[pyritechips]

Thank you Lan and Mr Mulder for supportive posts. I thought my post was rather "strong" and expected equally strong criticism. I re-read my post several times ans considered editing it but summoned up the courage to leave it "as is".

I originally started this thread because, despite my "liberal" views on homosexuality, I was at a quandry as far as marriage was concerned. I still am not sure. The issue has really heated up in Canada now also. It is a debate that is headed towards polarizing the nation.

Mr Mulder: it is particularly refreshing to see a man as strong in his convictions, both politically and religiously, as you not stereotype himself. As far as my post is concerned I hope that it was clear that I did not imply "all" Christians. I have a tendancy to overlook the, what to me at least, is the obvious. I hope it was clear that I was intending more fundamentalist Christians only.

[khaki]

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.

Originally posted by LAN:
Nothing wrong with that!

no thanks...

I'm perfectly happy as-is

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
Mr Mulder: it is particularly refreshing to see a man as strong in his convictions, both politically and religiously, as you not stereotype himself. As far as my post is concerned I hope that it was clear that I did not imply "all" Christians. I have a tendancy to overlook the, what to me at least, is the obvious. I hope it was clear that I was intending more fundamentalist Christians only.

Good to recognize that. I find most "Christians" that I know are NOT into the more narrow interpreations of "Chrisitanity" as those that rely on fundamental doctrines from the Bible. People tend to see me as being very polarized to the "right" and I am not. I am simply very vocal about the opinions I do have so it seems that way. I am actually much more moderate and even liberal on social issues.

That being said, I do not agree with homosexual marriage. I have no problem with affording the same legal protections, but the traditions and concept of "marriage" is something rooted much more in religion than the law or society. Leave it as it is--its a nice compromise for both sides. Homosexuals get the same legal protections and society gets to keep marriage traditional.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by khaki:
no thanks...

I'm perfectly happy as-is

And I might add, I think you are more attactive as a brunette than you would be as a blond.

PS--still never forget that comment about the drapes and the carpet. A khaki classic!

[Moby]

Originally posted by Mulder:
PS--still never forget that comment about the drapes and the carpet. A khaki classic!

I was quite surprised to learn from much much older friends that the carpet would start to turn grey with age. It took me aback !

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by khaki:
no thanks...

I'm perfectly happy as-is

I can see why!

I was just making a deliberately sexist comment for the humor value.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by Moby:
I was quite surprised to learn from much much older friends that the carpet would start to turn grey with age. It took me aback !

Hey Moby--haven't seen you in awhile. We got a new young spunky lass here by the name of Khaki. You're gonna like her--same screwy oddball sense of humor like you and I have!

PS--But don't ever tell her "You're working her" and don't ever mention Italian food!!!

[Moby]

Howdy Mulder, saw you without the moustache, it's taken minutes off you
I've haven't met Khaki yet but have read some of her words and I think it's safe to say we already get on.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by Moby:
have read some of her words and I think it's safe to say we already get on.

Hey--no one "gets on" with Khaki except for Mulder!

[Wet Chicken]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
No person who feels obliged to defend a doctrine can truly call themselves free thinking.

BINGO!

It would be like turning on your PC computer, and wanting it to run a Macintosh program

[Wino]

Originally posted by 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

Here, Lan! Took this picture in a roadside rest area while standing at the urinal next to the toilet booth - ever seen those holes in the walls before?!!!

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Wino:
Here, Lan! Took this picture in a roadside rest area while standing at the urinal next to the toilet booth - ever seen those holes in the walls before?!!!

Ewwwwww

[valley]

Originally posted by pyritechips:
No person who feels obliged to defend a doctrine can truly call themselves free thinking.

of course this only applies to the fundamental christians you are referring to, right? If I come to agree with scripture because it makes sense to me personally....then why would you assume that I am not a free-thinker? Only because I agree with it? Doesnt your acceptance of many of the scietific discoveries that you havent personally witnessed put you in the same category? Evolution cannot be proven in a few years, right? Thats why it is a theory. It is the conclusions of scientists that they have gathered over a period of many many years of study. You believe their documentation but you havent exactly thought it all out for yourself....there's just too much to fathom and you dont have the time to find answers to the numerous details of evolution that cannot be explained. Yet you believe and defend it, dont you? Even when you cannot rationally explain it all? How can this be considered free-thinking?

Are Christians so desperate to prove their ideology right that they have to resort to practices that would make Torquemada proud.

Who are you talking about here, Jim?

Torquemada was a Catholic priest, ordered by the Pope himself to bring an end to people such as myself....I highly doubt that he would be proud of my tactics.....I'd lay odds that he would've relished seeing the skin peeled from my body for the "heresy" I speak against the RCC.

Your statement exposes your personal contempt for fundamental christians who refuse to budge on their belief that homosexuality is wrong. The statement itself (and you're not the first one who i've heard say it) is offensive to the extreme, especially to the memory of who were burned and tortured for their fundamental beliefs by this charlatan. The Catholics themselves are terribly embarrassed by this man. How can you make such a comparison?

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by valley:
Your statement exposes your personal contempt for fundamental christians who refuse to budge on their belief that homosexuality is wrong.

I think the problem, Val, if I may, is not that you believe its wrong, but WHY you believe its wrong. The only reason you believe it is wrong is because a book tells you it is. He wants you to decide for yourself based on looking into your own heart. That's where the frustration lies--that your thoughts are controlled entirely by 2000 year old ideas of morality.

Now we all understand that you believe this is God telling you this directly, but for those of us that do not (and those that don't even believe in a God), the frustration is that you aren't relying on your own moral compass, your own compassion, and your own heart. Moreover, the belief seems entirely the opposite of how Christ himself would view the subject (putting aside how the Bible says he would view it). Also, if there was conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic, you would not change your opinion, again because that would not change the Bible. That's the problem--a refusal to accept anythng else but what the Bible tells you when most of the rest of the world relies primarily on their own conscious, heart, and sense of right and wrong.

Not wanting to speak for pyritechips, but I think that is his frustration.

[columbo]

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.

Very well put, my fellow Canucklehead.

As an aside PC; It's very interesting to watch the main runners of the upcoming provincial elections here in Ontario play dodgeball with this issue.

To their credit, only the NDP has really taken a firm position (party-wide) on this issue. Layton (and Hampton) have said that they will not tolerate any NDP MPs or MPPs deviating from the party line.

The Libs are stepping on each other's feet and flip-flopping around (as usual), while the Conservatives respond to any inquiries as to their position on the subject with a nervous "no habla anglais senor"....

Has Paul Martin even mentioned the subject?