. None the less it is a choice to act upon it. A lifestyle choice is a choice and a choice is a choice is a choice and a fact is a fact is a fact.

What da ya mean? I can quit drinking anytime....done it dozens of times:D

Jeff in VA

February 24th, 2009, 12:23

Hmmmmm....19 replies over on CC

almost 5 pages over here already

:laugh:

Jeff

Kittrell

February 24th, 2009, 12:30

I wonder if I'm the only homophobe on there?

I wouldn't call myself a homophobe. But I openly do not like gays because I think it's friggin' disgusting.

dellstopjeep

February 24th, 2009, 12:50

i hate fat people like bigpimpinben, he is actually gay and fat and its not healthy for the jeepin community. haha

Bent

February 24th, 2009, 13:28

The activity is age old, and will be around as long as there will be people.

So has murder and rape; murder being the oldest. Should they be acceptable too?

:bs:
Well, maybe not murder since it's not a sexual preference.

Bent

February 24th, 2009, 13:32

I wouldn't call myself a homophobe. But I openly do not like gays because I think it's friggin' disgusting.
By todays revised definition that's a homophobe. Sorry.

TheAlmightySam

February 24th, 2009, 13:51

So has murder and rape; murder being the oldest. Should they be acceptable too?

Of course not. You're creating a straw man argument. It's unfortunate that, like most who oppose equal rights, the straw man argument is your only sword.

Where's that study that links homosexuality to OCD? I'm genuinely interested.

Kittrell

February 24th, 2009, 14:27

By todays revised definition that's a homophobe. Sorry.

They can revise it all they want. But a phobia is a fear, and they don't scare me at all.

Darky

February 24th, 2009, 14:40

Like everyone else on Earth, I choose what I'm willing to tolerate. We all make that decision every day. Hatred and fear with a frosting of pseudo-science and hyperbole is intolerable to me, whether it's religiously-motivated or not.
How do you tolerate your irrational hatred of religion?
I can't speak for any other religion except just straight biblical Christianity, but hatred towards gays isn't advocated. It's a sin, but no more so than a man looking on a woman lustfully (if she isn't his wife). I don't fear or hate gay people. I can't watch two men kiss (or even really two women) but I've no problem with the person himself.

TheAlmightySam

February 24th, 2009, 14:48

How do you tolerate your irrational hatred of religion?

Ha, another straw man. You guys must get trained in invalid arguments in Sunday School. Actually, if you had bothered to read my comments earlier, I studied world religions at a conservative Christian university. There are many things I hate - religion is not one of them.

I hear anti gay rights advocates always saying, "we don't hate the sinner, we hate the sin." Well, guess what, I don't hate religion, I hate the bad behavior people justify with religion.

alaskan_tatertot

February 24th, 2009, 16:15

this should be like the military, dont ask dont tell

scottmcneal

February 24th, 2009, 16:23

Who cares??? Was it on this site??????? No, so stop your bit*#ing..I would say go out an offroad but most of you dont do that...MY GOD, get a life folks..Oh well he is gay, good for him...:peace:

Hellbent

February 24th, 2009, 16:29

odd way to start a conversation, but honestly if you're both of legal age, consenting, and gifted enough mentally to understand what you're consenting to.....then i don't care who you want to do. worry about yourself.

Darky

February 24th, 2009, 18:32

Ha, another straw man. You guys must get trained in invalid arguments in Sunday School. Actually, if you had bothered to read my comments earlier, I studied world religions at a conservative Christian university. There are many things I hate - religion is not one of them.

I hear anti gay rights advocates always saying, "we don't hate the sinner, we hate the sin." Well, guess what, I don't hate religion, I hate the bad behavior people justify with religion.
What bad behavior have I justified with my religion? I hate when people treat others poorly due to religion, science, etc as well.

Having gone to a Christian university doesn't prove your love of religion, or even your indifference to it. But then maybe I should've put one of these ;) on that first statement you quoted. It was sarcasm.

black_goose

February 24th, 2009, 18:49

Alcoholic?
Drug addict?
The list goes on; shall I continue?

so you're comparing a gay person to someone who's an alcoholic and a drug addict?

Darky

February 24th, 2009, 18:56

so you're comparing a gay person to someone who's an alcoholic and a drug addict?
Are you saying there's no gay alcoholics? ;)

dellstopjeep

February 24th, 2009, 19:01

im an alcoholic........drinking right now

BobDog

February 24th, 2009, 19:29

im an alcoholic........drinking right now

I so understand!!!

wolfpackjeeper

February 24th, 2009, 19:35

im an alcoholic........drinking right now
but the question is "are you gay?"

TheAlmightySam

February 24th, 2009, 19:39

What bad behavior have I justified with my religion? I hate when people treat others poorly due to religion, science, etc as well.

You haven't. Many others have. That's what I hate. Not religion, but the atrocities committed in the name of religion. The ultimately futile attempts at discrimination against gays, like the ultimately futile attempts at discrimination against people of color and women, is based in people's ill-formed personal belief systems that promote fear. That, right there, is what I hate: actions based upon fear.

Having gone to a Christian university doesn't prove your love of religion, or even your indifference to it.

No, but it sure does give a strong indicator that I don't hate it.

BobDog

February 24th, 2009, 19:40

but the question is "are you gay?"

O?? Yeah thass wright! No! Not even when I'm drunk. :nono:

BobDog

February 24th, 2009, 19:45

Did the guy ever say he was gay? I thought he just asked if there were any gays on that list. but I haven't gone back to read any new posts....this list has been way fun the it was.

johnnyc

February 24th, 2009, 19:58

Wow. I'm a CC member and I read the thread over there, then saw this thread.

AT NO TIME did he ever say he was looking to "hook up" with anybody. He was just curious if there were any other gay members. If so, they could send him a PM.

That would be like me asking if there are any other Asian MJ owners and saying to PM me if you're Asian.

Doesn't mean a thing. He was just asking if there were any other people like him. And that's it.

Darky

February 24th, 2009, 20:48

dellstopjeep

February 24th, 2009, 20:49

i will definitly be gay for a built ls1, 60's, an atlas, and no one gets to know. I will definitly become ungay once these things are given to me.

