Unsubscribe

[shortnpretty]

Originally posted by Wet Chicken:
Thank you Chattan for answering those two simple questions.

All you need to do is a little bit more of research, and you will understand (and not be fearful of) gay people. First you need to understand this, gay people don't just wake up one day and say "oh, I think I'll be gay so that I can be persecuted for the rest of my life". They have no more choice in the matter than you have in not being gay. You can understand how a person is born with the characteristics of being short, you can understand how a person is born with the characteristics of having brown hair, you can understand how a person is born with the characteristics of being thin, so why can't you understand that a person can be born with the characteristics of being attracted to one sex or the other? It's all controlled by your genes, and since God decides which ones which people get, it is Gods choice who is born "gay" and who isn't. By the stroke of Gods hand you could have easily have been born with a gay preference. This is for God to decide. If God is OK with it, and you want to follow in Gods example then why are you putting labels on people who have no choice in the matter? Do you say bad things about handicapped people? It's all pretty much the same thing, it's just that God is using different colors from his pallet to paint each person with



This is a totally different situation. The reason for this is because of your fears! You know when I was a kid I was bitten by a chihuahua. It just jumped right up and bite me in the crotch! To this day I hate chihuahua's They're like little domesticated rats! But that doesn't make chihuahua's a bad animal, it just means that deep inside I am fearful of them, and so to protect myself I try to always stay away from them.

Certainly what happened to you as a child had a big impact on your mind and your emotions. You equate gays with this incident that happened to you. But you need to keep in mind and remember that not every gay in the world attached you on that day. It was one sicko who was a sicko for another reason other than that he was gay. Was he short? Fat? Have red hair? Then why aren't you against short, fat red haired people? You need to understand what happened to you on that day, and try to examine it from OUTSIDE of yourself so that you won't allow your biases to distract you. Once you understand that it was just one sicko that attacked you, then maybe you can stop hating everyone with all of his characteristics, and just focus on that one sicko

Before you try to examine what happened to you on that day, take a deep breath! Your subconscious is going to have to relive that day all over again, and that is exactly what it has been trying to avoid all of these years.

God bless

Hi Wet Chicken.....I do not believe that we have debated or conversed here as of date. I was reading your posts and am wondering, are you christian or follow any particular religion? I'm curious and didn't notice in any posts that I read whether you claimed an affiliation. If you have, excuse me, and please humor me with an answer. I would appreciate that. I'm way behind on my debate threads because I've been trying to spend time learning the security forums (in the shadows ), so please forgive the breaks by many posts in my comments, for I feel one post will word limit me due to the enormous posts you've already made that I've missed.

The above quote of yours instructs a member here that they need to do a little bit more research on "being born gay." I prefer to call it genetics and I think if you do a bit of research you would find that the BBC reported on the human genome project. Apparently, a group of scientists and researchers are now claiming that as few as 30,000 genes are needed to produce a human, only twice as many as the humble fruitfly. What was most striking, however, was one of the scientists behind the project, Dr Craig Venter said this would suggest our behavior is not determined by our genes, but with environmental factors playing a large part in shaping our thoughts and actions.

In my opinion, these statements sharply contradict previous claims by homosexuals that "they were born that way" as justification for their sin. And, once again, science is proving God's word. Christians are taught that God has given mankind a free will to choose (as you have stated) and I believe that homosexuality will be proved a choice.

Here is the BBC link........

I believe you are also trying to "blur subjects into one thing" as you have accused another member. People are born with certain characteristics as you stated, height, hair color, etc. and are proved genetic traits. But that being said, not all handicaps are proved genetic, as for example congenital birth defects. Environment, etc. play a huge role in congenital defects. Now the genome project is yet to prove or disprove homosexuality as a genetic trait, but it seems that the latest research points to what I state above, "environmental factors play a large part in shaping our thoughts and actions," which in my opinion, homosexuality is a behavior, not a physical characteristic.

