It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slain because he refused to call his mother's lesbian lover `Daddy'

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyfish

Hmm I'm just thinking aloud mainly, it just seems to me that about 400 years ago people would be hung for Homosexuality, nowdays its becoming more of the norm. Whos to say in 50 years time people will be lobbying to make paedophilia legal?


This is an outrageous statement and you should be ashamed of yourself. Stop vilifying homosexuals in this way. They've done nothing to merit this comparison.



[edit on 3/31/2006 by brEaDITOR]




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Does this really have to continue? There's no "feminist conspiracy" being discussed or even suggested here, just a lot of mutual misunderstanding, ranting and hatred. If I could vote thumbs down on an entire thread, I'd do it for this one.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyfish
Hmm I'm just thinking aloud mainly, it just seems to me that about 400 years ago people would be hung for Homosexuality, nowdays its becoming more of the norm.


Hmm but in ancient Greece and Roman times it was acceptable. So, we went from acceptable to intolerance and now we are finally comming something close to tolerance and society is failing?

As far as pedophilia, that would mostly be heteros lobbying for that not homos....since most pedophiles are straight.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   


Hmm I'm just thinking aloud mainly, it just seems to me that about 400 years ago people would be hung for Homosexuality, nowdays its becoming more of the norm. Whos to say in 50 years time people will be lobbying to make paedophilia legal? It just seems to me that morality is decreasing to me I'm not just talking about homosexuality either, the worlds failing, people with good intents do more and more damage everyday. And theres absolutely nothing I can do about it at the moment, hence I express my frustration about issues like this Sorry if anyone was offended.


Homosexuality and paedophilia are seperate things.


An interesting thing to cosider.

The ancient greek's accepted homosexuality, as was said above, in fact they did'nt have the concept of gay and straight, everyone was really bisexual.

Not only was homosexuality normal, but what we today would consider paedophilia was also normal, 13 year old boys would have partners twice there age or older, it was'nt seen as wrong, no one got hurt.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Homosexuality and paedophilia are seperate things.


An interesting thing to cosider.

The ancient greek's accepted homosexuality, as was said above, in fact they did'nt have the concept of gay and straight, everyone was really bisexual.

Not only was homosexuality normal, but what we today would consider paedophilia was also normal, 13 year old boys would have partners twice there age or older, it was'nt seen as wrong, no one got hurt.



Note to GOD......time to bring the fire.............mankind isn't worth saving,,,,,anymore



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Why is'nt mankind worth saving?

I was only giving you all a little history lessen, I did'nt say I suported it, which I actually do, as long as all parties are in consent, but anyways I was just being teacherly.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Why is'nt mankind worth saving?

I was only giving you all a little history lessen, I did'nt say I suported it, which I actually do, as long as all parties are in consent, but anyways I was just being teacherly.


Thermopolis is a thumper. He thinks that everyone should agree with him because the Bible says so. If you don't agree with him he hates you, so you don't deserve to live.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
WHich of course goes against the bible. Jesus CAME for a reason! To null the OT with the NT! Why us Christians can eat pork and shellfish while Jews can't. They follow OT rules, we follow NT rules, and the Gay quote they love to use so much is in the OT, not NT.

What I love is all these Christians quoting that line about laying down with another man blah blah blah but they never go about 4-8 sentences later when it tells you to stone children to death for saying no. How many of these people have stoned children to death for saying no? None? Then why are they picking the rules they want to follow? Because they are hypocrits, and they mix and match OT with NT. It would be like an Arab going "Well I like the Men are Rulers over WOmen in the Koran, but I don't like this part, so I am going to follow that part in the NT instead."



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I don't know exactly how I arrived at thiw thread, but I am so totally appalled at the person who started it. What day and age are we in now?

Do you not believe in freedom? I feel sorry for you. If you are so narrow minded that you feel you must search in some obscure area just to find some article (and I admit that if it is true, anyone who harms a child in any way has serious problems, should be punished for the horrible action they committed, and perhaps receive some psychiatric conseling.

I couldn't help but wonder if you are not headed the same way, that the next gay person you see, you might just kill because you hate them so much. I don't know anything about you, but I do know that hate stems from FEAR. Why are you afraid of gay people? I am heterosexual, have never had any gay tendencies, however, I find it despicable the way the our fellow human beings are treated because of whom they choose to have a relationship with.

Do you watch your friends have heterosexual sex? If so, you have some wierd fixation. However, I bet that you probably do not. So, most of us don't. The only difference between a gay person and a non-gay person, is what they do in bed and in private with another human being, be that person the same sex or the opposite sex. If you're not into watching anyone have sex, but interact with your non-gay friends when they are not engaging in sexual activity, then WTF do you find wrong with gay people.