BPB

February 24th, 2009, 21:29

im an alcoholic........drinking right now
He's coming to you live on wifi from a gay bar as we speak!!!! X2 on drinking. F*$^# checking out tities on Fat Tuesday, lets bash gays!!!!! <---Sarcasm.

ChevelleSSLS6

February 25th, 2009, 01:03

i will definitly be gay for a built ls1, 60's, an atlas, and no one gets to know. I will definitly become ungay once these things are given to me.

lol

Well, my turn for the soapbox...
:soapbox:

gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay rights hasta

I'm sick of them drawling on and on about wanting to get married and adopting kids and stuff. My gf works at a day care and one boy 'has two moms' (no, they are not hot) and to say the least, it's sad.

If they want to be gay, so be it. Don't cram your gay gay gay gay gay beliefs into my ears and I'm sick of the media and hollywood doing it as well. Let kids be raised with single parents, or preferably one man one woman. A good upbringing for the kid is better than satisfying someone's want for a child and leaving the child sexually confused and wondering why the hell he has no dad when all the other kids at daycare have dads.

I'm a homophob since I met a gay guy and it was later mentioned to me he had a 'bulge' and that, um, was violating.:scared: So, yea. Leave me alone, don't stare at my ass, and whatever you do don't look at me like most of us would look at (insert name of hot babe here). If I made anyone cry, so be it. I don't think I said anything hateful, as it's just some opinions and experiences.

urban yan

February 25th, 2009, 02:45

I'm sick of them drawling on and on about wanting to get married and adopting kids and stuff. My gf works at a day care and one boy 'has two moms' (no, they are not hot) and to say the least, it's sad.
Would you rather have that kid in state care instead? Think about it before you answer... because state care is no picnic, and single men/women wanting to adopt are far and few between. That child will grow-up completely unloved (which is a total mind-f*** IMO)

If they want to be gay, so be it. Don't cram your gay gay gay gay gay beliefs into my ears and I'm sick of the media and hollywood doing it as well. Let kids be raised with single parents, or preferably one man one woman. A good upbringing for the kid is better than satisfying someone's want for a child and leaving the child sexually confused and wondering why the hell he has no dad when all the other kids at daycare have dads.
I'll agree that gay adoption is far from an ideal situation -- I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around a gay couple adopting a child. BUT, you need to understand that we're hardwired with sexual preference. In other words, no amount of "gay" upbringing will turn a child gay if they were predisposed to be straight. Secondly, you need to give gay parents some credit. They know they're not in the majority (which means they know they're, most likely, raising a straight child); besides most parents (gay or straight) seldom discuss sexuality with their child until they reach a certain level of maturity.

I'm a homophob since I met a gay guy and it was later mentioned to me he had a 'bulge' and that, um, was violating.:scared: So, yea. Leave me alone, don't stare at my ass, and whatever you do don't look at me like most of us would look at (insert name of hot babe here). If I made anyone cry, so be it. I don't think I said anything hateful, as it's just some opinions and experiences.
I get what you're saying, but I think that's the exception and not the rule. I met a few gay people I didn't know were gay at all (because they kept to themselves). The guy you described sounded like a total freak... than again the straight community's full of it's fair share of creepy freaks as well.

muduck18

February 25th, 2009, 06:25

2000 years of notable Gay hatred is not going to be changed in the 40 years since the sixties.

Brain washing happens two ways.
1 - Years of screaming for "tolerance" will eventually bring about acceptance and promotion.

2 - Sit people in a room and force them to hear over and over that gay is fine and that people should accept it.

Both are happening now. watch TV, every show has a gay person on it.
Goto public school... gay is fine there.(and many teachers are "gay")

A large number of people still think homosexuality is still bad because it goes against nature and because 2000+ years of culture are hard to erase.

Homosexuality goes against Nature, yes I said it, just like murder goes against nature, but people do it, and some people even like to do it.

Just because you tolerate doesn't mean I have to like it.

TheAlmightySam

February 25th, 2009, 08:45

A large number of people still think homosexuality is still bad because it goes against nature and because 2000+ years of culture are hard to erase.

Homosexuality goes against Nature, yes I said it, just like murder goes against nature, but people do it, and some people even like to do it.

Just because it "goes against nature," does not mean it's wrong. Many things we do go against nature (monogamy, for example, is an evolutionary disadvantage), and yet we think they're the right things to do. The nature argument isn't really valid when we try to apply it to morality.

Actually, when we look back over history, we find many examples of cultures where homosexuality is openly accepted. Most of the east Asian cultures have no issue with it, and neither did the ancient Greeks. The fact that Americans have such a strong issue with it is solely based the Judeo-Christian background of most of our citizens. As has been mentioned many times before, this is no basis for policy or law, and while citizens may feel uncomfortable with homosexuality (as is their right), discriminatory law cannot be based upon their religious beliefs.

wolfpackjeeper

February 25th, 2009, 09:00

Just because it "goes against nature," does not mean it's wrong. Many things we do go against nature (monogamy, for example, is an evolutionary disadvantage), and yet we think they're the right things to do. The nature argument isn't really valid when we try to apply it to morality.

Actually, when we look back over history, we find many examples of cultures where homosexuality is openly accepted. Most of the east Asian cultures have no issue with it, and neither did the ancient Greeks. The fact that Americans have such a strong issue with it is solely based the Judeo-Christian background of most of our citizens. As has been mentioned many times before, this is no basis for policy or law, and while citizens may feel uncomfortable with homosexuality (as is their right), discriminatory law cannot be based upon their religious beliefs.

quite a few species out there are monogamous, including other primates. Lots of Top predators mate for life. So I do not buy that argument.

