The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.
The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country's pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article earlier this month saying scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.
Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality _ which they view as sinful _ is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.
However, Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby's sexual orientation to heterosexual.
"He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn."
Mohler said he was aware of the invective being directed at him on gay-rights blogs, where some participants have likened him to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor notorious for death-camp experimentation.
"I wonder if people actually read what I wrote," Mohler said in a telephone interview. "But I wrote the article intending to start a conversation, and I think I've been successful at that."
The article, published March 2 on Mohler's personal Web site, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"
Mohler began by summarizing some recent research into sexual orientation, and advising his Christian readership that they should brace for the possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven.
Mohler wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, but said the discovery would be "of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."
He also referred to a recent article in the pop-culture magazine Radar, which explored the possibility that sexual orientation could be detected in unborn babies and raised the question of whether parents _ even liberals who support gay rights _ might be open to trying future prenatal techniques that would reverse homosexuality.
Mohler said he would strongly oppose any move to encourage abortion or genetic manipulation of fetuses on grounds of sexual orientation, but he would endorse prenatal hormonal treatment _ if such a technology were developed _ to reverse homosexuality. He said this would no different, in moral terms, to using technology that would restore vision to a blind fetus.
"I realize this sounds very offensive to homosexuals, but it's the only way a Christian can look at it," Mohler said. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem."
Mohler's argument was endorsed by a prominent Roman Catholic thinker, the Rev. Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., and editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI's U.S. publisher.
"Same-sex activity is considered disordered," Fessio said. "If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."
Such logic dismayed Jennifer Chrisler of Family Pride, a group that supports gay and lesbian families.
"What bothers me is the hypocrisy," she said. "In one breath, they say the sanctity of an unborn life is unconditional, and in the next breath, it's OK to perform medical treatments on them because of their own moral convictions, not because there's anything wrong with the child."
Paul Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris, wrote a detailed critique of Mohler's column, contending that there could be many genes contributing to sexual orientation and that medical attempts to alter it could be risky.
"If there are such genes, they will also contribute to other aspects of social and sexual interactions," Myers wrote. "Disentangling the nuances of preference from the whole damn problem of loving people might well be impossible."
Not all reaction to Mohler's article has been negative.
Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based.
"This represents a major shift," Drescher said. "This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it."
The Bible doesn't condemn homosexual feelings, only homosexual actions: male homosexual actions, to be specific. What women do isn't considered action. While it is extremely difficult to control one's feelings, it is very possible to control one's actions. Torture at times, yes, but possible. Personally, I believe it to be a test on the person, and to prematurely force the person into treatment defeats the purpose of the test. We are all responsible for our own actions, not each other’s, and that's the way it should stay. That's all I have to say on the subject.
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
The Bible doesn't condemn homosexual feelings, only homosexual actions: male homosexual actions, to be specific. What women do isn't considered action. While it is extremely difficult to control one's feelings, it is very possible to control one's actions. Torture at times, yes, but possible. Personally, I believe it to be a test on the person, and to prematurely force the person into treatment defeats the purpose of the test. We are all responsible for our own actions, not each other’s, and that's the way it should stay. That's all I have to say on the subject.
but why should someone live in a torturous and depressing existence? how is it any good for someone to be so unhappy just because 2000 years ago a book said something was wrong? Especially when that same book allows for slavery, murder for minor indiscretions, etc.
You are misinterpreting the Bible on slavery, murder for minor indiscretions, and etc. What is a minor discretion that gets the death penalty. Further, please allow me to explain how the death penalty handed out. Two, not one, but two knowledgeable people have to actually see the discretion as it happens. Not only that, but they have to worn the person of the act he is about to commit. What does that mean? It means they have to make sure the person not only understands what he is doing is wrong, but why it's wrong, and what the punishment is. Now, how often does it happen that witnesses can do that? The death penalty is therefore nearly impossible to hand out.
As for living a life of torture, what's the point of living a life of poor health? Not all medical issues are treatable, believe me, I know from personal experience. What is the point in my painful existence? I'll tell what I believe. I believe this is what I need to purify my soul so that it can move on the world to come (yes, I do believe in reincarnation, and that we keep coming back until we get it right). I have physical problems, other people have internal problems. For example, former president Bill Clinton has a problem being a faithful husband. That is his problem to work on in this world. He could not act on his feelings, which would have saved him the embarrassment of impeachment, or he could act on those feelings, which he did. I do believe it is that simple, and that there is a higher purpose to our personal problems in life.