They are people with feelings, just like most of us. I'm sure that you have feelings also, however I'm afraid that you are more likely than most to act on your feelings, which are very misplaced. I can't tell you or anyone else what to do, but rather than write things in a forum that you have no reason to write, other than to hurt the feelings of some, insult others, and generally make a total ass out of yourself, why don't you get your self some serious psychological help, before you find yourself in prison for a true "hate-crime"?

I can't believe that I took the time to even answer, except that I am concerned about what this viciously hateful person (authorof this thread, I already forgot your name, sorry - not really), may be headed toward doing to other innocent person(s).

Again, I can't tell others what to do, but I feel I have said what ever possible to direct you in a way to prevent you from harming anyone yourself, and not, I see no reason to continue this. I hope that others have found their way out of this thread because you deserve no more attention from us.


//ed to try to make the post more polite that it was//

[edit on 4/1/2006 by CyberKat]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Wow.

Anyways, killing a child will bring justice upon you swiftly. Gay or not

It is sort of funny how all the apologists for homosexuals just sprang out of the closet over this?!!


Does it touch a nerve that Thermopolis singled that fact out that a innocent child was subjected to a unnatural command by an adult to reckognize a woman as his "Daddy"???

Can we just stick to this? Was it fair to the boy? No. Was the woman insane....we do not know. She is a murderer. Does it matter that she is gay and killed the child. Not really. But the implication is that this LIFESTYLE does bring forth MANY MORE complications in relationships when children are involved.

I personally know a coulple who are lesbian where one has a son from a marriage to a man...yeesh.....have to actually clarify that...and this young man of 12 was teased to no end in school because he sat down to pee. When asked why he did this, he responded: " Because my other mommy pees that way."

Okay.....tell me it sooooooo healthy and NORMAL to subject children to this. And please do not give me the Black/White thing- I aint having it.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
"Count to ten gekko, nice and slow."

Ok, sigh...


Originally posted by Tyriffic
It is sort of funny how all the apologists for homosexuals just sprang out of the closet over this?!!



I observe someone on this board wishing death and burning hell on someone else because of their sexual preference. Not over what they have done. That makes me state my disagreement.

I have never been in any closet when it comes to this. Should I be?



Does it touch a nerve that Thermopolis singled that fact out that a innocent child was subjected to a unnatural command by an adult to reckognize a woman as his "Daddy"???


No, it stuck a nerve when the idiot blamed the crime of a psychopath on her sexuality.



Was it fair to the boy? No.


It´s good to see that we agree on something.



Was the woman insane....we do not know.


Oh?

Are you telling me she might have been perfectly sane? If so, please enlighten me to your definitions of sanity. You might turn out to be a liberal deep down after all.




She is a murderer. Does it matter that she is gay and killed the child. Not really.


Hey! One more thing we agree on!



But the implication is that this LIFESTYLE does bring forth MANY MORE complications in relationships when children are involved.


Please explain. Can you provide statistics showing that many lesbians demand their stepchildren call them daddy? Statistics of gay guys demanding to be called mommy will do if you cant find anything on the lesbians.




I personally know a coulple who are lesbian where one has a son from a marriage to a man...yeesh.....have to actually clarify that...and this young man of 12 was teased to no end in school because he sat down to pee. When asked why he did this, he responded: " Because my other mommy pees that way."


There are a couple of logical problems with this:

When you "sit down to pee", you do so on a toilet. Toilets have doors. Toilet doors are normally close when we do our business. How did the "other kids" know? Had his lesbian parents made him an exhibitionist too?

More importantly, what is the "Because my other mommy..." about? We ALL have mommies! Why would a second mommy, make a boy more likely to sit while peeing than the first?

Sorry, this story makes no sense. I would not accuse anyone here of lying, so I can only assume I am being stupid here.




Okay.....tell me it sooooooo healthy and NORMAL to subject children to this. And please do not give me the Black/White thing- I aint having it.


WTF?


I am growing tired of this thread as I write. When will I learn...

"Leave the outstandingly moral supremacists alone gekko. They will only drag you down to their simplistic level, and beat you on experience."

[/rant]

Peace

PS: Tyriffic, this reply might seem a bit harsh. For that I apologize, but some people here are. just. so. dammed... aaaaaargh! If you had seemed nearly as far gone as Thermopolis, I wouldn't bother talking sense to you. I believe you can be saved...


Have fun.

g



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Hey, gekko...


