'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage&#3

[kengs333]

Nutbar.

anti-Semite, you are...

I've never referred to anything as the "Will of God" nor do I quote Bible verses.

Edited November 10, 2008 by kengs333

[GostHacked]

anti-Semite, you are...

I've never referred to anything as the "Will of God" nor do I quote Bible verses.

You are using the bible as your reference however. You say god's will, sin, ect, just like some fanatical preacher. You don't quote the bible, but, you do mention it a lot.

"Absurd old book," you say? You mean the book upon which the most modern and advanced civilization in history is based, the book which is still the basis for how you view the world--whether you want to admit it or not? If you hate Christians because of their "absurd old book," the you must really really really hate Jews. Of course you'll never admit to that for fear of being labelled an "anti-Semite," so...

I actually don't care for religion at all. Organized religion especially. Call me an anti-semite I guess. Society has progressed in many areas, why let an outdated book hold us back from creating our own eden on earth. Once we drop all the pretentious bullshit and accept each other for what we are for the most part (sure there are bad apples everywhere) but I think once that happens, we will be able to look back at it and say 'gee that was dumb'. ... like looking back as slavery ..' that was dimb' ... In todays society you gotta learn to adapt, or die. Once people stop telling how others should live, and just live thier life and enjoy it, if those deviants go to hell, why would you care? More room for your kind in heaven. Right?

But even those who tout the bible, don't abide by it 100% either. Who has never told a lie in here. Everyone of us. Ahh crapp, I guess if I head over to confession, I can cleanse my soul so I can get into heaven?

Ever taken drugs, assaulted someone, had anal intercourse, oral sex, impure thoughts about a child or sibling, lied, stolen, cheated???? Do you engage in that kind of behaviour on a continuous basis? I'm sure you do with some, so that would mean that you have no moral basis for refusing to accept homosexuality as normal. That's how sin and evil works.

Drugs, check. Assault someone , no, Anal, well a girl tickled me there once. Oral, well sure. Impure thoughts, no. Lied, yes. Stolen, yes. Cheated, yes.

So I am an evil person by your standards based on an old text.

That's the thing, I'm not condemning anyone. That's a typical gay rights movement sham argument. They condemn themselves; they possess a free will, and they choose evil and sin.

But you are. Or at least warning those who are gay that they are condemned if they continue the gay. Since they do have free will, just like you, you can't save them. They don't want to be saved. They want to be themselves.

[marksman]

Many fascists would agree with you.

Actually they'd agree with your views on homosexuality not with mine.

I've never expressed a "religious viewpoint" on this issue. Unless you mean by my use of the word "sin".

Others have pointed out it's more than just your use of the word sin. But even if it was only the use of that word then it's a religious viewpoint. Sin is a religious concept.

Evil and sin are negative characteristics; people who behave in evil and sinful ways do things do things that are harmful and destructive to themselves and society. So could you please explain to me how wanting people to not be "harmful and destructive to themselves and society" is "intolerant"? Is our legal system "intolerant" for being based on a Criminal Code that attempts to minimize the "harmful and destructive" tendancies of unlawful Canadians?

Step 1: Show that homosexuality is harmful and destructive.

Let me know when you pass that step. Until then you're assuming its harmful and destructive without any reason which is intolerant. Your argument is irrelevant until you deal with step 1.

An ineffectual argument to say the least. Things along these lines have happened before, but only by states and regimes that were in themselves evil--eg. the Soviet Union. If it came to the point where Canada began persecuting Christians, then I would say that Canada as a nation is a failed experiment and I would not care whether it continued to exist or not.

But Canada isn't a failed experiment when it persecutes anyone other than Christians?

[M.Dancer]

Well I don't think that the "agenda" is all that secret...

Correct.

7PM TVO weekdays

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/

But I fail to see how that bolsters your pseudo argument. I say pseudo because normally arguments employ facts, yours on the other hand employs emotions posing as facts.

[M.Dancer]

I've never expressed a "religious viewpoint" on this issue. Unless you mean by my use of the word "sin".

