Lesbian Methodist Minister

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Zakath

Hopefully you don't send little children into any public restrooms without an adult... :shocked:

No, I can't. And the reason why I won't is.. well, basically what we have been talking about.

I suppose you could always pray that your god would protect them...

Yeah, I could, since society can't seem to keep the freaks out of public. Wouldn't wanna be called a bigot now would we.

Only a fundy religionist doesn't see anything wrong with constantly telling everyone else how they should live their lives. You have a very narrow view... marching in a parade need not be a celebration of any sexual act.

Only an apostate would disallow a "religionist" voice in the public sqaure on public issues.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. A "Gay Pride" parade isn't about homosexuality. Thanks for reminding me...

Most such activity didn't begin until after the successes of the civil rights movement in the fifities and sixties and the changes in public assembly laws. They act out publicly for the same reason an ill-disciplined child does... because they think it gets them attention and/or their way. Conversations like this one would seem to indicate that they're right. They certainly have your attention riveted to the "action".

And I should assume you support the 60's bad ideas like you support the RCC's bad ideas.

How is marching in a parade a public manifestation of anyone's bedroom life? That's as unrealistsic as comparing a promise keepers' rally to a bunch of heterosexuals trotting out their bedroom lives when they talk about being happily married men.

That's right, you reminded me, "Gay Pride" really isn't about homosexuality...

I carefully worded my statement to clearly indicate that I was referring to those people I know. If you want to find out what the rest of the world thinks, look elsewhere...

You said "majority". That means out of 10, maybe 6 or so were the ones you wanted to use as an example. I wanted to know about the other 4.

Somehow I don't think that "gay day" at the local theme park is designed to turn the place into a massive orgy... If your purient interests see it that way, write a complaint letter and stop patronizing the companies that participate in such things. Despite you fundies best efforts, its' still a free country.

And taking over family oriented theme parks by homos holding hands, kissing and, whatever they wanna do in the public bathrooms, isn't designed to promote a family friendly environment, for... well... you know... kids.

Anyway, I avoid theme parks that have homo day(s) whenever they "allow" us to know it's going on, instead of paying upwards of $60 to get in then finding out.

So what? They're merely another special interest demographic to the boys and girls in the marketing departments of the companies who sponsor such things... do you really think that if people didn't attend and spend lots of money there on those special group days, that the parks would continue to sponsor them?

A couple of days won't harm them much. Especially at Disney. They know families who have saved all year and made reservations can't cancel out at the last minute. I'd like to see a homo theme park exist on 2% of the population funding it.

Get realistic, Nineveh! This is the United $tate$! The land of mammon and free enterprise! :greedy:

I think if you checked carefully you'd find that most such things are all about the money... :think:

I don't think it is. There's no money in a public restroom. Unless you want to accuse homos of turning tricks and public officials getting a cut.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by gabriel

.... the sad part is that HE believed his worldview to be biblical. hence his propensity to use it to justify his "blacks are inferior" stance.

i agree, oej, that you can do that with any book but the bible is the book of the christian faith....... alot of people are passionate about their religious beliefs and they retaliate if someone disagrees with their beliefs or their religious book (which they use as the basis of said religious beliefs) ..... i hardly think he would have acted so passionately had we been disagreeing on "windows xp for dummies".

He reacted so passionately because he's a bigot, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

 

[gabriel]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

He reacted so passionately because he's a bigot, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with the Bible.

i agree with you oej, the jerk was clearly a bigot..
BUT he was attempting to justify his bigotry through scripture. that is the whole point zakath and i made a few posts back - we have seen more than one case where a bigot was trying to justify the "white supremacy" b.s. by saying it was "biblical" and could be proven through scripture........ i certainly didn't buy his nonsense, hence the bruises the next day.

 

[gabriel]

Originally posted by Nineveh



Only an apostate doesn't see anything wrong with cebrating sodomy in the streets, I guess.

:crackup: ......."sodomy in the streets" - isn't that a song from korn's latest cd...?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I can't. And the reason why I won't is.. well, basically what we have been talking about.

What a relief... I was wondering there for a minute...

Yeah, I could, since society can't seem to keep the freaks out of public. Wouldn't wanna be called a bigot now would we.

