Posts made by K-Ration

Geoff:

Since you seem like a nice guy who likes to debate, I will take it upon myself to write up a rebuttal as it were. It will probably be Wed or Thur, as that is my weekend.

Just out of curiosity I would like to pose this question: If I were to point out flaws in your argument, why would that not matter? Obviously reasons are important to you, or your post would have been something like ‘Hi, I’m Geoff and God says gay men are sinners bye’. :wink:

You seem to try to justify your beliefs with more than just ‘I feel this way’
and it honestly makes me quite sad that someone could recognize a false belief (or support for such) and not care. Not that any of yours are false at this point, we are still being hypothetical. =p

That said, here’s hoping I open your eyes or you open mine.

Guerrilla Guy: I’m not sure if you were joking or not, but I would have no problems abolishing marriage. 8)

~cheers

I’m not sure what you mean by dogma, but the dogma I know has no negative connotations. I’m just describing what he admitted to.

Authoritative tenet. Doctrine proclaimed by the church. Call it what you will. He said himself it comes mainly from the heart, and not the head.

You gain no points here, sir. I have much better ways to reduce and devalue someone than that.

:wink:

~cheers

Morning Geoff. Personally, I’m a fan of MMORPGS, which is really neither of your choices. =p

My favorite game of all time would be Starcraft.

I’m not sure if it’s how the games are made now, or if i’m just getting older and slower, but I agree RTS’s seem to be getting faster and more complicated. So I guess I’m leaning towards turn-based at this point, as in HOMM, which is another favorite. I need time to think!

~cheers

Bruce Campbell as Elvis.

Ossie Davis as JFK.

Im already LMAO!

~cheers

Yummy, lesbians! What channel was that on? :lol:

Heartfelt and sincere, I can appreciate that. Part of me is frothing to write up a reply - I see quite a few contradictions/fallacies in your reasoning.

The other part of me thinks it will be a waste of time, and that was a long post. :wink:

If this opinion of yours was not so concretely grounded in religious dogma so as to be unassailible, I might give it a shot. As it stands, I think I would just be wasting our time.

So…

Good luck, sir!

~cheers

I can’t believe I’ve never seen this one. When did it come out?

Bruce is teh shiznit!

King Arthur: Are all men from the future loud mouth braggarts?

Ash: Nope, just me baby. Just me.

~cheers

If Tanguay returns, my money is on Colorado.

If not, it’s my Wings all the way!

~cheers

With a divorce rate reaching (or even surpassing) 50% in the US, i’d say heterosexuals have ‘taken away from the seriousness and respect that comes with the historical tradition of marriage’ well enough on their own.

~cheers

So then everyone who has ever acted upon lust is not in Heaven?

And why is it not possible to have a sinless human being?

It seems difficult, to be sure. But not impossible. After all, wasn’t Jesus -

Never mind.

~cheers

Well, I can see we aren’t going get get very far with this one. =p

This: ‘Hourly i want to have sex with other women.’

Is a sin, according to mainstream Christian belief. Acting on it is also a sin. If you desire a woman/man, are not married to them, and have sex with them, you have committed at the very least 2 sins. Probably more.

I didn’t make it up, I dont agree with it, I don’t believe it. But the message cannot be more clear.

The only way I can see one being a non-sinning homosexual, is if the man somehow knew he was gay, without ever having looked at another man and feeling desire for him. Is that even possible?

Either way, I understand the point you are trying to make. I can understand you not liking the ‘act’, and still being able to feel sympathy (or whatever) for the guy, especially if you view it as genetically driven.

The problem is, this is not the church of CC. I wish it were.

Your view and the Christian God’s are not the same on this issue.

Which bring us back to the crux of the discussion. I wont reiterate it, as it doesn’t seem anyone wants to answer my original question.

I_killed_mufasa:

What evidence do you have that shows lust is a lesser sin than adultery?

Janus1:

I didn’t hear that, it doesn’t sound right, and for the love of GOD I hope it isn’t true. You’d have to be able to turn sperm into an egg - if we can do that, Holy crap.

~cheers

Here we are now, ENTERTAIN US.

Nirvana

~cheers

i_killed_mufasa:

And which lifestyle was he referring to when he damns those he considers effeminate? Please explain this to me.

And those he consideres covetous? To be covetous does not require you TAKE posession of your neighbors goods, it is enough to WANT them.
Clearly, God here makes no distinction between ‘motive’ and ‘act’.
Actually, he does. Stealing violates the 8th commandment.

It seems he considers not only the act, but intent as well. Imagine that.

Here’s the kicker. Now read this carefully. Ready?

Adultery. The 7th Commandment. Do not diddle someone other than your spouse. That’s pretty clear, right? No mention of WANTING your neighbors wife - thats NOT a lifestyle, thats just a feeling you have, an urge, and is not bad. You have to actually do her for it to be a sin. Is this sounding familiar?

Well actually there IS a Commandment about just wanting other people, and things - that would be the 10th commandment. The one about being covetous. But I digress. Back to adultery.

Not only has God forbidden adultery, but the son of God himself said, “Whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”. Matthew 5:28, if you wish to read for yourself.

Peter described some sinners of his day as having “eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin” II Peter 2:14. Check it out.