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
You are misinterpreting the Bible on slavery, murder for minor indiscretions, and etc. What is a minor discretion that gets the death penalty. Further, please allow me to explain how the death penalty handed out. Two, not one, but two knowledgeable people have to actually see the discretion as it happens. Not only that, but they have to worn the person of the act he is about to commit. What does that mean? It means they have to make sure the person not only understands what he is doing is wrong, but why it's wrong, and what the punishment is. Now, how often does it happen that witnesses can do that? The death penalty is therefore nearly impossible to hand out.
Instead of typing stuff out, I'll let a good actor explain the biblical sins we no longer consider serious.
Quote:
As for living a life of torture, what's the point of living a life of poor health? Not all medical issues are treatable, believe me, I know from personal experience. What is the point in my painful existence? I'll tell what I believe. I believe this is what I need to purify my soul so that it can move on the world to come (yes, I do believe in reincarnation, and that we keep coming back until we get it right). I have physical problems, other people have internal problems. For example, former president Bill Clinton has a problem being a faithful husband. That is his problem to work on in this world. He could not act on his feelings, which would have saved him the embarrassment of impeachment, or he could act on those feelings, which he did. I do believe it is that simple, and that there is a higher purpose to our personal problems in life.
You equate homosexuality with doing something wrong though. The bible is an old book. Even if you believe in Jesus, the bible wasn't written by him, it was written years after the fact so at best its hearsay.
Personally I don't believe in the concept of god giving us a rulebook. I don't believe in the concept of god creating an entire race of people so that they can serve and worship it. I don't believe in god creating humans to feel "wrong" just so they can overcome that and be unhappy but "right."
It makes no sense and makes your god out to be a real asshole who likes to torture people.
I think the best analogy would be feeling that you have a calling as an artist, but living in a household of lawyers and being pressured to follow in their footsteps . So the artist can be an artist and be happy, or he can live his whole life miserable as a lawyer simply because that's what is expected.
Makes god seem rather petty. I would like to think that if their was a god, he'd be much more together as a being than the jealous, pissy, selfish god christians and muslims present him as.
Karl, I'm Jewish. The Bible was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai, which he wrote down, word for word, even the parts after his death (that was his final prophesy, a gift from God, and proof of the truth of the Bible, for those who wish to see it). Along with the Bible, Moses was taught the interpretation of the Bible, which was written down in the Talmud. What I have explained about how the death penalty is handed out, that's not written in the Bible. The Bible gives the what, but rarely the how. The Talmud was handed down by Moses to Joshua, "who handed down it to the Elders, who handed it down to the Prophets, who handed it down to the Great Assembly."
There is no such thing as a Biblical sin to not take seriously. If it's not OK to sleep with one's sister, or one's mother, or one's step mother, or one's aunt, or one's daughter, and I think most people will agree about that, then why is it suddenly OK for men to sleep with men, or to sleep with animals, when all of these prohibitions are given in the same place! I won't tell anyone they have to believe in the Bible, but don't start telling me it's OK to ignore the parts I find inconvenient.
As for homosexuality being wrong, I never said it wasn't. In fact, I thought I made my opinion the wrongness of the act of homosexuality clear in my first post. Life is about purification of the soul. How can the soul be purified if it has no challenge in life? How can we move on, become better, without challenge? Not everyone requires the same challenges. Homosexuality is very personal challenge that a man has to fight (my opinion here). He has his challenge, and I have my challenges. I fight my challenges as best I can, and I hope one day to overcome all of them. And yes, I look up to people who do overcome their challenges, and admire them, but at the same time, I don't look down and judge those who do not. It is not my place to judge others, and I hope others do not judge me.
You have every right to believe God did not hand us a rule book. I have every right to accept that he did. I also believe He gave us a user's manual that explains His rule book, allowing all of his rules to make sense to us. It seems to me that people who criticize the Bible don't know about the user's manual, or don't wish to acknowledge it's existence, thereby justifying their claims. When half the information is left out, how can anyone make an educated decision? God is not a politician, nor is He a magician. The answers are there for those who wish to see them.