In ancient Rome and Greece (more so in the Roman Empire) it was perfectly acceptable for two Men to make love. Granted, they viewed their cattle higher than their women, so in order to love an equal a Roman was forced to love a Man. I guess from this argument we could also promote the degradation of women. . You know, they also liked children in ancient Rome. Maybe we should re-consider our laws on Pedophilia and child molestation. (most of these arguments apply to east asia as well, I just chose Rome as an example)

Toleration does not mean acceptance. I do not have to like the behavior, I do not have to condone the behavior, I merely have to not not interfere with someone else who choses to do it on their own time. And it for damn sure does not mean promotion. In this country you are free to do as you please as long as it does not violate a law or infringe on another's rights.

for the record: I do not really care about the issue. I do however care that my rights are infringed upon many times in our society in order to make sure that EVERYONE knows that another group has their rights.

TheAlmightySam

February 25th, 2009, 09:50

quite a few species out there are monogamous, including other primates. Lots of Top predators mate for life. So I do not buy that argument.

The late T. G. Dobzhansky, an evolutionary biologist once remarked,

"It's fascinating that some creatures would give up mating with multiple individuals and instead, form lasting monogamous bonds. We can only surmise that to these individuals, a lasting relationship, in whatever form it takes, is of greater importance to either themselves or the group, than the sheer advantage of spreading one's genetic material. To these creatures, whether consciously or unconsciously, they have discovered the great benefit of a lasting relationship."

If that's the case, then monogamy, of whatever form it takes is far from being against nature, at least for monogamous creatures. We've evolved to the point where social forces are more important to us than strictly spreading our genes. If that's the case, then who is to decide what is a "normal" relationship? The majority? I think we can immediately see that basing morality on majority behavior is far from the right way. Maybe we need to give up on the idea of defining "this is normal and this is not," and instead, accept these peoples' relationships, so long as they're consensual and non-predatory. This leads into your second point:

In ancient Rome and Greece (more so in the Roman Empire) it was perfectly acceptable for two Men to make love. Granted, they viewed their cattle higher than their women, so in order to love an equal a Roman was forced to love a Man. I guess from this argument we could also promote the degradation of women. . You know, they also liked children in ancient Rome. Maybe we should re-consider our laws on Pedophilia and child molestation. (most of these arguments apply to east asia as well, I just chose Rome as an example)

Consensual and non-predatory. Pretty simple definition, and there's not much controversy to it.

Toleration does not mean acceptance. I do not have to like the behavior, I do not have to condone the behavior, I merely have to not not interfere with someone else who choses to do it on their own time. And it for damn sure does not mean promotion. In this country you are free to do as you please as long as it does not violate a law or infringe on another's rights.

You don't have to accept anyone, but I strongly suggest that you get used to it already. It's not going away.

The fact of the matter is, right wing Christians are attempting to infringe on others' rights, and for a purely religious, and therefore invalid reason. This is unacceptable.

for the record: I do not really care about the issue. I do however care that my rights are infringed upon many times in our society in order to make sure that EVERYONE knows that another group has their rights.

What rights of yours are being infringed upon? My rights as a heterosexual have not changed at all.

wolfpackjeeper

February 25th, 2009, 10:33

TheAlmightySam

February 25th, 2009, 11:02

Interest groups, Christians and Gays included, as well as blacks, Jews, Chinese industrialists, Environmental groups, ect et al, all have agendas that put their group ahead. Because they DESERVE something. The game is seen as Zero Sum and the only way to advance your group is at the detriment of another. Why is "We're Here, We're Queer, get used to it" with parades down the street with Naked men and women protected by the 1st Amendment, yet If I were to do the same thing I would be arrested for indecent exposure? We go out of our way to protect some groups, without thinking about the consequences affecting another.

Ha, if you think civil rights is a zero sum game, I wonder why you're not up in arms about blacks having the right to vote. After all, if they are given rights, says you, that must mean your rights are diminished.

You have yet to show that your rights are diminished by others being given rights. Gays marching down the street naked during Pride doesn't change your rights - you would have been arrested for that 50 years ago, too.

The same goes for gay marriage. Doesn't affect your rights at all. I know a lot of gay people, and not one of them wants more rights than anyone else. They just want to be free to be who they are, the same as anyone else. This "they want more rights" argument is the same old FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt - spewed from the religious right. Garbage.

fwiw - we just sold my Grandmother's home to a very nice couple. 2 ladies we have known for a while. They were having trouble getting a loan so my mother set herself up as the bank and they paid through her to gain equity. Very nice ladies, one of them is helping out with a party my wife and I are having in April for our First Aniversary. They do not believe they deserve MORE rights, they are happy with the same rights.

So do 99% of gay people. In fact, I would argue that taken in sheer numbers, historically (and currently) white, Christian, straight males are the ones who have most often argued for more rights than anyone else. This is why there's been such battles as emancipation, women's suffrage, civil rights in the 60s, and now gay rights. It's us that's the problem, in general - not them.

wolfpackjeeper

February 25th, 2009, 12:45

Ha, if you think civil rights is a zero sum game, I wonder why you're not up in arms about blacks having the right to vote. After all, if they are given rights, says you, that must mean your rights are diminished.

You misread/ misinterpret what I said. I Know that it is not a zero sum game, it is not. But in our day many groups feel that the only way to advance their cause is at the degradation of someone else's. After all, is this not what affirmative action is all about, the advancement of one group over another.

getting funned out with the whole devil's advocate thing. Ecksjay you can keep that one for the time being. I do believe that everyone deserves the same rights, but the conflict comes from pressure groups, and those who FEEL that another's rights infringe on theirs.

TheAlmightySam

February 25th, 2009, 12:55

You misread/ misinterpret what I said. I Know that it is not a zero sum game, it is not. But in our day many groups feel that the only way to advance their cause is at the degradation of someone else's. After all, is this not what affirmative action is all about, the advancement of one group over another.

Agreed, affirmative action is a mistake. I have yet to see much of a compelling example that states that gay rights is one of these issues.

the conflict comes from pressure groups, and those who FEEL that another's rights infringe on theirs.

Such as many conservative Christians, who have pushed down other groups for the last 2000 years. Somewhere along the line they got lost, and forgot that they ought to do unto others as they would have done unto them.

Darky

February 25th, 2009, 13:06

You have yet to show that your rights are diminished by others being given rights. Gays marching down the street naked during Pride doesn't change your rights - you would have been arrested for that 50 years ago, too.