You called them evil and sinful...

I've never read Grimm's Fairy Tales, so I don't know if it promotes hate, but according to the Bible, sin is evil and wrong; if you believe that condemming sin is "hate" then you've got some serious problems.

I think you have some serious problems, I hope you enjoy them.

[kengs333]

Actually they'd agree with your views on homosexuality not with mine.

That explains why homosexuality was known to exist among high ranking Nazis.

Others have pointed out it's more than just your use of the word sin. But even if it was only the use of that word then it's a religious viewpoint. Sin is a religious concept.

I'm not religious, but I think the word nicely encapsulates what bad behaviour is. Many people invoke God yet are not religious.

But Canada isn't a failed experiment when it persecutes anyone other than Christians?

Canada has never engaged in the persecution of any religion, but I think has come closest with Christianity.

[kengs333]

I actually don't care for religion at all. Organized religion especially. Call me an anti-semite I guess. Society has progressed in many areas, why let an outdated book hold us back from creating our own eden on earth. Once we drop all the pretentious bullshit and accept each other for what we are for the most part (sure there are bad apples everywhere) but I think once that happens, we will be able to look back at it and say 'gee that was dumb'. ... like looking back as slavery ..' that was dimb' ...

Many Nazis would have agreed with you.

In todays society you gotta learn to adapt, or die.

Very social darwinistic. Nazism was founded on such social darwinistic principles.

Drugs, check. Assault someone , no, Anal, well a girl tickled me there once. Oral, well sure. Impure thoughts, no. Lied, yes. Stolen, yes. Cheated, yes.

No big surprise.

But you are. Or at least warning those who are gay that they are condemned if they continue the gay. Since they do have free will, just like you, you can't save them. They don't want to be saved. They want to be themselves.

They would still be themselves if they gave up the gay lifestyle. Again, I'm not sure how I'm the one condeming them if they are the ones living the lifestyle.

[M.Dancer]

That explains why homosexuality was known to exist among high ranking Nazis.

That explains why they actively hunted them down and exterminated them. They also actively sterilized and executed cretins and morons, so you're not out of the woods yet.

Edited November 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Oleg Bach]

That explains why they actively hunted them down and exterminated them. They also actively sterilized and executed cretins and morons, so you're not out of the woods yet.

Hope you are not serious - all human beings are different and disabled to some degree in unique areas of their being. Sodomist in high places still practice the occult rituals of boy rape. I am more concerned about occult sodomy and power stealing - look at the Bloor Viaduct in Toronto - almost all that jumped were victims of rich crazies that stalked boys in the dark space of Maple Leaf Gardens...The last survior who just won a law suit was found dead recently from what was supposedly an over doze of phama product - provided in bulk by the system - from what I understand he did not attend the settlement conference and all of his files were removed from his apartment....makes you wonder where the real old homos are?

[GostHacked]

Many Nazis would have agreed with you.

Very social darwinistic. Nazism was founded on such social darwinistic principles.

And it is a shadow of it's former self. Naziism could not adapt, and now they are not much but a bad memory.

They would still be themselves if they gave up the gay lifestyle. Again, I'm not sure how I'm the one condeming them if they are the ones living the lifestyle.

I say you are wrong. If they cannot be themselves, and that includes being gay, they are not being true to themselves. The outcome of this is that they will most likely not lead a happy and fulfilling life. I know that if I was forced to take the gay lifestyle, when I know for a fact I am heterosexual. Forcing others to be something than what they are not is never a good idea. You cannot change them no matter what you do, or how you approach it. Being gay is not a choice, it is a discovery though. And those that find out they are gay, find out at a young age. They sense that they are different from the rest of the crowd.

How do you approach this when dealing with animals?? Monkeys and apes???

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Gay-Cul...eys-60431.shtml

Perhaps the most shocking in these monkeys is their general...homosexuality! In a Japanese macaque troop, females have strong bounds with each other and form temporary lesbian pairs during the mating season, ruling several partners during the whole period. They stimulate genitally each other and express their pleasure by cackling. That's why the links amongst females are extremely strong in a group.