All of the above is my opinion, feel free to disagree.
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
The Bible doesn't condemn homosexual feelings, only homosexual actions: male homosexual actions, to be specific. What women do isn't considered action. While it is extremely difficult to control one's feelings, it is very possible to control one's actions. Torture at times, yes, but possible. Personally, I believe it to be a test on the person, and to prematurely force the person into treatment defeats the purpose of the test. We are all responsible for our own actions, not each other’s, and that's the way it should stay. That's all I have to say on the subject.
The Bible's just a book written thousands of years ago. That's all I have to say on the subject.
I think people with a vested interest in the Bible (this includes the Jewish, and their use of only the Hebrew scripture) really need to do some self examination before applying it's 'condemnations' to others.
I'm really dumbfounded as to how homosexuality is such a hot button issue to bible humpers...when there are clearly more relevant guidelines in the scriptures to thier own heterosexual capitalist lives that they ignore.
And yes...it is indeed choosing what you wish to accept/believe/enforce when you attempt to declare homosexuality is immoral while looking at porn, having unmarried sex, or not beating your slaves within established limits... None are a held as a greater sin than any other.
I think the real problem here is simply fear of differences. You cannot understand why someone might be gay, and thus hold it in a state of contempt. I think I would be less offended by legal roadblocks to homosexual equality if I saw equal effort poured into making pre-marital sex, porn, and eating meat not properly bled illegal as well.
The whole debate is completely ludicrus, and is tiring beyond words.
While I respect your 'live and let live' philosiphy on the subject, Pen...I imedately realized you're nowhere near impartial on the issue when you decided that: "If it's not OK to sleep with one's sister, or one's mother, or one's step mother, or one's aunt, or one's daughter, and I think most people will agree about that, then why is it suddenly OK for men to sleep with men" was the most rational comparison you could come up with.
That's absolute bullshit, as there are far more relevant examples of sins held on par with homosexuality that each and every one of you is guilty of day in and day out.
That's all I have to say on the subject.
Calis...PJP. Would you get your shit sorted and grow up already. Following me around a message board for having pointed out that you crossed a line in addressing a lady is lower than even you should be stooping.
Grow up, or I'll start posting similar shit about your wife.
First off....you are the one folowing me around saying how bad I am or how I crosed lines. I'm just calling your chicken shit ass out. Second....how did I cross a line in a forum that is 100% satire called "Off Topic and Offensive".
What does my wife have to do with these boards? She doesn't post here. Why don't you go Fuck Yourself and leave these boards forever. I speak for everyone here when I say you won't be missed.
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
If it's not OK to sleep with one's sister, or one's mother, or one's step mother, or one's aunt, or one's daughter, and I think most people will agree about that, then why is it suddenly OK for men to sleep with men, or to sleep with animals, when all of these prohibitions are given in the same place!
Um, dude, my not sleeping with my relatives has nothing to with the Bible... Seriously, if the Bible told me to sleep with my mom, I'd tell it to go fuck itself.
Quote:
PJP said:
Second....how did I cross a line in a forum that is 100% satire called "Off Topic and Offensive".
What does my wife have to do with these boards? She doesn't post here. Why don't you go Fuck Yourself and leave these boards forever. I speak for everyone here when I say you won't be missed.
Your discussion of Elisa was never limited to that forum. And I'm sorry...but despite any 'forum title' we're still human beings in here.
Your reaction to my mentioning your wife in the same context proves my point, mate...it was over the line.
As to your opinions of me...hahaha. I really couldn't care less. You strut around a message board playing the heavy...a telltale sign of a pathetic existence.
Are we done now?
We'll let the people decide!
Oh and for the record....elsia and you started trouble with me, not the other way around. You guys just didn't like it when a mirror was held up to your faces.
Now that we have derailed this thread let's get back to talking about gay babies!
Quote:
klinton said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Second....how did I cross a line in a forum that is 100% satire called "Off Topic and Offensive".
What does my wife have to do with these boards? She doesn't post here. Why don't you go Fuck Yourself and leave these boards forever. I speak for everyone here when I say you won't be missed.