It is obvious you are
so I will not engage you....in debate. You are a sick puppy. Women who work to make boys like girls are wrong. All toilets do not have walls my limited friend. And boys and girls will make fun.....

I do not and you do not know the murderesses state of mind when she killed. You assumed, not me.

Family is a Man and a Woman with Children. As from the START. You can deviate from that all you care to, only God really cares and He will send you the note in RE: Your salvation..............



[edit on 2-4-2006 by Tyriffic]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
So Tyriffic, you didn't answer any of my points. Funny, I had the feeling you wouldn't.

PS. No, I am not
, I´m
, but I wouldn't be ashamed if I were. Nothing wrong with a bit of
nes.

Bye.

g



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
WHich of course goes against the bible. Jesus CAME for a reason! To null the OT with the NT! Why us Christians can eat pork and shellfish while Jews can't. They follow OT rules, we follow NT rules, and the Gay quote they love to use so much is in the OT, not NT.

What I love is all these Christians quoting that line about laying down with another man blah blah blah but they never go about 4-8 sentences later when it tells you to stone children to death for saying no. How many of these people have stoned children to death for saying no? None? Then why are they picking the rules they want to follow? Because they are hypocrits, and they mix and match OT with NT. It would be like an Arab going "Well I like the Men are Rulers over WOmen in the Koran, but I don't like this part, so I am going to follow that part in the NT instead."


See, this is exactly what I've been trying to say all along! Yet no one listened to me...

Yet I've never heard what any of these Bible thumbers have had to say about this.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
It seems apparent that thermopolis - if by chance is NOT suffering from a with a serious psyscological affliction, has merely started this thread because he/she knows damn well that the subject, and the way it was approached would certainly insence a lot of people to the point of where many (myself, unfortunately) find it hard to resist replying.

Therefore, I would say the thermopolis is a flamer and is only doing this in order to rack up as many points a possible. If so, those are poison points that will soon bite him/her in the ass.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
What's sad is most Bible Thumpers don't read the bible! They just sit and wait for their priest to tell them what to believe. What I want to know is if that priest is having sex with your kid, or nun, or adult woman/man, how can you sit there and listen to them?

I love my Minister, he is so lax, and that is because he read the bible! He follows the NT, not OT, and realizes if God loves all, wouldn't he love love? Love between two consenting adults can't be wrong in the eyes of God for isn't He all about Love? Care? Being good people? Yet the Bible Thumpers are not being good people, just sheeple to stupidity. And he tells the rest of us to leave others alone, if they are Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, WItches, whatever, as long as they are good people God will Love them. A lot different from these Bible Thumpers, and he's a Minister at my church for longer then I've been alive!

Don't forget, there are more pregnant nuns in the world then teenage girls after Prom Night! WHy? They don't have AIDS or STDs, official documents from the church state that, but they don't answer the main question, WHY Do Priests Need To Worry About WHo Has STDS!!!!! They aren't supposed to be having sex, yet they rape nuns, then force them to get abortions because they won't use condoms because using those are a sin!!!!! I don't know whether to laugh or be outraged at such stupidity!

So, One obviously insane woman kills a kid, millions of Priests have sex with children of both sex, adults of both sex, rape nuns, yet those evil gays need to be stopped...



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekko
quote: Originally posted by gekko
So Tyriffic, you didn't answer any of my points. Funny, I had the feeling you wouldn't.

PS. No, I am not
, I´m
, but I wouldn't be ashamed if I were. Nothing wrong with a bit of
nes.

Bye.




Okay Gekko. For one, you fell into my trap by assigning meaning to a smiley face winking...lol...two, you made no points. You just asked questions concerning MY points and not in erudite fashion, I may add............so, I will accomodate you in this respect even though I thought I had, yet I will expound for the hard to understand.

Gekko said: There are a couple of logical problems with this:

When you "sit down to pee", you do so on a toilet. Toilets have doors. Toilet doors are normally close when we do our business. How did the "other kids" know? Had his lesbian parents made him an exhibitionist too?

More importantly, what is the "Because my other mommy..." about? We ALL have mommies! Why would a second mommy, make a boy more likely to sit while peeing than the first?

Sorry, this story makes no sense. I would not accuse anyone here of lying, so I can only assume I am being stupid here.




Okay. I put in bold the most ludicrous features of your statement. I am not even sure how to break this to you, but a second "mommy" is THE PROBLEM HERE. The young man was confused as to his nature as men urinate standing up when not defecating-thus the need for ladies to constantly remind us to put the seat down afterwards.... I do not need a statistic to prove this Gekko and it is no story...the boy in question was taken from his father before he was 10 years old in a divorce and once puberty onset these issues came about because his second "mommy" was his role model for certain behaivours that are learned by children. If you are a man, I don't know if you are or not, but when you see a boy peeing sitting down in the stall ALL THE FREAKING TIME it does lend one to assume that either he craps a lot or pees siiting down. The kids made fun of him to the point that teachers convened and he was sent home due to the ridicule....nice........