The question is, why is it ok for one group and not another?

kujito

February 25th, 2009, 13:15

The question is, why is it ok for one group and not another?
Because a bunch of straight guys marching naked down Main St. would just be weird.:scared:
You could get a parade permit and try it though.:rolleyes:

wolfpackjeeper

February 25th, 2009, 13:31

medium on topic, but when my wife was an RA at an all girls college one of her residents was "trans-gender" she wanted to be referred to by only masculine pro-nouns, wore guys cloths, dated chicks. Thought that was interesting. I was wondering when it would hit her that if she wanted to be a guy she would probably have to rectify that with the all girls college. She said she was not a lesbian or gay. She was trans-gender and as such her being into women was normal.

nice girl though, really, just a bit odd

wolfpackjeeper

February 25th, 2009, 13:31

Because a bunch of straight guys marching naked down Main St. would just be weird.:scared:
You could get a parade permit and try it though.:rolleyes:

i think they would be arrested. which might lead us into where gays have more rights in some cases

muduck18

February 25th, 2009, 13:40

The fact of the matter is, right wing Christians are attempting to infringe on others' rights, and for a purely religious, and therefore invalid reason. This is unacceptable.

What rights of yours are being infringed upon? My rights as a heterosexual have not changed at all.

Well you need pay closer attention to your world...
DO you have any children? maybe school age?
Do you have the right to ask the school to refrain from teaching your kid that it is perfectly natural for GAY SEX?

also, if you think about it, Marriage is a "judeo-Christian" institution, that is more emphasized by churches and religions than anyone else. so telling gays that what they are doing is wrong (which is a pre-brainwashed point of view) is perfectly within the right of the religion..

stop making up rights that don't exist...

kujito

February 25th, 2009, 13:47

You could get a parade permit and try it though.:rolleyes: <-----sarcastic smilie

TheAlmightySam

February 25th, 2009, 16:36

The question is, why is it ok for one group and not another?

Perfectly valid question. Certainly worth asking your lawmakers, if you're so inclined.

Well you need pay closer attention to your world...
DO you have any children? maybe school age?
Do you have the right to ask the school to refrain from teaching your kid that it is perfectly natural for GAY SEX?

You do have the right to ask. That doesn't mean your request will be honored. Such is the beauty of public school - it's not always cut-and-dried. If you want strict control over what's taught to your children, I suggest a private school or home schooling.

also, if you think about it, Marriage is a "judeo-Christian" institution, that is more emphasized by churches and religions than anyone else. so telling gays that what they are doing is wrong (which is a pre-brainwashed point of view) is perfectly within the right of the religion..

Incorrect. Marriage is a human institution. It's been practiced by all cultures spanning far back into the history of civilization. I'm perfectly fine with churches that oppose gay marriage not offering that ceremony - that's absolutely their right, and I have no right to infringe upon it. But, if marriage is recognized by the state (and it is), churches have no right to set umbrella rules that are religiously-based and attempt to apply them to a non-religious ceremony, such as one that might be performed by a justice of the peace. Freedom of (and from) religion, and all that.

stop making up rights that don't exist...

Such as?

Darky

February 25th, 2009, 19:16

Perfectly valid question. Certainly worth asking your lawmakers, if you're so inclined.

So no answer from you? That was the intent of his illustration, to point out where one group has a right another does not. No matter your view on homosexuality, that's a question that bears answering.

TheAlmightySam

February 25th, 2009, 20:45

So no answer from you? That was the intent of his illustration, to point out where one group has a right another does not. No matter your view on homosexuality, that's a question that bears answering.

No, the point appeared to be that one group gaining a right cost another group their rights. That's what anti-gay activists keep talking about, as though somehow allowing gays to marry and adopt will diminish their own rights.

Anyway, I'm surprised you're bent out of shape that I acknowledged your point. It's a valid question. So, I can fill my arguments with hyperbole and bullshit and try to pull a fast one on you, like the religious right does with their arguments, or I can acknowledge valid points and agree with what I agree with. Take your pick.

Speaking of bullshit, where's that OCD study? I'm dying for it over here. What medical journal was it from again, Bent?

matttaylor1976

February 25th, 2009, 21:09

So he's gay.... big fing deal. Let him go that route. Not my cup of tea, but it does leave more single women for me. If he wants to go wheeling, so be it... i'll take him out in the mud hole....:shiver: i mean back woods and see what he can do....:shhh: with his jeep....

people can do what they want, it doesnt affect my daily life. I am straight, and have gay friends. I have no right to enforce my way of life on them anymore than they have a right to push their way on me. In fact i enjoy making fun of my gay friends as much as the next straight guy. ssssssuper

ChevelleSSLS6

February 25th, 2009, 21:31

also, if you think about it, Marriage is a "judeo-Christian" institution, that is more emphasized by churches and religions than anyone else. so telling gays that what they are doing is wrong (which is a pre-brainwashed point of view) is perfectly within the right of the religion..

stop making up rights that don't exist...

It's an institution of many religions, none of which permit gay marriage. I can see a legal union (basically the tax benefits of a married couple and a piece of paper) for gays, I do coexist with them, but do I embrace their habits- no. Being a Christian, it's against my beliefs to participate in gay sex (and I have no desire to do so), but hey, if you want to do it, go ahead, just don't go around parading the fact that you're gay and so happy about it and all of the stuff the gay activists like to do. Getting it constantly and persistantly crammed down our ears is doing nothing but breeding resentment.

TheAlmightySam

February 25th, 2009, 22:30

It's an institution of many religions, none of which permit gay marriage.

You're speaking for every religion in the world? You're speaking for every religious leader of every religion on Earth? I have a hard time believing you represent everyone. I can think of at least one major religion that represents a large portion of the world populace that has no issue at all with gay marriage.

I can see a legal union (basically the tax benefits of a married couple and a piece of paper) for gays...

Seperate but equal is never equal. We tried that before the civil rights era; it didn't work.

I do coexist with them, but do I embrace their habits- no. Being a Christian, it's against my beliefs...

Being a conservative Christian. Make sure you're not trying to speak for people whom you don't represent.

just don't go around parading the fact that you're gay and so happy about it and all of the stuff the gay activists like to do. Getting it constantly and persistantly crammed down our ears is doing nothing but breeding resentment.