[charter.rights]

And it is a shadow of it's former self. Naziism could not adapt, and now they are not much but a bad memory.

I say you are wrong. If they cannot be themselves, and that includes being gay, they are not being true to themselves. The outcome of this is that they will most likely not lead a happy and fulfilling life. I know that if I was forced to take the gay lifestyle, when I know for a fact I am heterosexual. Forcing others to be something than what they are not is never a good idea. You cannot change them no matter what you do, or how you approach it. Being gay is not a choice, it is a discovery though. And those that find out they are gay, find out at a young age. They sense that they are different from the rest of the crowd.

How do you approach this when dealing with animals?? Monkeys and apes???

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Gay-Cul...eys-60431.shtml

Bonobo monkeys are also know to be homosexual as well as engaging in masturbation and group sex.

[Black Dog]

They would still be themselves if they gave up the gay lifestyle.

So sexuality has no bearing on one's personality and identity? Please.

[Kitch]

Okay, now it's clear what type of person you are.

It's interesting that this is the first of my posts that you decided to respond to... rather than answering some questions that might reveal something about YOU.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GAY = EVIL????????

Why are you avoiding this question?

By the way, please don't pretend to know anything about me. Ya, I'm atheist so don't use the word 'sin' to describe things that I consider immoral. Furthermore, I decide what I think is immoral, not some externalization of my conscience that some people have given a name to. (Sorry to those believers that I've offended who didn't provoke that response from me).

Paedophilia = immoral and incredibly so

Communism = a great idea that is VERY unlikely to work

Polygamy = fine for those who consent, but immoral to impose it upon those who don't

Satanism = belief in a different externalized conscience rather than in oneself (weird and, in my opinion, as ridiculous as any other 'religion', but definitely not immoral)

If you disagree with me on these ism's, and you think you're up to it, why don't you challenge me on them. If your god is so good and powerful, then you'd have been endowed with the intellect to do so. (Again, no offense intended to anybody else).

[Topaz]

There's two different topics when we want to talk about same-sex marriage. One, is having sex with the same sex as you are and marriage. The first one is no one business but the two people involved, but the definition of marriage is where the problems lies. Marriage has been changing through the years. Back in the 50's and 60's it was wrong to marry outside of your RACE. Now no one even looks at mixed couples. Society has to get passed this too and the only one who can really judge is God and since God created gays too, how can society say no?

[Oleg Bach]

It's interesting that this is the first of my posts that you decided to respond to... rather than answering some questions that might reveal something about YOU.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GAY = EVIL????????

Why are you avoiding this question?

By the way, please don't pretend to know anything about me. Ya, I'm atheist so don't use the word 'sin' to describe things that I consider immoral. Furthermore, I decide what I think is immoral, not some externalization of my conscience that some people have given a name to. (Sorry to those believers that I've offended who didn't provoke that response from me).

Paedophilia = immoral and incredibly so

Communism = a great idea that is VERY unlikely to work

Polygamy = fine for those who consent, but immoral to impose it upon those who don't

Satanism = belief in a different externalized conscience rather than in oneself (weird and, in my opinion, as ridiculous as any other 'religion', but definitely not immoral)

If you disagree with me on these ism's, and you think you're up to it, why don't you challenge me on them. If your god is so good and powerful, then you'd have been endowed with the intellect to do so. (Again, no offense intended to anybody else).

SIN is from the word sinister - or left...dexter is right. The concept of sin can be described to an atheist without offending their delicate belief system of the great accident of nothingness. If you go the right way or (righteous) you are following the natural and good flow of nature and natural law - which supposedly ensures the continuence of life - where as sin or sinisterism - is the wrong way and as they say ( the wages of sin are death) - put in lay terms - if you make the wrong decision or go down the wrong path it may just make you sic or kill you in the end...so don't think that ancient religious terms are not based in logic , law and physics... People hate the good thing or God thing because they just don't get it - so are you a fundamentalist atheist?