Your discussion of Elisa was never limited to that forum. And I'm sorry...but despite any 'forum title' we're still human beings in here.
yeah, you've always treated Beardguy real nice here. my mistake.
Quote:
PJP said:
yeah, you've always treated Beardguy real nice here. my mistake.
He gets under my skin, I've never denied that. I've called him out on it. But in turn, I've also sent the guy 'chin up' PM's when people have been particularily brutal with him. But I certainly don't harp on about it day in and day out with nothing else to say in here.
Telling someone they annoy you, and calling someone a 'dripping cooze pit' or whatever and hasseling them all over the boards are entirely different scenarios. One is rational...the other is just fucked in the head.
Klinton, I never said I was impartial on the issue. But I won't tell others how to live. I will tell you if you are wrong to act in a certain manner, right to your face, just like you'll tell me the same. But I won't judge you for it, and I won't tell you how to live your life. In fact, if you don't believe in the Bible to begin with, I won't tell you anything. My problem is when people say it's OK to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that are convenient to them. It's not. It's hypocritical. Christianity has it's own belief on how to follow the Bible, just as Judaism does, and Christians, like Jews, have an obligation to follow it properly, if they want to follow it at all. My point in the sentence of my post that you quoted, was to point out that male homosexuality is written in the same place as the other forbidden sexual acts, and I don't understand the logic behind believing that the other acts are wrong, but that the urge of homosexuality is fine to act upon. And you are right, porn is wrong, it is a vice that must be overcome by everyone who has that urge, just like I believe homosexuality is. That's my view on it.
As for slavery, again, the written Bible does not explain how it works, the Talmud does. If there is only one pillow in the house, it goes to the slave. Slaves are treated better than one's own family members. Sometimes, a person sells himself into slavery because he cannot pay his bills, sometimes a person must work off a debt he cannot repay after he stole something. There are reasons for slavery in the Bible, and it has nothing to do with the slavery imposed on Africans in America. That was flat out wrong.
Quote:
PJP said:
Oh and for the record....elsia and you started trouble with me, not the other way around. You guys just didn't like it when a mirror was held up to your faces.
Now that we have derailed this thread let's get back to talking about gay babies!
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
God bless PJP!
That's an odd statement, considering the fact that this whole Klint vs. PJP 'thing' started when I called him out for mocking you and your condition...
Whatever it was...it was between me and Brad. I'll say I'm sorry to him 100 times....but... You had no business jumping in and being self righteous and judging me when you are a piece of shit to begin with who does much worse to people.
It's ok for you to mock people and have fun , but no one else.
[shrug] PJP is an asshole at times, no question, but I don't, and have never had a colostomy bag, so if he wants be a bag of shit, that's his choice. [/shrug]
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
Klinton, I never said I was impartial on the issue. But I won't tell others how to live. I will tell you if you are wrong to act in a certain manner, right to your face, just like you'll tell me the same. But I won't judge you for it, and I won't tell you how to live your life. In fact, if you don't believe in the Bible to begin with, I won't tell you anything. My problem is when people say it's OK to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that are convenient to them. It's not. It's hypocritical. Christianity has it's own belief on how to follow the Bible, just as Judaism does, and Christians, like Jews, have an obligation to follow it properly, if they want to follow it at all. My point in the sentence of my post that you quoted, was to point out that male homosexuality is written in the same place as the other forbidden sexual acts, and I don't understand the logic behind believing that the other acts are wrong, but that the urge of homosexuality is fine to act upon. And you are right, porn is wrong, it is a vice that must be overcome by everyone who has that urge, just like I believe homosexuality is. That's my view on it.
As for slavery, again, the written Bible does not explain how it works, the Talmud does. If there is only one pillow in the house, it goes to the slave. Slaves are treated better than one's own family members. Sometimes, a person sells himself into slavery because he cannot pay his bills, sometimes a person must work off a debt he cannot repay after he stole something. There are reasons for slavery in the Bible, and it has nothing to do with the slavery imposed on Africans in America. That was flat out wrong.
Quoting the Talmud as equal to the Bible is wrong ('do not add nor take away from scripture...yadda yadda'). Not accepting Christ is wrong. There are tonnes of things 'wrong' and sinful, being played out by average people everyday. Why is it that homosexuality is singled out as something society chooses to address?