You wouldn't hear so much about it if people would stop fighting against equal rights for all. Get over yourselves.

wolfpackjeeper

February 26th, 2009, 06:10

which religion is it that embraces gay marriage? Not picking a fight, you just said you could think of a major world religion that embraces it, then didn't mention which one. Just curious.

muduck18

February 26th, 2009, 07:21

It's an institution of many religions, none of which permit gay marriage. I can see a legal union (basically the tax benefits of a married couple and a piece of paper) for gays, I do coexist with them, but do I embrace their habits- no. Being a Christian, it's against my beliefs to participate in gay sex (and I have no desire to do so), but hey, if you want to do it, go ahead, just don't go around parading the fact that you're gay and so happy about it and all of the stuff the gay activists like to do. Getting it constantly and persistantly crammed down our ears is doing nothing but breeding resentment.

Well said.
but lets not forget the spreading of aids thing... breeding resentment and spreading aids.

.
Being a conservative Christian. Make sure you're not trying to speak for people whom you don't represent.

You wouldn't hear so much about it if people would stop fighting against equal rights for all. Get over yourselves.

here you go. if you believe that homosexuality is "OK" then you are not a true Christian. there is no such thing as a 'conservative' and 'liberal' Christian.

There is a Christian or Hypocrite

Should people have the right to bestiality? In the Bible Homosexuality is compared and punished the same as bestiality, and many people find it equally as repulsive.

Why do I keep responding? this is a completely useless thread..

TheAlmightySam

February 26th, 2009, 09:29

Well said.
but lets not forget the spreading of aids thing... breeding resentment and spreading aids.

Which straight people can spread as well.

here you go. if you believe that homosexuality is "OK" then you are not a true Christian. there is no such thing as a 'conservative' and 'liberal' Christian.

There is a Christian or Hypocrite

Should people have the right to bestiality? In the Bible Homosexuality is compared and punished the same as bestiality, and many people find it equally as repulsive.

Oh, so you speak the mind of God? You follow every word to the letter in the Bible? You follow every prohibition in Leviticus? I didn't think so. Hypocrite. Shut the hell up and stop trying to put yourself on a pedestal. You're just like every other conservative when cornered, you lash out against the opposition.

Why do I keep responding? this is a completely useless thread..

I don't know. You ran out of valid points quite a while ago.

muduck18

February 26th, 2009, 09:37

I don't know. You ran out of valid points quite a while ago.

While you have yet to put one up.

wolfpackjeeper

February 26th, 2009, 11:58

You have been lashing out in every post, what makes u different? U still never said which major religion encourges gay marriage.

This is on my bberry so forgive the shorthand

TheAlmightySam

February 26th, 2009, 13:15

You have been lashing out in every post, what makes u different?

I have? I've been throwing out personal attacks? Where? The closest thing I can find is referring to that nonexistent OCD article as bullshit. Apologies if that came across as a personal attack - it was not intended as such. Interesting that the article has yet to materialize, though.

U still never said which major religion encourges gay marriage.

In my studies of Buddhism, the Buddha was neither encouraging to gays, nor condemning. He did, though, condemn other sexual practices.

From Mettanando Bhikko, a physician and Buddhist monk:
"[according to the principles of the Buddha,] homosexual people should not be discriminated against; they are humans who deserve all the rights and dignity endowed upon them as members of human race."

Although Buddhism does not make strong demands of its followers regarding sexual behavior, one of the five precepts is to "avoid sexual misconduct," which is spelled out fairly clearly in the Vinaya and never mentions homosexuality as forbidden.

Though few of us on this site might be Buddhists, it is a major world religion, as I mentioned. It does not encourage homosexuality (I never used that word), but it doesn't condemn it either. When someone says (paraphrasing) "every religion is against gay marriage," it would be a shame to not consider such a major and influential one.

woody

February 26th, 2009, 13:16

Since we're all pals here, I'll admit it:

I've been a lesbian trapped in a man's body for as long as I can remember. It's a difficult deal, as you may well imagine... and talking the wife into indulging me has been a less that fruitful venture. But she's old. Um I mean old fashioned. And mean, now that I think of it.

So I am needing a soul mate. Preferably not old (fashioned) and certainly not some other freak like me. Must be -40, female trapped in a female body, carniverous, kind, compassionate and willing to travel, rich would be a plus, as would be a functional knowledge of high explosives... (we'll count digits first date... adult show & tell! Less than twenty, without a real good story and I'm bailing out)

Thanks for listening...

Edit: mebbe I should post a wanted ad in the Classifieds?

Darky

February 26th, 2009, 13:35

You're speaking for every religion in the world? You're speaking for every religious leader of every religion on Earth? I have a hard time believing you represent everyone. I can think of at least one major religion that represents a large portion of the world populace that has no issue at all with gay marriage.
Most major religions are against homosexuality. Be glad that we evil conservative Christians aren't conservative Muslims, we'd kill gay people and you for defending them...:dunno:

Being a conservative Christian. Make sure you're not trying to speak for people whom you don't represent.

No, it's just Christian. Read the Bible, Romans 8 I think is the main chapter. Homosexuality isn't just called a sin in the Old Testament, it carries into the new. As far as your argument regarding the following of Levitical law, when Christ came and died on the cross, He fulfilled the law. He created a new covenant under grace. You are no longer required to adhere to the strict Levitical law. No one could, that's why the need for a Savior exists. If it was possible to make it on our own accord, Christ wouldn't have needed to endure the cross. As far as conservative Christians condemning gays, they're wrong. I'm a conservative Christian (in case you hadn't guessed by now...:D) and while I dislike the action, its no worse than any other sin. A sin is a sin. And we're all sinners, so I'm no more holy and righteous than a gay Christian (although in my worse moments I think I am). The only difference is which sin you're engaged in.