I wouldn't worry about being called names... people call atheists names all the time.

Only an apostate would disallow a "religionist" voice in the public sqaure on public issues.

I certainly didn't intend to indicate you couldn't call people names or otherwise make your views known... so long as you don't break any laws doing so. In the good ole US of A heteros have just as much right as gays to state their opinions - that's part of the beauty of the system.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. A "Gay Pride" parade isn't about homosexuality. Thanks for reminding me...

Perhaps it hasn't penetrated into your cognitive process but, for humans, sexuality is more than just the desire or ability to have sex. Do you think that if someone loses the ability to have sexual intercourse do they cease being heterosexual or homosexual?

:think:

And I should assume you support the 60's bad ideas like you support the RCC's bad ideas.

Which ideas might those be? The non-violent civil rights demonstrations?

You said "majority". That means out of 10, maybe 6 or so were the ones you wanted to use as an example. I wanted to know about the other 4.

Let's see... I know about 150 gay people... I can only think of about 20 of them that actually ever mentioned attending a march or public demonstration having to do with sexual orientation... and most all of those twenty are in monogamous relationships. Why is it so important that you know these things? Are you writing a newspaper article or something? :think:

And taking over family oriented theme parks by homos holding hands, kissing and, whatever they wanna do in the public bathrooms, isn't designed to promote a family friendly environment, for... well... you know... kids.

Anyway, I avoid theme parks that have homo day(s) whenever they "allow" us to know it's going on, instead of paying upwards of $60 to get in then finding out.

So vote with your dollars and boycott the parks that sponsor events you don't like. If you don't go to the parks at all, you won't be exposed to something that you don't like. How many times do I have to say it? :doh:

I don't think it is. There's no money in a public restroom. Unless you want to accuse homos of turning tricks and public officials getting a cut.

My comment was in regard to theme parks and other for-profit establishments, not public restrooms...

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Of course not, but the infant is not worthy of heaven either.
No one is. By the Grace of God, the infant is taken by God
into paradise.

Dave

Do you believe that all are taken into heaven? I do agree that none of us are worthy, but I also believe that it is only those who accept what has been offered them freely by Christ [grace] are taken into heaven. They have to accept the grace, in order for it to work for them.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by gabriel

.... LoL... lighthouse i am not arguing with you on the spitting issue.... i was messin' with you - obviously, recognizing dripping sarcasm is not your forte. you need to lighten up, dude......... still, i say they do not spit in the face of god.

Then you are clueless as to how God feels about the issue.

... if everyone has noticed ("we've noticed") then why the need to bring it to "everyone's attention".

Now see, you don't catch sarcasm, either...

Anyway, the comment about the small c had a point, but I guess you missed that one too.

... the definition of christian can't be too clear: i have asked 5 different (admittedly christian) co-workers the definition of christian and have received 5 different answers.......oh wait, maybe they are not "real" christians.

One of them may have been. What kind of answers did you get? They all could have been, and they just gave different perspectives on the same idea.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Zakath

I wouldn't worry about being called names... people call atheists names all the time.

Tell that to the law makers who think it's ok, then.

I certainly didn't intend to indicate you couldn't call people names or otherwise make your views known... so long as you don't break any laws doing so. In the good ole US of A heteros have just as much right as gays to state their opinions - that's part of the beauty of the system.

And what it's boiling down to is heteros with kids are less equal than 2% of the population. Name calling or not. Maybe the new term for 2005 should be heterophobic.

Perhaps it hasn't penetrated into your cognitive process but, for humans, sexuality is more than just the desire or ability to have sex. Do you think that if someone loses the ability to have sexual intercourse do they cease being heterosexual or homosexual?

:think:

Then what is a"Gay Pride" parade for?

Here, let's think about this...

What is a Christmas Parade about? How about the St. Patrick's Day Parade? How about the Rose Bowl Parade? Why is it only a "Gay Pride" parade that really isn't celebrating it's name sake?

Which ideas might those be? The non-violent civil rights demonstrations?

Bad ideas being continued simply because they have been over some period of time.