What does this all mean? It means God considers it a sin to ‘want’ someone, without actually participating in a physical act. It means he considers the desire as sinful as the act. In this case, if you look at a woman, and desire her - you have sinned. Of course, if you still wish to stick to your argument, I suppose you could present the case that God holds a special place in his heart for gay men. They need not worry about desiring other men, so long as they don’t do it. Right?

Riiiight.

It is not clear to me at all that God will forgive them. Did you not comphrehend my quote from Matthew? In a nutshell, it is not enough to love God, and praise him. That will NOT get you into heaven. You must follow his LAWS to honor him.

I don’t consider your original article to be biased. I consider the website it was on to be biased. This becomes apparent when you read (you did read it, didn’t you?) the link I provided. The study and it’s findings have been INVALIDATED by those who originally WROTE IT. Not in the sense that the numbers were incorrect, but in that the conclusion they drew no longer applies, as the numbers have CHANGED. If this were 1990, you would have a point. It is not, and you don’t.

With that out of the way, please post a link to the information you claim lowers life expectancy. I’m interested in reading it.

~cheers

i_killed_mufasa: Please give us a link to your Oxford source.

Please also provide links regarding what exactly it is anal sex does to your immune system. I didn’t spend a lot of time looking, but here are a couple of links for you to peruse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/sex/qa/anal_sex_fetish.shtml

http://www.sexhealth.org/bettersex/anal.shtml

Neither of which seem to stress any such health risks.

Now before any of you health experts start posting, let us bear in mind the spirit of the O.P. I am not saying there are NO added risks to anal sex.
I’m sure there are some. But any such risk whos end result would be the disfranchisement of a large number of citizens should be very serious indeed.

CC: I agree with your first paragraph, but must take issue with your second. I think peoples views of homosexuality fall into two general categories:

1. It is something a person chooses, something they can change;
   it is something a person does.

2. It is an alternate, normal, unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of humans. It is something that a person is.

My view, and what I read (partly) to be your view, was that of number 2.
It’s convenient to say ‘I accept homosexuals, but not the physical act of homosexuality’. Thats quite an equivocation, and doesn’t help anyone much in the real world. If the desire to have sex is accepted, why shouldn’t the act itself be?

I also disagree with your representation of homosexuality in the bible.

Lev 18:22
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

But that is the act, you say - God still loves the person, if the person loves God!

Corinthians 6:9-11
“Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

I think it’s clear God doesn’t distinguish between Homosexuals and their lifestyle, why should you?

To close:

Matt 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.
"Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

As to the pulling of men out of the pool, I’m with ya Bro!

~cheers

i_killed_mufasa:

Why don’t you tell us why then, homosexuality is a bad thing.

One reason you keep stressing is that it is inherently more ‘dangerous’.

What percentage of gay men contracting HIV would be reasonable enough for you to accept homosexuality as a lifestyle? 2 percent? 10 percent? I don’t think a number is too much to ask, if this is your main objection. And when you ponder this, consider that black men have a much higher rate of contracting HIV than do their white counterparts. Africans have a much higher rate than do Europeans. Perhaps we shouldn’t let black people marry. We don’t want to encourage them.

Which in itself is an odd position to hold; I always thought marriage was a commitment to another person. I.E. Those who are married are less likely to be promiscuous. It seems to me you should be applauding gay marriages. But then I think you have other reasons for opposing the homosexual lifestyle. Why don’t you fill us in.

~cheers

Wargaming_nut:

Although I have not personally used the term homophobic, I will glady honor your wishes and start referring to you henceforth as a bigot.

=p

CC: Yikes. We agree on #1. Actually we agree on almost all of it.

peers around the room nervously

Although I would call the post a bit homophobic. (oops! bigoted!) Obviously a skewed site, the data was flawed, and dated - contradicted in fact, by one of the authors of the original study, within a few minutes of searching.

Obviously not hard to find, but then he couldn’t make his point otherwise, so what can really be expected.

~cheers

I’m not saying the information is wrong, but I think your case might be better made had the article not been on ‘Americas Pro-Family Action Website!’ (with Sean Hannity ad on the side =p) and not been titled

Homosexual Agenda
Compassionate Society Should Discourage Deadly Homosexual Behavior

This is just so 80’s! Three more minutes of searching (a link from this same site, oddly enough) led me to this article

http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499

The jist of which said this:

(original study done in the late 80’s early 90’s)

if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

So I guess i’m modifying my earlier statement: this information IS wrong.

Yanny: Your figure about the odds (straight/gay) of getting AIDS sounds a bit fishy to me. Do you have numbers to back it up?

Same sex marriages are inevitable. Might as well get used to the idea.

~cheers

@cystic:

@K-Ration:

Religious institution though it is, it is sanctioned by government.

Therefore, either let all people marry, or do away with it entirely.

Seems like the fair thing to do.

~cheers

do away with it?
That’s kind of non-freedom of religion-y, no?

I’m quite sure I don’t understand what you mean.

~cheers

Religious institution though it is, it is sanctioned by government.

Therefore, either let all people marry, or do away with it entirely.

Seems like the fair thing to do.

~cheers

Gratz on 1000, in case no one else sees it!

~cheers

You were crucified because it was obvious that was your goal, and the vast majority of your posts prove it. I think had you earned your post count legitimately, very few would take issue. Personally, post count holds little value, as evidenced by the frowning face at the end of my ‘celebratory post count’ post. It was a joke.

I can’t help that I’m not funny.

~cheers