I hope I addressed one of your flippant questions?!

Also, maybe you can provide some statistical evidence on homosexuals and child bearing for me?

Oh, not enough data to do so...Im sorry...
Maybe this is a clue...



[


[edit on 3-4-2006 by Tyriffic]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Okay Gekko. For one, you fell into my trap by assigning meaning to a smiley face winking...lol...


Sorry, I didn't realize we were playing a game. Tell me the rules. Please pretty please!

I thought you might be hinting to something, but I wasn't sure. It seemed a bit... crude compared to the rest of your posts. Just ask, I won't be offended if your assumption is wrong. Why should I?

Anyway, I decided to answer back in your own style.


...two, you made no points. You just asked questions concerning MY points and not in erudite fashion [...]


My points were stated in the form of questions. I thought you seemed smart enough for me not to expound...


[...] a second "mommy" is THE PROBLEM HERE. The young man was confused as to his nature [...]


I kind of suspected that was what you were getting at. I don't know how to brake this to you, but that is one of the least erudite things I have ever read on these boards.

(PS. Thanks for teaching me a couple of new english words. Always a good thing.
)

I will try to explain why I find your argument lacking in sense.

I believe we both understand why the boy in the original news story refused to call his mothers girlfriend "Dad". She was a woman, simple as that.

If this four year old knew the difference between man and woman I would presume that the twelve year old in your story did the same. Hell, he even called her "my other mommy".

Mommy = female. Dad = male. You still with me?


[...] once puberty onset these issues came about because his second "mommy" was his role model for certain behaivours that are learned by children.


As you stated yourself, women sit, men stands. This has nothing to do with mom and dad. It has to do with male and female. Unless the lesbian couple had told him to sit while peeing, he would have to be pretty dim not to figure out how things work by him self. At 12 I had figured out stuff like, erm, "self-pleasurement", and I´m damed sure neither my mom or dad had ever taught me about that!

You don't stand and pee because you were taught so by your father, at-least I know I don't. I stand because EVERY man I have EVER known has done so (and because it's bloody convenient, especially in winter. I know a fair amount of woman who would if they could).

That leaves us with the question wether the boy was simply stupid, or if the lesbians in your story was man-hating fanatics who had taught him so sit. If they had, that would simply be atrocious parenting.

If the boy is stupid, that has nothing to do with the gay/lesbian issue. If the women were bad parents, that has nothing to do with the gay/lesbian issue.

Your story has nothing to do with the gay/lesbian issue. QED


I hope I addressed one of your flippant questions?!



answers.com

flip·pant (flĭp'ənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Marked by disrespectful levity or casualness; pert.
2. Archaic. Talkative; voluble.





Also, maybe you can provide some statistical evidence on homosexuals and child bearing for me?


Please show me where I have said anything about homosexuals bearing children.

Or was this an attempt to avoid...


Originally posted by gekko
Please explain. Can you provide statistics showing that many lesbians demand their stepchildren call them daddy? Statistics of gay guys demanding to be called mommy will do if you cant find anything on the lesbians.


It must be horrible containing so much fear and hate. I feel pity.

Good luck.

g



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Okay, just wanted to respond to a few things here.




Women who work to make boys like girls are wrong.

In your philosophy yes.
Truthfully I don't think it's a good thing to do either though.




All toilets do not have walls my limited friend. And boys and girls will make fun.....

Umm there suppose to, I've never seen a public toilet without walls.
And you are partially right, most boys will make fun, not as many girls, but still there will be a group that does.




Family is a Man and a Woman with Children. As from the START. You can deviate from that all you care to, only God really cares.

I suppose in some christian philosphical thinking that's true, but it's not a global truth.
Family, is either;

A. A group of people whom are bilogically related within 5 lineages from the starting point.
B. Two or more people who care about each other and generally live together.

Ok, honestly, if I beleived in a god, I don't think she/he/it would really give a damn who people love, more likely if it even cared at all, it would be that they are good to the one(s) they love.

God (the christian one) and Jesus love all people, regardless.
Oh, and the preacher at the church I used to (be forced) go to said that.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevinS
What's sad is most Bible Thumpers don't read the bible! They just sit and wait for their priest to tell them what to believe. What I want to know is if that priest is having sex with your kid, or nun, or adult woman/man, how can you sit there and listen to them?