And it's nice that your Talmud asks that pillows be given to slaves, but that doesn't refute the fact that slaves were beaten, and that there were guidlines as to how many times one was allowed to hit thier slave.
It also doesn't refute the fact that women are 'lesser vessles' to be quarantined monthly...and that children were to be executed for disobedience....
The list is endless, as to Biblical guidlines that are largely ignored by society.
PJP makes a valid point. Around here, no matter how we feel about how others are treated, it's best to stay out of it. The only reason certain people get hounded is because they take things too seriously. That's what makes attacking them so much fun. Well, I don't understand the attacks on G-man (no longer a mod, why the hate?) and Elisa (she doesn't even respond to comments, what's the point?).
Quote:
PJP said:
Whatever it was...it was between me and Brad. I'll say I'm sorry to him 100 times....but... You had no business jumping in and being self righteous and judging me when you are a piece of shit to begin with who does much worse to people.
It's ok for you to mock people and have fun , but no one else.
I've never said that it's not okay. What I've always disagreed with you on is the lengths that are acceptable when deciding to mock someone.
I've never even touched your level of absolute obsession with mocking individuals. Not once.
You claim I follow you around and call you out. Dude...I think outside of this discussion, there are maybe 3-4 times since the Penwing incident that I've even aknowledged your posts. I've pretty much chosen to ignore your rantings.
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
[shrug] PJP is an asshole at times, no question, but I don't, and have never had a colostomy bag, so if he wants be a bag of shit, that's his choice. [/shrug]
That was never my alt. I believe it is rex. But anyways....you have shitty taste in baseball teams....other than that you're ok in my book. And yeah I can be an asshole.
Quote:
klinton said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Whatever it was...it was between me and Brad. I'll say I'm sorry to him 100 times....but... You had no business jumping in and being self righteous and judging me when you are a piece of shit to begin with who does much worse to people.
It's ok for you to mock people and have fun , but no one else.
I've never said that it's not okay. What I've always disagreed with you on is the lengths that are acceptable when deciding to mock someone.
I've never even touched your level of absolute obsession with mocking individuals. Not once.
You claim I follow you around and call you out. Dude...I think outside of this discussion, there are maybe 3-4 times since the Penwing incident that I've even aknowledged your posts. I've pretty much chosen to ignore your rantings.
It's been alot more than 3 or 4 times. And If I remember correctly after the Penwing incident I specifically asked you to ignore me completely. So if you will go fuck yourself...stay out of my way and I'll saty out of your way.
Quote:
PJP said:
It's been alot more than 3 or 4 times. And If I remember correctly after the Penwing incident I specifically asked you to ignore me completely. So if you will go fuck yourself...stay out of my way and I'll saty out of your way.
And to what end would lying about it serve...when my post history is right here for anyone to look up?
Dude...all I want from you is not to be forced to notice your presence. Your little "oh noes!! Klint's gonna sue yooz!!" shit made that rather impossible, no?
Quote:
klinton said:
Quoting the Talmud as equal to the Bible is wrong ('do not add nor take away from scripture...yadda yadda'). Not accepting Christ is wrong. There are tonnes of things 'wrong' and sinful, being played out by average people everyday. Why is it that homosexuality is singled out as something society chooses to address?
The Talmud was handed down at the same time. We don't add or take away from it. It was the spoken interpretation, the user's manual if you will, that God handed down to Moses, and Moses handed to Joshua, who handed it to the Elders, who handed it to the Prophets, who handed it to the Great Assembly (the rabbis). It does not add are take away, it is equal. One is meaningless without the other.
Quote:
klinton said:
And it's nice that your Talmud asks that pillows be given to slaves, but that doesn't refute the fact that slaves were beaten, and that there were guidlines as to how many times one was allowed to hit thier slave.
I'm pretty sure a slave could not be beaten, according to the Talmud. And if there were guidelines, isn't it important to protect the quality of life of the slave? Slavery for a thief who could not return the item or repay the value was in place of prison. What's worse, an environment where one can still live a high quality of life at the very least equal to the one already led (most likely better), or living in a negative environment with very little chance of actual rehabilitation?