[shortnpretty]

Originally posted by Wet Chicken:
So now you happen to know what Gods thoughts and feelings are? Could you enlighten the rest of us poor mortals on what his exact wording was on that subject

God is the creator of all things. I'm sure if God really didn't want something in this world he could easily zap it away into oblivion

And regarding people being perverted, that is a totally different subject that you are trying to blur into one thing. You don't have to be gay to be perverted! God loves us and trust us enough to give us all a little thing called "free will". God can create a person but he cannot, and he WILL NOT take away a persons free will. When someone abuses this gift then God will judge that act, but God will not condemn his own creations. Why should he? Just because a bunch of humans happen to think that they know better than God does

I agree with you in the above statement regarding God and His gift to us "free will," and that God will not condemn us for our sins, but (again my opinion and belief) only to a point. God will one day condemn His creation for nonbelief in Him, "Judgement Day." But for now, He knows we all sinners and it is also my belief that He sent Jesus Christ to die for those sins, therefore, when one believes He sent Jesus for this reason, he is clean of sin and will be considered pure on Judgement Day. As a christian who is disappointed in "religion", I try not to judge those who have different beliefs than I, but try to understand how they come to their belief as I have. I believe that God does not see any particular sin as greater than another. Therefore, I believe that our sins such as stealing, murdering and judging others, etc., are just as equally unclean as say adultry or homosexuality. As a human though, I place certain sins worse than others, but I am human. I truly believe that there are good homosexuals as there are truly good adulters. In other words, just because they sin, doesn't mean that they are not "good" or loved less by Father God. In my opinion, they are just human, as we all are.

[shortnpretty]

Originally posted by Wet Chicken:
Now Angelize shame on you! You told a lie and that is a "sin". You said "I'm out of this thread" and here you are again

I don't know... I don't think God needs a "middle-man".

So let me get this straight...

God said in HIS 10 commandments that "Thou shall have NO strange gods before me".

Then this "Christ" says that you can make an exception, as long as it's with him.

Now don't you think that if God really wanted it that way, that God would have said so in the 10 commandments?

Hey, maybe it's just that Gods not a very good proof-reader. Maybe what God really meant to say was "Thou shall have NO strange gods before me, except for Jesus of course"

You may not believe that God needs a "middle-man," but apparently (in my opinion), He felt He did. And, Jesus wasn't the only "middle man," but the only Son of God. Even the Jews believe that this "middle man" is yet to come and save them. It is a Christian's belief that Christ is God in human form, not a strange God, therefore, there is no conflict with that commandment. And as christians, the commandments are an excellent basis for doing good, but is an old covenant, and the new covenant is Jesus' Crucifixtion, God's sacrifice for our sins. We as humans, no longer have to do as the people in the old testament and sacrifice animals for atonement, but to believe that He sent his son Jesus for that purpose. Jesus the Son=God the man. Even as a christian, I'm still not convinced that God didn't send other "middle men" to humans all across the world. But that, religion(s) have helped to blur God's intended word. That we are human, we do sin, that He is the one and only God, and loves us regardless of our sins. And, I believe that most ancient writings are God inspired by truly spiritual humans, although, there are mistakes as they were written by humans, but still spiritually inspired.

[shortnpretty]

That all being said, as for the same sex marriage question, I believe that only a small percentage of homosexuals are pushing for the sanction by the church of that type of marriage, only because they want to boot "religion" in the butt for shunning them. And, another small percentage that only want legal rights, not neccesarily sanction rights, are being brought down with the aforesaid small percentage. And, I get angry about that. Legally, if same sex couples want insurance coverage rights as hetrosexuals enjoy, etc., then do it legally, not through the church! I don't begrudge a human who sins because of humanality, but as a human citizen, I begrudge those who want to hurt others. If they choose to be homosexuals then so be it. My step-brother is gay and I love him to death. I don't judge him by his sexual preferences, but how he treats others. He'd give me anything he has if I need it and if it would help me. But, as a homosexual, he isn't behind those who are trying to kick "religion" in the arse. And as I, keeps his sexual preferences private and not out in public for all to see and judge.

[shortnpretty]

Originally posted by Stoner:
If I might interject an opinion here:

I endorse manditory drug testing J/K

Oh
My
Gosh
Jack, I still think you are a hoot sometimes.....

Maybe I need to abuse something to keep me out of debate threads...

[Gibble]

Originally posted by Chattan:
Alright then let us throw the Bible away and consider it simply as an account of past history.