Let's see... I know about 150 gay people... I can only think of about 20 of them that actually ever mentioned attending a march or public demonstration having to do with sexual orientation... and most all of those twenty are in monogamous relationships. Why is it so important that you know these things? Are you writing a newspaper article or something? :think:

No, I was just curious as to how long it would take for you to answer

So vote with your dollars and boycott the parks that sponsor events you don't like. If you don't go to the parks at all, you won't be exposed to something that you don't like. How many times do I have to say it? :doh:

That's the ticket! Families who don't want their children exposed can just stay away from the family oriented theme parks! Gee! What an idea!

My comment was in regard to theme parks and other for-profit establishments, not public restrooms...

Right, and there is no money in that, so homos in public places isn't just about the $.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Do you believe that all are taken into heaven? I do agree that none of us are worthy, but I also believe that it is only those who accept what has been offered them freely by Christ [grace] are taken into heaven. They have to accept the grace, in order for it to work for them.

In that case, babies would burn. So you believe in an age of
accountability, or a developmental stage of accountability,
after which a person needs to openly accept Christ? Just
want to get this straight, no criticism intended...

Dave

 

[gabriel]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Dave! A new congregant!

.... a congregation i would be proud to join if they will have me.

 

[Nineveh]

dave accepts everyone but Christians. You would fit right in

 

[gabriel]

Originally posted by Nineveh

dave accepts everyone but Christians. You would fit right in

... hi nineveh. we are practically "real time"!!

.... well you have already established the fact that i am a pagan so i suppose i would

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Tell that to the law makers who think it's ok, then.

I have only one consistent communication for my lawmakers - term limits. I do my best to vote every one of them out after one term. It's the only thing that seems to limit corruption and influence peddling...

And what it's boiling down to is heteros with kids are less equal than 2% of the population. Name calling or not. Maybe the new term for 2005 should be heterophobic.

Care for a little cheese with your "whine", Nineveh? :chuckle:

It's really tiresome listening to the "98%" whine about how the 2% are stealing their rights away... In a democratic republic the large majority overrules the small minority, or perhaps they didn't cover that in your high school civics classes... :think:

If your deity's so all-fired incensed about this, why doesn't he do something about it since his followers don't seem able to accomplish much of anything unless it's handed to them on a platter wrapped in a bible verse.

What is a Christmas Parade about? How about the St. Patrick's Day Parade? How about the Rose Bowl Parade? Why is it only a "Gay Pride" parade that really isn't celebrating it's name sake?

Because, sexuality is more than a sexual act. (That's twice I've posted it. Will you ignore it this time too?)

Bad ideas being continued simply because they have been over some period of time.

That seems to desribe your religious views from where I sit...

That's the ticket! Families who don't want their children exposed can just stay away from the family oriented theme parks! Gee! What an idea!

So you're not willing to suffer a bit of inconvenience for your religious views? You don't want to have to be inconvenienced and not attend a particular theme park because its owners violate your moral preferences. What a pathetic mockery of the faith of your predecessors...

Sounds like you've already rolled over and let your alleged "enemy" win. All you're doing is looking for a rationalization for your surrender.
:devil:

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by lighthouse

They can choose to submit to Christ. Homosexuality is not normal. People are not born that way, and it is not something they have no choice in. They have a choice. They can choose Christ, and He will turn them from their wicked ways. And the reason I can't choose to be a faggot is not because of who I am, but because of who I am in Christ. Homosexuality is contrary to who I am in Christ. If it were not for Christ, I could be promiscuous, and I could be bisexual, for all I know. Heterosexuality is how we were all created to be. It is not contrary to who anyone is in Christ.

Lighthouse,

I am aware of your overwhelming confidence in your belief that no people are born homosexual, and have no interest in trying to argue otherwise. I have been looking into some of the biological research into this question, however, and have a question for you concerning your "formerly homosexual" and now happily married father. If he had participated in a survey during what you might think of as "the dark times," would he have classified himself as "homosexual," "heterosexual," or "bisexual"? How about today? The answers may seem obvious; furthermore, we do have the limitation that what you think he would say is not necessarily what he himself would actually say (if for no other reason that you are not him).

I'm just pondering the various twin studies that clearly show that identical twins show a much higher probability of reporting the same self-categorization than do other pairs of siblings, and yet that probability is less than the 100% expected if * homosexuality was a purely genetic trait. I put the asterisk in the preceding sentence as a placeholder for the idea that led to this query (i.e., "*" = "acknowledging one's").