I love my Minister, he is so lax, and that is because he read the bible! He follows the NT, not OT, and realizes if God loves all, wouldn't he love love? Love between two consenting adults can't be wrong in the eyes of God for isn't He all about Love? Care? Being good people? Yet the Bible Thumpers are not being good people, just sheeple to stupidity. And he tells the rest of us to leave others alone, if they are Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, WItches, whatever, as long as they are good people God will Love them. A lot different from these Bible Thumpers, and he's a Minister at my church for longer then I've been alive!

Don't forget, there are more pregnant nuns in the world then teenage girls after Prom Night! WHy? They don't have AIDS or STDs, official documents from the church state that, but they don't answer the main question, WHY Do Priests Need To Worry About WHo Has STDS!!!!! They aren't supposed to be having sex, yet they rape nuns, then force them to get abortions because they won't use condoms because using those are a sin!!!!! I don't know whether to laugh or be outraged at such stupidity!

So, One obviously insane woman kills a kid, millions of Priests have sex with children of both sex, adults of both sex, rape nuns, yet those evil gays need to be stopped...

I'm sorry but this is a little outrageous. I have heard of cases where things like this happen but it seems to me that your priest would be mroe the kind of person to have sex with a nun then most priests. You don't actually offer any evidence to back up what you say. Priests who do indulge in paedophilia are sick and twisted people, its hardly fair to label them all in the same way though.

Originally posted by Kacen

Originally posted by DevinS
WHich of course goes against the bible. Jesus CAME for a reason! To null the OT with the NT! Why us Christians can eat pork and shellfish while Jews can't. They follow OT rules, we follow NT rules, and the Gay quote they love to use so much is in the OT, not NT.

What I love is all these Christians quoting that line about laying down with another man blah blah blah but they never go about 4-8 sentences later when it tells you to stone children to death for saying no. How many of these people have stoned children to death for saying no? None? Then why are they picking the rules they want to follow? Because they are hypocrits, and they mix and match OT with NT. It would be like an Arab going "Well I like the Men are Rulers over WOmen in the Koran, but I don't like this part, so I am going to follow that part in the NT instead."


See, this is exactly what I've been trying to say all along! Yet no one listened to me...

Yet I've never heard what any of these Bible thumbers have had to say about this.


XD I'll be the "Bible thumper" who answers your question shall I


I don't know how you none Christians live your life but I imagine you do, as I, when hearing something someone says decide whether it fits into your perspective. If so, you may choose to live like that or do this thing. If not, you forget. Its the same with the Bible, although it is the "Word of God", its actually written by man. Men get quite confused sometimes (like on this thread =]) Another thing to all you bible "experts" quoting how Jesus' teachings makes the entirity of the old testament erroneous. Jesus said that the reason what he was teaching was different from what some of the earlier commandments etc we're because "your hearts we're hard". That dosen't mean that everything in their is utter tripe. It just means we should show a more loving attitude. EG. If a man does lay with another man, we do not stone him to death, or wish him to burn in hell every night. We show love to wards that person and try to get them to recognize the sin in this (I'm sorry you can rant and flame all you want, I still think homosexuality is wrong and you'll struggle to convince me otherwise
)
But back to my point about picking and choosing. I'll admit (though many Christians may disagree with me) that some of the Bible seems to be in direct conflict with itself, now I've read the entire thing so I'm not just guessing here, but as I'm sure you all know if we all followed the Bible to the letter we'd probably end up locked up somewhere. Jesus says we should obey the laws where we live. And last time I checked it said nothing about stoning Children to death (I can't seem to find that anywhere within about 3 pages of the part of Leviticus you mentioned Kacen. Can you give me an exact Chapter and Verse for this?). Anyway I'm sidetracking (again
)The point I'm trying to make is that, the Old Testament has a lot of useful things in it (for example the book of Job teaches us that good thigns happen to bad people, the reson for the creation of this book was because in the days of its writing, people believed if you fell ill or anything like that then you had sinned, (see our hearts were hard)). People who aren't actually Christians don't really have much say in what parts of the Bible Christians should be reading though, surely?

One Last point (its not a rant =[])

I hope I addressed one of your flippant questions?!



answers.com

flip·pant (flĭp'ənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Marked by disrespectful levity or casualness; pert.
2. Archaic. Talkative; voluble.




Erm
why is that confusing? Its the first one, "marked by disrespectful levity". It means that the points you made we're not addressed in a serious tone. Well thats the closest I can get to a translation


Anyway looking forward to your feedback guys =]

whyfish?

[edit on 4/4/06 by whyfish]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join