As far as marriage rights, my solution is to evict the gov't from marriage, period. Let marriage fall to the church since it was largely a religious thing anyways. If your church condones homosexuality and is willing to marry a gay couple, then let them marry in that church. Marriage would serve as a testament to your friends and loved ones of your devotion and commitment to your spouse. For tax benefits, we'd go to a universal civil union. Marriage would be in the church, whatever church you attend be it Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. Civil Union would be legal and would afford you all the rights currently given under marriage. It would be open to straight or gay.
See, we "conservative" Christians are capable of thinking up solutions that keep the majority happy.

wolfpackjeeper

February 26th, 2009, 13:47

TheAlmightySam

February 26th, 2009, 13:48

Most major religions are against homosexuality. Be glad that we evil conservative Christians aren't conservative Muslims, we'd kill gay people and you for defending them...:dunno:

Never said conservatives were evil, and trust me, I don't think that at all. I just disagree with conservatives on many (but far from all) points. That doesn't make anyone evil.

Anyway, some conservative Christians have killed gays and their supporters. That's evil - not conservatism, but the actions people perform in the name of their god / leader / whoever.

I'm glad we live in a country where no religion is able to enforce its views upon others. That's what I'm arguing to prevent.

No, it's just Christian. Read the Bible, Romans 8 I think is the main chapter. Homosexuality isn't just called a sin in the Old Testament, it carries into the new. As far as your argument regarding the following of Levitical law, when Christ came and died on the cross, He fulfilled the law. He created a new covenant under grace. You are no longer required to adhere to the strict Levitical law. No one could, that's why the need for a Savior exists. If it was possible to make it on our own accord, Christ wouldn't have needed to endure the cross. As far as conservative Christians condemning gays, they're wrong. I'm a conservative Christian (in case you hadn't guessed by now...:D) and while I dislike the action, its no worse than any other sin. A sin is a sin. And we're all sinners, so I'm no more holy and righteous than a gay Christian (although in my worse moments I think I am). The only difference is which sin you're engaged in.

Eat pork? Then you're a sinner. Had sex with a girl on her period? Sinner. Does your church ordain women? I seem to remember something about that in the New Testament as well. There's lots of rules we find no longer applicable to our time.

Look, Jesus didn't want us to blindly follow the rules - that's why he got in the faces of the Pharisees. They followed the letter of the law without ever thinking about what it meant and why. They never questioned whether it was even applicable anymore. We have to avoid the mistakes of the Pharisees. This doesn't mean throw out the law, but it does mean we have to question it, over and over, and make sure it still makes sense.

As far as marriage rights, my solution is to evict the gov't from marriage, period. Let marriage fall to the church since it was largely a religious thing anyways. If your church condones homosexuality and is willing to marry a gay couple, then let them marry in that church. Marriage would serve as a testament to your friends and loved ones of your devotion and commitment to your spouse. For tax benefits, we'd go to a universal civil union. Marriage would be in the church, whatever church you attend be it Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. Civil Union would be legal and would afford you all the rights currently given under marriage. It would be open to straight or gay.

This is an acceptable solution to most, so long as the rights given are identical. But why not call it marriage? Why does it matter that it have a different name?

See, we "conservative" Christians are capable of thinking up solutions that keep the majority happy.

Like all groups, some are willing to think outside the box, but some get caught up in the dogma. Cheers on being the former and not the latter.

TheAlmightySam

February 26th, 2009, 13:54

Ok, they tolerate it. But I am unclear on if two dudes walked into a temple, would the shaman[?] marry them?
I do not attend often, but at my parent's church there are two couples. Both are accepted and welcomed but
Neither could be married. So I am not sure that buddism is much of an example.

The temple I attended while doing my research had no issue performing a ceremony for a gay couple. I spoke with the monks there told me that it wasn't much of a hotbed issue to them, or many others. There are sects of conservative Buddhism that prohibit it, but they're the vast minority, in my understanding.

Additionally, I couldn't find any reference to homosexuality being prohibited in the Buddhist texts I read.

The Buddha promoted monogamy (or celibacy in some Buddhist orders), and my understanding is that he would have accepted monogamy in whatever form it might have taken.

It just seemed to me that you were attacking Christianity and others who believe in it. Forgive me if I am wrong
But that is how it came across

Far from it. I'm attacking the logic that tries to force-feed "Christian" (that's in quotes) morality onto the law without a rational basis. If you've got a non-religious reason gays shouldn't marry, I'm all ears. If you're trying to mask the fact that some Bible verse says so, and you want all of America to follow that, then I take issue with your purpose.

Apologies if it came across otherwise.

Darky

February 26th, 2009, 14:21

Never said conservatives were evil, and trust me, I don't think that at all. I just disagree with conservatives on many (but far from all) points. That doesn't make anyone evil. Yeah, sometimes I let my sarcasm overtake me...;)

Eat pork? Then you're a sinner. Had sex with a girl on her period? Sinner. Does your church ordain women? I seem to remember something about that in the New Testament as well. There's lots of rules we find no longer applicable to our time. Pork, porking on a period, those are under the old covenant. If you're a Christian, you're under the new covenant. As far as ordaining women, in many churches, that's still a practice. Everybody has a role. In my church you won't find a female pastor, but my mother in law is the worship leader. As far as any of these activites making someone a sinner, you must've missed where I said, "We're all sinners." All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Look, Jesus didn't want us to blindly follow the rules - that's why he got in the faces of the Pharisees. They followed the letter of the law without ever thinking about what it meant and why. They never questioned whether it was even applicable anymore. We have to avoid the mistakes of the Pharisees. This doesn't mean throw out the law, but it does mean we have to question it, over and over, and make sure it still makes sense.
Jesus got after the Pharisees because of the motivation behind their blind obedience to the law. They obeyed the law because they were supposed to. They completely ignored the role of grace and love. Jesus said the of all the commandments, "the greatest of these is love". All of the law hangs upon love. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. They asked, well, who is my neighbor? That wasn't the point, love all as yourself. Part of that love is pointing out to people when they're wrong. You do it in love, not like, "Hey idiot, don't ya know you're not supposed to lust after women?! Frickin retarded perv..." You should approach any wrong with the attitude of love. Lik when my kids try to go near our woodstove, I pull them back and tell them, "No, stay away from that, it is very hot and will burn you if you touch it."