I don't know about your dad's experiences, but this whole idea that homosexuals "choose" this behavior seems at odds with the fact that there is a fairly substantial burden associated with making this "choice." Y'all whine about how "tolerant" society is of gays today, but look at things objectively and over the long haul (i.e., not just in the recent, er, "tolerant" past). Wouldn't you have to admit that in the vast majority of societies over the vast majority of recorded human history, there has been a huge stigma associated with homosexuality? A stigma, with many and dangerous consequences, that has freely translated into verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are. At the moment, I find the idea that straight people throughout history have"chosen" to put themselves through all that less than compelling.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Zakath

I have only one consistent communication for my lawmakers - term limits. I do my best to vote every one of them out after one term. It's the only thing that seems to limit corruption and influence peddling...

I think most of us would if given the chance.

However the top politician here was a judge. Unfortunatly not one we had the opportunity to vote on. It took getting "caught in the act" to get rid of him. I know some of his "damage". Sad

Care for a little cheese with your "whine", Nineveh? :chuckle:

It's really tiresome listening to the "98%" whine about how the 2% are stealing their rights away... In a democratic republic the large majority overrules the small minority, or perhaps they didn't cover that in your high school civics classes... :think:

Did you miss the civil rights movement? C'mon now, I know you've heard of the ACLU.

If your deity's so all-fired incensed about this, why doesn't he do something about it since his followers don't seem able to accomplish much of anything unless it's handed to them on a platter wrapped in a bible verse.

You wanna talk about something really tiresome to hear repeatedly.... (Do you just cut and paste that one now?)

Because, sexuality is more than a sexual act. (That's twice I've posted it. Will you ignore it this time too?)

Zakath, it's not the "Sexuality Parade". (Even if it was, would you be for it?) It's a celebration of homosexuality. Homosexuality is about sex. Homo sexual sex to be perfectly clear about it. But it is a parade, so it juth hath to be GaY!~*.

That seems to desribe your religious views from where I sit...

Right. That silly ol' thou shalt not murder thing, and that oh so prohibitive adulty and honoring parents thing....

So you're not willing to suffer a bit of inconvenience for your religious views? You don't want to have to be inconvenienced and not attend a particular theme park because its owners violate your moral preferences. What a pathetic mockery of the faith of your predecessors...

No, like "family" and "marriage" a "family oriented theme park" is by definition exclusive. Trying to redefine things doesn't make them different, it makes them the same thing with a new name.

Sounds like you've already rolled over and let your alleged "enemy" win. All you're doing is looking for a rationalization for your surrender.
:devil:

It was your bad idea, Z.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Do you believe that all are taken into heaven? I do agree that none of us are worthy, but I also believe that it is only those who accept what has been offered them freely by Christ [grace] are taken into heaven. They have to accept the grace, in order for it to work for them.

I just realized I missed something. I do beleive that they have to be old enough to understand the message, before they can reject it. So, if they die before then they go to heaven.

Yes, Dave. I forgot that.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by aharvey

Lighthouse,

I am aware of your overwhelming confidence in your belief that no people are born homosexual, and have no interest in trying to argue otherwise. I have been looking into some of the biological research into this question, however, and have a question for you concerning your "formerly homosexual" and now happily married father. If he had participated in a survey during what you might think of as "the dark times," would he have classified himself as "homosexual," "heterosexual," or "bisexual"?

Bisexual.

How about today?

Heterosexual.

The answers may seem obvious; furthermore, we do have the limitation that what you think he would say is not necessarily what he himself would actually say (if for no other reason that you are not him).

I've already asked him. And, since I was born before he ever had a relationship with a man, and he loved my mom, it would stand to reason that he would have considered himself a bisexual. Especially since he got married again, while he was in the midst of it.

I'm just pondering the various twin studies that clearly show that identical twins show a much higher probability of reporting the same self-categorization than do other pairs of siblings, and yet that probability is less than the 100% expected if * homosexuality was a purely genetic trait. I put the asterisk in the preceding sentence as a placeholder for the idea that led to this query (i.e., "*" = "acknowledging one's").

