Quote: Beardguy57 said: Pariah, That remark by Jim Jackson in response to your name calling TOTALLY applies to you!
You keep quoting the Bible, defending the Bible, yet you seem NOT to have absorbed it's messages of being good to others.
I suppose I should take this as your concession to the fact that you mis-quoted the Bible and slanderously mis-represented the Vatican as well as other representative Christian hierarchies. Thank you.
Quote: klinton said: I don't know why I'm bothering with this...as it's really Pariah that should be providing extensive, legitimate documentation of his arguments...but here goes.
I could prolly post a dozen counter-arguments and scientific views, some of them would come from the original Canada-Gay Marriage thread, but the fact of the matter is, you won't except them. At all. You'd still just shout 'MAJORITY RULES!! MAJORITY RULES!!' and then top it off with a, 'No straight person could understand how being gay feels.'
Quote: The views of the three leading psychological associations on homosexuality:
So I suppose this renders any research to the contrary as irrelevent. That is to say: You want opposing research to be irrelevent. I'm just going to repeat a prior statement: The majority of leading scientists used to think the world was flat....
None of those sites actually offers any sort of analytical evidence--And morever, what analysis I have read up on, from sources that correspond with your views, which is prolly what built the foundation for those sites' conlcusions, is 100% hypothesis, and 100% branched assumption.
Quote: As to the physical dangers, I can provide a series of comparative articles that list the risks involved in vaginal sex vs. those in anal sex. If you're willing to read them, you'll note that all of the warnings/risks are identical. And despite looking, I have yet to come across a journal that ascribes any serious risk (besides STI transmission, which is common to every form of intercourse) to the practice.
Sorry, but I don't need to read any slanted articles. You can produce many different accountable STDs in many people that retain equal or greater volumes of severity, but that won't change the fact that it's simpler to contract them this way rather than that way ("this way" meaning sodomy in this case).
Quote: Jim Jackson said:
See, here's my take: I don't really know anything about the Catholic Church. So I keep my mouth shut on that topic.
Food for thought.
Didn't say I was talking about you now was I?
Quote: Jeff Gannon said: I can't recall any religious discussion here where Pariah didn't berate people for not knowing anything about the subject nor being capable of knowing what we were talking about.
Fairs fair after all. If this standard applies to religious discussion, then it should apply to gay topics.
It was a generalization, not an isolated exemplification pertaining only to the RKMBs. However, you're wrong. I can distinctly remember at the beginning of the Canada thread that Klinton tried to scrutinize the Church with false/flawd representations. Later on, I remember another poster, KrazyXXXDJ arguing about the animosity of the Church using sweeping generalizations whilst describing descriminatively motivated incidents not perpetrated by the Church, but by independent groups of fanatics.
Edit: Whoops! Misunderstood that: I don't feel I've overstepped any sort of bounderies here guys. As far as being gay goes, I've made it clear that my ideas regarding homosexuality were my hypothesis. Plus, I don't really need to be gay to have an educated opinion on legal (gay marriage) or medical (sodomy) matters pertaining to the subject.
Quote: Pariah, as a non-gay person, you don't know nor will you ever be capable of knowing what you're talking about.
And you, however, do? Does this mean you finally admit to being gay Whomod?