Let the readers also note that YOU acknowledge God in 1 above, in the first place, then you should concede that I do have a VERY open mind when it comes to believing in God so I automatically qualify for condition 2

I have taken not of your "Einsteinian philosophy" in 3 and whilst this ... may ... be regarded as being "clever" then you should know that, as there is only One God there can only be One perspective. His, and this is very easy to comply with as it is a matter of logic, disregarding religion altogether.

So as far as 4 is concerned, the egyptians had many deified aspects of creation NONE of which are "gods". Because of their erroneous belief they got into severe problems and egypt was laid to waste. They were notorious for working people to death and the pyramids are surrounded by the graves of workers, their backs broken, which was their common fate and an egyptian trait when it comes to how they treated people, as they still do. Hence a "prayer" habit which is designed to strengthen the back.

However, again disregarding "religion" and ONLY with consideration for God irrespective of the number of deities who may decide to call themselves gods there can, logically, only be One Supreme Boss Whose design this is.

The impossibility of there being two Supreme Gods is a matter of logic, as ONLY One can be Supreme over ALL others, and so ALL others who may wish to think of themselves as gods ARE inferior to The One Supreme God.

This One Supreme God, The Creator, The Effective Cause of Creation, Al'Illah or El Shaddaï, The Almighty, is the Single Monotheistic God of All of the Christians and of the Muslims.

Where plurality comes into play is where the egyptians decided to give up monotheism in order to give themselves equal status with God and it is they who USE the Jewish people as their whipping boys driving them around the planet like rabid sheepdogs herding sheep over the precipice, into abyss of self-destruction. Pitting them against all other people in the abuse of the egyptians "power" which they wish to exercise in God's place.

This ill-treatment of the Jewish people was clearly seen with Shindler who carefully chose those who he considered to be useful whilst turning a blind eye to the extermination of millions of others. Shindler, an egyptian thinker and demi-god with a criminal brain made a personal FORTUNE and cried crocodile tears when expressing regret that he could not have saved more people from certain death. A very cold and calculating psychopathic mentality. Often the trait of those with an extremely low forehead who often display this psychological tendency to psycopathy. Earl Haig was one of these. A cold-blooded killer.

The conspiracy which colluded in the extermination of so many people was that of the rich against the poor who could not control the numbers of children they were having and who had also been given the MISTAKEN impression, by their "religious" leaders, whose intelligence is somewhat lacking, that God required them to have as many children as possible, CONTRARY to the MODEL of Mother Mary and SINGLE Child.

It is for This reason that ALL Catholic clergy are celibate, in order to balance the population.

However this is not true of all people, and many people had far too many children in a very confined area, causing a population explosion which had catastrophic results when the egyptian thinkers started arranging things, behind the scenes, in order to reduce the population by killing. CONTRARY to the Commandments of ONE SUPREME GOD known, even to the egyptians, as PTAH Who is GOD CREATOR & GOD REDEEMER

The object of a CIVILISED World Order is to FREE the Jewish people from egyptian oppression AND to PREVENT the Egyptians from causing Chaos amongst people, which they find to be amusing to them.

NOBODY finds this continual mistreatment of innocent people to be amusing.

These people ARE to be set FREE and this is to happen NOW

NOBODY shall make, to themselves, ANY slave of ANYONE else!

And this is a further Commandment of ONE SUPREME BEING and one which you ALL know is TRUE

OUR Father's People ARE to be set FREE and are NOT to be used as ideological slaves by ...

… anyone.

1. It was a figure of speech, not an acknowledgement of god's existence

2. No opening your mind would entail entertaining a thought other than those which your mind is currently fixed upon. You have shown your incapable of this.

I would continue with your other rebuttles, but since you are so transfixed upon a single belief and unwilling to even contemplate another thought, there is no point.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally posted by shortnpretty:
are you christian or follow any particular religion?

…this would suggest our behavior is not determined by our genes, but with environmental factors

not all handicaps are proved genetic, as for example congenital birth defects. Environment, etc. play a huge role in congenital defects.

Hi shortnpretty What a pleasure it is so talk with you about this. I was surprised that you weren’t like others and was polite with making your point. I had to check to make sure that I was in the right forum I will try to answer all of your questions above. If I happen to miss any of your questions please bring them to my attention again and I will be glad to address them.