Quote:
klinton said:
It also doesn't refute the fact that women are 'lesser vessles' to be quarantined monthly...and that children were to be executed for disobedience....
Women are not lesser vessels, and they are not quarantined during their period. A husband just cannot have sex with her until her period has stopped for a week and she has cleansed herself in a ritual bath. The reason men are encouraged to sleep in another bed during that time is so that they do not have the urge to have sex. It is not law, it is about self control. As for why women become impure, it's not something I understand. However, women are greater vessels than men, not lesser, because women have the ability to give life. Men have many obligations that women do not have because of this.
As for disobedient children being executed, this is such a rare case it has never happened. Ever. The written Bible actually does give a detailed description of the child in question, and the point of it, as I understand it, is a lesson to the parents about raising children.
Quote:
klinton said:
The list is endless, as to Biblical guidlines that are largely ignored by society.
Yes, ignored by society as a whole, I do not question that. But just because people at large ignore it, that doesn't justify it, it only calls out the hypocrisy of those who claim to follow the Bible, whether as Christians, or Jews.
Here's an oldie but a goody: If society jumped off of a bridge, would you? If you would, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Personally, I think the Elisa bashing that goes on here gets old. Its just one of those things that, like so many things here, we all run into the ground. And, to be honest, its a little too much like a dirtier variation on some sort of "he man women's hater club," right out of Spanky and Our Gang comedies of seventy years ago.
However, with that being said, I have to defend Pappas here. First, he's far from the worst offender on that front. Second, while PJP likes to give shit and trash talk, if he thinks he's crossed a line, he's the first guy here to be man enough and own up to it.
As for the rest of this thread, geezus fuck, how many fucking threads do we need parroting the exact same points?
Fucking other guys is a behavior, whether or not its genetic. Furthermore, as noted on a thread I started about nueroscience and the law, there are some scientists who think every behavior is genetic, including criminal. So do we give every behavior a pass just because its genetic?
That's one hell of a slippery slope.
At the same time, whether or not its genetic, unless the behavior is being rubbed in someone else's face (no pun intended), what's the fucking harm?
Oh? Its a sin? Great. If you believe that, you believe that the gays are going to hell anyway and that's the job of God and the Devil to deal with them. Let them go, what do you care? They won't be up in heaven with you having gay pride parades through the Pearly Gates, will they?
The bottom line here is that there's not a behavior on earth that some people don't think is appropriate and other people don't think is inappropriate. That's why we have laws. That's why we have elections. That's why we have debates.
So stop worrying about whether its genetic or whether its a sin. Decide if its cost to society is too much to allow it and then decide if its feasible to impose penalities on it. If yes, do something. If not, leave them alone.
Goddam.
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
[shrug] PJP is an asshole at times, no question, but I don't, and have never had a colostomy bag, so if he wants be a bag of shit, that's his choice. [/shrug]
That was never my alt. I believe it is rex. But anyways....you have shitty taste in baseball teams....other than that you're ok in my book. And yeah I can be an asshole.
Really? I always thought that was you based on when it posted. Huh, well whoever it is has every right to be a bag of shit if he/she pleases.
I have misjudged you, PJP, and for that I am sorry.
I'm going to agree to disagree with you here, Pen...because your reading of scripture is off, and I don't have the patience (nor immediate recollection) to quote the actual scriptures in question.
And really, I think we're arguing from the same side of the fence. I have no problem with you feeling as you do, just as long as it pertains soely to your existence. My issue is not with people who sit there and judge, but with those who attempt to inflict thier opinions on others...which you don't seem inclined to do.
Quote:
klinton said:
My issue is not with people who sit there and judge, but with those who attempt to inflict thier opinions on others...which you don't seem inclined to do.
We have the same issue, then. 
Whoa! What's all the stink over?
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
Brad Lee said:
You are misinterpreting the Bible on slavery, murder for minor indiscretions, and etc. What is a minor discretion that gets the death penalty. Further, please allow me to explain how the death penalty handed out. Two, not one, but two knowledgeable people have to actually see the discretion as it happens. Not only that, but they have to worn the person of the act he is about to commit. What does that mean? It means they have to make sure the person not only understands what he is doing is wrong, but why it's wrong, and what the punishment is. Now, how often does it happen that witnesses can do that? The death penalty is therefore nearly impossible to hand out.