[GostHacked]

There's two different topics when we want to talk about same-sex marriage. One, is having sex with the same sex as you are and marriage. The first one is no one business but the two people involved, but the definition of marriage is where the problems lies. Marriage has been changing through the years. Back in the 50's and 60's it was wrong to marry outside of your RACE. Now no one even looks at mixed couples. Society has to get passed this too and the only one who can really judge is God and since God created gays too, how can society say no?

Not only that, we are told that God loves everyone regardless. Unconditonal love. If God loves everyone, then what is the problem. Right?

[Kitch]

SIN is from the word sinister - or left...dexter is right. The concept of sin can be described to an atheist without offending their delicate belief system of the great accident of nothingness. If you go the right way or (righteous) you are following the natural and good flow of nature and natural law - which supposedly ensures the continuence of life - where as sin or sinisterism - is the wrong way and as they say ( the wages of sin are death) - put in lay terms - if you make the wrong decision or go down the wrong path it may just make you sic or kill you in the end...so don't think that ancient religious terms are not based in logic , law and physics... People hate the good thing or God thing because they just don't get it - so are you a fundamentalist atheist?

Thank you for your lesson in etymology. Don't kid yourself though, it's not a lesson in logic or any physical law.

I'm an existentialist... atheist. I really find no need to compartmentalize what flavour of non-belief I subscribe to because, really, I just don't believe in a higher power and there are no degrees of that, I don't think. I believe that there is no 'meaning' (in the sense of the word that people use when they say the 'meaning of life') other than what we decide. There are no moral absolutes. And I am responsible for everything that I do, good or bad, because I made the decisions leading to those actions.

But that's another thread... start it up if you're interested.

Again, I am not unfamiliar with the concept of sin. I was raised in a catholic home, went to catholic school and church as a kid... I've even been baptised and had my first communion. It was only when I was about 16 or 17 that I decided for myself that I have faith in myself rather than in some god.

So, please don't assume that I just don't 'get it'. And please don't try to tell me that the concept of sin is based on ANY sort of logic or law, especially physics. The idea that doing something that leads to illness or death isn't always based on a real correlation, especially one that indicates a true cause-effect relationship. The topic of this thread, for example, deals with homosexuality, which, kengs believes is a "sin". So, homosexuality leads to illness or death... absolutely? Nope.

I'll wait patiently until it is explained to me, by kengs or somebody who is of the same opinion, why being gay = evil and exactly what it means to be evil in this way.

Just to keep tabs, that's the 4th time I've asked that question, I believe.

[charter.rights]

Thank you for your lesson in etymology. Don't kid yourself though, it's not a lesson in logic or any physical law.

I'm an existentialist... atheist. I really find no need to compartmentalize what flavour of non-belief I subscribe to because, really, I just don't believe in a higher power and there are no degrees of that, I don't think. I believe that there is no 'meaning' (in the sense of the word that people use when they say the 'meaning of life') other than what we decide. There are no moral absolutes. And I am responsible for everything that I do, good or bad, because I made the decisions leading to those actions.

But that's another thread... start it up if you're interested.

Again, I am not unfamiliar with the concept of sin. I was raised in a catholic home, went to catholic school and church as a kid... I've even been baptised and had my first communion. It was only when I was about 16 or 17 that I decided for myself that I have faith in myself rather than in some god.

So, please don't assume that I just don't 'get it'. And please don't try to tell me that the concept of sin is based on ANY sort of logic or law, especially physics. The idea that doing something that leads to illness or death isn't always based on a real correlation, especially one that indicates a true cause-effect relationship. The topic of this thread, for example, deals with homosexuality, which, kengs believes is a "sin". So, homosexuality leads to illness or death... absolutely? Nope.

I'll wait patiently until it is explained to me, by kengs or somebody who is of the same opinion, why being gay = evil and exactly what it means to be evil in this way.

Just to keep tabs, that's the 4th time I've asked that question, I believe.