This is an acceptable solution to most, so long as the rights given are identical. But why not call it marriage? Why does it matter that it have a different name? The whole point is for the rights to be even for all. That's why it would be civil union for all. Why not call it marriage? If you legalize gay marriage as marriage currently functions in the eyes of the law, there's too much opportunity for the more extreme gays ("militant gays", if you will) to try and sue a church for refusing to marry them. It also would maintain the sanctity of marriage for the churches that don't believe in gay marriage while also allowing the churches who do to marry gays as much as they want.

Like all groups, some are willing to think outside the box, but some get caught up in the dogma. Cheers on being the former and not the latter. I do my best.

TheAlmightySam

February 26th, 2009, 15:04

Pork, porking on a period, those are under the old covenant. If you're a Christian, you're under the new covenant.

I find the new covenant pretty vague on the topic of homosexuality, personally. Romans 1:26-27 is the oft-quoted passage, but I have a hard time taking it in a vacuum. Seems to me that Paul is speaking of Roman pagans (Rom 1:18-24) and admonishing the Christians for bashing on the pagans, saying:

(1) You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (2) Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. (3) So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? (4) Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

- Rom 2:1-4, NIV

It's nebulous, at best, what Paul is getting at here. I have a really difficult time accepting this as pure condemnation of homosexuality, especially considering how infrequent it's mentioned in the New Testament - not to mention that there's significant controversy regarding how much of the Pauline Epistles were actually written by Paul, and how many were added after the fact. There's a lot of question about the authenticity of some of his writings by scholars (Elaine Pagels, professor of Religion at Princeton, Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby, and others)

I always wondered - if homosexuality was such a huge issue for God, how come Jesus doesn't say a word about it? Of course, we only have limited writings regarding what he said, but it's interesting that all four of the gospels are devoid of anything to do with homosexuality. Seems like if the son of God were really concerned about it, he might have said something.

Or maybe it's not that big of a deal afterall...

Jesus got after the Pharisees because of the motivation behind their blind obedience to the law. They obeyed the law because they were supposed to. They completely ignored the role of grace and love. Jesus said the of all the commandments, "the greatest of these is love". All of the law hangs upon love. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. They asked, well, who is my neighbor? That wasn't the point, love all as yourself. Part of that love is pointing out to people when they're wrong. You do it in love, not like, "Hey idiot, don't ya know you're not supposed to lust after women?! Frickin retarded perv..." You should approach any wrong with the attitude of love. Lik when my kids try to go near our woodstove, I pull them back and tell them, "No, stay away from that, it is very hot and will burn you if you touch it."

I seem to remember something about, "how can you remove a splinter from your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own?" I'll stick with not pointing out the faults of others; I've got too many of my own. "Let he who is blameless cast the first stone," and all that.

If you legalize gay marriage as marriage currently functions in the eyes of the law, there's too much opportunity for the more extreme gays ("militant gays", if you will) to try and sue a church for refusing to marry them. It also would maintain the sanctity of marriage for the churches that don't believe in gay marriage while also allowing the churches who do to marry gays as much as they want.

Though this has yet to happen in the countries that have legalized gay marriage, at least as far as I can find. Put a provision in the law to protect churches, rather than calling it something else. Separate but equal has never worked, and calling something by a different name is just begging for some lawmaker to discriminate. I trust gays not to sue a lot more than I trust politicians to be fair.

Darky

February 26th, 2009, 22:29

I find the new covenant pretty vague on the topic of homosexuality, personally. Romans 1:26-27:
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
is the oft-quoted passage, but I have a hard time taking it in a vacuum. Seems to me that Paul is speaking of Roman pagans (Rom 1:18-24) and admonishing the Christians for bashing on the pagans, saying:

I added on 22-32. This is the King James version, believed to be the most accurate when compared to the original transcripts. The people are accused of making idols of God. Read verse 27, it's pretty clear.
However, I'm not necessarily here to try and convince you that God views homosexuality as a sin, that's between you and God to figure out. I know what the Bible says on it, and that's what I'm going with. But as I have been trying to help you understand, it's not a matter of are they bad people or not, are they below me, it's a matter of sin. They're sin doesn't make them less than me and my sin.
I seem to remember something about, "how can you remove a splinter from your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own?" I'll stick with not pointing out the faults of others; I've got too many of my own. "Let he who is blameless cast the first stone," and all that.
When casting stones, that means you have condemned that person. We are not called to condemn. Jesus didn't condemn. There's nothing wrong with pointing out to someone that they're messing up somewhere, if you do it with the right attitude. From the Proverbs: "The wise man loves instruction". How do you love instruction/correction if no one is able to correct you when you're wrong? If you see someone about to step out in front of a speeding semi, are you going to stand by and let them because the other day you stubbed your toe?

Though this has yet to happen in the countries that have legalized gay marriage, at least as far as I can find. Put a provision in the law to protect churches, rather than calling it something else. Separate but equal has never worked, and calling something by a different name is just begging for some lawmaker to discriminate. I trust gays not to sue a lot more than I trust politicians to be fair.There's nothing separate about it. One institution will be strictly in the church, the other will be strictly for the gov't. It removes the gov't from what was largely a religious ceremony adopted by the government. Everyone has equal access to both marriage and civil union. I see no "separate but equal".
You have to remember, America is a bit different from the world. We have a strong attitude of entitlement. A lesbian couple already tried suing a fertility doctor when he wouldn't violate his religious beliefs by impregnating one of them. He did refer them to another doctor in his practice who had no qualms with doing the procedure. They sued to try to force the first doctor to do the procedure. Why not just write a law protecting the churches? Because that still leaves the churches high and dry as to the sanctity of marriage. My plan gives both sides access to what they want without stepping on the toes of either. If you're gay and want a church wedding, there are plenty of liberal churches out there who'd do the ceremony. If you don't want gays to be married, your church doesn't have to be a part of it. If you want tax benefits and survivorship rights, you file for a civil union, gay or straight.

BobDog

February 27th, 2009, 10:55

So just for the fun of it I read the forum rules:

"Although the administrators and moderators of NAXJA Forums -::- North American XJ Association will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of NAXJA Forums -::- North American XJ Association, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of NAXJA Forums -::- North American XJ Association reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."