Instead of typing stuff out, I'll let a good actor explain the biblical sins we no longer consider serious.
Quote:
As for living a life of torture, what's the point of living a life of poor health? Not all medical issues are treatable, believe me, I know from personal experience. What is the point in my painful existence? I'll tell what I believe. I believe this is what I need to purify my soul so that it can move on the world to come (yes, I do believe in reincarnation, and that we keep coming back until we get it right). I have physical problems, other people have internal problems. For example, former president Bill Clinton has a problem being a faithful husband. That is his problem to work on in this world. He could not act on his feelings, which would have saved him the embarrassment of impeachment, or he could act on those feelings, which he did. I do believe it is that simple, and that there is a higher purpose to our personal problems in life.
You equate homosexuality with doing something wrong though. The bible is an old book. Even if you believe in Jesus, the bible wasn't written by him, it was written years after the fact so at best its hearsay.
Personally I don't believe in the concept of god giving us a rulebook. I don't believe in the concept of god creating an entire race of people so that they can serve and worship it. I don't believe in god creating humans to feel "wrong" just so they can overcome that and be unhappy but "right."
It makes no sense and makes your god out to be a real asshole who likes to torture people.
I think the best analogy would be feeling that you have a calling as an artist, but living in a household of lawyers and being pressured to follow in their footsteps . So the artist can be an artist and be happy, or he can live his whole life miserable as a lawyer simply because that's what is expected.
Makes god seem rather petty. I would like to think that if their was a god, he'd be much more together as a being than the jealous, pissy, selfish god christians and muslims present him as.
Quote:
PJP said:
Oh and for the record....elsia and you started trouble with me, not the other way around. You guys just didn't like it when a mirror was held up to your faces.
Now that we have derailed this thread let's get back to talking about gay babies!
Quote:
klinton said:
Quoting the Talmud as equal to the Bible is wrong ('do not add nor take away from scripture...yadda yadda').
If he's referencing the Torah as a source, then he's speaking more as a Jew than as a Christian. So it's not very fair to say that his generalization of the Bible's argument is unsuitable for his use since the Bible does include the Old Testament.
On that note, I think Brad made the best argument regarding this issue at the beginning of the thread in regards to a person's perseverance. For the sake of one's spiritual well-being, a person should be able to forego their more detrimental urges even if it buys them a temporary happiness. I say this while keeping in mind that people can be "happy" for a lot of different reasons, good and bad. Even if a person thinks or feels the reason is good, that doesn't mean it qualifies as such. As I've pointed out repeatedly throughout my RKMB career, I think the homosexual community is what most suffers from this delusion. The way they regularly reason carrying out their urges is a detriment to their health and other people's as well. What confuses me is why they'd feel the need to do what they do; last I checked, the sincerest demonstration of love was companionship, not simply physical action that damages your body. I just don't see how that can be passed off as affection.
Anywho, even if I were to believe that homosexuals were designed homosexual, I see that as more of a test of physical and spiritual attrition than I do as something natural and normal. Because so many people here would cry foul, I usually choose not to use this kind of reasoning, but I feel it has merit none the less. It reminds of a person I met at a cloister adjacent to my church. There's a priest there who was diagnosed as a socio-path and he admits to having trouble sorting out the right and the wrong of the world even though he does believe in the Catholic philosophy. He admitted once that it's because he was raised with that philosophy that he was able to stave off urges of harming others. While his impulses don't revolve around murder, when he thinks about that kind of subject it's hard for him to find wrong in it.
Pariah is full of shit. His little diatribe was not well written. It was written from the standpoint that being gay is wrong and he was offering some pseudo-intellectual argument.
Quote:
As I've pointed out repeatedly throughout my RKMB career, I think the homosexual community is what most suffers from this delusion. The way they regularly reason carrying out their urges is a detriment to their health and other people's as well. What confuses me is why they'd feel the need to do what they do; last I checked, the sincerest demonstration of love was companionship, not simply physical action that damages your body. I just don't see how that can be passed off as affection.
Right. Gay people only pursue physical release and not at all companionship.