And it will be the fourth time that you will be ignored. If you haven't noticed yet, that is Kengs333's MO. He won't debate, or discuss his beliefs because that would open them to question and he is really on terribly infertile ground already. His life - the way he lives it - is the antithesis of his entire belief system, so much so that what he says is often hypocritical, untruthful and inaccurate. That is the only way he can keep his myths alive is to defend them with lies and unquestionable statements that he throws out there expecting no one will notice.

He is pretty slow when it comes to these types of things and not likely will he answer and not likely will he even admit to his being a sinner and an evil person.

[kengs333]

Not only that, we are told that God loves everyone regardless. Unconditonal love. If God loves everyone, then what is the problem. Right?

This is a perfect example of false logic.

[kengs333]

There's two different topics when we want to talk about same-sex marriage. One, is having sex with the same sex as you are and marriage. The first one is no one business but the two people involved, but the definition of marriage is where the problems lies. Marriage has been changing through the years. Back in the 50's and 60's it was wrong to marry outside of your RACE. Now no one even looks at mixed couples. Society has to get passed this too and the only one who can really judge is God and since God created gays too, how can society say no?

God didn't "create gays". If you're you're so bloody igonrant of the facts, what makes you even think that you are qualified to engage in any sort of reasoned discussion on this subject?

[kengs333]

Bonobo monkeys are also know to be homosexual as well as engaging in masturbation and group sex.

So are you then likening homosexuals to monkeys?

[kengs333]

I say you are wrong. If they cannot be themselves, and that includes being gay, they are not being true to themselves.

So a person who changes their lifestyle is no longer themself? That's pretty bleak. You're essentially saying that a person has no reason or need to change. Sounds to me like you're the one who is condemning people, not me.

The outcome of this is that they will most likely not lead a happy and fulfilling life.

Homosexuals are much more likely to commit suicide and engage in self-destructive behaviours.

I know that if I was forced to take the gay lifestyle, when I know for a fact I am heterosexual.

It happens.

Forcing others to be something than what they are not is never a good idea.

Right... people who are led to believe they are homosexual end up engaging in high risk behaviour and are more likely to commit suicide.

You cannot change them no matter what you do, or how you approach it.

There you go again...

Being gay is not a choice,

Prove it.

it is a discovery though.

?

And those that find out they are gay, find out at a young age. They sense that they are different from the rest of the crowd.

So they think they are gay simply because they feel "different"? How is a child supposed to understand sexual attraction, and that the fact that they feel "different" stems from the fact that they are homosexual rather than simply being overly sensitive to what their peers say?

[Kitch]

So are you then likening homosexuals to monkeys?

I'm guessing he's linking all people to monkeys. It hurts, doesn't it?

You really are ignoring my particular questions aren't you. I feel sorry for you that your god 'blessed' you with such a weak mind.

[charter.rights]

God didn't "create gays". If you're you're so bloody igonrant of the facts, what makes you even think that you are qualified to engage in any sort of reasoned discussion on this subject?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Are YOU an expert on the subject? The only way that could be is if YOU are gay? Are you a homosexual Kengs333?

You haven't presented ANY facts. All you have presented are dogmatic opinions that amount to crap on the subject. Gays are gay from birth, they do not "turn" gay or recruited by gays any more than heterosexuals are recruited by their mothers to go straight. In most cases mothers and fathers love their children unconditionally and have no influence on how they turn out their sexual prefences.

Suggesting that God's Love is not unconditional nor is it false logic is absurd. Only YOU judge and when doing so, YOU judge yourself.

"Go and sin no more." That was not a recognition of sin by Jesus but a rejection of it. If YOU believe in sin, then YOU must be a sinner. But you cannot accuse anyone else of being a sinner like YOU.

Edited November 11, 2008 by charter.rights

[M.Dancer]

So sexuality has no bearing on one's personality and identity? Please.

No, a prick is a prick whether the prick likes pricks or not. My hetrosexuality does not define me as a person anymore than my choice of dinner.

I have a neighbour. He works for one of the banks in their law office. He runs marathons and is involved in numerous charities. This summer he biked from Toronto to Montreal to raise money for charity.

Is there anything there that would define his sexuality?