If someone would just post something w/ subjects that pretain to the 'blue' words, we could call it a wrap! :D

Darky

February 27th, 2009, 11:12

BobDog

February 27th, 2009, 12:21

If you want it gone, you post something from the blue section. or I'll kill you

golly....it was so much easier to bait folks when we were all little kids.....if nothing else worked you just grinned real big and said, "I double dog dare ya".
I miss those days sometimes....weren't any gay kids until HS. I was sheltered so I didn't know about gays until college. Still remember what I said. "YUCK, you have got to be kidding me!?":dunce:
Looking back tho....that young priest at church was actin pretty funny?????:laugh:

Darky

February 27th, 2009, 12:23

golly....it was so much easier to bait folks when we were all little kids.....if nothing else worked you just grinned real big and said, "I double dog dare ya".
I miss those days sometimes....weren't any gay kids until HS. I was sheltered so I didn't know about gays until college. Still remember what I said. "YUCK, you have got to be kidding me!?":dunce:
Looking back tho....that young priest at church was actin pretty funny?????:laugh:
look closer at my post...:)

BobDog

February 27th, 2009, 12:30

:doh:Yeah I know you're going to kill me.....damn its always something......

wolfpackjeeper

February 27th, 2009, 15:47

Is Buddhism a religion per se? I am on a computer now instead of in the car on my blackberry so I can ask longer questions.

I always thought of Buddhism as a philosophy or a lifestyle.

BobDog

February 28th, 2009, 11:18

BobDog

February 28th, 2009, 11:30

:D You know I just got to wondering if gay guys can shift a stick better then I can and therefore would they be able to out drive me. what do you guys think....does practice make perfect? And do hetrosexuals tend to drive automatics? hmmmmmmm.

TheAlmightySam

March 1st, 2009, 09:52

Is Buddhism a religion per se? I am on a computer now instead of in the car on my blackberry so I can ask longer questions.

I always thought of Buddhism as a philosophy or a lifestyle.

I think it depends on who you ask. Buddhists would probably not define their belief system as religious, as traditional Buddhism has no gods. There are sects of Buddhism that have gods (typically sects that have been intermingled with Hinduism), but they're the exception rather than the rule.

That said, since Buddhism shows up as a religion choice on surveys and the US Census, I'm going to slot it in with other religions.

BobDog

March 1st, 2009, 13:33

I think it depends on who you ask. Buddhists would probably not define their belief system as religious, as traditional Buddhism has no gods. There are sects of Buddhism that have gods (typically sects that have been intermingled with Hinduism), but they're the exception rather than the rule.

That said, since Buddhism shows up as a religion choice on surveys and the US Census, I'm going to slot it in with other religions.

Well thank you. Buddhism is so much more interesting then gays. I have 2 buddies who are practicing Buddhism. (I wonder how much practice it takes to become 'one' [pun] ;>} ) Anyway I think you wrapped it right up when it comes to how they feel! Seems like Buddhism practices the Christian concepts more then most Christians. :clap:
P.S. I ask myself ..... would Buddha wheel? I think only if someone had cleared the worms out of the way first....even the gay ones....o wait worms are all gay aren't they?

Darky

March 1st, 2009, 19:04

Worms are gay for themselves. Crazy asexual reproduction...

sandaddik2

June 7th, 2010, 16:49

beakie

June 7th, 2010, 17:13

going out on a limb, but...

someone;
1. was searching "gay*" (which is ok, to each his own)
2. found this thread
3. read first page
4. suppresed natural tendencies/feelings
5. felt need to over-compensate for those feelings
6. wrote "blahblahblah those type of people are sick imo. blahblahblah"
7. didn't notice that the thread is over a year old
8. DOH!

hubs97xj

June 7th, 2010, 17:30

giggle

bigalpha

June 7th, 2010, 17:33

giggle

lastara

Shorty

June 7th, 2010, 17:43

sand ad dik 2 ??

I like sand, but I really don't have much interest in adding a.... well you get the picture.

kastein

June 7th, 2010, 17:50

hahaha how exactly did this thread get resurrected... I want to know what the search terms were!

Not gay, don't care if anyone else is, keep it in your bedroom and I'll keep it in mine, won't keep me from helping you fix your jeep or having a beer around the campfire with you. Just doesn't really matter to me :dunno: I generally stick with the "live and let live" mentality.

bjoehandley

June 7th, 2010, 18:01

X2 Kastein!

Starboard M

June 7th, 2010, 18:20

just because you own a jeep doesnt mean im going to be your buddy. i am easy to get along with but those type of people are sick imo. and it makes it more sick to try to push it out into the open saying its okay.
Did you just grab my butt?

lastara

MoparManiac

June 7th, 2010, 18:29

Did you just grab my butt?

lastara

From where I am standing that is a physical impossibility.

stewie

June 7th, 2010, 18:35

Did you just grab my butt?

lastara

yes i did. it was a brotherly lastara thing... :laugh3:

DrMoab

June 7th, 2010, 22:43

I still want that cracker-midget thing.

But I don't think that is gay.

bjoehandley

June 7th, 2010, 22:44

From where I am standing that is a physical impossibility.

Tryin' to say he has no ass?

Darky

June 8th, 2010, 13:18

Y'all are a bunch of homos...

;)

hubs97xj

June 8th, 2010, 14:19

Tryin' to say he has no ass?

I think that means he's "the little spoon". lastara

bjoehandley

June 8th, 2010, 15:55

Gotcha!

What's the whole Cracker-Midget thing...or don't I want to know:scared:

BPB

June 8th, 2010, 22:00

what eric forgot to mention was that.... a year ago is that he posted on cc with his alter ego cc membership and he was reaching out for help and all u guys did was make fun of him..... wtf

DrMoab

June 8th, 2010, 22:18

What's the whole Cracker-Midget thing...or don't I want to know:scared:

Its in the Den. If you were a member...you would know.

goblazers_6

June 10th, 2010, 19:50

bjoehandley

June 11th, 2010, 21:19

I betting this is 100% correct.

I'd have to agree with that too!