:nono:

I don't know about your dad's experiences, but this whole idea that homosexuals "choose" this behavior seems at odds with the fact that there is a fairly substantial burden associated with making this "choice." Y'all whine about how "tolerant" society is of gays today, but look at things objectively and over the long haul (i.e., not just in the recent, er, "tolerant" past).

Okay, let's take a look at my stance. No one is born a homosexual. Something happens to bring about the interest in the same gender. They then choose to act on this desire. And even heterosexuals, this day in age, choose to act on their desires outside of marriage, and that's wrong as well. And perverted.

Wouldn't you have to admit that in the vast majority of societies over the vast majority of recorded human history, there has been a huge stigma associated with homosexuality? A stigma, with many and dangerous consequences, that has freely translated into verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are. At the moment, I find the idea that straight people throughout history have"chosen" to put themselves through all that less than compelling.

Straight people?

 

[Frank Ernest]

quote:
Wouldn't you have to admit that in the vast majority of societies over the vast majority of recorded human history, there has been a huge stigma associated with homosexuality?

FrankiE:
No doubt about it.

quote:
A stigma, with many and dangerous consequences, that has freely translated into verbal and physical abuse, ostracism, and other things you surely wish were more acceptable today than they are.

FrankiE:
What are the "many and dangerous consequences" and to whom do they apply?

quote:
At the moment, I find the idea that straight people throughout history have"chosen" to put themselves through all that less than compelling.

FrankiE:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I think most of us would if given the chance.

What do you mean "given the chance"? Don't you have the chance to vote? :think:

However the top politician here was a judge. Unfortunatly not one we had the opportunity to vote on. It took getting "caught in the act" to get rid of him. I know some of his "damage". Sad

Since you didn't say what kind of judge, perhaps you could tell us who appointed him or how he got to that position?

Did you miss the civil rights movement?

Nope. I participated in it and lived through it...

C'mon now, I know you've heard of the ACLU.

Do you mean the same ACLU that defended Bob Enyart's and Oliver North's free speech rights?

The same ACLU that supported Henry Ford's right to distribute anti-union literature to his employees (1925)?

The same ACLU that supported the Jehovah's Witness members right not to be forced to salute the American flag against their religious belief in West Virginia vs. Barnette (1943)?

:think:

You wanna talk about something really tiresome to hear repeatedly.... (Do you just cut and paste that one now?)

Then why do you endlessly debate the same topics? But hey, it's still a free country... Bush hasn't taken things that far yet...

Zakath, it's not the "Sexuality Parade".

Very good! You can read! Thank a teacher...

(Even if it was, would you be for it?)

What do you mean "for it"? If you mean would I bother to attend it or give money to it; the answer would be, no. But would I criticize people for having it? As long as they did not break the law or trample my roses, probably not.

It's a celebration of homosexuality. Homosexuality is about sex. Homo sexual sex to be perfectly clear about it. But it is a parade, so it juth hath to be GaY!~*.

So what? I don't care about sexuality parades, remember? Your the one that gets your knickers in a knot about sex, not me.

Right. That silly ol' thou shalt not murder thing, and that oh so prohibitive adulty and honoring parents thing....

If you let it stop at the decalogue then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But your personal choice to apply your cherry-picked version of OT laws to non-Jews is not only against the foundational principle of the Jewish laws themselves (i.e. they are for Jews not the Goyim) but patently ridiculous in that Christians are not subject to Jewish laws either...

No, like "family" and "marriage" a "family oriented theme park" is by definition exclusive. Trying to redefine things doesn't make them different, it makes them the same thing with a new name.

Perhaps you don't understand the term "family oriented" as well as you think you do... in the context of an entertainment venue, like a theme park, it usually indicates that it has some entertainment and activities suitable for a variety of ages, including youngsters.

It was your bad idea, Z.

Then prove me wrong and show the power of your alleged deity by shutting down the offensive parks once and for all...

... or is that another area he doesn't deal with, like not letting kids into public restrooms because your deity can't protect them there?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I just realized I missed something. I do beleive that they have to be old enough to understand the message, before they can reject it. So, if they die before then they go to heaven.

Yes, Dave. I forgot that.

Ahh "cuddly theology". Cute, but thoroughly unbiblical...