I was born a Christian but then I started to study other religions. The more I learned about religion, the more fascinating it became to me. Then I took it one step further and I started to study the history of religions. I don’t just want to know what my parents taught me about God, or how they could “program” me, or what a CCD teacher spoon fed me, or what the latest rhetoric about this or that religion was. I wanted to know the truth, at least as much as possible. The more I learned about religion, the clearer it became that only one creator could be responsible for everything. I believe in God. Religions do not represent him. The only way that I can describe it is that religions use “God” more as a poster child than anything. Religions do whatever they have to do for the survival of “their” religion. I don’t think God cares one way or another about ANY religion. God did not create religion, MAN created religion to try to understand God (there is a big difference). I certainly don’t think God is very happy that groups of people are killing each other in HIS name! Would you? If your best friend committed murder in your name, would you feel happy about it? It’s the same thing. God loves us. And yet millions of people are killing each other in his name! I can’t begin to tell you how many wars have been started throughout history because of religion. And what was the outcome? We’re still fighting today because of it

Regarding genes and environmental factors… Researchers are only now just scraping the tip of the iceberg of what there is to learn about the human gene. Instead of trying to convince you of anything, let me ask you a quick question. If what you say about the environment is true, then how do you explain twins being born into the same family, exposed to almost the same exact environment and yet one will be straight and one will be gay? Every Researcher knows this can only be genetics.


On the third quote about handicapped people I agree with you 100%. I apologize if my wording led you to believe otherwise

Originally posted by shortnpretty:
He sent Jesus Christ to die for those sins

I am assuming that you are referring to the story of Jesus that the Christians commonly talk about, and not the almost exact same Jesus that was talked about more than 200 years before him.

Originally posted by shortnpretty:
It is a Christian's belief that Christ is God in human form

Jesus the Son=God the man

OK it took me a while to wrap my head around that one If Jesus is God, and also the son of God, then doesn’t that make God his own son? And why would Jesus talk to God and call him his “father” if Jesus was really God? And wouldn't that also mean that the virgin Mary gave birth to God? I don’t see them as one, I see them as separate. I believe there is a God, and I believe that there was someone like Jesus, but I don’t think they were one in the same.

Well all I can say shortnpretty is that it was truly a pleasure to talk with you. How refreshing that someone like you are here

[LANMaster]

Why the Attack on Straight Men?


The war against American men has just gotten a lot more interesting. Consider the hyped-up success of Bravo’s new TV show, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”. One must wonder about the real objective behind a show that has as its premise to denigrate straight men for being what they are: men.

Radical women who celebrate “Queer Eye” enjoy telling the world all the things they wish they could change about males, such as their lack of appreciation for the cultural arts, their tendency to shy away from overt sentimentalism, their regular fashion faux pas, and their general untidiness. Wives complain about their husbands, girlfriends about their boyfriends, and bitter single women about all men in general.

Instead of treating every complaint as a serious discovery needing immediate remedy, why can’t we just acknowledge that most feminists just like to complain?

Not only is this constant carping about men deemed acceptable, but we now have an entire television series devoted to “improving” men to coordinate with female desires.

The only venue deemed remotely appropriate for men to do the same to women is in a comedy act – because it’s not taken seriously. While one might argue that “Queer Eye” is an entertainment program, could we even imagine a situation where the tables are turned?

Imagine, ladies, a show giving straight men the green-light to train women not to do all the things that bug them. Would it be nearly as humorous?

On the show, perhaps titled “Making Women Tolerable”, the male hosts would get to:

Drag them to a boxing match or a car race. Women should learn to appreciate these exciting sporting events.

Take women camping and prove that it won’t kill them to not wash their hair for a couple days.

Train women to keep their mouths shut when the toilet seat is left up. If they want the seat down, they have arms, too.

Lay off the shopping for a week and make women acknowledge that there is a connection between the Visa card in their hand and the income their devoted mates bring home each week.

How successful would this show be? We’ll never know, because no producer would dare have their name attached to the project. Why is it that our society can launch an attack against male idiosyncrasies, but not the reverse?

Perhaps a better question to ask is: Why do we want to?

Why the assault on heterosexual men? Why can’t they be allowed to be “rough around the edges”?