With attitudes like this, I swear to whatever there is out there I do not know anymore why I stick around a place that harbors even a handful of people who support this kind of position.
Jesus fucking Christ!
jim, that sounded a little gay....
Jesus would never do that.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Right. Gay people only pursue physical release and not at all companionship.
My entire point, Jim, is that homosexuals who participate in sodomy feel that their relationship only applies as a real relationship if they penetrate eachother somehow. That kind of mindset is rather stupid--Especially considering their body's weren't designed for such a thing. There's such a thing as companionship without being connected at the rear.
I admit that it's a problem for pre-marital straight couples as well, but you can't compare sodomy to sex (unless the straight couple is participating in sodomy as well; in which case they're just as careless).
Pariah, dear boy, I feel so, so, so sorry for you, going through life with such an ill-informed viewpoint.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
Live a little more before you act like you do.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Pariah, dear boy, I feel so, so, so sorry for you, going through life with such an ill-informed viewpoint.
So for the record: You believe a relationship isn't a relationship without sex.
For the record, do you believe that gay people can and do have relationships that go beyond sex?
Yes. There's a few of them who go to my parish. As Catholics, they recognize the act of sodomy to be an abomination. They also recognize, even if you don't agree with them, that their attractions aren't normal.
Just because someone finds it too difficult to want to spend time with a member of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean they have to. But this doesn't mean that they should associate having strong feelings for the person he or she does stay close to with manipulating eachother in ways that defy logic. And the ones I've met in the circles I'm in realize that.
In the Canadian Same Sex Marriage thread, MEM brought up a Biblical reference in an attempt to show that the scripture housed a positive story about a gay relationship--He failed of course. This is because he tried to apply past displays of affection with the standards of the modern day status quo. If he just tried to demonstrate an acceptable form of a loving relationship between two men, he would have had more success, but he had to go the extra mile:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Gay or not gay?
1 Samuel 18
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
Later on Saul gets a bit pissed about this "friendship" that his son is in.
30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
They even kiss at some point in there. Friends or Lovers?
Truth be told, he actually does make a very good point about the influence of the two different eras. In this day and age, Saul and Jonathon's presence of love for eachother would encourage them to act out like a couple of greased up leather-clad San Francisco fuck buddies. However, because they were actually sane enough to realize that doing such things to express love towards eachother was silly, we don't see any of that nonsense fold out. I mean, kissing is fine, but that's kissing.
So you see Jim, it's rather difficult for me to understand why you'd make such a point of advertizing your sexual interests by dubbing yourself a "homosexual" instead of just loving your closest friend. I mean, not only is hearing abour what gets you off none of my business, but it's also really sick.
I'm not forcing you to hear anything.
And as regarding how "sick" you think I and other gays are, I wouldn't swap my life for your ostensibly str8 one any day of the week.
And as I've also said before, why don't you grow up a little and experience life before you start making grand proclamations about what the state of the universe actually is?
This will probably mark our last interaction. You're officially on my Ignore list.
Don't let the terrorists win Jim!
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
str8
faggot
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
And as regarding how "sick" you think I and other gays are, I wouldn't swap my life for your ostensibly str8 one any day of the week.
On the contrary Jim, it's not gays that I think are sick. It's the things they choose to do as a way of showing affection.
Could someone please quote this so Jim can see it? Thanks.
Quote:
I'm quoting Pariah because ignore is rather juvenile and I'm amused by the potential shitstorm this thread represents:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
And as regarding how "sick" you think I and other gays are, I wouldn't swap my life for your ostensibly str8 one any day of the week.
On the contrary Jim, it's not gays that I think are sick. It's the things they choose to do as a way of showing affection.
Could someone please quote this so Jim can see it? Thanks.
Quote:
Pariah said:
I mean, not only is hearing abour what gets you off none of my business, but it's also really sick.
Says the guy with hentai transsexual fetish.
I feel I should comment on this thread but there is very little I could offer up new that isn't already on other gay themed threads. Quick summary, I know what is in my own heart & the feelings that I have towards my boyfriend are the good sappy kind. It's just that simple.
That was never in dispute.
Quote:
thedoctor said:
Says the guy with hentai transsexual fetish.
Stop hating yourself, Pary.