Men who like to shop, enjoy the ballet, and know when to use merlot versus cabernet, are not typically the guys women date. No, these poor chaps are generally doomed to be the “close friends” in women’s lives. These men often lament of being stuck in the “friend” trap.

Women may complain about macho male tendencies, but they don’t croon over the “softies”. Likewise, men groan about “girly” attributes, but the girls who can hold their own during tackle football are usually just “one of the guys”. These women are also often passed over romantically. Why is this the case?

The answer is a complex one, probably being studied somewhere by a psychology group. However, a short explanation is this: heterosexual men and women are drawn to the differences that make them complement one another.

Complement is the key. There are inherent differences between the two sexes, regardless of radical feminists hell-bent on denying the truth.

Men and women who choose to accept and appreciate their differences are able to have successful relationships based on trust and mutual respect. Feminists who want to impose their will upon male behavior patterns show nothing but disrespect and screw things up for the rest of us.

Any self-respecting male should be offended at this kind of abuse, especially when it comes via guys whom women consider an extension of their close girlfriends.

Likewise, ladies who are secure in their gender should be equally offended at the presumption that they are supposed to prefer dating Woody Allen over John Wayne.

Let’s celebrate our genders’ differences, rather than try to erase them. Better yet, we should stop the assault on heterosexual males in its tracks.

Source

[khaki]

Hey Lan....

I really liked your post.

Although it's a bit off-topic
(after all.... "Same Sex Marriages" and "Queer-Eye For The Straight Guy" could only really be linked if two of the "Queer-Eye" guys decided to get hitched )

But quite honestly.... I think that your post would probably make for an interesting thread of it's own
Or.... at least I think so, anyway (and I know that I'd be yakkin' in it.... if you created it ).

just sayin'

[LANMaster]

I wish I could take credit for that post, but it was an article from someone else. See the source link?

I just stuck it here because I didn't see a "queer eye" thread.

And really have no interest in finding one

[pyritechips]

Dr Craig Venter said this would suggest our behavior is not determined by our genes, but with environmental factors playing a large part in shaping our thoughts and actions.

And, once again, science is proving God's word

In the first quote it is stated that this would "suggest" environment palys a large "part". In the second quote it is claimed that science is "proving" God's word. Do you not understand the big difference between a suggestion and proof? It is no secret that Christian's are obliged to denounce homosexuality as "sinful" in obedience and subservience to their church. I believe the above twisting of logic is a good example of the extent that fundamentalists will go to in their desparate need to save ideological face. At some point Christians will denounce science in general and genetics in particular as false, as it contradicts Creationism, yet when it suits them they will gladly embrace the same in order to prop up another crumbling corner of suspect doctrine. No person who feels obliged to defend a doctrine can truly call themselves free thinking.

A homosexual step brother is spoken of as having sexual "preferences" implying that sexual orientation is indeed a choice, when it has not bee proved one way or another. To judge before all pertinent facts are known is, by definition, prejudice. Has this step brohter been fairly asked if he made a choice? Has he been asked how he feels about it?

Christian attitudes and lack of tolerance is most disgustingly illustrated in the barbaric pseudo-science of "Reparative" or "Conversion" therapy. Christians are so solidly assured of their belief that homosexuality is both "evil" and a "choice" that they feel they need to deprogram homosexuals as if they were cult members? Are Christians so desperate to prove their ideology right that they have to resort to practices that would make Torquemada proud.

[LANMaster]

Good post, Jim.



I am against homosexual marriage, but your opinion is fair and thoughtful.

[Mulderator]

My personal opinion is that sexual preference is not a choice, but a genetic trait. The reason there is confusion is because sexual preference has a "range" with total heterosexual on one end and totally homosexual on the other. Inbetween, there are people that are bisexual and also those that lean one way or another. It is the successful "conversion" if you will of these people that lends any support for the belief that you can change a sexual preference. They don't really "change", they simply stop acknowledging one aspect of their sexuality. However, there is no way on earth that you can "change" a completely homosexual person into a heterosexual, or visca-versa. Its like saying you can change their hair color by counseling them to believe they were intended to be blonde instead of brunette.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Mulder:
............ Its like saying you can change their hair color by counseling them to believe they were intended to be blonde instead of brunette.

Nothing wrong with that!